[5:57] Go ahead and call the meeting to order. This is the planning zoning board special call meeting to discuss the community residential district, like the call the meeting to order with the roll call.

[6:13] Board Member Brady.

[6:17] Board Member O'Hara. Board Member Napier. Board Member Spug will be with us shortly.

[6:25] Chairperson Bolton.

[6:26] Here. Thank you. Order of business. Anybody have any additions, deletions, deferrals?

[6:37] Hearing none. Very good.

[6:40] Following the agenda public comments.

[6:43] Two-minute time limit. Is there anybody that would like to make a public comment?

[6:52] If so, state your name

[6:59] I don't know why we even here, don't we handle this, I don't know, a year ago, I don't

[7:05] know, this is ridiculous, we're spending more, I have to spend two minutes of my life,

[7:10] two minutes, no, that's a lot, that's a long time, I'm addressing you, yeah, but I'm talking

[7:17] and also to my people in my neighborhood.

[7:21] We have to rise up and do something about this

[7:23] and call this done already.

[7:25] Like really, guys, this is stupid.

[7:29] As far as the really stay thing, I'm for quality.

[7:34] If you can't afford to live here, I don't want you here.

[7:37] Get the hell out of here.

[7:38] Can't pay taxes, don't come here.

[7:42] I want good, big, beautiful homes.

[7:46] Seriously.

[7:47] I don't want to hold a whole bunch of timehows here.

[7:51] What is that?

[7:52] Seriously.

[7:54] You want to water us down.

[7:56] We're going to shoot ourselves in a foot.

[7:57] We are the envy of Florida.

[8:00] I have the pleasure to throw bellbows with very, very big people, huge people.

[8:09] They talk about Miami shores.

[8:12] Never mind, listen to those islands, Palm Island, high bishops, they love Miami shores.

[8:21] They want to invest money here, and you all want to put townhouses?

[8:25] Really, the concept I don't get it.

[8:28] I don't get the concept.

[8:35] It just gets me like this for all of that.

[8:38] Because I worked very hard to live in this town.

[8:42] Very hard.

[8:44] And I'm sure you all did too.

[8:48] Let's get it together.

[8:49] Seriously guys, I get money.

[8:51] I get it.

[8:52] But we're all going to be dead within the next 40 years.

[8:55] All of us.

[8:56] I am 50 years, okay, and I want to leave a legacy for my kids, seriously, seriously, man, get with it.

[9:10] Thank you,

[9:17] by the way, before you start, we're not going to tolerate applause and interruptions.

[9:23] Thank you.

[9:24] Hi, A.J. Nichols, proud Mimish was resident at 113 North West 106 Street since September 1992.

[9:34] One of the reasons I moved here was very careful consideration of any development that could happen around me.

[9:38] I was happy we had the disgained dog track.

[9:41] And when the disgained dog track went out and

[9:45] buried board it was assumed that it was going to be used for very use only.

[9:48] The current sardine can approach that Lenard has proposed shows a complete lack of any interest

[9:56] of working with the community whatsoever and ignores all of the record-

[10:09] We've been doing this for over a year. I've been seeing a five minute video that provides an alternative that at least would correspond to there are various aesthetic qualities that make Miami shores. The great place to live that I've invested two minutes.

[10:29] $200,000 in a fixed amount of my whole, and I'm tired here now, three years.

[10:34] And I don't see any upside to have a small city built six blocks away from me.

[10:39] With hundreds and hundreds of cars, we've never done this in mining shores since its inception.

[10:43] This has been a single home, family oriented community that has the last

[10:48] oasis, therefore the biggest price for the NAR.

[10:52] A developer I wouldn't trust as far as you could throw them.

[10:55] Whether it's the Chinese drywall that made many people sick, whether it's the country

[11:01] walk development that blew over.

[11:04] I was there in Hurricane Andrew and dear with next door.

[11:07] Every one of those houses was destroyed, whether it's the sinkholes in Central Florida

[11:13] that they built and had 12 houses, do not trust them as you go forward.

[11:18] I would rather not have them as a developer.

[11:20] they I have watched them in action 35 years at Miami-Date television and zoning

[11:26] hearings do not trust them at all I need to have people care about the

[11:33] residents first you know we've lost so much to development we've lost so many

[11:37] great places that I like you know I don't want to lose my town and there's no

[11:43] reason for it you know it just doesn't take into account anything that we've

[11:47] want it. And this is our town. And there is no incentive. There is no upside to us building

[11:55] all of this. You know, increase in taxes. Okay, fine. It's going to be offset by increases

[12:03] in infrastructure. You know, have we done some kind of study by the way for the land? Is

[12:08] it on a sinkhole? Is it on a super fun site that we could be? I don't know, maybe we could

[12:13] be sued in the future because we're building on there and exposing people.

[12:17] And then we're going to deal with sort of a, you know, a cancer situation here.

[12:22] I mean, there is absolutely no upside to this.

[12:25] The, any developer, I mean, there's no mandate.

[12:28] There's nothing in our mission that says that we have to provide multifamily housing.

[12:32] Just the fact is that we are the last prize.

[12:36] And they, they will stop at nothing.

[12:38] And I would not, you know, they'll come back later.

[12:41] that want variances that want to, oh, air rights, will want more.

[12:46] We will want more.

[12:48] You don't, you know, there's a certain concept of precedence.

[12:51] You do not let the camel's nose under the tent because then you have the whole camel,

[12:55] you know.

[12:56] And we have to stick to the 40-foot recommended height, I think, throughout the village.

[13:02] Why not?

[13:04] Why do we have to have five, ten stories?

[13:06] You know, I mean, it keeps going back and forth so many times.

[13:09] I cannot keep track of it.

[13:10] I will do more research and be even more better prepared.

[13:13] I appreciate you listening to my, my plea, really.

[13:18] My plea, you know, because once it's gone, you cannot get it back.

[13:22] You cannot get it back.

[13:26] Thank you.

[13:34] Good evening, everyone.

[13:37] My name is Natasha Cooper.

[13:38] I reside at six or one northwest of 112th Street.

[13:42] I'm at six blocks away, oh, it's 12 blocks away from this proposal.

[13:46] I'm one block away.

[13:48] When I bought my home in 2019, I bought into the concept of Miami Shores being single-family

[13:53] homes, a sort of suburban in the city.

[13:57] I looked at many different places.

[13:59] It took me a full year to find a house.

[14:03] I tend to say that I'm hurt adjacent.

[14:05] If you look in the room, I'm in a minority in here.

[14:08] You don't see many of me in this room.

[14:11] I choose Miami Shores because I wanted a good place for my daughter to grow up.

[14:15] This doesn't affect me myself and my home ownership.

[14:18] It also affects my daughter because she attends Dr. Strata.

[14:22] I looked at the proposal for one acre of proposal to be given to Dr. Charter.

[14:27] As a parent, that's not enough.

[14:29] We have kids leaving Dr. Charter every day because they don't have the funds.

[14:34] They don't have the facilities.

[14:36] They don't have athletic programs.

[14:38] And now we have homes coming across the street directly from them.

[14:41] That's going to create traffic on a daily basis.

[14:44] Just to get my daughter, either one six or one, and to get from six or one and six to Dr.

[14:50] Shad in the morning is like 20 minutes in traffic and that's like two blocks away.

[14:55] What traffic are we creating where we have these 177 town homes?

[15:00] That's coming in. That means each person in that household will have at least two cars. That's more traffic. The builder site is going to be a lot of dust, road construction. You know, what are we really getting? They propose a park. We don't really have parks in that area. Yes, it's good. But when you look at the parks that they're proposing, we're leaving out a community. We're leaving out the elderly community. What are we really getting when we propose these stone homes?

[15:30] I live close to my I-95, there's a lot of noise traffic there, but I want it to be in my

[15:36] amy shores.

[15:38] That's what's your reaction I had so I took it.

[15:40] Now you're proposing more traffic in the neighborhood.

[15:43] I don't think it's right, and I think it's gone beyond the point of where we have single

[15:47] family homes in the community.

[16:00] Any other public comment on this issue?

[16:05] Hearing none, next item on the agenda.

[16:13] Good evening gentlemen. Neil Cantor here as a resident this evening 1165 Northeast 104th Street.

[16:23] I understand the first of all I'd like to thank you all. Your job is very tough for my limited

[16:31] time of serving here in the community. It's tough. We weigh a lot of different things. We do a lot of

[16:38] research that a lot of people don't know about. We go in debt for a lot of things that

[16:42] people don't understand. But as I've heard some of my neighbors say tonight that I

[16:48] think it's very important to say, we are a gem here. It must be protected at all costs.

[16:57] We cannot trust the company who is just here for a bottom line, for a big payday who will

[17:03] squeeze as many people in this community as they possibly can.

[17:08] Now, I know in the previous workshop,

[17:10] a lot of the residents here have spoken.

[17:13] They've told you what they want.

[17:14] They've told you what their sentiment is.

[17:16] But more than anything you, gentlemen,

[17:19] are residents of this community, too, who

[17:23] expect a high quality of life and a high value for your properties.

[17:29] because for many of us our homes are our biggest asset and as you go through

[17:35] this evening and you carefully deliberate hopefully over what should and

[17:40] shouldn't be here I ask that you take a step away for a moment and really

[17:46] internalize the decisions that you're you are making here tonight because as one

[17:52] of the residents said once this happens there's no going back we must get this

[17:57] but we must take the time to do it right and echo the sentiment of those who have built this lovely beautiful community that we are all so proud to be part of.

[18:10] Thank you very much.

[18:12] Thank you.

[18:19] Any further public comment?

[18:21] Good

[18:26] evening. My name is Jesús Soto. I live in one one zero four zero northwest

[18:32] second avenue. We bought our house in two thousand. Actually what we brought us

[18:39] here is the family oriented and some rows of limit school where my son is

[18:44] studying and he finished there. Now he's gonna graduate as a lawyer very soon and

[18:49] two years so we still live in Miami-Scholes. I want each of you to consider

[18:55] And right now when I 95 is a heavy traffic, nor was it going to have any, it's converting

[19:03] in another congested traffic.

[19:07] So what is going to happen when these all developers come, come into our neighborhood?

[19:13] It's like everybody is concerned until when we're going to continue being a community for

[19:21] a single family home.

[19:24] Are you considering the traffic, the heavy traffic that we have right now, without them, in all of Norway's second avenue?

[19:33] Did you consider all the accidents that are we having right now between 111 and Norway's second avenue, almost every single day?

[19:47] I want you to know to consider all of that, and we want to continue living here.

[19:54] Thank you.

[19:55] Thank you.

[20:01] Do the chair for me? Yes. Just if you can indulge me for a second because I think I would just want to explain to you all as board members and also the members of the public where we are on this process. So everyone's clear. There are two types of processes when it comes down to typically creating law. One is something that's going to be legislative. The other is quasi-judicial. Legislative is when you have a little bit more discretion and

[20:31] an authority to create policies that will affect the village as a whole.

[20:37] When you are in a quasi-judicial realm, you are going to affect more site-specific situations.

[20:45] So where we are right now in this stage is the legislative process,

[20:50] which means that you are going to be creating the regulations that's associated

[20:55] it yes with the particular property, but that could be applied if there was a rezoning or something somewhere else.

[21:02] So we are not at the stage where it's site plan review or

[21:08] something that's site specific, we are solely at the stage of just creating the law.

[21:14] And so you all are charged to create regulations for the community residential district.

[21:22] You have to create those regulations because in 2023, September 11th, the Village Council adopted the comprehensive plan that includes language that designates the community residential district, land use resident destination.

[21:41] And so I want to just read what that says so you understand what you're creating, because I know I've heard, and you all have heard comments regarding multi-family town homes.

[21:51] But this is what is already the law in MIMI shores.

[21:57] So under the community residential designation, this land use designation is intended to accommodate a coordinated,

[22:05] integrated, and balanced range of residential uses.

[22:09] Single family detached units are permitted at a density of two six dwelling units per gross acre.

[22:16] attached townhouse and multi-family dwelling units at a density up to 13 dwelling units per gross acre.

[22:25] Residential uses are permitted at a floor area ratio not greater than 1.0.

[22:31] So our comprehensive plan, which is what we can look at as our quote unquote constitution,

[22:37] has indicated that there needs to be a community residential district.

[22:43] And so now your job as board members would be to create regulations that govern that district, and you would recommend those regulations to the Village Council.

[22:54] You don't have any final authority in terms of it passing.

[22:58] It is a recommendation that you'll make to the Village Council.

[23:02] And then at the Village Council level, there'll be a first reading, and then there will be a second reading.

[23:08] Upon second reading, it will become adopted if they agree with the recommendation.

[23:12] They can make changes at the council level, but I just wanted to clarify that in hopes that it just gives a little clarity for tonight in terms of where we're going, but we are not at a stage where we're looking at the site plan, you will be hearing from a particular potential applicant, but again, we are not at site plan level tonight.

[23:33] Thank you and let me clarify or have a question for you this community residential district

[23:42] according to the comp plan provides the applicant or the the developer there could build single

[23:51] family homes multi family homes or townhouses. We have single family homes we have the code for

[23:59] that already in our zoning code, and we have the multi-residential already in our zoning

[24:05] code, correct?

[24:07] So we're just determining here a code for the townhouse portion of this community residential

[24:15] district.

[24:16] Is that correct?

[24:17] It's you're creating a code for the community residential district as a whole, which could

[24:23] include those various types of residential uses that you just described.

[24:28] But yes, there is nothing in the code right now that addresses town home, town home specifically.

[24:34] So as drafted, the regulations are heavily written to accommodate four town homes because

[24:41] that's not addressed in the code at the moment.

[24:43] But the code does have the single family and the multi already part of that.

[24:49] So we don't need to be modifying or developing that at all.

[24:55] That's already in place.

[24:56] It's in place what it is going to be modified at the future days.

[25:01] Another aspect not related to this is that we are working on modifying the single-family districts. So that is right behind this. So we're creating townhomes because they don't exist. And then we're going to be modifying the single-family residential. Both of those then in their new form would apply to this district. So my goal tonight would be to leave here giving you

[25:29] direction on how to codify this townhouse portion of this community

[25:35] residential. We would appreciate the direction. Regardless of whatever direction we

[25:39] get, whatever level of direction we get, there will be a code for you to

[25:43] vote on at your December planning and zoning board meeting. Thank you. So more

[25:47] direction than better. Absolutely. All right, so with that said staff

[25:53] presentation on community residential public input summary.

[26:02] I'll come up here

[26:02] because the remote control is here, which makes it easier.

[26:06] I don't want to steal it.

[26:07] Thank you all very much.

[26:08] I'm going to try to be brief.

[26:09] This is a lengthy presentation,

[26:11] but the way I've looked at it, I figure,

[26:13] if we can agree that what we heard is what we heard.

[26:16] There's probably no reason

[26:17] unless you really want you to go and dissect

[26:20] each and every survey that was done.

[26:23] So again, we're going to review that.

[26:24] There'll be a presentation, another presentation,

[26:26] discussion, and hopefully we get to the end of this thing,

[26:29] and we've got a little bit of direction.

[26:31] Like we said in the previous workshop, we're kind of working down this, this multi-step path.

[26:38] We've got ourselves into almost the fourth step where we're attempting to build consensus.

[26:44] And we're going to repeat that as often as we can to, so we feel that we can't gain any more consensus.

[26:50] And after listening to everything we've heard before and looking at where we are, I think we're very close to building consensus.

[26:58] My goal in these types of things is to say we can probably knock out 95% of the issues and then there'll probably be a 5% that are debatable or that we can argue about and I think that's a manageable thing to deal with and I think that's kind of what we're where we are at about now.

[27:18] What we were asked to do after the planning and zoning board meeting on September 19th, we were given pretty clear direction.

[27:25] We were to come back and summarize the public engagement and we were to come up with some principles

[27:29] by which the community residential zone could be written.

[27:33] And that was to be presented in a board meeting like this.

[27:36] Once approved, we were to work with the applicant collaboratively to come up with some type

[27:43] of representations of what that meant and present it to you to debate and see if we couldn't

[27:49] then develop a code from that.

[27:51] So what we've done in the interest of time because time is running short is we've

[27:55] If we've taken that simple presentation at your next meeting, and then the potential applicant is here tonight to present some graphics of what they think, how they can conform to the principles that we have.

[28:08] And depending on your debate tonight, we can take some of it, all of it or none of it, and come up with a code, and we will be doing that in short order after this.

[28:18] Just to reiterate with the land development processes, the fact of the matter is the legislative side of the process is putting, is the land use, and then you've got zoning.

[28:30] And the comprehensive plan was settled a while back before I got to town.

[28:33] And the comprehensive plan said that we're going to create this district, and this district would have townhomes.

[28:39] That's law, that's settled, we can't not conform to that because the comprehensive plan and

[28:45] And that lengthy process you went through before says to do it.

[28:49] So townhomes, we can't argue the fact that we're going to have a provision for

[28:53] townhomes, we have to have a provision for townhomes.

[28:55] They're going into the CR district.

[28:57] They do not have to be implemented, if an applicant were to come in and

[29:01] suggest they didn't want to take advantage of the townhomes.

[29:03] They could do something with multi-family or single-family, one or all.

[29:07] There's no requirement that they use it, but it's there.

[29:11] What would happen next after we get to the point where we actually have zoning regulations is that an applicant would come in and present an application.

[29:21] At that point in time, the application would be reviewed by staff and then reviewed by you and I think it would believe it would, after you get done with that, I don't think it goes to the City Council or the Village Council.

[29:34] So it would be approved, typically if it conforms to the zoning code without variances.

[29:40] It's hard not to approve it.

[29:42] After it gets its entitlement to be built, that you've approved it, it would get into the building department.

[29:48] And it would get building permits and inspections, and then ultimately a certificate of occupancy.

[29:53] The confusing part about this process that we're in right now is that we have one applicant for

[30:00] Or basically one site. And so we are not in the site planning stage, but what we heard through the public comments was we're having a hard time visualizing what the one applicant wanted to do. And so we've kind of almost taken the concept of the planned unit development approach, which is a collaborative approach to developing zoning where you work in just this situation. You work with one applicant. They tell you what they want to do and you kind of craft zoning around that so it's not as rigid.

[30:29] It makes a lot of sense in a situation like this because, again, there is only one applicant.

[30:33] It wouldn't make as much sense to not consider the one applicant and develop zoning that they could or could not do.

[30:41] And so that's why I thought you all were very, very astute at putting the collaborative approach together.

[30:46] So either way, I'm going to go through the principles very quickly and then you tell me if you want to go through the rest of it.

[30:52] I'm begging you not to tell me that because I think we've got a lot of hard work to do tonight with your, with the two presentations to come.

[30:58] So either way, we looked at the principles, they were abundantly clear, they, they,

[31:03] the good thing about this is we, we learned nothing new.

[31:06] These were almost exactly what we heard in the stakeholder meetings with the elected

[31:10] officials, with citizens, with you all.

[31:12] And we were able to kind of look at the comments that were made at the workshop,

[31:17] and look at the questions, look at the surveys, and all the above.

[31:20] And we were able to put together three broad categories of principles, the process,

[31:25] the character and the infrastructure, and our goal would be, obviously, to craft

[31:29] a zoning code around the principles that we're going to see here.

[31:33] So basically, the process, people wanted to see a fully transparent process.

[31:36] They wanted it to happen as quickly as possible, and they wanted significant public input.

