Loading...
2024-06-27 PZB Minutes 1 Mayor George Burch Vice Mayor Jesse Valinsky Councilmember Neil Cantor Councilmember Jerome Charles Councilmember Sandra Harris Esmond Scott, Village Manager Chanae Wood, Village Attorney Ysabely Rodriguez, Village Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 27th, 2024 6:30pm Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER- By Chair Bolton at 6:30pm 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mr. Bolton Mr. Brady Mr. O’Hara Mr. Spirk Mr. Nappier III Also, Present: Chanae Wood- Village Attorney Joseph M. Corradino- Planning and Zoning Interim Director Alizgreeth Tezen- Planning and Zoning Technician 3. ORDER OF BUSINESS - (Additions, Deletions, and Deferrals) Mr. Brady motion to move item 8.A to the beginning of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Spirk. 5-0. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - 2-Minute Time Limit (Non-Item Specific) Ms. Patricia Bonaduce- Chair of the HPB, wants to support item 10.C to add a demolition provision. Linda Swarts- Is in favor zoning regulations. Cyndey Herbs-Is in favor of the regulations. Carmen Reneck- Is in favor of the regulations 5. MINUTES 5.A. Approval of the Minutes May 23, 2024 PZ MINUTES 05-23-2024.pdf 2 Move to approve minutes by Mr. Brady, Seconded by Mr. Nappier III. 5-0. 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM(S) - Please be advised that the following item(s) on the Board’s agenda are Quasi-Judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item. SWEARING IN - All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. In accordance with Section 2-100 of the Village Code, any Lobbyists must register before addressing the Board on any of the following items. Board members must disclose any ex-parte communications, site visits, or written communications received concerning any items on the agenda, pursuant to Section 2-86 of the Village Code. (Board Members Disclosures, if applicable). The Board Clerk will swear in any person(s) who wishes to testify on any Quasi-Judicial item. *8. LEGISLATIVE ITEM(S) 8.A. Ordinance – Residential Zoning Code Amendments Location: See Folio Nos. Below Requestor: Miami Shores Village Request: AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING APPENDIX A, “ZONING” OF THE VILLAGE’S CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING SECTION 201, “TENSE AND NUMBER; CERTAIN WORDS, TERMS DEFINED,” TO CREATE DEFINITIONS FOR “FLOOR AREA RATIO,” “IMPERVIOUS AREA,” AND “LOT COVERAGE,” AMENDING SECTION 404, “COMPLIANCE WITH SPACE AND AREA RESTRICTIONS”AND SECTION 406, “REDUCTION OF PLOT AREA SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SMALLER YARD OR OPEN SPACE PROHIBITED” BOTH FOR CONSISTENCY AND CLARITY, AND CREATING SECTION 411, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS” TO RELOCATE THE VILLAGE’S SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS; CREATING SECTION 412 TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA, AND SUPPLEMENTAL YARD DEPTH AND STEP BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R) DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Memo-Residential Zoning Code Amendments.pdf 490231203-R District Streamlined Zoning Code Amendments.pdf R-District Illustration Mr. Corradino explained the background of the ordinance and provided the timeline that staff was working with the 60-day turn around since the implementation of the zoning in progress. Maximum lot coverage, Maximum floor area and maximum Floor Area Ratio, step backs and façade width percentages with definitions. Mr. Corradino explained that the numbers can be sliding back and forth to further provide options to 3 be more restrictive or less restrictive. These are all industry standards and typically the most restrictive lot coverage percentages are 25 percent or less and the least restrictive are at 70 percent. Mr. Corradino spoke about the basis for the zoning code amendments and understood the need of the community to help control the number of new homes that address the items mentioned in the memo. Mr. Corradino explained that FAR, lot coverage, maximum building area, and understood the need of industry standards in other municipalities. The idea is to be able to move the numbers as the need of the community. Mr. Corradino explained the importance to create the setback incentives to create articulations and the yard percentages. Chair Mr. Bolton stated he is not in favor of the impervious requirement, and everything else is fine. Chair Mr. Bolton stated the language is a bit confusing. Mr. Nappier III asked if FAR is not typically used in residential? Mr. Corradino stated yes usually it would apply to commercial density standard. Mr. Nappier III stated 4.5 would be better. Mr. Spirk stated he is in agreement to FAR .5 instead of 4.5 FAR. Mr. Spirk proposed to amend the language subsection 412.e this section shall not apply to non-substantial additions or renovations to single- family residences to 