[31:41] The public input should be from the stakeholder, the citizens of Miami Shores.

[31:45] It should be verifiable and audible, and I believe that our report shows you that what was said was said.

[31:52] It's verifiable and audible and cross-checkable with the surveys there.

[31:56] And I think it's undisputed that what was said was reported and listed in these principles.

[32:02] The resulting plan development should also adhere to the comprehensive plan.

[32:06] It's really got no choice.

[32:07] It has to adhere to the comprehensive plan, and that's what our zoning code would do.

[32:11] We can't exceed the issues that the comply.

[32:15] We can't exceed the density or anything that the comp plan says.

[32:18] We can go under that, but we can't go over it.

[32:20] The character is obviously very critical to the community because it's got a wonderful character.

[32:26] It's almost unique in Miami-Dade County and the simple fact is preserve the character.

[32:32] That's kind of an amorphous statement, but we kind of drill down a little bit more and

[32:37] it means ample green spaces and short compatibility with the community in the scale of the buildings,

[32:43] the aesthetic of the buildings, the cost of the units.

[32:47] It looks like we want a diversity in unit size, not a monochromatic one size fits all.

[32:52] Maintain consistency with a surrounding community, particularly in parking setbacks for

[32:58] front yards and landscaping.

[33:00] Critical because one of the assets of this community here, it's well landscaped, it's beautiful.

[33:06] It, again, is an oasis in the middle of what can be a largely treeless barren county.

[33:13] larger setbacks to provide for larger front yards, minimize the building mass as much as possible,

[33:20] and then properly buffer the single story homes.

[33:24] People also thought it was important that, if the development was to come in,

[33:29] that conform to the community's goals, that we have some flexibility in the area and

[33:34] a way to incentivize the conformance to those goals, which means flexibility.

[33:40] Infrastructure was also critical.

[33:42] Roads, parks, infrastructure should be public and shared by all.

[33:47] Road, rights of way should be consistent with others.

[33:50] In Miami shores, concurrent requirements should meet comprehensive plan standards.

[33:55] That's unquestionable, you can't not allow that.

[33:58] We won't get into concurrency, which means traffic or those types of things until the site plan comes in.

[34:04] And so what we're, the zoning has nothing to do with traffic.

[34:07] That is the next step at the site plan.

[34:10] And everybody will have another bite at this apple once a site plan comes in.

[34:14] And that's where their consultants and

[34:16] your staff will measure the exact development to the seven or

[34:21] 11 or whichever concurrency criteria exist.

[34:25] Traffic, schools, water, sewer, those types of things.

[34:31] We want obviously to minimize traffic light noise pollution and then provide an interconnected

[34:37] street grid integrating with this thing roadway network.

[34:41] And so that's really the nuts and bolts of it.

[34:43] If I would suggest that if you wanted to delve deeper into who answered what or you disagree

[34:47] with some of those points that we can get in and kind of forensically digest what was said

[34:53] at the meeting, it looks to me it's pretty simple in the sense that we, this was not Earth

[34:59] We know.

[35:00] We, this confirms what was said before. And so with that, I would like to take any questions that you have, and then relinquish the podium to the next presentation, because I think that's where the hard work of this is going to happen.

[35:14] Fire away, questions from the board.

[35:19] I've got one. And part of your presentation, you have the, do you have it with you, the kind of the results from the workshop? Do you want to just kind of run down that?

[35:31] What kind of we concluded from the data that you collected?

[35:36] I'll go through.

[35:37] Do you stop me where you want me to spend more time?

[35:40] You have the table that looks like this with the results on it.

[35:45] Let me find it.

[35:48] I got a bunch of, is that in there?

[35:50] Yeah, rather than going through all of it.

[35:51] The table I think summarizes it.

[35:53] I'm going to find it.

[35:53] With what we feel the communities.

[35:57] That table?

[35:58] Let me see what table you got.

[35:59] Isn't this part of your, I believe this is, is that in the report, in the presentation?

[36:09] Then just maybe just discuss that for us a little bit.

[36:13] I mean, things with respect to, in my opinion, height,

[36:19] height, number of stories, maybe some setback, comments, those seem to be some of the big issues.

[36:24] Okay, so what we looked at here was let me go back to this one slide, so that everybody's we looked at one, two, three, four, five different areas of zoning categories that we'll need to address.

[36:39] Plot standards, density standards, building configuration, which considers setbacks and grouping of building expression in the public realm and those are in those broad categories.

[36:49] We fit a number of different things in and that's the aspects of zoning that we end up writing.

[36:59] And so we threw the feedback that we took again.

[37:02] I think we looked at a number of different things.

[37:06] We had stakeholders meetings.

[37:07] We had surveys.

[37:08] We had comment cards.

[37:09] We had email comments, by the way, of the website.

[37:12] And we went through all those and tally them all up and made spreadsheets of them and just figured

[37:17] out where we came out with the voting.

[37:21] And so we end up getting into some numbers that were suggested through all of this.

[37:28] And just to briefly talk about some of these numbers, we talked about a lot with.

[37:38] There wasn't a lot with necessarily listed, but if you looked at the survey,

[37:42] The result of that, some people wanted a 79.2-foot lot, I mean, you could say an 80-foot lot.

[37:50] So they were suggesting a lot with, they're looking at common open space instead of 20 percent.

[37:55] It went up, people would have wanted 39 percent.

[37:58] Private open space, instead of 10 percent, they would say 22 percent.

[38:01] A floor area ratio where we got close, the original suggestion was 0.65.

[38:07] The public comments came in at 0.7, dwelling unit size.

[38:11] The original suggestion was 1,200 square feet, the overall public comments were 1,400 square feet.

[38:17] Building height, the original suggestion is 35 and three stories, here it was 33.6 and 2.6 stories.

[38:26] So, front setbacks, the original, this is a critical one, I think this is the one I think where we have probably the most work to do.

[38:33] The original front setback that was suggested was 15 feet, the public wants more setback, they want on average 15 feet.

[38:41] So those are the types of things that we were looking at.

[38:48] Most of the other stuff is relatively in conformance with one another.

[38:53] I think we have debatable issues here on unit sizes, a lot with heights and particularly the front setbacks.

[39:05] I think that if, I think we nearly have consensus on all other, I mean, when it comes

[39:10] out, you're probably going to see 30 different zoning categories that are,

[39:13] a separate, apart from architectural standards, which are a little bit different.

[39:16] Probably a 30 different categories.

[39:18] We probably have five of those that we may not have a consensus on, or you may have

[39:24] a split opinion amongst yourself.

[39:27] And so I think that's what that exercises go through.

[39:29] The applicants here, they can show us what they plan to do.

[39:32] And then I think we kind of target those five things that interest you most and drill down into that and see if we can't develop a consensus.

[39:42] Is a five-foot setback adequate or is based on what they present?

[39:47] This is the great opportunity to have that a little bit of time.

[39:52] What we'll do next, depending on your direction, is that we'll digest all that stuff, and depending on the level of direction, the way I see it, it could go multiple ways.

[40:00] Hey, I love this stuff they presented. Get me one of those. Or that stuff's not really good. I need you to do a lot of that, but here are the five things I want you to work on and I want you to be closer to this. Or I hate it, go develop your own stuff and bring it back. Either way, you're getting something at your next meeting, and that's where the rubber hits the road. You're going to, unless you can figure out a way to not vote on it, you'll be voting on something. So we will be doing a lot of horse trading. The less direction we get today.

[40:29] Right, so it would be more consensus you five can develop, the easier life will be in December.

[40:37] And that's like two days before Christmas, so, very Christmas.

[40:40] Thank you, you're welcome.

[40:49] So with that, the next item on my agenda is the Berry University presentation.

[41:00] Thank you, and we have a PowerPoint as well if we can pull that up.

[41:05] Thank you.

[41:07] Perfect.

[41:07] Good evening for the record, Leana Kuzlowski with Shubin Law Group offices at 100 South East Second Street.

[41:15] Let me just say, I am very happy to be here tonight on behalf of Lennar Homes.

[41:20] And I'm grateful to this board, to Mr. Quaredino and the entire staff for just giving us the opportunity to present.

[41:28] Before I jump into the PowerPoint, I do want to do some brief introductions just so

[41:34] So you all know, and the members of the community know who's also in the room with me tonight.

[41:39] I am joined by Carolina Herrera, she is the vice president of land acquisitions for Lennar.

[41:47] And Susan Rosenfall is also here tonight.

[41:50] She is the vice president of business and finance for Barry University.

[41:55] You all have probably seen them at multiple public hearings over the last two and a half years.

[42:00] They've been involved in that process with me.

[42:04] They've also been involved in imagining a development concept for this site for

[42:12] longer than that for probably three, almost four years at this point.

[42:16] I want to make one other introduction because this is who you're going to be hearing from quite a bit tonight.

[42:21] My colleague Francisco Garcia, he is going to present alongside me.

[42:26] Many of you may know Francisco, he's the former Planning and Zoning Director for the City of Miami.

[42:32] He is a planner, an urban designer, and an architect by training.

[42:38] He's also a principal at the Euclid Group, which is a land use consulting firm that works very closely with my firm.

[42:45] And Francisco's been very helpful in the last nine months as we've re-evaluated the site and really tried to study planning and zoning concepts.

[42:56] and prepare for this meeting today.

[42:59] For the community, I just want to set the table.

[43:02] We're here tonight to present visuals

[43:05] that we're hoping is going to help you understand

[43:08] some of these zoning concepts

[43:10] and help the board get closer to making a decision specifically

[43:15] on the community residential district.

[43:18] Just as a reminder,

[43:22] that district,

[43:24] this entire area in red,

[43:26] This is 23 and a half acres.

[43:29] This is the only property in Miami shores that is designated community district residential.

[43:37] So the zoning code that we're here tonight to talk about,

[43:40] this is the only property that is going to be subject to that zoning code.

[43:45] With those facts in mind and the fact that we've had the property owner,

[43:55] at the table now, working in good faith for close to three years at this point, I think it's absolutely appropriate and a good use of the villages resources to be collaborative at this point. So once again, I'm really just saying thank you for allowing us to be here tonight.

[44:15] I also want to take the opportunity to thank the members of the community who have been

[44:20] very helpful to us and provided quite a bit of input, especially in the last six to nine months.

[44:27] And that includes members of the Chamber of Commerce.

[44:30] We've met with the Board from Doctors Charter.

[44:33] We've met with a lot of moms in the village who I know are eager to see Park Space on this site.

[44:39] And of course we've met with the Council members and you, the Planning and Zoning Board.

[44:44] It's been a long journey, but we're particularly proud of where we are today.

[44:51] And we're thankful for that input.

[44:54] I heard some comments earlier that I just want to address to remind people of the history for this site.

[45:01] We will recall that when we started the comprehensive planning process, we really just wanted to restore the mixed use designation for this site. And we heard loud and clear from the community that nobody wanted to see mixed use on this site or in the village. So we went back to the drawing board. We then explored multifamily and at one point in time we were giving presentations to the community where we were showing a mix of town homes.

[45:29] and multi-family units that would have taken the development up to 600 units in total.

[45:37] And we heard once again from the community that is not what they wanted to see.

[45:42] So to Barry University's credit, Linar's credit, they went back to the drawing board yet again,

[45:49] and gave the community what they asked for, a site that only proposes townhomes.

[45:56] and we've gone a step further and we're only proposing 277 townhomes.

[46:02] So that would come in under the allowable density, which is 13 dwelling units an acre for townhomes.

[46:09] All of that said, we are not here tonight to present a site plan.

[46:15] We don't want to be very clear on that point.

[46:17] We can't get into any of that fun stuff yet because we do not have a zoning code.

[46:22] We need to get that in place first.

[46:24] We're simply here tonight to show you illustrations and graphics of a conceptual plan that we believe is within the parameters of what we've heard from the community so far.

[46:38] It's also a plan that allows us to deliver on a significant community benefits package.

[46:44] That includes, and I heard comments earlier about needed land for doctors charter.

[46:50] That includes a significant amount of open green space within the plan itself, as you'll see on some of those slides that Francisco presents.

[47:02] And public park space, which has been a big deal and frequent comment over the years.

[47:07] The final comment I'll make before turning this over to Francisco, because I do see on

[47:14] the agenda that there's a presentation from you, Mr. Bolton, and I believe you have some

[47:19] images from a project in Durral.

[47:22] So I want to set the record clear on that project.

[47:26] As you rightfully observe, there's quite a few architectural styles going on in that community,

[47:33] at least four.

[47:34] That was a development, a joint development by Lanar Homes and CC Homes.

[47:40] So a lot of what you're seeing there is not something that is a Lanar product, first and foremost.

[47:46] That said, if there are components in that presentation that you as a board or

[47:51] the community gravitate toward, we can certainly entertain those concepts.

[47:56] That was also a community with over a hundred acres,

[48:00] there's 1,300 homes, multi-family, so there's a lot to unpack there and I just want to make that clear as you get into that presentation.

[48:10] With that, I will turn the presentation over to Francisco.

[48:22] Thank you, Liana, Mr. Chair, board members, Francisco Garcia, principal with the Euclid group at 100 Southeast Secondary and downtown Miami.

[48:36] I am pleased to be here with you tonight to show you the results of a rather collaborative process that has taken place over the last nine months.

[48:50] I know the process precedes me in my participation in this project, but certainly the last nine months have been intensive and we have some images, some concepts that we would love to share with you, which I believe respond well, not only to, of course, the parameters of the land use designation captured in the zoning plan, which is in the comprehensive plan, which is essential, but also, I think, to many of the concerns that have been expressed here today.

[49:20] and hopefully you will see that.

[49:30] It has been stated and I am mindful of the time constraints.

[49:35] I will try to go quickly, but certainly please stop me.

[49:39] If there's anything that merits additional detail.

[49:42] So the site, as I mentioned before, is a 23 and

[49:49] somewhat acres in size and area and it is basically the western most component of the

[49:59] a very universal...

[50:00] You see campus, you see there the location, it is immediately adjacent to I-95, and it borders to the north with the village boundary of the village of Miami shores.

[50:19] You see this site there, and I'm going to have to put on my glasses. I can't quite see the image myself.

[50:28] You see the site there. And this is, again, to highlight the point that what you see in red is the boundary of the village of Miami shores.

[50:39] It, of course, extends further southeast, but the site occupies the northwest end of Miami shores.

[50:53] This is the Bayer University campus, which, of course, includes the site, but the

[51:00] portions that you don't see highlighted would be proposed for redevelopments.

[51:07] I-95, of course, is the major vehicular connection point going north-south,

[51:13] And it is conveniently located immediately butting the site and so access to the site or access to anywhere else that one wants to go to from the site would be ready and close.

[51:29] You see also that the site is located and will served by major arterials in the year of vicinity.

[51:38] These are the unenough ramps for mind-and-five, again, close proximity to the site, and what

[51:45] you see in green here is decided self that is being considered for development.

[51:50] Now, I put it in context this way because we understand that although not at present,

[51:54] as part of his zoning ordinance exercise, traffic and traffic management is going to be a concern.

[52:04] It is already a concern, it's expressed by some of your audience here today.

[52:08] some of your constituents, but we believe the site is uniquely positioned for us to be

[52:14] able to handle those issues well.

[52:20] This is the portion of the sites that is being considered as an annex to the charter

[52:29] schools, the doctor's charter school.

[52:33] And what I will show you in the images to follow is that the approach we've taken to the

[52:38] The entire site is a very generously greened canopied landscape approach with particular

[52:51] retention to what I would categorize as the public realm.

[52:55] With particular retention to net only quality of five feet also attention to how the site

[53:00] is inhabited and how one can traverse through the site.

[53:04] And so what you see there in green, and I'm sorry there are two screens that I'm working

[53:08] I believe you'll see it as well, can't quite make the pointer reach that, but for the audience here,

[53:14] what you see there in the darker green are the various boulevards, the various linear parks,

[53:20] the various open areas that are not developed per se, but are left as open spaces wide open to the public.

[53:27] I should emphasize, as I had mentioned before, someone raised the concern earlier that this is not intended to be,

[53:32] nor will it be a gated community, that is certainly a commitment that has been made.

[53:36] It will be open and traversable by the public, and it is being enhanced so as to be a positive contributor to the village.

[53:48] And, again, under the heading of traffic, traffic management, et cetera, what I've highlighted here in these four golden dots that you see on the screen are the sole access points to the site.

[54:03] Now, we've heard, in the feedback we've received over the months, that there are sort of two

[54:11] approaches. One is, and as an urbanist, I can certainly sympathize, that the sites should be

[54:19] fully integrated and that the rights of way the streets themselves should penetrate through

[54:23] the site and cross it over so that it would be properly integrated into the fabric of the village

[54:28] of Miami shores. The approach we've taken here, I think, is one worth considering, again,

[54:34] conceptually. By restricting the number of access points to the site, one also begins

[54:40] to direct traffic both incoming and outgoing to the arterials where the major arterials

[54:47] that conduct the flow of traffic into the points of closest proximity to the major infrastructure

[54:52] that will take that traffic northbound, southbound,

[54:55] or elsewhere in the county.

[54:58] And in so-

[55:00] We're doing one minimizes the traffic conflict points, and therefore traffic flows more easily, what you will not see, and there are images that will sort more clearly, but it is important to know, as I think a valuable concept in this proposal, are driveways, right, that lead up to the front doors of each of the town homes that we are going to propose, because those, again, would be disruptors, right, to the flow of traffic as we've heard the concern.

[55:29] and expressed. Again, more images to show in a moment.

[55:34] That is the location of the site.

[55:37] In red, you see the boundary of the village of Miami Shores,

[55:46] and I'm going to close in

[55:47] on the site. You see that it's present state of all the land that is being conceptualized

[55:51] for development is either paved over as a tarmac for parking cars or otherwise undeveloped

[56:00] and in a vacant state, right?

[56:03] So nothing is being replaced.

[56:05] What we hope to do with this amount of land

[56:07] that is available is to develop it as part

[56:11] of an already vibrant community

[56:13] and a complimentary aspect to it as well.

[56:18] Important to note, the site itself will be surrounded

[56:22] by the following zoning designations.

[56:24] The zoning designations allow them

[56:26] for the kind of development that could happen there.

[56:29] Here in, as one special district one,

[56:31] which is the Barry University Campus,

[56:33] you can have the sort of development that you see

[56:35] elsewhere in the Barry University Campus,

[56:37] various institutional buildings, et cetera,

[56:40] as you would expect.

[56:43] Elsewhere within the Miami Shores component

[56:47] of this immediate neighborhood,

[56:50] you see two zoning designations.

[56:52] You see A1, which is itself a multifamily zoning designation

[56:56] within Miami Shores, immediately to the south

[56:59] of the western portion of the site.

[57:02] And you see R12.5, a single-family residential zoning designation.

[57:09] And that is to the south of the eastern portion of the site.

[57:14] What I will show you in a moment are a few drawings that show what this tragedy would be to respond positively

[57:20] and complementarily to these different abiding conditions, whether it's A1 to the west or

[57:25] R12.5 to the east of the site.

[57:31] Elsewhere, and this is now Miami-Dade County, you have West of I-95, this very intense,

[57:38] very desolate designation, which allows for a variety of uses, but it's mostly industrial

[57:42] these days. Curiously, immediately to the north, you have a business district, right?

[57:48] So our frontage to the north, the site's frontage to the north, will be to this business district

[57:52] in Miami-Dade County. I know here there is, of course, a school.

[57:56] Well, and then you have some lower-density residential areas.

[58:01] Again, that's just to provide a bit of context.

[58:05] Now, I wanted to highlight this point.

[58:09] This happens to be a block to the south of the site.

[58:12] The site would be here to the north of 113th Street.

[58:17] What you see here and what I wanted to highlight for everyone is that the typical block,

[58:22] or a typical type of block within Miami Shorts, and elsewhere also in Miami-Date County,

[58:25] It's a very sort of suburban pattern.

[58:28] What you have is the open space, the green space,

[58:33] the canopy space is relegated to the back yard.

[58:37] And in consequence, it is actually private space.

[58:40] The public does not enjoy it.

[58:41] It is for the joy of exclusively the residents

[58:45] of each of these single family residences.

[58:50] And what you have then in the front,

[58:52] fronting the street, the public rail properly, right?

[58:55] the right of way, what you have in the front are, yes, the front yards, and that goes to the

[59:01] issue of setback, but each of those is either partially or in some instances rather significantly

[59:08] paved over for the various types of driveways that you see there, with remarkably little canopy

[59:14] or vegetation or even landscaping. Right now, that varies from zone to zone, but I'm simply showing

[59:19] you here a block that happens to be very close and proximity to the site, and what I invite you to

[59:25] consider for a moment is that the greenery, the open space, really is private and limited

[59:30] for the use of the individual residents, not really populating and enhancing the public

[59:37] space. Here's another block immediately to the south of the eastern portion of the site.

[59:43] This one is of a different configuration, but also very typical here in the village of

[59:46] Miami shores. In this particular case, you also have a front yard, right? That's where

[59:52] the setback is, it sets it back from the streets, and again, it's dotted as you would expect

[59:57] by the various driveways each of which

[1:00:00] We need to the parking garage. And in the rear, again, a Miami shores sort of trademark urbanist move, you have an alleyway, which is intended to serve mostly functional items, such as the collection of waste, et cetera. But once again, in terms of landscape areas, in terms of public space that is enhanced or otherwise adorned,

[1:00:29] by greenery, there is comparatively little of that, even less so here since the backyards

[1:00:35] are rather compressed.

[1:00:37] So that is by way of context, and again, it's our approach or sort of academic approach

[1:00:43] if you will to try to address the issues of how do we enhance, how do we create a community

[1:00:49] that is well enmeshed into its context.

[1:00:52] So,

[1:00:56] we are as previously described by Mr. Corardino in a curious situation because we are not at a point where we can design necessarily a specific site plan that will come later once we understand what the regulations provide for and what our parameters really specifically are.

[1:01:13] However, this is intended as a proof of concept of how one might develop the site.

[1:01:20] A couple of points I wanted to make right of the bat.

[1:01:23] In terms of density, and by density, of course, I mean the number of dwelling units per acre that's the measure of density.

[1:01:32] The density proposed here with these 277 units, which, again, sounds like a big number.

[1:01:38] Let's remember this is a big site, right?

[1:01:41] 23 and a half acres thereabouts.

[1:01:44] That density, as proposed, would be roughly 12 units per acre, which is 10 to the amount,

[1:01:50] exactly that amount to the density of a duplex residential area.

[1:01:55] And I say this and it's important to highlight it because I've heard feedback throughout

[1:02:01] this process that manifests some concern with extreme density, very cluttered spaces and

[1:02:08] so forth.

[1:02:09] And so what I want to remind by quantifying what the density is here is that we are really

[1:02:14] proposing a limited number of units that basically corresponds to what is a duplex

[1:02:20] Inplex residential condition, which happens to be comparatively less dense to the one immediately to the south.

[1:02:27] And a little bit denser than the one immediately to the south here on the eastern side of the side.

[1:02:34] What I wanted to show also in this table, and again, this to the point of parking and

[1:02:39] how one might handle parking in such a condition, is that there is not only space to fit as many parking spaces as required by all the units provided.

[1:02:48] And what you see there is that each unit has its own designated parking garage with capacity for two spaces as required.

[1:02:56] But in addition to that, there's going to be space for visitors, that is going to be available along the streets.

[1:03:04] And in excess of the requirements, in addition to the spaces available for visitors,

[1:03:09] the requirement happens to be one space per ten units for the entire site.

[1:03:14] There will be also above and beyond that space available for the public in general in those which you see here in red

[1:03:22] Again, conceptually would be located around the open green spaces the park itself

[1:03:28] So you see the red spaces here. Hopefully it's not too small

[1:03:32] This is a little bit larger and I think you see it here. This is sort of a zoom in of the Western component of the site

[1:03:41] And you see here in red various spaces, again, hovering around the open spaces, the green

[1:03:46] spaces.

[1:03:47] You see ample greenery.

[1:03:49] Imagine what your sea green landscape can't repeat areas.

[1:03:53] That's certainly the intent.

[1:03:57] And this is the, it occurs to us that this is the ideal location for a linear park that

[1:04:03] would be provided roughly an acre and a half.

[1:04:06] And the reason for that is twofold, one.

[1:04:09] It happens to be immediately across 112 theras from the single-family residential area to the south, so that's the only condition where we actually front a single-family residential zone, and there is an ample buffer here by virtue of this parking you'll see it in section how generous that is, and in addition parking is provided which you see here in red ample parking so that visitors can park there if they come to visit it, which we hope they will.

[1:04:36] So, we actually hope that many of the people who come will come either walking or in their bicycles,

[1:04:41] but if they come in the car, which is usual these days, then certainly there will be ample opportunity for

[1:04:48] them to park without inconvenience.

[1:04:51] All right, so now a few images intended to address some of the points that have been properly raised.

[1:04:59] Uh...

[1:05:00] By your staff, and certainly are of concern to the public. Issues of scale, issues of contextuality, harmonization of the site with its context, with its surrounding area, right. What you see here on the far right of the image, and you'll see it there as well, is the allowed messing size of a single family residence in the village of Miami shores.

[1:05:29] Now, clearly, not every single family residence is two stories, but it could be.

[1:05:35] And clearly, not every single family residence that is two stories goes all the way up to 35 feet, but it could.

[1:05:42] And so what we wanted to do is we wanted to ensure that in approaching the design of the town homes,

[1:05:51] we would contextualize all the recognizing that the single family residence will be at a distance as you'll see in a moment.

[1:05:58] And we wanted to contextualize the massing, the scale, the height, the setbacks, as you'll see,

[1:06:03] to that which is already allowed and existing in closed vicinity.

[1:06:07] And so,

[1:06:10] let's use this as a measuring stick in terms of context.

[1:06:14] The 40-foot height that is allowed by the comprehensive plan is probably not going to be reached by the buildings that one would propose.

[1:06:27] Because nor is it necessary, because in a three-story context, which is the maximum that one would want to have here,

[1:06:34] there will be three-story townhomes, there will be two-story townhomes, as you see here, 40 feet would create a ceiling planum that is probably entirely too high.

[1:06:45] We do want to reserve some margin to allow for topographical conditions, perhaps some flooding situations that might invite one to increase the height of the residents.

[1:06:56] But 40 feet is certainly an abundant amount of height to be considered.

[1:07:04] And so, and I'll be quick about this.

[1:07:09] These are two types of townhomes that could properly be topulating the site.

[1:07:14] This one at two stories would top off at about 29 feet.

[1:07:19] Again, under the maximum allowed height for a single family residence elsewhere in Miami shores.

[1:07:26] And here, at the three-level proposal, 36 feet is about the top of the region, about the maximum range that one would want to aspire.

[1:07:36] These are the sky view terraces. Again, a feature of many residences in Miami shores as I will show you in a moment.

[1:07:44] And we think it's certainly an incentive that adds to the quality and the value of the residences proposed here.

[1:07:49] I

[1:07:54] will next show you a handful of images that will at the top show you a section and at the bottom a plan view

[1:08:04] of how these townhome clusters could be situated and configured and how they respond to the space around them.

[1:08:13] What you see here is a configuration that has in the yellowish ochre color the townhomes,

[1:08:19] So that we want to 3, 4, 5 in dark lines you see the separating walls between each of the town homes.

[1:08:29] What you see in the rear, and this is the rear of these properties, are these alleyways that we are proposing to create rather in the property that would provide rear access to each town home and also provide for servicing, so waste collection, et cetera.

[1:08:45] What you will not see in the front of the properties, as I mentioned previously, are

[1:08:50] driveways, because in every single instance, the front incandition will be to essentially

[1:08:57] a sidewalk, a pedestrian environment, and green spaces, some with amenities, some passive,

[1:09:02] in this case you have a pool and a cabana, but you will see other examples where we have

[1:09:08] passive green spaces that, once again, are publicly accessible.

[1:09:11] And the same thing happens across on the other side.

[1:09:16] And so you will see this pattern, please note that there is ample space separating this particular cluster for the one that would go up above it.

[1:09:28] And so as a detail, and now to the polling or the question of setbacks, what we you see here is what we're conceptualizing might work well.

[1:09:39] And the setback proposed, and I think this had been mentioned previously, is a 15-foot setback,

[1:09:45] there might be, in some instances, a porch or a stoop that encroaches by at most five feet.

[1:09:53] You see now a clear open to the sky 10-foot setback.

[1:10:00] Back in when I say a porch that might encroach, it would encroach only for a certain portion of the site, and I'm necessarily the entire lot itself. And, right,

[1:10:18] so there it is. And the other thing I wanted to note is that you will see that that is the minimal sort of setback condition that would be here. And there are instances where the townhome itself recedes further back and gives more space as well. Because the idea is not to have

[1:10:38] a monolithic uniform wall of townhomes, the idea very much is to have a place, a play rather,

[1:10:45] of the facades that are currently in or currently out, and provide that texture and

[1:10:51] variety that I think is desirable, not only in terms of depth and where the facade

[1:10:56] is located, but also in terms of height, some two stories, some three stories, and a mix

[1:11:01] of all of that.

[1:11:02] Again, giving it that sort of texture and vibrancy that I think is desirable in the

[1:11:06] interplay with the landscaping as well.

[1:11:11] Here's another condition.

[1:11:12] Again, I want to highlight that some will be three

[1:11:14] and some will be two stories in height.

[1:11:17] Again, that interplay that you've seen before.

[1:11:19] And again, the rear-loaded sort of alley-serviced vehicle entry

[1:11:25] with a promenade or a greenway

[1:11:30] in front of the property itself.

[1:11:33] This happens just to point it out.

[1:11:34] This happens to be here at the core of the site

[1:11:39] on the eastern parcel. This one now fronts on a public street. And here, once again, you

[1:11:51] see, in this case, greater than 15 feet, 17 feet, as a setback, because again, the space

[1:11:58] exists for us to be able to provide a more generous setback there.

[1:12:05] So it would be a 17.5 foot

[1:12:06] setback, six-foot sidewalk, the sidewalk also grows, and the sidewalk again is the

[1:12:12] delineating point, right? The sidewalk lives in the public realm, and there is a property

[1:12:17] line or a lot line that happens immediately after the sidewalk itself. And the sidewalk

[1:12:22] is the front door access to the residence.

[1:12:27] The soil, please note, also is rather generous,

[1:12:30] and so that is a 16-foot soil that separates even the sidewalk. This is now public realm from

[1:12:37] the paved street itself.

[1:12:42] Another example, this one on the south of the west parcel.

[1:12:47] Another example, this one actually fronts to the north.

[1:12:50] And so in effect, what this entire neighborhood would become is a transition,

[1:12:57] or even a buffer, if you will, between the well-established, low-density residential areas

[1:13:02] to the south, and the more dens and higher intensity areas to the north.

[1:13:08] on the other side of the village of Miami Shore's boundary, now unincorporated Miami-Dade County.

[1:13:20] And I believe this is the last one of these images.

[1:13:23] I wanted to show you what the section would look like, where the linear park is located, right?

[1:13:30] And so you'll see it here in the sort of bird's-eye view plan.

[1:13:34] This would be the portion of the site that immediately fronts the single-family residential neighborhood to the south.

[1:13:43] And what you see,

[1:13:49] as we introduce the measurements, is a significant distance between,

[1:13:56] let's set aside for a moment, a 22-foot wide street itself paved street.

[1:14:02] There is an eight-foot verge or soil area between the street and the sidewalk.

[1:14:08] There is an 80-foot park with sidewalks framing it at either end, 80 feet deep, an additional

[1:14:15] 13 feet of, again, open green space.

[1:14:20] And then you have the property line, the lot line itself, and then an additional 15-foot

[1:14:26] setback before you get to the actual facade of the townhome.

[1:14:32] Again, a sizable distancing from the residential area, single-family residential area across the street.

[1:14:43] And I wanted to highlight as well, so that's 115 feet from the street in a total of, and

[1:14:48] I can't quite see it, so you probably can't see either.

[1:14:50] but it's approximately 150 odd feet before you get to the

[1:14:56] property line of the properties across the street.

[1:14:59] That's sizable.

[1:15:00] So, please remember that the intent is to have the area as you see here represented, canopy, landscape, greenery, et cetera. So, I think rather a comfortable buffer between the proposed townhomes and the single-family residences immediately to the south. Now, in terms of design, aesthetic, scale, messing, which I understand to be a proper concern by the community.

[1:15:28] The approach we've thought of is not necessarily to mimic the historic style of the village of Miami shores.

[1:15:40] It seems to us that it might be an affectation to actually consider the sort of barrel-tile roofs and sort of gable roofs, et cetera.

[1:15:49] We are compelled to maybe borrow a page from the more contemporary, it's still traditional,

[1:15:58] but more contemporary architecturalistic that is certainly manifest throughout the village

[1:16:03] of Miami shores.

[1:16:05] And what you see here are some of the elements that we are tapping into and borrowing, right?

[1:16:09] Certainly a stuccoed facade of light colors, certainly a scorched stucco as an accent, the

[1:16:16] the single-pane windows, lightly glazed,

[1:16:22] a pitched roof, a hip roof that might be low in pitch

[1:16:28] and have flat tiles, typically a dark color for contrast.

[1:16:33] That is, again, an attempt to adjust your toeward,

[1:16:39] fitting in and contextualizing and harmonizing

[1:16:41] the proposal to the surrounding neighborhood.

[1:16:45] Again, another example from this one, we take and we mimic the veranda that you see here

[1:16:51] on the second level, and you might see here, in this case, that a third level or here

[1:16:58] are nice, the balcony, again, to provide texture, to provide articulation of those facades

[1:17:04] as opposed to having them read as a monotone sort of monolithic wall.

[1:17:10] low

[1:17:16] hip grooves, dark colored flat tile, verticality in the

[1:17:23] fenestration in the windows, light glazing as opposed to maybe a darker glazing that you see here.

[1:17:28] The light glazing is preferred in our case.

[1:17:32] And again, wherever possible and frequently the porches, the verandas, the sky terraces,

[1:17:39] because that is part of living in South Florida and that is what makes for quality of light.

[1:17:44] So, in closing, this is an attempt to certainly take into consideration, certainly incorporate

[1:17:55] the feedback that we've been receiving from your staff and from various members of the community

[1:18:00] that we've met with over the last nine months. Certainly, we've heard from the public as well.

[1:18:04] We understand that the bar has been said high by the village of Miami-Schorps.

[1:18:08] We understand that nothing but premium quality is expected, and this is our best attempt so far to rise to that level.

[1:18:18] That said, we understand that this is preliminary and conceptual, and we look forward to further guidance from you to get us to our goal, which is to complete this piece of the puzzle for the village of Miami Shorts.

[1:18:29] Thank you.

[1:18:31] Now, please, please state, I'd like if that's okay to see if there's any questions from my board to the presenter on any of the issues.

[1:18:50] So, Francisco, thank you for the presentation, and Liana as well.

[1:18:54] Just a couple of questions.

[1:18:56] I noticed that you were proposing 15 foot setbacks and 17, I think you said 17.5 foot setbacks at one of the perimeter roads.

[1:19:05] Are you pulling away from the five-foot setbacks that you would show elsewhere on that site plan?

[1:19:11] The site plan is conceptualized presently, really begins to frame itself nicely around those measures.

[1:19:17] So that's very much the intent.

[1:19:19] Any of the regulations where to show that, that is something that we are programmed to be able to comply with.

[1:19:24] And just forgive me the insistence, but I want to certainly highlight that those 15 feet would be measured to the lot line itself.

[1:19:34] And beyond that, of course, exists the sidewalk diverge, which gives additional distance from any of the streets or any of the surrounding conditions.

[1:19:43] So just to clarify, because I realize that the site plan is conceptual, and it's not something you're going to continue to iterate on until we have a zoning code.

[1:19:53] But that site plan that was presented did have a number of conditions where it showed five foot setbacks.

[1:19:59] just to be

[1:20:00] We, if we craft a zoning code that is calling for a minimum 15-foot setback, you seem to be able to work with that? I believe so. The, the so, and again, just to clarify, because these, these are the sort of the details that we'll have to work out in the next, in the next weeks. The exception to that rule would be, we would ask that the porches or stoos be allowed to encroach no more than five feet into that setback. Again, the dominance, right? Space would be open with the occasional

[1:20:29] potential protrusion of a portraiture or some sort of architectural feature.

[1:20:33] But otherwise yes.

[1:20:34] And our current residential code does allow a certain degree of encroachment.

[1:20:39] I think we would want to hear what the public has to say about that five foot encroachment.

[1:20:43] Perhaps there's some sort of limitation on the percentage of the lot with that that's allowed to encroach.

[1:20:54] You mentioned that our height limit in the art districts was 35 feet, I believe it's only 30.

[1:21:01] So with respect to the height, 30 versus 40, 10 foot comparatively speaking is different than a five foot difference just for the benefit of everyone here parking.

[1:21:15] I think you would propose the total of two spaces per unit which included guest was how the math worked out.

[1:21:24] Are you changing what you're offering, or is that two units total, or is that two units per two parking spots per unit plus additional guest parking?

[1:21:34] Are you that is correct, two parking spaces, as shown here in the conceptual plan, there would be two parking spaces per unit, full stop, and then one parking space for every ten units dedicated to visitors.

[1:21:49] and in addition to that, there will be additional parking, excess parking, to allow for the public to arrive in the park on this side, yes?

[1:21:59] The excess parking will be provided and deployed as shown around the public areas, say the linear park, say the open spaces,

[1:22:06] so that if there are visitors, above and beyond the visitors that one would expect, as guests of the residences,

[1:22:13] visitors from the general public that would want to come to the site, to traverse it, to go to the park, et cetera.

[1:22:18] There will be spaces in addition to that count for those purposes too.

[1:22:22] In addition to the one one one for ten units for the visitors, and in addition to that some for the what was the number,

[1:22:32] more or less for the public space, did you have a number?

[1:22:35] I think in the end, there were roughly 20 plus 20 units, 20 parking spaces, generally available, yes.

[1:22:42] Don't hold me to the specific number, but in that range I just have a couple of more questions.

[1:22:50] The discussion about urban planning, I'm being told that there are 75 additional spaces available to the public.

[1:23:01] So it's two per unit plus 75?

[1:23:05] 73?

[1:23:06] My apologies.

[1:23:07] 73.

[1:23:09] But again, this is certainly something that we've provided consensually enough flexibility for to be able to work those details out with staff, absolutely.