50% rule. Chair Mr. Bolton asked about the language accommodating walls that go vertically 100 percent if they are just adding a small addition over there garage. Mr. Spirk elaborated with the factor of 50% substantial improvement language and will serve as a defense for those that do modest renovations. Mr. Spirk asked Mr. Corradino about the homes impacted by non-conformities. Mr. O'Hara asked what would be excluded from FAR and is 6 feet enough? Mr. O’Hara also stated that he would be in favor of the impervious percentage. Mr. Corradino explained that the amount of square footage would be for the imperviousness on the lot and the entire structure except roof terraces. Mr. Brady stated he feels comfortable with what is articulated. Chair Mr. Bolton asked would it apply to the whole house or a specific area? Mr. Corradino stated the whole house. Chair Mr. Bolton asked to revise the language so that it is clear to the applicants. Mr. Spirk asked about non- conformities and clarifications. Mr. Corradino stated that those will be items that will be addressed in the main fix of the residential district. Mr. Spirk asked to clarify on record if these amendments are temporary? Mr. Corradino stated that these can be changed in the same way a typical ordinance would go before Village council with two readings. Mr. Spirk asked if the items that are presented today will cause concern will the residents still be able to engage in a public workshop to voice such concerns? Mr. Corradino stated yes, they can be part of the workshops and ideally the residential code rewrite would be in the fall. Chair Mr. Bolton asked for a timeline of the complete rewrite for the residential zoning code? Mr. Corradino stated it would most likely be in the fall. Mr. Brady asked to have clarity when the architects or residents come to the application. 4 *9. PUBLIC COMMENTS - 2-Minute Time Limit George Burch- stated that the percentage of permeability would not work and will cause issues with the existing homes and is not understanding why there is a rush for something that will be changed eventually. Sean Shake- asked is there a limitation of the block houses. Rosely Shay- asked the analysis was the median and not average. She also, wants to know the language on limitation and frontage. Erick Setcak- stated that at height restriction will work and the plans were approved for one-story and and amended to two-story and feels that it should have a height limit and the imperviousness will work. Carol Respondek- appreciates the changes and thinks it’s a good start. Jerry Lance- asked to not allow what is happening on 103rd. Clark Reynolds- is in favor of the zoning recommendations and helps to regulate large homes. Max- He believes the proposal is too restrictive and add more teeth on how temporary it is. Maria McGuiness- is pleased with the need of changing the code as well as making sure that it is compatible with the comprehensive plan. Becky Lennard- She is pleased to see that the items are being brought up to maintain the homes as is. Patricia Bonaduce- stated that the numbers are perfect to restrict the development types and maintain the heritage. Lora Courtly- has concerns with the retaining wall and it still hasn't stopped the flooding. Dennies Layva- Is in favor of the application 301 NE 102nd St. Fedrick Muller- stated that he is worried about flooding and the ordinance has to be tweaked. Ms. Tezen read into the record the emails from residents. Chair Mr. Bolton and Mr. Spirk has a back and forth dialogue about the impervious percentage. Mr. O’Hara stated that the best approach will be to provide a percentage that the board feels is appropriate and let village council determine the other side of that outcome. Mr. Nappier III, is in accordance with the imperviousness and lot coverage takes care of the issues with building coverage and is not a fan of FAR as lot coverage and imperviousness as that should take care of most of the concerns. Mr. Brady stated that he has been concern with the amount of imperviousness that is being left after all the concrete. Mr. Spirk asked what is the opinion on an exception on substantial improvement renovations language onto the adoption of the language? Mr. Nappier III stated he would support it. Chair Mr. Bolton stated he is in support of it as well. Mr. O’Hara stated he would be in support but have clarification if this will apply to new structures or existing structures? Mr. Spirk stated it would be for existing structures. Motion by Mr. Spirk to amend the language “subsection 412- development standards subsection e. this section shall not apply to existing single-family residences as of the date of this adoption, where a non-substantial addition/ renovation is being proposed; substantial defined as not adding area excess of 50 percent of the existing area of the subject residence” seconded by Mr. O'Hara. 4-1 (Denied: by Mr. Brady) Chair Mr. Bolton asked to reduce the imperviousness to 45% and pervious to 55% with a FAR of .5. Motion by Mr. O’Hara to amend FAR to .5 the maximum imperviousness to 50% and 50% pervious, seconded by Mr. Brady. (Denied: 2-3, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Nappier III, and Mr. Spirk) Motion Failed. Motion by Mr. Brady to amend FAR to .5. no vote. Motion to approve ordinance as amended by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Spirk. (Denied by: Chair Mr. Bolton, and Mr. Nappier III.) 3-2. 