[1:23:16] I wanted to jump into a little bit of urban design, and this has to do with whether or not we are looking at a cul-de-sac arrangement urbanistically speaking as far as the layout's concerned, or whether we're talking about something that more closely integrates with the street grid.

[1:23:30] We know from our last workshop that the public had expressed some sentiments that align more closely with our current layout, the street grid that we currently have in the shores, which would be a notable difference to what you're showing in this conceptual site plan.

[1:23:48] Part of that does have to do with the character of the shores.

[1:23:51] We have front yards that open up to other front yards that encourage neighborly interactions.

[1:23:58] The other part of that, I think if I understood the sentiments expressed at the workshop was that we want to make sure that the people that live in this community aren't considered others, that they're considered as an extension of the shores.

[1:24:14] and the urbanistic difference between this layout versus the rest of the grid of the shores

[1:24:21] seem to cause some consternation amongst the public.

[1:24:25] I wondered if you'd express that or address that here.

[1:24:31] So in my presentation, I touched on that issue and admittedly danced around it a little bit because

[1:24:38] What

[1:24:41] we've heard are two issues that can be addressed differently, depending on the approach

[1:24:48] one takes. So to the extent that there are concerns about the impact on the flow of traffic

[1:24:54] in the immediate area, what we thought was prudent was to limit the number of-

[1:25:00] We have access points and relegate them to, certainly, those already existing, although we will take away a few, but also taking them to the easiest points of ingress in egress, and also ones where there is least possible conflict in terms of traffic maneuvers, right? And so you will see them, once again, and I'm sorry, I can't point to the other screen, but to the extreme west here on a condition which actually fronts another component of the site.

[1:25:29] and here to the east where it's front the very university campus itself, here of course on the west what you have beyond is essentially I-95.

[1:25:40] So in our considered opinion these are the least disruptive, most flow of traffic friendly access points that we could provide and the ones that are going to tend to minimize traffic disruptions, right?

[1:25:53] And again, I'll emphasize, there will be absolutely no driveways that you can see even be a perimeter, you can see it there as well, right?

[1:26:02] No driveways that will actually intersect with any of the major rights of way they're all internal.

[1:26:09] I have designed a number of communities, as I know you have as well, Mr. Spurt, and whenever possible,

[1:26:16] my approach has always been to fully integrate the neighborhood, precisely for the issues that you've mentioned,

[1:26:21] which have to do with integration, none othering, et cetera.

[1:26:26] Our approach to that integration component, which is also important to us, is by making

[1:26:32] the internal open spaces publicly accessible by inviting the public to drive into the community

[1:26:38] as we do by providing ample parking, by providing community spaces that we expect to be popular

[1:26:45] we were inhabited where there is a somewhat of a

[1:26:47] Earth of Parkland here in the Northwest part of the

[1:26:52] boats of Miami shores.

[1:26:54] We hope that this will be a community that clearly,

[1:26:58] and by design, is not going to be exactly like

[1:27:01] every other single family residential subdivision,

[1:27:04] beautiful as they are.

[1:27:06] It's going to be of a different character of a different

[1:27:08] type, but also one that is inclusive,

[1:27:10] perhaps in a different approach.

[1:27:12] That said, either where a marked preference

[1:27:14] or a consensus that there need to be additional integration of the roadways.

[1:27:21] There is space to accomplish that in the breaks that you have between the structures.

[1:27:25] I don't know to what extent that's desirable, that's something that we can discuss further.

[1:27:30] I take your point with regards to limiting access, but I think that that actually might be a big counterproductive here.

[1:27:37] And the reason for that is, let's take the example along Northwest Fifth Avenue.

[1:27:40] This happens to be the entrance to Dr. Scharter's school.

[1:27:44] And if you spent any time there during pickups and drop-offs,

[1:27:49] you'll know that the traffic spills out of Dr. Scharter and onto Northwest 5th.

[1:27:54] And by orienting your boulevard entrances and exits,

[1:27:58] you're gress and ingress to what is essentially a cul-de-sac community on Northwest 5th Avenue.

[1:28:03] I think you'd actually further exacerbate the traffic in back there.

[1:28:07] Now, of course, you could reorient and you can rotate and you can do different things.

[1:28:13] And that might solve the traffic issue, but I don't think that any of those solutions

[1:28:18] would be as effective as providing multiple points of ingress and egress, just simply because

[1:28:23] people will have a choice as to which direction that they're traveling rather than being

[1:28:27] forced out onto a street which was never designed to funnel that kind of traffic.

[1:28:32] I think you can make a similar argument on the west side of the Barry University property as well.

[1:28:39] That said, I think that there are things that are successful about this plan that are worth preserving.

[1:28:46] The ample park space that you've provided, I think that that is definitely a step in the right direction.

[1:28:53] And I think we can build upon that.

[1:28:55] At the risk of spending too much time and asking additional questions, I'll turn it back over to the rest of the board.

[1:29:02] And I would like simply with respect to emphasize the fact that we are fully aware and, of course, cognizant of the fact that there will be a site plan review process to follow this, and that is also an opportunity that we before to be able to find to some of these aspects.

[1:29:16] Thank you, any other questions?

[1:29:17] If I can just make a suggestion, can we take maybe a five minute break to allow us to

[1:29:26] get a little bit closer to this site plan and kind of see what's really on it.

[1:29:32] I'm having difficulty kind of seeing some things that are on it, so if we could take

[1:29:36] a five minute break just to do that?

[1:29:37] Sure.

[1:29:39] All right, five minute break.

[1:31:47] We'd like to go ahead and resume. Please be seated.

[1:31:55] Thank you.

[1:32:00] Thank you. Any Mr. O'Hare, do you have any questions? Yes. For Francisco?

[1:32:13] Well, first thank you for the presentation. So can you go to the slide where you had the setbacks indicated? Of course.

[1:32:28] So this is, let's see if I can find you. The one that I think you would like to see.

[1:32:34] which is possibly this one, either or.

[1:32:39] So, you're counting the porch in the setback, but

[1:32:42] typically a porch would not be in the setback?

[1:32:47] Right, so what I described is precisely that.

[1:32:50] But what we think would work well with these particular types of time home conditions is

[1:32:56] and allowance, again, to be regulated as indicated by Mr. Spurck and certainly Mr.

[1:33:01] Corridor has voiced the same opinion.

[1:33:04] And I believe this is actually a press

[1:33:05] and that already exists in Miami-Shore Square.

[1:33:08] For a given amount of the facade of the residence

[1:33:12] of the townhome, there would be the possibility

[1:33:14] of encroaching up to five feet no further

[1:33:17] with an open porch or an open stoop.

[1:33:20] And again, the idea there is to give texture

[1:33:23] and articulation to the facades so that it wouldn't read

[1:33:26] as too monolithic.

[1:33:27] Okay, so in one of the photos that you showed, it looked like an adjoining wall between two porches was also in that five foot setback or is it your intent that only the actual porch is in there or the porch and connecting walls between units and porches is in the setback.

[1:33:55] So can you walk me through kind of, do you know what I'm trying to say?

[1:34:01] I do, perfectly well, you've explained it perfectly.

[1:34:03] And so what I would say is this, if there's a photograph that shows that it may be a condition where there are two

[1:34:09] porches that are side by side.

[1:34:11] And that would then mean that those two porches would share a privacy wall between two residences.

[1:34:15] But again, the intent is to have that encroachment if allowed, when allowed in the regulations, once we get to the site state,

[1:34:23] is to have those porches be able to encroach, right,

[1:34:27] be on what would otherwise be the straight facade line

[1:34:30] of the residences.

[1:34:32] So what there shouldn't be is an extended porch

[1:34:35] that takes up the entire frontage.

[1:34:36] What there should be is an encroachment of five feet at most

[1:34:39] that allows for that porch to serve as sort of an aesthetic

[1:34:43] adornment to the facade.

[1:34:45] Okay.

[1:34:45] And then regarding heights on the site,

[1:34:48] if you want to go back to the site plan, of course.

[1:34:49] Did

[1:34:57] you want this slide or no that that false

[1:35:00] Right, the site line.

[1:35:03] The conceptual. Yeah, that one's fine. All right. So do you have? Do you have an idea of where these differing heights would be? Are you thinking? The larger heights in the center of the site and the shorter heights on the outside of the site? Can you kind of walk me through that? Perfect. That is certainly a question that we ourselves have been wrestling with. And so the answer is there's what we think is most desirable is to have

[1:35:31] a staggering, or almost a random, if you will, arrangement, where there is no repeated

[1:35:37] pattern or necessary continuity, no 333333, but rather 322332 or 3232, right?

[1:35:46] And so that's the kind of correlation as I've described that we would be looking for precisely

[1:35:50] two.

[1:35:51] I accomplished what I believe has been expressed as an intent by this board and by your staff

[1:35:56] have to give it variety, give it texture, give it articulation, and make it look organic.

[1:36:04] So, no, there is no more direct answer to your question.

[1:36:07] There is no preset location for the three story townhome model.

[1:36:12] And there is no preset location for the two story townhome model.

[1:36:16] There is every intent to have those be staggered around almost randomly.

[1:36:22] Okay, I'm okay for that.

[1:36:25] Thank you. Any other questions from the Board?

[1:36:29] I just had a follow-up now that we're seeing

[1:36:31] these reproductions.

[1:36:36] You've got to forgive me, Francesco, because there are no page

[1:36:39] numbers here. But I think if you go forward in your presentation, I'll tell you when to stop.

[1:36:44] Of course, and we'll come back to this to the site plan. Of course,

[1:36:51] now people know similar

[1:36:53] to that. Not quite that.

[1:36:58] There, there. Sure. Can you show me, I'm flipping back and forth

[1:37:03] between the site plan overall, and this particular configuration where we have five townhomes

[1:37:10] on either side of each other, and I just, I don't see that shown on the site plan.

[1:37:15] Yes.

[1:37:24] Okay. So it's not exactly the same as what's shown there, but okay.

[1:37:29] So what you will see in the pages as I was just selling board member spurt is that this reddit of the sort of red hatched area here is the location of that condition within the plan within the site.

[1:37:42] In the actual site plan that is a, let's say a cubit-style layout where it's kind of a u-shape with a courtyard in the middle, not exactly reflected in that section, I think that the point you're trying to show is just the front-to-front.

[1:38:01] Correct, okay, right, thank you for the clarification.

[1:38:03] Thank you.

[1:38:05] Does it for me?

[1:38:07] Any other questions?

[1:38:09] I got just a couple.

[1:38:11] And I wanted to just express that what you're giving us is just what Lenard's vision is.

[1:38:19] This is not a site plan review.

[1:38:21] We're just trying to understand what Lenard's vision is and we're trying to develop our vision in a collaborative fashion.

[1:38:29] So with that set out, it's kind of curious, roof decks.

[1:38:34] What is your vision as far as roof decks?

[1:38:36] So first, a slight addition to the statement you've made.

[1:38:40] More than the Lennar's vision, really this is Lennar's response to the feedback we've been hearing over the last months, probably years at this point in time.

[1:38:48] Work in progress, because in the end, the site plan will be determining a right factor.

[1:38:54] In response to your question about roof decks,

[1:38:56] The roof deck version of what you might see here are those sky terraces that I was alluding to before and that is precisely the reason why we are asking for the possibility of having this third story to keep that roof deck amenity so to speak for the individual townhome covered and contained as opposed to having it be the kind of roof deck that as you know emanates sound noise and disturbances so beyond that third story no roof decks you will see in every single instance and

[1:39:26] A pitch-thruve right above that, no open terraces.

[1:39:30] Okay, thank you.

[1:39:33] Garage, what is your vision as far as the garage is, and I guess how many vehicles in a garage assigned to each unit?

[1:39:44] Right, so the typical condition will be to the garage, to vehicles for parking garages.

[1:39:49] You see them here, and again, difficult to do it in both plants, but you see it.

[1:39:53] in this particular slide, within the yellowish sort of...

[1:40:00] Floor plate of each individual townhome, you will see the closest to immediately abutting the street itself, right? And so what you see here,

[1:40:15] that's two car garage for each unit. Okay. Each unit should have a two car garage that is accessible from what I've described in Miami Shores style as a. What is your on this this plan that you've showed us? What is I know another metric that we've

[1:40:38] I just talked about his open space percent.

[1:40:40] My apologies Mr. Bolton, I'm being corrected.

[1:40:42] And what I am told is that there will be some instances, given the configuration of a block and we've run into this in some of the site planning exercises where the access is difficult in a corner condition right or the conditions as such, and there will be a one car garage internally, but whenever that is the case, there will be immediately close to it an open air additional parking space reserved for that unit.

[1:41:06] What will never be the case is that there will be a unit with less than two cars assigned to it in most instances

[1:41:12] It will be a two car garage indoor in some instances limited instances

[1:41:16] There will be a one car garage with a dedicated and on street dedicated parking space yes parking so there will be at a minimum two dedicated

[1:41:26] parking spaces per unit that is correct on top of that the one in ten

[1:41:32] in visitor parking on top of that, about 20 units, spaces for, more like this is a vision.

[1:41:42] 73 people to actually pull out of the mix.

[1:41:46] So that's the corrected and enhanced number, yes.

[1:41:48] Okay.

[1:41:50] All right, well, that's all I've got.

[1:41:53] Thank you.

[1:41:54] John.

[1:41:54] Oh, sir.

[1:41:55] Okay, one more.

[1:41:57] I talked a little bit to the one art people about the issues of all the bedrooms are going

[1:42:04] to be on the second floor.

[1:42:09] Not necessarily.

[1:42:10] Pardon me?

[1:42:11] Not necessarily.

[1:42:12] There may be first floor bedrooms second floor.

[1:42:15] I'd like to suggest as you move forward this I plan we got some additional thought to some

[1:42:21] universal design for us old people and for the handicap.

[1:42:27] There will be no elevators in any of these buildings, so when we talk about people going up, one flight of stairs to the first floor and then the second side of the third floor, I try to do in my current house and I would buy a new one, I wouldn't do that, but please pay some attention to some of the universal design features that we really should work into all of our housing, not just new development.

[1:42:52] Point exceedingly well taken, yes.

[1:42:55] Thank you. Any other board comments?

[1:42:58] Yes. So I know we're not approving a site plan where this is just conceptual.

[1:43:09] But I think,

[1:43:12] I mean, I got calls from the development team, I didn't take them, got emails, didn't answer them, I wanted to come in with a clear head and just kind of see this.

[1:43:23] But one concern to have with the site on 113th Street and 112th Terrace Folk North West that I think the heights of any buildings that are fronting those streets should be lower so that there's a limited impact on the single family homes across the street and adjacent to those sites.

[1:43:54] sections. So that was kind of why I was asking you before about the heights. I know you have a park there.

[1:44:05] I don't know if that's the best place for it, but I think when you go up onto the 113th Street,

[1:44:12] you could potentially have 40 feet of a building kind of shadowing the single family homes across the street.

[1:44:23] And you're going to see that 40 feet from the back yard's couple of blocks away.

[1:44:28] So that's why I would kind of suggest that any area that is directly adjacent to a single family home zone,

[1:44:41] regardless of what the zoning is, but if there's single family homes there,

[1:44:45] that a lesser height be along those corridors versus that 40 feet that you're requesting.

[1:44:55] understood. And I made reference to 40 feet again just to be

[1:45:00] This is clear as they possibly can be. I mean, references to 40 feet because that is the language caption presently in the comprehensive plan. And so I first wanted to provide assurances that that cannot and we will not exceed that. But as I showed in some of the images, or in all of the images, whenever we've shown a town home, we've shown it at less than 40 feet, 30 70s about as tall as it gets. But your point is well taken wherever, fronting a single family, residential condition, that should be given due consideration.

[1:45:33] All right, so moving along what I did is I put together a little, I went out and found to D'Arral and took photos of about four different styles of townhouses in D'Arral, and I put a little presentation together that I think might help us with our discussion up here for the board, so this is for board discussion.

[1:45:58] So it was my presentation and teed up, can we start it?

[1:46:03] Thank you.

[1:46:09] Which other one?

[1:46:12] All right, so this was a presentation I made and I wanted to, it's got the different styles to help.

[1:46:18] I guess to give us a vision.

[1:46:19] And the people here, a vision of what these different styles look like.

[1:46:24] And with that said, my thought was, if we see a style we like, we can make comment to it and kind of give that direction to our planning director to kind of use that to codify this townhouse code around around the vision that we give you so rather than getting into the minutia of all the details will give you the vision and then any specific details that any board member wants to do.

[1:46:54] You add to it, certainly they're entitled to that, so

[1:47:05] I don't, it must be slow, okay.

[1:47:08] So here's some front views of some townhouse developments that I took.

[1:47:19] So I call this option A. This is a two and three story, third floor, not stepped back.

[1:47:27] It's modern looking, limited setback, balconies.

[1:47:31] So that would be what I call the option A. It's three stories, the third floor is not very

[1:47:41] stepped back, so it's much more imposing I think to the people in front of it.

[1:47:48] It does have a third floor balcony on it.

[1:47:55] There's another picture of it.

[1:47:58] But there's a very little setback you can see here.

[1:48:03] Now, I think Lanar was talking about a 15 foot setback.

[1:48:09] This looks like just a wide sidewalk and then pretty much built right at that.

[1:48:15] Such much more imposing.

[1:48:19] I have a, this would be what I called option B.

[1:48:23] It's also two and three story with articulation.

[1:48:27] Third floor, step back to reduce appearance of the third floor.

[1:48:34] So you can see this actually, I believe, kind of looks more like what Lanar had in mind in their vision where it is third floor.

[1:48:45] But it almost looks like just two floors because the third floor is stepped back significantly and almost not visible from the street level.

[1:48:58] Particulation, this one does not have much of a setback at the street level, as you can see.

[1:49:07] There's another view of it.

[1:49:11] All right, this, all right, that's a final view, very, very small setback.

[1:49:18] The setback here, I guess from the, from the, the back of sidewalks, almost nil.

[1:49:24] But it looks like you have about 15 foot of sidewalk in front of it.

[1:49:30] option C. This is a two-story option. Modern looking, small front yard, so it's got additional

[1:49:37] setback, simpler looking.

[1:49:44] So you can see it's got a yard, it's got a head, it's got some

[1:49:46] grass.

[1:49:49] It is only two-story, so it looks significantly smaller or less imposing than the three-story

[1:49:55] ones. And there's a small green space in front of me.

[1:50:00] Almost like a little yard.

[1:50:08] If anybody on the board here wants to stop me and make comments on anything, anything they like, anything they don't like, please. This is board, this is a board discussion item. All right, I can go through it once and then we'll back up.

[1:50:23] This is just to help us with our discussion. Option D here, two and three stories, modern looking,

[1:50:33] balconies. You can see it is articulated between two and three story levels.

[1:50:39] so it's not that imposing.

[1:50:50] So here's four options to look at. In addition, I took some photos of some setbacks.

[1:51:00] Here's the larger setback with the green space in front.

[1:51:10] This is pretty much, it is setback but pretty much approaches the back of sidewalk in the yard.

[1:51:18] You

[1:51:22] can see this is right up on the sidewalk

[1:51:28] interior views all right

[1:51:30] so here's some interior views of townhouse developments like I said these were

[1:51:34] taken in throughout four different townhouse types and developments for us to

[1:51:41] look at but you can see this would be similar to what it looks like in our

[1:51:45] had in their presentation, which is a two car garage, a street.

[1:51:55] This is where the services, the trash pick up, et cetera, would be accomplished.