5 7. NEW ITEM(S) 7.A. RSP-24-24 Owner: David Restrepo & Daniel Iribarren Applicant: N/A Agents: Victor Bruce Address: 790 NE 96th ST. Request: 1. A total of 2,198 sq. ft. of additions, including:  Main bedroom suite (893 sq. ft.)  Laundry room (364 sq. ft.)  Two-car garage (713 sq. ft.)  Cabana bathroom (49 sq. ft.) 2. Exterior modifications, including a pool, pool deck, and aluminum pergola. RSP-24-24-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-24-Application.pdf RSP-24-24-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino opened with providing background and the approval of staff recommendation. Mr. Bruce gave a background of the home renovations and the additions that will be provided. The intention is to create a cabana bath and spoke about the use of different material types. Mr. Spirk asked if there are any existing trees being removed? Mr. Bruce stated yes. Chair Mr. Bolton stated that the water feature will cause noise nuisance. Mr. O’Hara stated he is happy with the design. Move to approve by Mr. Brady seconded by Mr. Spirk. 5-0. 7.B. RSP-24-32 Owner: Barr Holdings LLC Applicant: N/A Agents: Luis Gabriel Ortiz & Guillermo Gonzalez Address: 187 NW 95th ST. Request: 1. Garage conversion RSP-24-32-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-32-Application.pdf RSP-24-32-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino stated the home is being renovated to create an additional bedroom by converting the garage. The architect spoke at the podium and explained that the project is simple and the intent is to update the interior spaces. Mr. Spirk asked if there is sufficient parking? The architect stated yes. Move to approve by Mr. Spirk, seconded by Mr. Nappier III. 5-0. 6 7.C. RSP-24-34 Owner: Bertain 800 LLC- Alfonso Garces Applicant: Alfonso Garces Agents: N/A Address: 1170 NE 100th ST. Request: 1. Modifying the existing building façade with door relocation and new decorative column treatment. RSP-24-34-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-34-Application.pdf RSP-24-34-Plans.pdf 7.D. Mr. Corradino stated the applicant is doing a minor change to the front façade and relocate the kitchen and adding a window. The applicant spoke at the podium and stated that all was changed was the position of the door. Move to approve by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Nappier III> 5-0. RSP-24-35 Owner: Gena Stanglein Applicant: N/A Agents: N/A Address: 737 Grand Concourse Request: 1. Modifying the existing building façade with new decorative column treatment and brick veneer. RSP-24-35-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-35-Application.pdf RSP-24-35-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino stated intent of the application is doing a simple façade modification as well and include decorative brick veneer. The owner spoke at the podium and provided the changes being made to the front facade. Move to approve with conditions by Mr. Spirk, seconded by Mr. O'Hara. 5-0. 7.E. RSP-24-36 Owner: Jeremy Schwach & Rosemary Applicant: N/A Agents: Kayleigh Savits, Abitar Design Group LLC Address: 9145 NE 4 AVE Request: 1. A 144-square-foot addition to extend the kitchen for a new breakfast area and 83 square feet of detached storage space. 2. A façade change to the front door and front wall. RSP-24-36-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-36-Application.pdf 7 RSP-24-36-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino explained the background of the application and the intent to increase the back area and include a detached storage area. Mr. Spirk asked about the side compliance, and there was a back and forth between the language in sec. 409 and sec. 410. Ms. Wood stated she will provide an attorney opinion. Move to table per inconsistencies, by Mr. Brady, and seconded by Mr. Spirk. 5-0. 7.F. RSP-24-37 Owner: Salim Chraibi (Urban Homes 7 LLC) Applicant: Salim Chraibi (Urban Homes 7 LLC) Agents: Cheryl Bassan (PPAL) – Preschel Bassan Studio, LLC Address: 9305 NE 9th AVE Request: The applicant is requesting approval for the following: 1. New construction of a two-story single-family home totaling 5,573 square feet; 61,602 cubic feet accompanied by a two-car garage of approximately 519 square feet. 2. Exterior modifications, including the driveway, landscape, pool and pool deck, fencing, and covered deck. 3. Demolition of the existing house. 