[1:52:04] You can see, I guess that's what it would look like on trash pick up day.

[1:52:07] This

[1:52:14] is one of those, and I saw this in the site plan too, a little nook or what we call that where cars can park, additional parking, additional access to the backside.

[1:52:38] Some walkways within the development, this is what some of the walkways and landscape pathways may look like.

[1:52:57] This is Daryl, this is probably a little higher density than the development that we're proposing here.

[1:53:12] The development, Leonard's proposing was about 12 units per acre, I'm not sure what this would be,

[1:53:25] seem to have slowed down.

[1:53:33] I guess that's

[1:53:40] the end of my presentation, when I get to the end.

[1:53:55] So with that said, I'd like to start at the top again, can you get me?

[1:53:59] I

[1:54:02] think I'm I think I'm starting maybe I push my buttons too fast, so

[1:54:16] you were assisting me, yeah, okay?

[1:54:22] What we just assist me

[1:54:24] All right, all right, thank you

[1:54:32] So move forward to option a please all

[1:54:41] right go to the next one

[1:54:42] All right any board comments discussion any feelings my

[1:54:53] personal opinion

[1:54:54] I mean, I think it's an order to integrate.

[1:54:58] Wait, wait, wait, excuse me.

[1:54:59] Bye.

[1:55:00] Excuse me. We haven't trouble hearing up here. In order to integrate this development, whatever's developed there with the rest of the village, I think the 15 or whatever, at least 15 is paramount. And 50% set back. And so I do not like the sidewalk, right to the sidewalk, does not integrate with the community, especially if

[1:55:31] I think there's homes across the street.

[1:55:34] I think that's paramount.

[1:55:38] So, none of the ones here are two and three story with the 15 foot setback.

[1:55:45] So, I guess it would be a combination of these options, would be my personal preference.

[1:55:54] So I will echo my colleague's comments.

[1:56:03] I agree 100% that I think 15 feet is the kind of a minimum standard.

[1:56:10] I think we're looking for if not a little bit larger than that.

[1:56:14] But I leave that up to Joe and his staff to give us some recommendations on.

[1:56:21] How do you feel about the non-proposal that on certain occasions that are from porch and get in to normal and private meetings that are possible?

[1:56:33] I apologize.

[1:56:34] I've only been doing this for 20 years and I still forget the mic.

[1:56:38] How do you feel about the non-proposal that on certain occasions the front porch can go into the setback no more than five feet?

[1:56:48] Does that acceptable or 15 feet?

[1:56:51] And the 15-foot setback to go into five foot with certain structures, steps, and front

[1:56:56] porches?

[1:56:57] I don't have a big problem with that.

[1:56:59] That's okay with you?

[1:57:01] I don't have a issue with that either.

[1:57:04] I think the other thing, John, is I really do like the articulation on some of these to

[1:57:11] to have some variance articulation as you go across particularly in the 8, 7, and 8.

[1:57:21] So like this option, you liked the articulation?

[1:57:25] Yeah, I liked the articulation.

[1:57:26] I don't know how articulated most of this is, but, you know, I liked it.

[1:57:30] Or the option, like that less.

[1:57:35] Yes.

[1:57:38] That's two and three stories where the third floor step back significantly, which

[1:57:46] is the one I'm kind of partial to I guess. I have a couple comments if I may.

[1:57:52] I think we need to be careful we don't get distracted in a conversation that circles around

[1:57:58] architectural style. We chose not to do a PUD which means we can't regulate architectural

[1:58:03] and Mr. Cordino correct me and Jenae if I'm wrong about that, but I don't believe the Florida Statute to allow us to regulate style.

[1:58:11] We could probably regulate volumetrics and to that extent, I think some of what you're proposing here, we could take some cues from.

[1:58:19] But I kind of want to take a step back because I think part of what you're showing or

[1:58:25] most of what you're showing seem to be photographed from Dural and what I heard come out of the community workshop is that's exactly what the community doesn't want to see.

[1:58:33] And

[1:58:38] I think that has less to do with the actual style of the buildings.

[1:58:43] I don't think that that's really what the community has gotten stuck on.

[1:58:49] And I think my colleague, Mr. Napier, has put his finger on exactly what that is.

[1:58:55] And that is larger setbacks that start serving to create less of an urban community,

[1:59:01] and more of a community that is more closely aligned with what our character is.

[1:59:08] And I think that the notion that we could potentially say, okay, A, B, C, or D is difficult to do right now because I think we need to tackle the big moves first, which are the urbanistic moves.

[1:59:23] Do we have a cul-de-sac community?

[1:59:25] I think if you could advance your slides to the back of the townhomes, this is the concern that I've heard expressed and I've shared myself.

[1:59:34] is that if we're not careful what we'll wind up creating is what you see at the end which is these interior environments, this and that one, and that one, and one more, and that one, this is board member discussion.

[1:59:56] And here's the thing.

[1:59:59] I mean, yes.

[2:00:00] This may not be visible from the public right of way, but it's a cold to sack community, so the only public right of way is the perimeter of the actual property. But what the community has said that they want to see is more integrated street grid. And so if we are integrating a street grid and having an urbanistic design that that allows for this, then this will also be part of the public view, but even if it wasn't, and even if this was just for the exclusive use of the residents that live here. Is that the quality of life that we want to

[2:00:29] to build, or do we want to raise the bar a little bit?

[2:00:34] I guess that's the question that I'd have and how.

[2:00:39] What is your suggestion?

[2:00:46] I think that we should talk about integrated street grid

[2:00:50] and what that might look like and how that gets executed.

[2:00:53] I think we should talk about step backs.

[2:00:58] I think we should talk about set backs.

[2:01:00] I think we should talk about parking.

[2:01:03] I think all of that comes into play.

[2:01:05] All of that ultimately comes together to form what becomes a successful or unsuccessful urban design.

[2:01:12] And I think that the code that we're looking to craft needs to address those items.

[2:01:20] And I think we've got a great point of departure.

[2:01:23] It's the chart that you presented to Mr. Cordino earlier, which is the product of the last workshop where the community

[2:01:32] He said what they want to see.

[2:01:33] I think we could probably take that somewhat successfully into a first draft of his

[2:01:38] owning code, and I would ask Mr. Poradino if he would think that that would be an appropriate

[2:01:47] next step, or if there's more discussion to be had about it.

[2:01:53] Here, John.

[2:01:54] Can I?

[2:01:55] Yeah, please.

[2:01:56] I have a,

[2:01:59] I think it's somewhat disingenuous for us to talk about a grid step mark, any

[2:02:04] place for Miami Shores. I live east of 19th 10th Avenue and in the city of Miami Shores

[2:02:14] east of northeast 10th Avenue there is one way to come in and one way to come out. And

[2:02:20] if you think this is unattractive you should drive up and down our alleys that we have in

[2:02:25] Miami Shores because they're not overwhelmingly attractive either and we have to understand

[2:02:30] And there are things that come with being able to provide services to people.

[2:02:35] You know, the same thing is on Northeast 6th Avenue, once you leave 96th Street, there's no way you can go west until you get to St.

[2:02:49] Rose of Lima. I mean, this city is very divided up in terms of having grids and access to it, and I really think it's close to

[2:02:58] obstructionists to want to concentrate on this. I saw these pictures. I was somewhat disappointed,

[2:03:07] but I also have been in shopping malls and other places where there are areas that are set up

[2:03:14] to provide trash, garbage, and relatively few of them are extremely attractive. These seem to be

[2:03:24] They seem to be relatively well maintained, and I think we need to understand there are some things that just come with the turf when you're going to set up ways to have garbage and trash picked up.

[2:03:40] So, I mean, what, Brandon, what, what density would you surmise this development is that we're looking at units per acre?

[2:03:54] It would be ours proposing 12 units per acre.

[2:03:57] It would be a wild guess on my part, but I suspect that it's fairly close to what they're proposing for us.

[2:04:04] That's based on the site plan that is in this presentation.

[2:04:08] I see the qubits, if we had the benefit of looking at this development that you photographed from an aerial perspective and you overlaid that on the site plan, I feel like they would be remarkably similar.

[2:04:20] And I think the question comes down to how big are these units versus the units that we're going to program, and ultimately that winds up either reducing or increasing the density.

[2:04:32] But I think it's pretty clear here, these are single car garages, and I believe I heard

[2:04:40] a sonar's offering two car garages with certain exceptions, like that.

[2:04:45] That's a two car garage, right?

[2:04:48] So it's probably that is an area of the development that's likely less dense,

[2:04:52] But I would think that probably that one air

[2:05:00] The area is likely less dense than what they're proposing for the shores. But again, I think what I heard them say is density is going to be almost randomly scattered throughout the site in terms of the number of stories, at least. The number of unit sizes, I don't think one area of the site is going to be exclusively larger units in another area is going to be exclusively smaller. It's probably a random distribution pattern.

[2:05:29] that if they're going to do that qubit approach, it's probably going to be some function of how that works on the corners, probably they're bigger, on the infill sites are probably smaller.

[2:05:39] It's probably similar to this, and I don't know.

[2:05:45] I understand, and I hear Mr. Brady's point, and I understand that east of 10th Avenue, we only have one way in and one way out.

[2:05:52] But these are single family homes, and we do have a street grid that ostensibly matches the rest of the shores there.

[2:06:04] Regardless of whether it's one way in and one way out.

[2:06:06] It just happens to be that that one way out spills out into US one which is designed to handle that kind of throughput.

[2:06:12] Northwest 5th Avenue by contrast is not.

[2:06:16] And I think we're getting into maybe two different kinds of the conversation.

[2:06:19] We're getting into a conversation that has to do with style and we're getting into conversation that has to do with urban design.

[2:06:27] I think I've heard the communities say that, and I think that was captured in the Cordino report that a more integrated street grid seems to be the direction that people wanted to go.

[2:06:39] So, let me ask you, I mean, the comp plan has specified this area as 13 units per acre, right?

[2:06:45] Right?

[2:06:47] Yes.

[2:06:48] For Grove Saker.

[2:06:50] And if we're figuring this is probably about 13 units per acre, then, and if everybody wants more wide open spaces and such,

[2:07:00] then how would the developer or how would this property be developed to me, the allowable 13 units per acre, then?

[2:07:08] Allowable 13 units per acre, doesn't matter than a multi-family look, right?

[2:07:13] Just because the comprehensive plan said that 13 years break or were allowed,

[2:07:17] doesn't mean that that's guaranteed.

[2:07:19] In fact, there's a section in the comprehensive plan that specifically states that

[2:07:22] the application of a zoning code will likely reduce that density.

[2:07:26] It's ultimately up to us to decide what we want to see as a community and that very

[2:07:30] well may further reduce the density that's achievable in this site.

[2:07:33] Now,

[2:07:36] I think the question then becomes from a developer standpoint, and also for

[2:07:41] us on the board, is that still pencilable?

[2:07:44] Does that still make economic in financial sense?

[2:07:47] Can you sell a unit at that price point, and at the necessary price point that it must

[2:07:53] be sold in order to make financial sense for the developer in the land seller, does that

[2:07:57] still work economically?

[2:07:59] I would venture to say that it does, and the reason why I say that is because I have a bit

[2:08:03] of a development background as you know, but let's just say from Lehman's terms, look on an

[2:08:14] They're also affiliated with the prestigious neighborhood like Miami Shores.

[2:08:17] It just simply doesn't exist.

[2:08:19] And Lunar has already showed by example what they're doing in West Aventura,

[2:08:23] which is actually not even in Aventura, and it's less density than what they're proposing here.

[2:08:28] So somewhere in long line, the metrics, I believe, will work.

[2:08:32] And I don't think we should be stuck on this idea that we need to guarantee that whatever plan comes out needs to maximize the number of units.

[2:08:40] That was just merely a guideline that can be deviated

[2:08:44] from depending on what the community says

[2:08:46] they want to see on that site.

[2:08:48] I think everything needs to be in balance

[2:08:49] and needs to be within reason,

[2:08:51] but I don't think anything that came out of that workshop

[2:08:53] that summarized in that chart is unreasonable.

[2:08:56] Actually, I think it's quite reasonable.

[2:08:59] Thank you.

[2:09:01] Oh, here.

[2:09:05] So while this probably isn't the prettiest view,

[2:09:11] It's pretty indicative of the built environment in many places and you know where I am in the shores, I don't use the front of the house barely even use the only person who uses the front door is the mailman.

[2:09:29] I'm coming in through the alley, and that's where I'm traversing, so it's not the prettiest view, but I think the price point of the product will dictate the level of maintenance in that alley, so I'm not so concerned about that, I'd be more concerned about the front of the property.

[2:09:52] Joe you asked a question about the porch going into the to the setback. I think you you have to kind of

[2:10:00] Find what's the porch? Because is the porch the just the entrance feature going in on to the first level? Or is the porch that plus the same thing on the second floor plus the same thing on the third floor? So that's a ton of mass that you're putting in the setback. So if it was just a porch, I think I'm OK with an entrance feature going into the setback on that occasion.

[2:10:29] but I don't think I'd want that porch feature being more than on the first level.

[2:10:39] No, open, but not, I would say not above the first level, that if it's going to be a porch, a porch is a porch.

[2:10:50] That's not a porch, to me, that's not a porch, that's, that is an entrance feature on the ground floor and a patio.

[2:10:59] a patio, a balcony on the second floor.

[2:11:02] To me, that's on a porch.

[2:11:03] A porch is an entrance feature off of the ground floor

[2:11:07] into the front door, and that's kind of where it stops.

[2:11:10] So, Joe, you asked the questions, kind of just giving the answer.

[2:11:14] So, I just had a couple of notes and I kind of thought we would...

[2:11:20] Okay, so that to me is on a porch.

[2:11:25] Now, the bottom is a porch.

[2:11:27] The second is not a porch, so that, to me,

[2:11:29] is not what I would be envisioning going into the setback because it includes mass above the ground floor.

[2:11:39] If

[2:11:43] you're thinking where would the setback be applied on this structure?

[2:11:48] If it's using what seems to have been presented?

[2:11:52] But would it scale the same thing on the wall?

[2:11:56] No, it would be the front, they had columns coming.

[2:12:03] I guess if you go back to the farther point, just on that same picture, but

[2:12:08] down the back, the five foot mark would be on that-

[2:12:12] The front face and the columns?

[2:12:13] Street column, that would be where it would be.

[2:12:16] But typically, the setback would be that solid wall.

[2:12:22] So what I'm kind of in it, Joe asked the question, what are we thinking going into the setback?

[2:12:29] I'm thinking just an entrance feature over the ground floor that protects the front door,

[2:12:36] but not that mass above it.

[2:12:40] Okay. And then I just had a couple of more comments because I know we're supposed to

[2:12:47] give Joe's stuff to go back and work on. So I would say any new development in this

[2:12:55] zone should not have its back facing the single family homes. So that means the front

[2:13:03] of the new developments along this across the street from the single family homes, I should

[2:13:07] be facing each other. There should be a transition between the existing single family home heights

[2:13:15] and the new development. So something shorter in the front, higher in the back, breaking up the

[2:13:22] massing so there's no concrete walls.

[2:13:32] And then I would also introduce the idea of having a minimum

[2:13:35] and an average unit size.

[2:13:38] So instead of having just one unit size at minimum,

[2:13:43] I would have a minimum and an average.

[2:13:45] So the minimum would allow some smaller units,

[2:13:49] but then also being able to have some larger units

[2:13:52] and hitting the average.

[2:13:54] We've gotten a lot of comments about how

[2:13:58] to make new development in this zone

[2:14:01] available to people of different income levels. So I think if we have some

[2:14:08] different size units that may insist in that regard. So that's all I have.

[2:14:15] How do we feel on height?

[2:14:21] Two stories, three stories, 35 feet.

[2:14:28] Anybody have a

[2:14:29] strong feeling? I would be willing to give people more height for more setback.

[2:14:34] So, if they actually go from the 5 to the 15, and they think they need to go to 35-40,

[2:14:41] I think again, as we mentioned, is part of the comp plan talks about two sets of things

[2:14:51] that don't have anything to do with zoning that, well, have to do.

[2:14:54] One is the idea of there's supposed to be some provisions for affordable housing

[2:14:58] and to the

[2:15:00] The bill is supposed to have a diversity of housing rights, the creation of the CR code is designed to do that. And we don't want to create a zoning code that makes it impossible for anybody who develops the site, not to be able to have some affordability. 75 foot wide townhouses just don't occur in the real world.

[2:15:28] and are really just an attempt to say don't build poundhouses.

[2:15:32] So I think I would suggest that we have to think about that in terms of talking about

[2:15:37] what we're going to do.

[2:15:38] I think the idea of a minimum and a maximum size or an average size is a good way to go.

[2:15:44] I assume most of these will be two and three bedroom?

[2:15:52] Okay. So as far as high, what do you have? What is your opinion? I mean, mine was

[2:16:00] allow three stories. Why? Because they're putting a two-car garage in there. If you have a two-car

[2:16:05] garage, you need some more space. So three stories with the third floor step back, kind of similar to

[2:16:15] what I've got on the screen here, so it looks, are

[2:16:26] you finished?

[2:16:30] So the third floor step back, which makes it look less opposing, I think like this does.

[2:16:37] And 35 feet was a number that I was kind of considering any comments on that.

[2:16:43] The community said 33.6 feet as the average, which translates to 2.6 stories.

[2:16:49] So unless you're in a Monty Python movie, you really can't do the half story.

[2:16:54] I think 35 feet probably is probably okay.

[2:16:59] And I agree with you Mr. Bolton that as long as there's a step back there at the third story,

[2:17:04] and also you Mr. O'Hara that that shouldn't be fronting a single family residential house.

[2:17:10] I think we could probably figure out some zoning code that we could write that would address all those items that could be okay with that.

[2:17:15] Due

[2:17:23] to the two-car garage, you know, we talked about, I know 35 feet seems to be the, the, the, so far the consensus.

[2:17:33] I'm fine with 37 feet, 38 feet, due to the two-car garage, to give them some extra height on those first and second levels.

[2:17:43] That's my personal opinion.

[2:17:45] Thank you.

[2:17:51] front and rear setbacks so I mean help me with this so we know that the front setbacks

[2:18:00] are right here right so Joe explain the rear setbacks where where do the rear setbacks

[2:18:09] apply in this thing in the back of the development are it in the alleyway areas or do we need

[2:18:17] We need to even specify a rear setback.

[2:18:21] Where's the rear setback here?

[2:18:30] Could it look like it's right on the edge of road?

[2:18:42] But on the left side, it looks like there is possibly a setback, right?

[2:18:53] Does this have a rear setback?

[2:19:04] Brandon, you have any comments on rear setbacks, front setbacks?

[2:19:09] Well, I mean, I think if it's in an alley, we could generally permit a little less,

[2:19:14] as long as we're addressing parking sufficiently through another mean.

[2:19:16] But if we are looking to, again, match the character of the shores, then parking would be within the actual unit.

[2:19:26] We talked about a two car parking garage.

[2:19:29] I think that there was sentiment at one point for four cars, noting that that was two cars in addition or

[2:19:36] an access to what our residential district will allow.

[2:19:41] I think we just need to solve that there's sufficient amount of parking.

[2:19:44] And if that is going to be at the rear, vis-a-vis additional parking that's dedicated to the actual owner of the town home rather than separate guest spaces, well then that we are set back should probably address that.