4. Installation of a temporary 6-foot-high construction perimeter chain- link fence. RSP-24-37-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-37-Application.pdf RSP-24-37-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino spoke about the current conditions of the home and the intention is to build a new single-family home and stated that staff recommends approval. Mr. Sprik stated that the front of the home looks to be facing 9th avenue and it’s presenting the front of the home with a wall, garage and guest bedroom. Mr. Spirk also stated that per the renderings it suggest that the front of the home looks to be on the opposite side, and if that were the case then none of the setbacks are being complied with and wants to know if this aspect was part of the directors review? Mr. Spirk stated that there is a section in the code that talks about changing the front of the house and that it would need to go through the additional process in order to do such. Mr. Spirk also stated that the idea is not to opine design language but to opine massing as it relates to harmony with respect to the entry. Mr. Spirk suggest that the proposed item is not in harmony as stated in section 504 and it is like a “bait and switch”. Mr. Corradino suggest that the front of the home is measured to where the door and foyer is being located. Mr. Sprik stated if that is the case then the applicable 15 feet setback should have been measured to 25ft and vice versa. Mr. Spirk stated that the intent of the code is to provide a celebrated front entrance. Ms. Preschel stated that it was a challenging lot and has large specimen trees and in order to preserve and maintain areas for drainage it was needed to provide the frontage as such. The main intention was to preserve the integrity of the 8 site. The use of warmth elements to provide balance. Mr. Brady asked if that is 93rd shown on the render? Ms. Preschel stated yes. Mr. Nappier III there is a door in the front? Ms. Preschel stated yes. Mr. Spirk stated he is impressed with the quality of the work. Mr. Spirk stated that part of the mission of the planning and zoning board as gate keepers from homes as such. The home is too big and acknowledges that the home has allot of program constraints and makes the site difficult to work with. Mr. Spirk stated that the project shows as not compliant per the issue with the frontage not being visible and feels that needs to be pushed back. Mr. Spirk stated that per the new code that was recommended to council the FAR the applicant is proposing will be .61 as her project was not counting a double height space. Mr. Spirk also stated that the applicant mentioned that no trees will be removed however one mahogany tree is. Mr. Spirk ended with stating he will have a hard time supporting the application. Mr. O’Hara asked about sheet A-05 and how is the context with the neighborhood connecting based with the materiality of a blank wall. Mr. Nappier III stated that the area is heavily wooded and it would be a nice thing for that location. Chair Mr. Bolton stated that although this house is high in FAR it is still looks articulated and not as massive. Chair Mr. Bolton asked about the stepbacks and is it stepped back? Ms. Preschel stated a percentage is stepping back. Ms. Wood stated that what is recommended to Village Council will not be applicable to this review. Ms. Preschel spoke about how Miami Beach code does not count double height spaces or non- a/c spaces such as a garage as FAR. Mr. Spirk stated that they are using FAR as a Volume controlling tool in the Village and that it is not common to use FAR in residential homes but it is seen on commercial developments. Mr. Nappier III stated he has an issue with tabling the item and what is the main reasoning for tabling if it’s for softening, or façade changes? Mr. Spirk stated the FAR, Chair Mr. Bolton stated the lack of a sidewalk, Mr. Spirk stated is narrow and massive from the street and also based on section 524- massing and volumetric. Public Comments: Maria McGuiness- the notice of hearing was not on the address and should have been on the other side. Move to table by Mr. Spirk, seconded by Mr. O'Hara. 5-0. Before leaving Ms. Preschel asked if she can meet with the board members to discuss the changes. Mr. Spirk stated he would be willing to if the Village Attorney feels it is appropriate. Ms. Wood stated that the Village Council adopted rules and procedures and it is up to the boards to be aware of the time to end at 10pm and need to push unviewed items to the next meeting. 9 7.G. RSP-24-38 Owner: Jorge Coria & Becky N Saka Applicant: Luis Araujo Agents: Luis Araujo Address: 77 NW 99th ST. Request: 1. Addition of 700 square feet. RSP-24-38-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-38-Application.pdf RSP-24-38-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino spoke about the project and explained that the intent is to increase bedroom sides. Ms. Sakas gave a brief explanation of the intent. Mr. Spirk spoke about the intention of the sloped roof to ensure it does not create rainwater runoff. Mr. Spirk asked what would happen if the gutter will not comply and procedure wise would an admend be available to have the applicant change to flat and not have to go before the board? Ms. Wood stated it is reflected on the development order. Move to approve by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Nappier III. 5-0. 