[2:19:57] Absent of that, as Mr. O'Hara pointed out.

[2:20:00] And also, I also relate, because I live on a property that has an alley, 95% of the time I'm entering from the alley. And our alley is not bad. But it definitely doesn't feel like a canyon like this one does, because the homes are required to have rear yard setbacks that are significantly larger than this. I think that's probably not realistic for a town home, but I think that this question as to whether or not the rear set yard,

[2:20:29] But rear yard setback is sufficient to allow for parking or not is going to be a function of how we solve the parking problem.

[2:20:38] So if we solve it a different way and the parking is not in the rear, only the two car parking garage but the additional excess parking is elsewhere, then I would say that we needed at least five feet, maybe 10 feet.

[2:20:49] The community said 9.3 feet, I think, so that would be closer to 10 feet.

[2:20:55] That's not enough to accommodate additional parking spaces, so I would say probably at least five feet in the rear yard.

[2:21:06] Unless it fronts what essentially is another frontage, in that case I think we need a different requirement there.

[2:21:16] I would agree.

[2:21:16] Do you have any comments on setbacks?

[2:21:21] Well, again, I think you want to not produce so little available space to build a building

[2:21:28] that no one can do it economically.

[2:21:32] Maybe two or three feet something to say you're not really up against a wall,

[2:21:37] but ten feet strikes me as excessive.

[2:21:42] Again, the idea is that this is more urban living

[2:21:46] than most of us apparently are used to.

[2:21:52] So when I grew up in New York, I lived in a set of rural houses,

[2:21:59] where basically between the two houses you could never open the car door.

[2:22:05] You had to wait until you got back to the backyard where the garage was

[2:22:09] or you parked on the street and I think again we have to have some understanding

[2:22:14] that there are some economics of scale and plus dynamics that we need to at least speak

[2:22:20] somewhat sensitive to.

[2:22:24] So, Brandon, this is probably what a five foot setback would look like.

[2:22:29] Five foot with a two-hour garage and a little bit of green space.

[2:22:32] Probably.

[2:22:33] So I like it.

[2:22:34] I think that would be the minimum.

[2:22:37] Much better than this.

[2:22:39] Yeah.

[2:22:42] Okay.

[2:22:47] Parking, parking is a big issue because nobody wants cars clustered everywhere, comments on parking?

[2:22:57] Well, what I heard the NAR Proffer was two parking spaces per unit and then an additional 73 gas spaces.

[2:23:05] That comes out to 2.26 spaces per unit and what the consensus was from our workshop, I believe was 2.6.

[2:23:12] So although I'm not seeing that jump out off the page of me right now, yes, 2.6 spaces per unit.

[2:23:18] So I think we're almost there.

[2:23:20] I think the question is going to be about how that parking is distributed.

[2:23:26] If we have these 23 and a half or 25 acres, whatever the total area is,

[2:23:33] I think that the zoning code needs to suggest or require rather that all of that gas parking isn't just in one spot,

[2:23:41] but rather distributed such that the walk to get from one spot to another is not too long.

[2:23:46] Otherwise, we're going to wind up having an issue where people are parking on soils.

[2:23:52] So, let's say someone has a little birthday party at the green space there.

[2:23:58] And 20 of their friends come all in their own car.

[2:24:02] I mean, that's my vision is you get cars parking on top of each other and stuff like that.

[2:24:08] So that that would be a concern. I'm wondering if something like this

[2:24:13] They would have like a little lot in the front or somewhere inside the the development

[2:24:18] With 20 spaces or something like that, you know where people can park instead of

[2:24:23] Trying to parallel park in front of the houses and anything like that. So

[2:24:28] Yeah parking is is the issue because it seems like

[2:24:33] It always is not enough

[2:24:35] Do you have any comments on parking?

[2:24:39] No, you're probably right.

[2:24:41] It is never enough.

[2:24:43] I'm not sure how you are.

[2:24:45] I'm not sure where, at least on this site,

[2:24:49] when you would create a lot of parking lots.

[2:24:56] Go ahead, comments?

[2:24:58] I would say more parking.

[2:25:02] And I think when you go to the to that rear setback, I think the rear setback should be small enough that a car cannot park on it to create. Essentially, those are essentially their streets. So it should be something, it shouldn't be 10 feet because then you could essentially park a car in it. So I'd say five feet so that you're not having a whole load of.

[2:25:29] cars back there because essentially that's the street of those units but I think more

[2:25:35] parking is needed because there's nowhere for people to go. You're not in a, you know,

[2:25:44] there's no bus corridor, there's no commercial zone, you're going to park in. It's like if

[2:25:51] you are living there, you are going to have to have a vehicle. You're not in a commercial

[2:25:58] corridor. Let me ask Joe a question. The street on the north side of this

[2:26:05] development, what street is that? One-fifteenth. Is there, or does anybody here know

[2:26:12] is there parallel parking or off street parking along one-fifteenth here?

[2:26:19] I don't see if so. So what direction do we give Joe as far as parking?

[2:26:29] I work with

[2:26:32] I mean, let's give them direction as far as what our vision is as far as numbers of units and quantity.

[2:26:38] I'd ask a question.

[2:26:40] We're going to have two and three-bedroom units.

[2:26:42] Does anybody think that a three-bedroom unit is only going to have two cars?

[2:26:48] And if the case is that, yeah, they're going to have more than two cars because it's the parents and

[2:26:55] then eventually at least one kid or two kids are going to have cars, that translates

[2:27:00] relates into up to four cars.

[2:27:02] Maybe that average is somewhere around three,

[2:27:04] four, three bedroom, but we're only providing two,

[2:27:07] and then the rest are supposedly guest spots.

[2:27:09] But those guest spots are going to be consumed

[2:27:11] by the actual residents leaving no guest spots.

[2:27:15] Then we have the shores only park on the west side,

[2:27:19] which is going to attract people,

[2:27:20] and no parking available for that.

[2:27:23] Although the community said 2.6 spaces,

[2:27:25] I feel like we're still painting ourselves into a corner with that.

[2:27:28] I would think that we need to up that number a bit.

[2:27:33] So two dedicated per unit and then what's the right number for additional spaces for visitors?

[2:27:40] I would say three parking spaces required for a three bedroom, two parking spaces required for a two bedroom,

[2:27:47] and then keep the same ratio one to ten on guest.

[2:27:50] No.

[2:27:51] That would be my profit.

[2:27:52] What we should realize is for regularly approved garage conversions that take the garages out of houses and all we require is people have the ability to park two cars on their property.

[2:28:07] To be honest with you, I think that that has been an ongoing problem that hasn't reared itself yet but will likely because people are starting the park on swales and people have been paving swales.

[2:28:17] And now we have that new ordinance that's coming through about purveousness.

[2:28:21] That's going to become an increasing problem.

[2:28:24] I could park nine cars at my house if I really needed to, legally, even though the code only requires two.

[2:28:31] Most single family homes in the shores will have made provisions for at least four cars, most, but not all.

[2:28:38] Our code just doesn't require it.

[2:28:42] And we don't want people parking on the streets or in half way in that five foot swale area behind it, and then blocking it.

[2:28:50] Yeah. What about articulation setbacks? I mean articulation and such. You know, my comment

[2:29:02] was I like the third floor stepped back.

[2:29:07] Let me find the one I was referring to.

[2:29:18] Step

[2:29:19] I want to provide Joe on articulation, stepbacks, et cetera.

[2:29:30] Brandon, lead us here.

[2:29:34] I agree with you, Mr. Bolton.

[2:29:35] I think a third story, step back is appropriate and necessary.

[2:29:40] I think we should also talk about other ways of controlling volumetrics and

[2:29:45] maybe take a page out of what we've done in the recent temporary zoning code or

[2:29:49] that temporary in the recent zoning code that we passed.

[2:29:52] Where we talked about percentages of volumetric expression based on light width, there could

[2:29:58] be something that we could.

[2:30:00] We could borrow from that to create a little bit more expression.

[2:30:04] Since we're unable to regulate style, we can regulate volumetrics.

[2:30:12] What FAR would we be looking at here in this picture? Joe,

[2:30:24] gut feeling.

[2:30:29] What FARs were we discussing in our previous discussions?

[2:30:37] .7. Yeah, I think the community would claim .7. The original draft was .65.

[2:30:42] five. The comp plan allows up to one. The closer, I mean, it's all, it's all, uh, do you

[2:30:49] think three stories would exceed 0.7? Depending on the setback, more like a one to have

[2:30:55] some three-story option? I think this is per block, though. It's not, it's not the way we,

[2:31:00] it's not the way we, yeah, it's not the way we apply it on single family lots. I think

[2:31:04] it's per, per quadrant or per block, uh, correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, we need to decide

[2:31:07] that and so that's that's something we'll draft if it were per lot I would

[2:31:12] recommend higher and and here's the thing I don't really know that FAR is

[2:31:17] going to be a much of a controlling factor here if I think we should focus on

[2:31:22] volumetric to think we should focus on stepbacks study where FAR is if it's

[2:31:27] unusually high maybe second guess the way we're going I maybe maybe

[2:31:32] So we still are just throwing the number out there of that and developing the site we're using.

[2:31:40] I wouldn't know where to guess on a gross acreage standpoint, I wouldn't know where to guess.

[2:31:45] Complain suggests one, I mean we might want to go with that or not even wrenching it at all, right?

[2:31:50] Because FAR typically isn't measured in residential, and we can, yeah, so this is floor area ratio per acreage.

[2:31:59] I mean, not like a lot, not like the single-family FAR.

[2:32:04] But yeah, if that's the way we want to write it, yes, I make sense in these terms because you've got one kind of long building that is multiple units.

[2:32:16] I mean, I'll bring something back and we can just mull it over then, but either leave it at one or pull it out and regulate everything with height and

[2:32:27] that backs, but the complaint does mention, and they are.

[2:32:31] Oh, does it?

[2:32:32] I think it says one, right?

[2:32:34] Oh, two.

[2:32:36] So you can't exceed one.

[2:32:37] All right, okay.

[2:32:38] Which kind of gives us the number.

[2:32:41] All right.

[2:32:43] That's good.

[2:32:46] I guess I'd like to discuss articulation.

[2:32:49] See if we can, and I'm making notes here

[2:32:52] so that we can maybe summarize this for you at the end.

[2:32:56] And I don't know if that means we need to make a resolution with the summary or if

[2:33:02] we just provide our comments and guidance to Joe.

[2:33:06] You're doing it now.

[2:33:07] Consensus, okay.

[2:33:08] Yeah, I'd say that.

[2:33:10] And I'll summarize it at the end.

[2:33:11] Yeah, that's fine.

[2:33:14] So I guess further discussion, building expression, articulation, any comments on that?

[2:33:21] That,

[2:33:24] Brandon, you want to leave us?

[2:33:28] Well, the community suggested that, and I think it's also a little bit to do with how the questions were posed, that there would be both the second story and the third story step back, the way that it's narrated in that chart was just for the benefit of everybody else was 15% of lot with for the second story step back so the second story would actually have a more greater step back than the third, and I think the community came out with 15.5%

[2:33:54] and 10.6. I'm very close to what I think we started with. I think that that's

[2:34:03] probably... I would say that probably works. What do you think about this photo

[2:34:07] I have off? So what's the step back there for the third floor? Well the interesting

[2:34:12] thing is the start of the ground floor. If you're looking at the corner, the

[2:34:15] ground floor is already stepped back and so it allows the second floor to be

[2:34:19] co-planar with the ground floor, which creates an interesting volumetric expression between

[2:34:24] the corner and the next townhome unit.

[2:34:27] I'm assuming that's another townhome unit to the right of it.

[2:34:30] That creates some expression, some undulation, if you will, in the facade.

[2:34:33] Otherwise, we're wind up having a flat wall.

[2:34:35] I don't think anyone wants that.

[2:34:36] The third floor step back being greater, I think, seems to make a lot of sense, because it

[2:34:42] dematerializes that mass and makes the ultimate structure feel lower, which is exactly what

[2:34:46] you said earlier.

[2:34:47] I think that's successful and I don't think there's anybody that would complain about that.

[2:34:52] So if we want to try to codify that.

[2:34:54] So option B, we like the articulation expressed in option B.

[2:35:01] As far as giving jokes and guidance. Joe, do you think you can run with something like that?

[2:35:08] Yes.

[2:35:14] Dan? Yeah, I mean, that looks to me like it comes out. It doesn't articulate in it. The third floor sets back because it's word for the fact. And I think what we want to really try to do is to break up the mass of the whole line of townhouses, rather than kind of each individual townhouse and how you figure out

[2:35:37] out that you have some less mass as you go down the street than you do in a single unit.

[2:35:45] So I mean I like the articulation. I think it's important to do something on the first

[2:35:49] and second and third floor. I'm not sure it has to be a whole mass, but it needs to be

[2:35:57] enough that you kind of break up the flat wall look of a line of townhouses.

[2:36:06] And I'm not

[2:36:07] I think here you're looking at, if you look at the town home units as they go down the entire building,

[2:36:13] they're each different for sods, right?

[2:36:14] The first one is step back with the balcony.

[2:36:16] The second one is more traditional.

[2:36:19] The third one has a balcony, but the balcony appears to be pushed forward with a different roof line.

[2:36:26] So each of the, almost each of the frontages is a little bit different.

[2:36:29] It's got a different facade on it.

[2:36:30] So, you would say this photo, there's a lot of articulation expressed here.

[2:36:39] I think every one of those units looks different one way or the other,

[2:36:44] which I think is what you're aiming at trying to achieve, right?

[2:36:49] So, theoretically, the worst case scenario is somebody built a rectangular box

[2:36:53] that was simply the same frontage the whole time with no window treatments or anything like that.

[2:37:00] And in these cases, right, they simply don't do that.

[2:37:03] Now, that's kind of more of what you don't like this thing.

[2:37:06] I think that option, yeah, that's like very little articulation.

[2:37:10] That's as little as possible.

[2:37:13] I mean, that looks like they built the box and they've stuck a balcony on it that hangs out.

[2:37:21] And I don't think that's what you're gunning for, but I think that option B was something that

[2:37:26] the community respond well to because it's even that but I think even more so because

[2:37:33] that's still a box but the third floor the difference is not a step back right so

[2:37:40] you know you're right I mean that when you're stepping that third floor back you

[2:37:43] almost don't you step that way back on option B you it disappeared a lot more yeah

[2:37:48] Yeah, it's almost like, you can't see it.

[2:37:53] What do you think about it?

[2:37:55] So I don't know how you write that language.

[2:37:57] You said we don't want to be in the corner.

[2:38:01] I think we're seeing a couple of things here.

[2:38:04] I think the corner we're seeing a lower height.

[2:38:07] And we're seeing the height start to build

[2:38:09] as we get to the center of the actual block.

[2:38:12] And whether that's a block that's arranged on our street grid

[2:38:15] or whether that's a block that's arranged in a cul-de-sac fashion,

[2:38:17] and I think the two probably are the languages the same.

[2:38:22] I think that from an articulation of mass standpoint,

[2:38:26] the previous example you have was more successful.

[2:38:28] I agree, and I think we could probably codify something

[2:38:33] that pushes an applicant in that direction.

[2:38:43] There are

[2:38:47] also one more comment.

[2:38:49] I think when we talk about setbacks,

[2:38:50] We talk about 15 foot as a minimum.

[2:38:53] Lunar already profits a variation in that setback.

[2:38:57] They were looking at between 15 feet and 17.5.

[2:39:02] What we're seeing there is more of a setback than the difference.

[2:39:07] It's more than a two and a half foot setback.

[2:39:09] So maybe we look at a difference between 15 and 20 feet instead of 17.5.

[2:39:15] That would give it a little bit more articulation.

[2:39:17] and perhaps we could talk about a maximum number of units that can be co-planar with each other

[2:39:23] before a step back is required.

[2:39:28] I think that's a little deceiving though in terms of what we're talking about because there's

[2:39:35] no setback there. If you add a 17 foot setback, I mean 15 foot setback, then that articulation is

[2:39:43] and I have to be quite as extensive as it is.

[2:39:51] If you go back to the slide with, I guess it was a two-store,

[2:39:56] I don't know if that was D,

[2:39:58] would actually have the set back.

[2:40:03] That's it. Now picture.

[2:40:07] Articulation of the three stories set back with the 15 foot set back. And although that's not 15 feet, that's probably about. 10 feet at the most. 10 to 8 feet. So with the 15 foot set back. You've got quite a big difference between what we're actually looking at and so it's deceiving to look at that and think the articulation that we're looking at here is going to be the same.

[2:40:32] What do you think they're not going to be able to have this much setback and the amount of articulation that we're discussing?

[2:40:44] Correct.

[2:40:45] Because it'll just eat too much into the space of the development of the actual townhouse.

[2:40:52] Does that make sense?

[2:40:55] I think we can still consider a variation from 15 to 17.5 at a minimum.

[2:41:03] I think that there's instances where 20 feet could also be considered.

[2:41:07] I'm not opposed to more.

[2:41:09] I mean, just because we have a bigger step back doesn't mean that we're still going to create a canyon if we don't properly articulate that mass.

[2:41:16] If you drive trying to think of an example that is appropriate and nothing's coming to mind.

[2:41:24] But what I will say is this, regardless of the setback, we're only talking about a 15 foot setback.

[2:41:31] We currently have 25 foot setbacks in the art districts.

[2:41:34] If every single house was contiguous with a shared party wall,

[2:41:41] and there were no articulations of the mass,

[2:41:44] it would look like a canyon as this picture does.

[2:41:47] The only thing that's providing this articulation

[2:41:49] is the balcony.

[2:41:52] But you can easily and readily perceive

[2:41:53] the building mass behind it as having no articulation.

[2:41:58] And I think that that would, in my opinion,

[2:42:03] miss the mark.

[2:42:04] I think we should push for more articulation of that mass.

[2:42:08] I agree as well and I mean I just throw out an idea and I don't know if it could be written

[2:42:19] into the code but I think of a site this large I don't know if we can introduce a requirement

[2:42:29] to have some different architectural styles not heights not masses but kind of many neighborhoods

[2:42:38] within the same project, because if you're kind of looking at this site plan, you have East, West, and the Center kind of different things going on within the site, different colors, different, that they all don't have to look like that repetitive throughout the site,

[2:43:03] does that make sense?

[2:43:05] How do you do that?

[2:43:07] It's not going to be a requirement.

[2:43:10] So the draft that you guys currently have,

[2:43:13] and that was available,

[2:43:16] it indicated certain architectural features,

[2:43:20] styles, materials,

[2:43:22] but it was should,

[2:43:24] may, should, you know,

[2:43:27] permissive not must.

[2:43:29] So, you just have to keep that in mind

[2:43:32] that these are suggestions, so to say.

[2:43:37] You can create some language that would do what he's suggesting?

[2:43:42] We can encourage it, but we cannot require it.

[2:43:46] I think there's a massive opportunity to do something special

[2:43:53] and to not do the typical townhome development

[2:43:57] that we would see throughout South Florida.

[2:44:00] I'll leave it there.

[2:44:02] So we could put some language and say, do you score points or something before doing

[2:44:07] that?

[2:44:08] I'm sorry.

[2:44:10] You could create some language that would encourage them to do that, which you probably

[2:44:14] can't squire.

[2:44:15] So we've discussed this several times.

[2:44:19] The Florida law prevents us from requiring certain things.