7.H. RSP-24-39 Owner: Ismail K. Ozturan & Ingrid Ozturan Applicant: N/A Agents: Victor Bruce Address: 150 NW 100th TER. Request: 1. A total of 1,495 square feet of additional space, which includes:  An 814 square foot second-floor addition for a main bedroom suite.  An 681 square foot first-floor addition for kitchen and living space, along with a garage conversion. 2. Exterior modifications, including:  Façade alterations  Installation of a pool and pool deck  Construction of an aluminum pergola RSP-24-39-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-39-Application.pdf RSP-24-39-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino gave the information of the applicant doing a garage conversion with an increase bedroom space and recommends approval. Also, there are some errors with the square footage as the first floor and the second floor numbers need to be transpose. Mr. Bruce stated that the intention is to relocate certain spaces. Move to approve with conditions by Mr. Spirk, seconded by Mr. Nappier III. 5-0. 10 7.I. RSP-24-40 Owner: Richard Salvatore & Ashley Jones Kebrdle Applicant: N/A Agents: Victor Bruce Address: 444 NE 96th ST Request: 1. 1,430 sq. ft. comprising of (3) three additions:  Second floor addition for a playroom and guest bedroom suite (634 SF);  A first floor addition main bedroom suite (559 SF)  A laundry and wine cellar (138 SF);  An expansion to the garage (99 SF) and garage conversion. 2. Exterior modifications (façade modifications, driveway, terrace and raised deck) RSP-24-40-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-40-Application.pdf RSP-24-40-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino gave a background of the application with additions to increase of 5 bedroom from 4 bedroom, and staff recommends approval. Mr. Spirk pointed out a wing wall that extends the maximum projection which shows at 6 feet instead of 5 feet. Mr. Spirk also, pointed out that the application is missing a tree survey and a certain standard needs to be met. Mr. Corradino stated that all applicants receive a checklist at the informational meeting and staff reviews the applicable code sections to what the extent of the project it will apply to. Mr. Bruce stated that the purpose of the wall is to provide privacy. Public Comments: Patricia Bonaduce- stated the house is a relevant home and it has been preserved in perfect shape, the only suggestion would be not to mix the old and new. Also, to push the façade to not clash with the changes. Maria McGuiness- stated that we have an admendment to the comprehensive plan to ensure protections to the historically significance items and refer matters to the historic preservation board. Mr. Spirk move to approve with conditions and move the wall to 5 feet wingwall and pushing wall to 2 foot 1 inch. seconded by O'Hara. 5-0. 7.J. RSP-24-42 Owner: Jesse Kehoe Applicant: N/A Agents: N/A Address: 10619 NE 11th AVE. Request: 1. Garage conversion RSP-24-42-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-42-Application.pdf RSP-24-42-Plans.pdf 11 Mr. Corradino spoke at the podium and provided information on the lot and the intention to increase the 3 bedroom 2 bathroom to 3 bedroom 3 bathroom layout and recommends for approval. Mr. Kehoe asked to re- approve application and had exceeded the 50% improvement allowance and reduce the flooding. Mr. Spirk asked is the steps going to be removed? Mr. Kehoe stated that the head height of the window will be a problem. Mr. Spirk stated he does not want to create a non- conforming condition as the applicant would exceed the 50% and would need to remove the step. Ms. Wood asked if Mr. Spirk can clarify the non-conformity and is this a property that is not to code? Motion to extend meeting by Mr. O’Hara, seconded by Mr. Spirk. 5-0. Motion to approve by Mr. O'Hara, seconded by Mr. Spirk. 5-0. 7.K. RSP-24-47 Owner: Johnathan S Meltz Applicant: N/A Agents: Ed Fortich Address: 157 NE 104th ST. Request: 1. A 1,060 square foot addition comprising a master bedroom with a walk-in closet at the rear east side of the property, an office space, and an additional bathroom. 2. Exterior modifications, including a new pool deck and a façade update. RSP-24-47-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-47-Application.pdf RSP-24-47-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino spoke about the addition and the façade changes being done to the front of the house. Mr. Spirk asked about the projection of the wall and the extended non-conforming of the addition. Mr. Corradino stated that the same interpretation is what staff deemed appropriate during the review. There was a back and forth dialogue on what a non-conformity is and how the presented item is being extended. Mr. Fortich stated that the wall is less than 4 feet and the material would be marble and granite. Mr. Spirk stated that the concern is creating a precedent and will support the application to move the wall and push the addition to the 10-foot setback. Ms. Wood asked is the non-conformity indeed being changed or extended? Mr. Spirk stated that staff told another applicant that they had to move the wall 10 feet back and if approved then there would be an inconsistency. The applicant would have to come back with a variance. Public Comment: Maria McGuiness: -States she believes that the building in increasing in non-conformity. 12 Motion to approve by Mr. O'Hara, seconded by Mr. Nappier III, (Denied by Mr. Spirk, Mr. Bolton 3-2) 7.L. RSP-24-59 Owner: Roberto Nava Applicant: N/A Agents: N/A Address: 30 NW 100th TER. Request: 1. Modifying the existing building façade with a new entryway orientation, concrete steps, and decorative columns. RSP-24-59-Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-59-Application.pdf RSP-24-59-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino spoke about the background of the application and explained the intent of the project. Mr. Nava spoke at the podium and gave insight of the intent of the changes to the front façade. Mr. Spirk had concerns about the stoop extending 4 feet out and to be pushed back as the stoop on the drawings were not properly dimensioned. The stoop is extended past 6 inches the setback. Motion to approve with conditions of pulling back 6 inches from the setback by Mr. Spirk, seconded by Mr. O’Hara. 5-0. 10. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 10.A. Amendment to Residential Zoning District Development Regulations (Sponsored by: Chair John Bolton) Already addressed in 8.A. Mr. Corradino stated that staff is working on the residential code. 10.B. Amendment to Zoning Code adding Community Residential District (Sponsored by: Chair John Bolton) Mr. Corradino stated drafted code will be available in early July and a workshop will be held for the public to be able to participate in. 10.C. Checklist Additions (Sponsored by: Mr. Brandon Spirk) P&Z Agenda Action Memo - Checklist Additions.pdf Mr. Spirk wanted to discussed on creating more item requirements of applicant packages so the projects are clear and concise. Also, renderings and section drawings. This will be for the public to understand. Also, to see if something is appropriate or not, and that renderings are relatively cheap. Site plan data table to include pervious and impervious area as well as include crown of road for new applications and substantial improvement based on area. Mr. Spirk stated that it is the appropriate thing to add and a tree survey 13 compliance of chapter 18A. Chair Mr. Bolton stated to defer this until the new residential code is written. Motion to approve the added checklist presented by Mr. Spirk, Seconded by Mr. O’Hara (Denied: Mr. Brady, Chair Mr. Bolton, Mr. Nappier III). 2-3 motion failed. 10.D. Demolition Prerequisites (Sponsored by: Mr. Brandon Spirk) P&Z Agenda Action Memo - Demolition Prerequisite.pdf Mr. Spirk wants to stop homes from being demolished with vacant land until the planning and zoning board reviews it. Ms. Wood stated that this item would have to go before village council to direct staff and the village attorney’s office to opine on this issue. Ms. Wood gave another option to include this proposed amendment and the overall zoning code amendment.Mr. Spirk’s concern is that residents are sitting on vacant lots under trust or historically significant homes being destroyed. Motion to recommend village council to review and direct staff with the language to consider on the draft By Mr. O’Hara, seconded by Mr. Brady. 5-0. 11. NEXT REGULAR BOARD HEARING -JULY 25, 2024 12. ADJOURNMENT- Move to adjourn at 10:38pm by Chair Mr. Bolton, Seconded by Mr. Brady. 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Board may consider and act upon such other business as may come before it. In the event this agenda m ust be revised, such revised copies will be available to the public at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if a person decides to appeal any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon w hich the appeal is based. Miami Shores Village complies with the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act. If you are a disabled person requirin g any accommodations or assistance, including materials in accessible format, a sign language interpreter (5 days’ notice required), or information, please notify the Village Clerk's office of such need at least 72 hours (3 days) in advance. In accordance with Village code and section 2-11.1(s) of the Miami-Dade County Code, any person engaging in lobbying activities, as defined therein, must register at the Village Clerk’s Office before addressing the Council on the above matters or engaging in lobbying activities.