[2:44:23] And so, as drafted now, it is language that encourages or provide, you know, suggestions

[2:44:31] in terms of style and materials.

[2:44:35] And so, along those same lines, we can do that, but just keep in mind of we do have,

[2:44:42] what is that, choose that, prevail.

[2:44:45] If we went, I mean, I don't want to open up something, but if we went with the PUD, that's

[2:44:51] the only way we could have regulated that.

[2:44:54] No, the PUD would have had to be if I recall correctly from the statute.

[2:45:00] Would have had to already been established. No, that's designed review boards. It's specifically is in, it's in the statute that says PUDs are exempt from that. It's one of the reasons why I asked to go down the road. I think that too is associated with a time frame, but I'll double check for you. I don't think I think that ship sailed. I don't think we can go back to a PUD, but if we could, then that would do a couple of things for the community. One, which wouldn't be conceptual, we would wind up arriving at a site plan that

[2:45:29] people knew that's what's going to get built and we could put into place some requirements that Mr.

[2:45:36] Brady has asked for and Mr. Harris asked for as well with regards to styles.

[2:45:42] Otherwise, its suggestions could, would, should, didn't.

[2:45:54] So I got on my agenda here just I guess two more discussion items for

[2:45:59] us to opine on a little bit and then maybe try to express a summary.

[2:46:06] And plot standards,

[2:46:11] minimum plot standards were suggested at five acres, et cetera.

[2:46:17] Any comments, questions, discussion on plot standards?

[2:46:24] Brandon, you want to lead us?

[2:46:27] Sorry for making you lead.

[2:46:32] Well, the community asked for 6.6 acres from the five.

[2:46:37] I guess,

[2:46:41] and I think the intent was, you have this 25-acre sector, 28-acre sector, whatever it is,

[2:46:55] should we be allowing the CR district to be applied to a lot size that's smaller than that?

[2:47:02] And if so, what is that smaller size?

[2:47:07] I think we need to be careful in allowing the CR District to expand as a default.

[2:47:17] And so when we have this minimum acreage size so small, and I don't know, I'm going to

[2:47:24] use an example, the School of Pedrietry, for example, I don't know if that is, I don't

[2:47:30] know what the acreage of that school is, an additional portion of the Barry University

[2:47:34] to be property if they were still inclined to sell another part of it.

[2:47:37] I don't know what that acreage might be.

[2:47:39] But if we want to try to

[2:47:45] take what we're approving this evening or not this evening,

[2:47:51] but as part of this process and make it implementable, then I would almost think

[2:47:56] that that lot size should be the plot standards that it should be increased in size,

[2:48:02] Unless I'm understanding the application of this, and please, Mr. Court, if I have that backwards in any way.

[2:48:13] No, I think with the plot.

[2:48:15] Does that mean if it's five acres, could this 23 acres be divided, five acres could be single family residences built on it?

[2:48:27] And then another five acres, a multi-family development build on it.

[2:48:32] And then the last 15 acres of townhouse development, is that what that means?

[2:48:38] That's by understanding they can cut it up into the five acre increments, right?

[2:48:44] And develop those five acres.

[2:48:46] So the minimum size development you get is five acre development, and it could be whatever that they had proposed on that five.

[2:48:52] What is our vision? I mean, let's say, you know, Lunar walks from this and then we're stuck with five acre plots.

[2:49:04] We want bigger numbers, any comments?

[2:49:09] I never particularly understood the reason for reducing it from the whole 25 acre plot because I would think that we want to have that whole area developed by one developer at one time.

[2:49:24] time rather than having five developers over the next 30 years develop five

[2:49:30] eight contracts. I mean I don't I don't know if it really means anything

[2:49:35] besides saying that they're five eight contracts and at least my understanding

[2:49:40] over time has been that Barry's plan was to get one person to develop the whole

[2:49:48] thing and Lamar's plan when it purchases or finalizes to purchase is to

[2:49:54] developed the whole thing at one time, though the nature of the development has changed

[2:50:06] I don't know if it matters, if it matters, then keep it at five. If it doesn't matter, I would think you'd want to take the whole slot and have it, the whole property and have it. It might be the opposite. So, if it matters, then we actually increase it to match the current size of this proposal. Why? Because we, we, we,

[2:50:29] We understand that this is at the current time a single developer looking to develop this and we cannot possibly envision what multiple developers might do with this code.

[2:50:40] We could always amend this code later on.

[2:50:43] This is codified and we say it's 23.5 acres as the minimum.

[2:50:47] That essentially guarantees that only one developer is going to take this, it's one concept there.

[2:50:52] They have, it's one developer that needs to answer to the community rather than an assortment of different developers that need to answer to the community, and ultimately if something should happen, the development doesn't move forward for whatever reason, if it's later identified that that's the issue, we could always come back and amend that, but I think the safe road might be to make that the size of the actual 23 and a half acres or 25, we're all confused as to what the exact acreage is, but whatever that is,

[2:51:22] just make it that right

[2:51:28] if I may just the circle back I just want to verify for the record my

[2:51:33] recollection of the law was correct that regardless of whether it's a PUD or not if it was not in

[2:51:40] place prior to July 1st 2023 we cannot enforce certain architectural standards so that's where we are

[2:51:48] Thanks for the clarification.

[2:51:51] All right, so I'm just to move on from the plot. So Brandon's of the opinion

[2:51:57] The full 23 acres

[2:52:00] Or whatever the 23 the developer a

[2:52:05] Developable acreage be

[2:52:08] Restricted to the lot size any other opinion on that any

[2:52:14] opposing opinions to it

[2:52:17] Yeah, I'm kind of just thinking

[2:52:21] you know, about the architectural style things, that if you thought about this as two separate

[2:52:28] sites divided by a road, where you, if you had, you could have that what's labeled as

[2:52:38] the West parcel,

[2:52:40] be a development in one, in one architectural style, and then cite to

[2:52:48] to the East parcel, something in a different architectural style, because there would be two

[2:52:56] problems.

[2:52:56] But there's nothing restricting you from doing that if it's still one site.

[2:53:00] I mean, that's just architecture style, in the way I would see it, right?

[2:53:05] Well, I think what you're saying, I think we're in the same owner, same developer, but

[2:53:08] difference in this architectural style.

[2:53:12] I think what you're referring to, Mr. Harris, that if we reduce the size, minimum plot

[2:53:17] that size, then potentially it could be two developers.

[2:53:20] Sure, that's a possibility, but right now, it's just Lanar.

[2:53:25] And they may sell it to somebody else, of course.

[2:53:28] I mean, that happens all the time in the development world.

[2:53:30] We will get an approval on a project and we'll sell it

[2:53:33] and we have no control over what that next person does.

[2:53:36] That's the downfall.

[2:53:37] At least here, we've been going through the process with Lanar.

[2:53:42] There's one single point that we have to go after, so to speak, if they don't honor the

[2:53:50] commitments they've made to us verbally in these meetings, but if it's sold, well, that

[2:53:54] person didn't make those commitments.

[2:53:56] So I think that's the concern to keep the acreage higher, but to address your concern because

[2:54:03] Because we can't regulate building design language, whether or not we're a PUD or otherwise,

[2:54:10] we can only put those suggestions in place that perhaps one side of the site is developed with a certain style and the other is developed with another style.

[2:54:20] We see if the applicant is willing to offer that to us.

[2:54:22] Thank

[2:54:27] you. Any other comments on that landscaping streetscape.

[2:54:34] Our public input study talks

[2:54:41] about sidewalks, parking,

[2:54:48] visitor parking. We discussed those streetscape. I guess in

[2:54:52] that would be common open space percentage so any discussion comments on landscaping

[2:55:00] Street skate, open space requirements that we want to provide some guidance to Joe on.

[2:55:09] In regards to common open green space, it may have to change for parking. If we want more parking, the green space may have to shrink.

[2:55:20] So that needs to be waived in terms of making a suggestion on the amount of green space.

[2:55:30] The alternative to that is that the built space shrinks,

[2:55:35] the project was still canceled.

[2:55:39] So I know I saw here, I thought 20%.

[2:55:46] Let me see, common open space, 20%, the average was higher among the workshop at 39%.

[2:55:55] We'd suggested 20 there, I don't really have my arms around with 20 to 39%.

[2:56:03] Maybe I could ask Lunar a question, just to give us a feel for this, do you have a number

[2:56:11] or an idea on your plot that you showed us, what the percent of green space was?

[2:56:20] Or a common open space?

[2:56:27] Do you have any questions on that, though?

[2:56:32] Thank you for the question.

[2:56:33] We stand presently at approximately 26 percent open space.

[2:56:37] In my open space, I want to emphasize, we mean green landscapes, right, open space,

[2:56:44] as opposed to parking areas, et cetera.

[2:56:46] So, black top, paved areas is not included in that number.

[2:56:52] Okay.

[2:56:52] With sidewalks, walking sidewalks and grass and landscaping is 26 percent.

[2:56:57] All the amenities and improvements and enhancements that come with open space.

[2:57:02] Does that include the park?

[2:57:05] No, no, no, no, no, that's what I wanted to be clear, thank you for is there?

[2:57:08] It does not include the park?

[2:57:10] It does not.

[2:57:10] That just includes the within the development, okay?

[2:57:14] The amenity common area, so to speak, yes, so common open space exclusive of the park that's that would include landscape boulevards,

[2:57:22] medians, sidewalks, pathways, walking pathways,

[2:57:27] swales, yes

[2:57:29] anything that is

[2:57:31] Outside of a lot line that is not paved for vehicular travel or vehicle travel, I think it's a very difficult for it, yes

[2:57:40] And we have a separate metric for, I don't think we have a separate metric for parks though, that might be the challenge there, so we would need to,

[2:57:51] I think we can likely, well, the comprehensive plan already has some standards in place.

[2:57:56] And it's on a per capita basis, I think we might look at what that translates into Mr.

[2:58:02] You know, Joe, with respect to the proposal that we, you know, the conceptual proposal

[2:58:13] that we have to really identify that, you know, where they at with respect to the,

[2:58:17] to the per capita requirements that are in the comprehensive plan.

[2:58:23] If I know, if I may, too, just to compliment my previous answer, I am reminded that

[2:58:28] That open space figure does not include the amount of land intended to be dedicated for an expansion of the charter school.

[2:58:37] So that has been excluded from that calculation, just to make sense.

[2:58:41] Which makes sense, yes.

[2:58:50] All right, so I guess I've hit on all I think the main items that I can think of, is there any other main items?

[2:58:59] Any board members would like to discuss?

[2:59:02] And then I'd like to open it to public comment.

[2:59:04] And then after public comment, I'd like to try to summarize what we discussed for Joe, so we can take that away.

[2:59:13] Did we touch roof tax?

[2:59:17] For board member discussion, no, I did ask the question to Lanar, but for board member discussion, no, let's discuss it.

[2:59:24] 23% of the public said yes, allow roof tax, 77% said no.

[2:59:31] Do we want to?

[2:59:34] I'm not as offended with them on the third floor when it stepped back significantly like you see in this picture here.

[2:59:42] Well, there's a railing there. I wonder if that particular condition might create a nuisance,

[2:59:51] particularly if it bounds a single-family residential area.

[2:59:56] you know, in this higher density area where the roof deck might be

[3:00:00] A jason to another unit that also has a roof deck, maybe what we want to do is then just say roof decks are not permissible along the boundaries of the site. Were there an exterior perimeter boundaries of the site? Yeah, were there a jason to an art district? Maybe that, I don't know if that solves the public's concern or not. I think we would want to hear public comments and see if there's anything there, but I think that's the only thing we didn't discuss. Are you referring to open roof decks?

[3:00:29] or roofed.

[3:00:30] They're both.

[3:00:32] Like that.

[3:00:33] On the third floor there.

[3:00:34] Okay.

[3:00:35] Well, the third floor.

[3:00:36] Like I said, you had a terrace, right?

[3:00:37] Mm-hmm.

[3:00:38] And that was at the third floor.

[3:00:39] I don't think that that's a point of congregation where you could put 15, 20 people up there.

[3:00:43] Right.

[3:00:44] But as a roof deck, on the other hand, you might have a pretty bumping party up there.

[3:00:48] No.

[3:00:50] That might wind up annoying the neighbors, particularly if it's a repeated occurrence, which,

[3:00:55] with more density, it might be more repeated.

[3:00:57] So I think if we keep that away from our district, it's probably okay, but I would want to know what the public has to say about that.

[3:01:04] Would the contention that the open ones we don't want, but the ones that are actually have a roofed area over it, more like a balcony than an open roofed area?

[3:01:14] And I think probably we get into definitions about what is a roof deck versus what's a terrace?

[3:01:19] Harris having a maximum occupancy associated with it, perhaps to assuage those concerns.

[3:01:29] Any other comments?

[3:01:33] Concerns?

[3:01:35] All right, with that said, I'd like to open the, sir.

[3:01:40] Three minutes to use the head and where we go to public comment, stretch my legs.

[3:01:46] Thank you.

[3:01:51] Three minutes.

[3:01:52] Yes.

[3:02:04] So I was going to go ahead and open this to public comment and then after public comment

[3:02:11] I want to try to summarize our discussion for our planning director.

[3:02:17] With that said, I'd like to open it for public comment.

[3:02:20] If you want to comment, please state your name and address prior to your comments.

[3:02:25] Thank you.

[3:02:25] Hi,

[3:02:35] Nancy Dawson, 45 North East and A6 street.

[3:02:39] I heard one comment at first that I thought was odd when someone was asking about, there

[3:02:44] was a comment to find out if for Lanar, it was economically feasible or financially feasible.

[3:02:51] And I thought, it's not our responsibility to try to make one more profit, you know.

[3:02:56] And so I'm looking at things like, even though it was really nice in one spot that they put

[3:03:02] part of Park in place, I thought of 103rd Street going north, the whole entire section

[3:03:08] of all of Northwest shores, all of everything all the way north of 103rd, no one else gets

[3:03:13] parks. So I'm starting to think one of the things that the neighbors want, we want to

[3:03:18] be neighborly, but we don't want them encroaching on us, parking on our swales, increasing foot

[3:03:25] traffic up and down our streets. And so we might not want it gated, but I'm thinking if

[3:03:31] If you say you're going to have a really nice green space, well it doesn't take too much

[3:03:35] for someone to scoot in between someone to bushes and then a bush becomes a shrub and

[3:03:41] then it becomes nothing and then the grass becomes dirt and then when it rains it becomes

[3:03:45] mud.

[3:03:46] So now you've got mud and dirt and people jumping in and then when they want to get out

[3:03:51] if they have overflow parking, now they're going to park where, but they're going to park

[3:03:55] in the person's yard right in front of the townhouse.

[3:03:58] Well, then if there's not enough then they're going to park along and then they're going to make you know

[3:04:02] pedestrian parking all the way and then if that's not in the front of they're going to go down the avenues and

[3:04:07] then you're going to have people strangers walking up and down the street and one of the things we love about our neighborhood at least

[3:04:12] I walk a lot at night is how quiet it is and how you don't have people that you don't know and we're not talking about residents now

[3:04:21] We're talking about

[3:04:22] strangers that don't have enough overflow parking, so I think that to preserve

[3:04:29] our safety and our quiet and our beautiful streets, you have to think about

[3:04:34] more parking. Why don't you just go over to the preserve? Whoever designed that

[3:04:38] place, pretty amazing. They've got four different, they've got lots of parking, lots,

[3:04:44] and lots of parking, and that's not all I want to say. Thank you.

[3:04:56] Good evening,

[3:04:57] Maria McGuinness, 1250 Northeast, 101st Street.

[3:05:00] Thank you for the presentation and the summary of the workshop. I think the consultants did a very fair job of accurately reflecting what transpired. And actually assimilating the information that was contributed to by the people who attended. There were over 86 attendees and a good portion of them participated. And thank you to the representatives of Alinar to give the presentation that they gave tonight as well. I just like to highlight two things that I

[3:05:29] I think sum up what really needs to be focused on.

[3:05:34] Neighbors and nature.

[3:05:38] And I think that the two developers that started this village

[3:05:41] over 90 years ago and our zoning code reflects it as well.

[3:05:47] The developers that came in both Shoreland Company

[3:05:51] and also the Bessemer properties were very respectful

[3:05:55] of the land and the proportionality of the land.

[3:05:58] And also using the nature, understanding cross winds when there was no air conditioning.

[3:06:03] I went on a tour of centennial homes that have stood the test of time.

[3:06:06] They've been through all sorts of storms and hurricanes and things like that.

[3:06:10] So to me, the overarching principles that are already established well in this village

[3:06:17] is the neighbors being considerate of the neighbors and the new neighbors that are going to live there and that there's reciprocity.

[3:06:24] And also nature, what we've been experiencing.

[3:06:28] Six months ago, or less than six months ago, this village experienced flooding like I've never seen, and I've been here for a very long time.

[3:06:36] The zoning code itself talks about what the objectives are.

[3:06:42] That our zoning code is for the protection, promotion of the safety, health, comfort, morals, convenience, peace, prosperity, appearance, and general welfare of the village and its inhabitants.

[3:06:53] And then more specifically for the following purposes, and it talks about protecting the

[3:06:59] distinctive characters of Miami-Shore's village that's resulted from everything.

[3:07:05] There's a lot of things that were said tonight that need clarification.

[3:07:08] I will be happy to share it on a separate time, but your north star should be the comp plan

[3:07:14] to be in with.

[3:07:15] You need to look at the zoning code.

[3:07:17] Multi-families already established, and the restrictions are similar to R1 and every other

[3:07:22] district of R.

[3:07:23] So I don't know why we're jumping off here.

[3:07:25] All right, thank you.

[3:07:26] Thank you.

[3:07:30] Let's, let's, let's not, let's not interrupt the meeting.

[3:07:34] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:07:36] Max Wolf architect 107 North East 96 Street.

[3:07:40] The last, this meeting, the last meeting, 100% improvements over what we went through for the first two years.

[3:07:48] I've changed a lot of my thoughts tonight and I can't read my handwriting.

[3:07:50] But the most important thing is that whatever we do is respecting the existing single family neighborhood and one of the things you talked about tonight that I haven't I used to serve on a planning zoning board and I couldn't do it because all everybody ever talked about they said style but people think of color and materials and that's it that's all they think of tonight you finally talked about proportion scale texture indentations not indentations so how do we we can't put that in the code you

[3:08:20] We said you can't tell somebody what the style is, but you can control style by saying well maybe instead of 15 foot we have a 20 foot set back and then 30% of it can go into 15 or the same thing with height you go to 35 feet but you step that back or maybe there are some open decks up on top because now we don't have all the slope groups.

[3:08:39] We have some up, some down, some in, some back.

[3:08:42] Those are the kind of things that are architectural style.

[3:08:47] I live in the spec house from 90 shores.

[3:08:49] It's just the box along the street.

[3:08:51] But it has thick walls.

[3:08:53] We have large doors that can open up for ventilation.

[3:08:56] That we can park nine people on our property, like you said,

[3:08:59] without parking on the street.

[3:09:01] So how do we get some of those elements into this plan?

[3:09:04] And I know we're going to go fast.

[3:09:06] I know this is a legislative process,

[3:09:08] because not the quasi-judicial, so, and yet we did see a site plan, so it changed my

[3:09:13] mind on something.

[3:09:14] I was all for all integrated streets and everything that that involves like on

[3:09:18] neighborhood now, that called us that type of parking and driving layout is

[3:09:25] important because we can't have 100 homes around the perimeter all opening onto our

[3:09:29] streets.

[3:09:30] That's not going to work.

[3:09:31] So how do we take that he showed four different areas where we can get in and out

[3:09:36] of the properties. Maybe they can move. Maybe you can do something a little different.

[3:09:39] Get away from the entrance to the charter school. There are a lot of things that can happen.

[3:09:44] Maybe the alleys in the back a little bit wider. The park and park sideways next to the house

[3:09:48] when your son comes and visits. You know, thank you.

[3:09:58] Good evening.

[3:10:00] Becky Leonard, 9300, northeast, 4th Avenue, long time resident of Miami Shores.

[3:10:09] I like the ideas of everybody talking. I really do not want this section to be a different section for Miami Shores. I would like to see the streets continue so that if you're over on 109th Street, you can keep going through and get to that area. I'd rather almost see

[3:10:31] that than have the greenways, the parks and that kind of thing just shorten that down.

[3:10:36] I like the fact that there's enough easement in front just like it is on the other side

[3:10:41] of Miami shores.

[3:10:43] It should be the same, sidewalks, alleys, green space even in the back where the alleys

[3:10:50] are so you can put your trash cans on your grass instead of on the cement.

[3:10:58] But I don't like the fact that they're all boxes.

[3:11:02] I have a box across the street for me in the house.

[3:11:05] It's two stories and it looks horrible.

[3:11:07] It does not fit in our community.

[3:11:09] This stuff doesn't fit in our community either.

[3:11:12] We need something that looks like it fits.

[3:11:16] I know he say it's modern.

[3:11:18] I'm not a modern person.

[3:11:19] I have a 1950s house and I love it.

[3:11:23] But you need some architectural change to it,

[3:11:26] so that it's not, it doesn't look just like a box, you know?

[3:11:29] Just like what Mr. Sternman said, the fact that you can put some arches in and

[3:11:34] you can make it a little higher and lower and do that kind of thing.

[3:11:38] I also don't think you really need three stories.

[3:11:41] I'm not sure that we have any three story houses if we do, I'm surprised.

[3:11:46] But we don't need three, have two, and make it look like the rest of our village.

[3:11:53] I think that's what's most important, so that they belong and be part of our community.

[3:12:00] Not something different.

[3:12:03] So, thank you very much. I appreciate all of your time and a lot of hard work.

[3:12:08] Thank you.

[3:12:09] Thank you.

[3:12:13] Good evening, Hutch Gervitz, 315 Northeast 95th Street.

[3:12:18] Miami Shores.

[3:12:19] I was just wondering, we keep talking about townhouses.

[3:12:22] because I think about townhouses,

[3:12:25] I think you got a house, a townhouse,

[3:12:27] the red or what size,

[3:12:28] then you got some green space in between,

[3:12:30] then you have another townhouse.

[3:12:33] These are just like a block, one big block, right?

[3:12:36] There's really, you can hear your neighbor through the wall.

[3:12:40] Am I right?

[3:12:41] Is what all these reviews were?

[3:12:44] This is public comment, not discussion.

[3:12:46] So just give us your comments please.

[3:12:48] Okay, my comment is,

[3:12:49] I like the idea of a townhouse being a building, green space, another townhouse.

[3:12:57] And my common is when I look at these presentations of the pictures, they look like just one big

[3:13:02] long unit with you, you know, your neighbor, there's no space in between your wall and

[3:13:08] their wall.

[3:13:09] It's just a wall.

[3:13:10] And you know, that's my common.

[3:13:12] Sorry about that.

[3:13:13] I didn't know.

[3:13:14] Thank you.

[3:13:14] But townhouses do share a common wall, so they are connected.

[3:13:18] I guess what you're thinking is more of a villa, yes.

[3:13:23] It's more single, what you're thinking is single family.

[3:13:26] Yeah, it's not town, not small, but I can count house.

[3:13:29] So you're thinking single family with reduced side setbacks?

[3:13:33] Would that kind of be what you're describing?

[3:13:36] Yeah.

[3:13:36] Well, it's a thought.

[3:13:42] Hello, thank you for all you do.

[3:13:45] My name is Chrissy Kierella.

[3:13:48] 1066 Northeast 10th place.

[3:13:53] My biggest concern, I mean I know we couldn't talk about style but I do think that those at least this looks a little bit overwhelming kind of how the other gentleman said it doesn't really look like a house or like a townhouse they look like apartments.

[3:14:11] I don't know how you can make it better. I do think that a setback, maybe a second green space.

[3:14:17] face outside of the sidewalk and perhaps this isn't what you are all we're talking about.

[3:14:24] And it does seem too tall and too square.

[3:14:31] Parking is a big concern.

[3:14:33] I think that units should have four parkings because I really think we'll have an overflow

[3:14:38] problem.

[3:14:40] And I wonder if Barry is selling, I think it's an overflow parking.

[3:14:44] what parking is, are the students going to use and the people at

[3:14:49] Barry? Will they start parking around our neighborhood? I am concerned about

[3:14:53] that. I actually work at Barry and so I see people parking. You know they

[3:14:59] It would even order.

[3:15:00] We're Amazon packages to people's houses, so they didn't have to go to the mail room. This is what students do. But yes, I hope you continue the good work and we need like more setbacks. That's what it seems. Thank you.

[3:15:22] Good evening. I'm Angela Marinas, 118 North West 104th Street. I am the Barry neighbor. I live in that community. I moved to this community.

[3:15:35] community in 2002, because I wanted to live in a village.

[3:15:40] I wanted the quaintness.

[3:15:42] I wanted single family homes where I could come home and meet my neighbors in my front

[3:15:47] lawn, have a cup of coffee, or invite them to my yard.

[3:15:51] So what I see today, that, first of all, doesn't say luxury.

[3:15:57] So Lenard, you're missing the mark.

[3:16:01] Village of Miami Shores, it's a luxury homes.

[3:16:06] You drive up and down the street and 90% of the homes are valued over a million dollar.

[3:16:15] That is not a home I would buy.

[3:16:20] And I'm pretty sure the individuals that would consider buying there may not even consider it.

[3:16:28] So here's, I have, I'm going to ask a couple of questions and I'm going to leave that with you guys.

[3:16:36] Why are we not creating a development with a plan for efficiencies to improve sustainability,

[3:16:43] to create and enhance the quality of life on the Northwest side? Why?

[3:16:49] We are not using the right now that Northwest has changed significantly in the last five to ten years.

[3:17:00] I ask this board to please look at our Northwest side.

[3:17:07] That does not belong there.

[3:17:11] Another topic that I will leave you with, the traffic is massive.

[3:17:14] We deal every day with the overflow that comes from I-95.

[3:17:20] People cutting through our neighborhood on a regular basis.

[3:17:24] It takes me 15, 20 minutes from I-95 to Northwest 1st Avenue.

[3:17:31] Please use that as an example.

[3:17:33] Thank you.

[3:17:42] Good evening.

[3:17:43] My name is Aubrey Kessler and I live at 1002 Northwest,

[3:17:48] Northeast, 105th Street.

[3:17:50] I'm on the other side.

[3:17:51] I already own a home in Miami Shores and I want to buy another one.

[3:17:56] I want to buy another one that my mother could live in.

[3:17:58] That could be a starter home for my children who may or may not go to an amazing institution like Barry.

[3:18:05] I want Barry to succeed. I want it to stay in Miami Shores.

[3:18:09] But I don't want to buy what Lanar and Euclid presented tonight.

[3:18:16] We have a unique opportunity, and I know all of you are working very hard at this, and

[3:18:22] I really appreciate it, to create the kind of community that we want our future neighbors

[3:18:28] to live in that serves all of us.

[3:18:32] That's not what I saw.

[3:18:34] And if Lenar and if Euclid had been listening to all of the input that you all have been accepting

[3:18:40] from the community, then that was a masterclass in gas lighting.

[3:18:45] Thank you for your time.

[3:18:56] Good night, I'm back again.

[3:18:58] I want to echo this lady's sentiments.

[3:19:02] I brought into her community, single family homes.

[3:19:06] I don't think that you're going to do the chair, could you repeat your name for the record?

[3:19:09] I'm sorry, Nataki Cooper, 601 northwest 106th Street, 120th Street, sorry.

[3:19:16] I live exactly where they proposed to build a property.

[3:19:19] On my block there are only two homes per block on either side of the street

[3:19:25] Sometimes I feel like my area of the communities forgotten because when I drive to other parts of the neighborhood their tree line streets

[3:19:33] Why live there's none?

[3:19:35] people dump in those areas and I feel like part of the sure should take that into insight and do something about that area because I

[3:19:43] Backed my houses backed up on the 95

[3:19:46] That part of Miami shows is forgotten

[3:19:49] Okay, when you drive there, it looks vastly different from the other side.

[3:19:53] I say to my friends, I live in Miami, but I feel like I'm put adjacent.

[3:19:57] Okay, because I don't feel like you guys put the-

[3:20:00] This is in that part of the community. And now, you're going to put this there. I feel like I don't have a say. I really don't. My daughter's going to be walking on the streets. How many people is she going to pass before she gets the doctor chatter? She walks the school. She walks home from school, I should say. She's on the wet, wet, lifting team. That means she walks from school this evening. It's a 5 5 30. She's walking by herself. All these new people coming in the community. We don't know who they are. We don't.

[3:20:29] I feel like you guys should consider who live across there because a lot of people

[3:20:33] they're speaking but they don't actually live there.

[3:20:36] Why they're speaking because they want to maintain the community but that side of the

[3:20:40] community is not as developed as other areas in the community and I think you guys should

[3:20:44] look at that.

[3:20:45] And by flopping this in the middle, it's like flopping sardines and a tin.

[3:20:49] You're compiling and compressing people in a small space and I don't think that's fair and

[3:20:53] I don't think it's right.

[3:20:55] I don't live in a flood zone but what's going to happen like the other lady said?

[3:20:59] all that waterways are going to go. We are on septic. Are we going to have to tie into

[3:21:04] sewer? All of these things. I don't have alleyways like other people speak about, but they're

[3:21:10] going to add alleyways back there. You don't have that back there, you know? Where I live

[3:21:15] is vastly different from where most of the people that spoke to me about it. Thank you for

[3:21:20] coming to you. You should drive around and see if you can just speak on it. Thank you.

[3:21:24] Any

[3:21:31] other public comment?

[3:21:34] All right, with that, let's, I guess, have final discussion and then provide our summaries to Joe.

[3:21:41] Any board member comments, discussions, before we go to our final summary.

[3:21:47] Before I try to summarize what we've discussed, I just have a question for Joe.

[3:21:52] So I thought I remembered something about the number of town homes to be grouped, was the smallest five and with the largest eight and two.

[3:22:07] There were supposed to be between three and eight and you could have up to 10% two groupings just for space constraints on the site.

[3:22:16] So we're likely probably stick with that as a starting point for the next discussion.

[3:22:22] Okay, so that's a kind of remembered something like that, but there are on the east side parcel that was kind of presented in the presentation, far exceeds that grouping number.

[3:22:36] Yeah, so if that were to pass, then they would be limited to that.

[3:22:39] Let me

[3:22:43] understand.

[3:22:44] So, the grouping that we were discussing was between three to eight units per bill,

[3:22:50] her building, yes.

[3:22:52] Okay.

[3:22:52] And do we like that number?

[3:22:55] Do you have an opinion on that?

[3:22:56] Bill, I do, I think it's more appropriate because there are a number of groupings of,

[3:23:04] it's hard to see, but maybe 11 or 12.

[3:23:07] Yeah, those three that would make the pods and the groovings more open up, yes, development

[3:23:14] a little bit.

[3:23:15] Three to eight is pretty typical in a suburban code.

[3:23:18] So what we're asking for here when you boil it down to, it's nuts and bolts, is a more

[3:23:22] suburban town home code.

[3:23:25] And if you kind of research that throughout the county or the state, and then more local

[3:23:30] examples of that are Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay, Pine Cresty type of things.

[3:23:34] So, Brenda, do you have a comment on lot size or discussion?

[3:23:40] Just a reminder that we didn't touch upon it and it was something that was notably different.

[3:23:45] The community expressed a desire to have a minimum or overall average, I'd say minimum

[3:23:51] lot size of 1,600 square feet, 1,665.4 square feet to be precise was overall average.

[3:24:00] and I think that this previously was discussed as being a minimum, I think that there is a valid argument to increase the lot size so that it isn't so small.

[3:24:13] A thousand square feet is tiny.

[3:24:18] I think that there is, I think we could likely abide by what the community said and say a thousand six hundred thousand seven hundred square feet.

[3:24:28] three bedrooms, townhouse, three stories tall,

[3:24:32] with a lot size, a three bedroom townhouse,

[3:24:36] three stories tall, with a lot size would be typical,

[3:24:40] in that situation, would you say, do you have an idea?

[3:24:44] Well, the truth is, you could build a three bedroom

[3:24:46] on a thousand square feet, it just wouldn't be a great living.

[3:24:49] It would be a box, there would be no room for articulation.

[3:24:54] Beyond that, your ground level would be almost entirely

[3:24:57] consumed by the two-car garage.

[3:25:00] Increasing the size of the lot allows a little bit more flexibility in how that ground levels articulated.

[3:25:08] I would think it's important to, we've heard the community say they don't want to see that. Well, that is a product of smaller lot sizes amongst other things, but I think because of that, that's a good argument to consider a larger lot size as a minimum. I'm with you on 1600 square feet. I think that's reasonable.

[3:25:30] available. Any other comments on the lot size?

[3:25:34] A 1,600 square feet is that a large townhouse slot?

[3:25:48] I think that's more on the large size of comparatively to other communities.

[3:26:00] All right, any other discussion?

[3:26:03] If you did a 30-foot wide lot, which would be good comfortable to car garage and a nice

[3:26:11] space left over for circulation, maybe a powder room, a coke closet, that would translate

[3:26:16] into a 53-foot long site, so it's not that big.

[3:26:21] So 30 by 53 would be 1600, or if you wanted to go 25 feet, for example.

[3:26:27] So,

[3:26:30] as I go back-

[3:26:31] I'll be 64 feet long.

[3:26:33] Yes, I go back and write the code.

[3:26:35] I'll look at the average-

[3:26:37] the average lot size of similar communities and note that.

[3:26:43] Yeah, I think what we want to stay away from is being extreme on one side or the other.

[3:26:48] I don't think you want to be too low or too small.

[3:26:50] I mean, there are-

[3:26:51] Again, there are suburban-

[3:26:53] suburban products that work very well.

[3:26:58] And you don't want to, you don't want to zone a white elephant that can't be built because it's too small or too big or whichever.

[3:27:06] So I think it needs to be practical and we're going to come back with some, you know, within the bounds that you've suggested here are some practical examples.

[3:27:15] And then we can debate them out one way or the other during the next meeting.

[3:27:19] What I envision at the next meeting is that I'm going to change the code into a table instead of a lot of text that it'll be tabular.

[3:27:26] It'll have about 30 points in it, zoning points, and then we can just walk down that line and then look at the individual numbers and then we can, you know, tweak them one way or the other.

[3:27:38] And I'm going to start generally with what we said, unless that less what we suggested here in the from the public is just outlandishly out of character.

[3:27:49] I would likely won't suggest that, but I'll let you know what those are when I do it.

[3:27:54] I'd say we've discussed them.

[3:27:57] I'm going to try to summarize what we've discussed and I do think we have certainly taken

[3:28:05] into consideration the public comments and address them.

[3:28:11] So let me just kind of go through what I think we've got and please if you guys have an opinion

[3:28:19] or if you differ or you want to adjust it, speak up, please.

[3:28:23] So I guess starting on grouping, three-day units per group, I guess go ahead and write this down and we can get that.

[3:28:34] A lot size, we're looking around 1,600 square feet.

[3:28:38] Plot standards incorporate all 23 acres into one plot.

[3:28:47] Common open space.

[3:28:48] I know in discussion with Lynn R, they had mentioned there 26% I'm good with that, landscaping streetscape, I don't think we had any particular comments on that.

[3:29:07] Articulation, maybe take a look at my option B and try to, you know, that's kind of our vision, try to formulate something around that.

[3:29:15] FAR, I think 1.0, I think that's in the comp plan.

[3:29:20] Parking, parking is a concerning for us and for the public.

[3:29:27] I like Brandon's idea of two spaces for two bedroom units, three spaces for three bedroom units plus a one to ten visitor ratio.

[3:29:39] for

[3:29:42] your comment on that?

[3:29:46] 15-foot setback in the front, porches can encroach into that

[3:29:50] setback.

[3:29:52] Sir, on the setback's 15-foot minimum with a requirement to articulate that further

[3:29:57] to, let's say 17.5, that's R.

[3:30:08] I don't think we were that definitive, but I know I was I was looking at up to three stories, 35 foot maximum, good concurred. I know you. Thanks.

[3:30:25] There's a couple of things that we said in our answer.

[3:30:29] Roof decks allowed, but not adjacent to our districts.

[3:30:39] And can I, sir, on the roof decks that they not be adjacent to each other.

[3:30:48] So we don't have a whole load of roof decks like overlooking something that we break them up.

[3:30:55] I don't have a strong opinion on it either way, any comment on that.

[3:31:00] I think that that aids in the articulation, so, sure.

[3:31:05] So, no adjacent roof decks, no adjacent roof decks, am I missing anything?

[3:31:16] That's all I have in my notes, I've got what you've got, so we're good to go.

[3:31:22] The heights along the single, adjacent to the single family homes that we would be lower there.

[3:31:30] The height on the outer boundary so that the homes facing single family homes would be.

[3:31:38] Two stories.

[3:31:38] Shorter?

[3:31:39] Right.

[3:31:41] We also got to get into to complicated.

[3:31:44] No, I don't know, I don't think it's shaking his head, no, I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

[3:31:49] I think it makes a lot of sense to buffer the single family homes with the shorter units.

[3:31:54] I wouldn't even buy it like so the single family homes are on the south side.

[3:31:58] Yeah, wherever there's single family homes, we have the buffer greenspace there too.

[3:32:03] But I guess we're writing the code.

[3:32:06] I think the ones you're really talking about are in here, but it could be there too.

[3:32:13] It's a pretty good buffer on the south side of the area.

[3:32:18] It's on the west side.

[3:32:19] We've got a set of things where you've got a single family house.

[3:32:22] I don't think we can summarize the stepbacks.

[3:32:26] Did you?

[3:32:27] I referred them to option B.

[3:32:30] OK.

[3:32:30] The regulation, similar to what's an option B.

[3:32:33] And I've got notes on the stepbacks, so we'll put it there.

[3:32:35] We can edit it up in the next week.

[3:32:40] All right, I guess that's your guidance.

[3:32:43] Great work.

[3:32:43] We talked about unit size, did we talk about unit size?

[3:32:46] We talked about lot size.

[3:32:49] Right.

[3:32:50] I'll come up with two to three better understood.

[3:32:54] All right.

[3:32:55] With that said, any further, um,

[3:32:58] any further, uh,

[3:33:00] so the next regular board meeting is November 21st on Thursday.

[3:33:04] We've got to do this again.

[3:33:05] Are we going to meet here or there?

[3:33:08] That's it.

[3:33:09] The other, the other place.

[3:33:10] And with that said, thank you everybody from the public for coming and the meeting is adjourned.

Planning & Zoning Board

Transcript