##VIDEO ID:k0poE_-GO_8## okay all right good evening welcome everyone to the north Miami Board of adjustment meeting of October 16 2024 it's been a while uh and again I apologize for the delay but we will get started uh if everyone will please rise and the meeting is called to order and our new member Mr Berto would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you thank you all right and with that oh Mr hell you're here you see he made it and Jennifer doesn't have to do it okay uh may we please have roll call of board members Safi are you there oh you changed yes we have a full night tonight so I have to sit in the audience um chairwoman rosin Phillip here Vice chair Michael mcdeid here board member Jeff mesier board member blle Peter Lewis board member Evan Shields here board member Marlene monam here board member Kenneth E here and board member lumana Joseph here I'm here oh board member hernand bero thank you thank you and are there any well I'm jumping ahead uh Mr hello you ready for us okay thank you with the announcement good evening everyone so this is a summary of Quasi judicial procedures these rules apply to applications on specific process of land like the variance request uh and other requests be on the on the agenda tonight the board will sit like a court hence the term quasi judicial reviewing the facts presented at the hearing applying the adopted rules as explained by staff in the staff report and verbally board members can make site visits but must disclose the evidence upon which they intend to rely from that visit board members will disclose at the begin beginning of the hearing whether they have had Communications with individuals on behalf of the applicant or otherwise including who the communication was with and what the topic of the discussion was all persons intending to speak to the board will be sworn by the clerk staff will make a presentation the board may ask questions the app applicant will make a presentation including expert Witnesses if any the board may ask questions when the public hearing is open the public can make comments on the application limited to two minutes each citizen testimony must be fact based not opinion board may ask questions and the applicant attorney if any may ask questions on cross-examination members of the public can decline to be cross-examined staff may present additional testimony to supplement or rebut arguments made the board then deliberates based on the evidence presented the board's decision must be based on competent substantial evidence meaning based on the record staff presentations expert presentations and fact-based comments by citizens according to the standards for approval set forth in the city code the board May approve deny or continue the item while staff previously read into the record emailed or mailed comments or letters uh since the letters are not com the substantial evidence for example not sworn testimony subject to cross-examination the board's decision cannot be based on what is contained in the comments or letters but they can be used to identify issues and help identify sources of information that do contain competent substantial evidence upon which a decision can be based written comments or letters submitted before the meeting are part of the record and available for review by the board lastly we ask each of you to treat this proceeding with respect and proper decorum no call calling out interrupting speakers or disrupting the proceeding please give this proceeding the same dignity and respect as if you in court disruptions are prohibited and enforcable pursuant to the city code please also silence your cell phones thank you thank you all right with that being said I see a room full of people tonight uh and we do have a lot of items anyone wishing to speak on any items tonight either for or against you need to please rise raise your right hand and you will be administered The Oath by our Clerk or is it by our clerk if you're going to talk about something tonight you need to stand up and raise your hand stand up raise your right hand yeah this is is just like being in court okay if you don't stand up and raise your right hand I'm not going to let you get up to the mic all right do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth all right I remember faces okay okay uh are there any amendments to the agenda good evening Madame May I'm Derek cook with the city of North Miami development services department we do have an amendment to the agenda item four and five hold on D's running okay item four and five on the agenda we requesting to be um deferred to a date certain um for the next meeting item four is a special exception to permit a nightclub at 1547 Northwest 119th Street and the accompanying variance they have is a variance to the minimum distance separation for nightclub use also located at 1547 Northwest 19th Street okay MO yes I'm sorry that requires a motion by the board second all right all in favor to both items four and five yes four and five yeah any oppos all right please note that our me board member Miss blight b leis has joined us okay anything else Mr cook thank you ma'am no okay approval of the minutes from May May 15 May May 15th meeting ma'am May 15 2024 it's been so long yes show move second okay then move and second all those in favor say I I any oppos all right Communications and with that I would think that uh we would do Case by case as we bring up cases okay all right new petitions let us start with uh se- 02-2 24 special reception to allow a tattoo parlor within the c2b zoning District at 2206 North East 123rd Street uh not yet we'll allow Mr cook to go ahead and make the presentation and then uh we'll allow you to come up thank you madam chair as stated the item before you is a special exception to allow for the use of Tac two pum located generally at the address of 2206 Northeast 123rd Street so it's stated there this is a special sence pursuant to Article 4 division 2 Section 4202 tattoo parlers may be allowed in the c2b commercial district with special exception approval by the board of adjustment the applicant has submitted a special exception request to the board to bring this service to our city as you can see this is located right there on one Northeast 123rd across from the town home development that's been there for years um and this is a wellestablished commercial establishment that's been in the area for many years itself this commercial Plaza now doing our review we look at several items related to this is a survey of the um area we look at several items to see if the application meets the compliance for this use to take place in the city and these items are as such is there is the use a listed special exception in the district where where the proposed property is located proposed use is located yes it is our code AS was stated in 4-22 specifically states that a special exception is required for this use is there appropriate Provisions for Access facilities adequate to estimated traffic from public streets sidewalks so as to assure Public Safety and to avoid traffic congestion you know this you know the area very well um this is the existing site which has Ingress and egress onto Northwest excuse me Northeast 123rd Street um it has existing parking in the area and the tattoo parlor is going into an existing Bay at the location we would cons deem this as adequate to serve the use are there adequate parking areas and off Street Truck loading spaces if applicable for the anticipated number of occupants employees patrons and the parking layout is convenient and conducive for safe operation this is an existing non-conforming situation in that today we would not allow for um this youth to be have parking in the front we would prefer to have it in the rear so you can have the building up front addressing the sidewalk that would engage the public as you know as it is they have the existing parking this is going into an existing Bay the parking is what it is we SE this we deem this adequate for that use to be to be served is there suitable Landscaping fencing along the St well it's all hard Escape there is generally the case for many of our old sites so there no new Landscaping being proposed for this site is the proposed special exception reasonable in terms of logical efficient and economical extension of Public Service and Facilities such as public water sewer police and fire protection is the existing site this would not have any impact on those Services whatsoever with the with the proposed special exception constitute an ad appropriate use in the area and will not substantially injure or distract from the use of the surrounding properties are from the character of the neighborhood so as a special exception we have deemed certain uses need to come before the board for review to see if there are any kind of conditions that may be conducive for that use tatto policies is considered one of those uses that we feel that we determined to deem this kind of scrutiny considering that it is an existing commercial site and that this is not a large use that will go into that commercial site we do not feel like it would have any adverse impact on the surrounding area you know the idea about tattoos have changed dramastically drastically since when it was when we was kids and stuff like that so you know more people have tattoos than don't it seems these days so it's not the same stigma that used to um be prevalent with them and there are no open code violations on this property with that in mind staff recommends approval of the requested special exception use in accordance to article 3 division 5 Section 3- 504 standards of approval of the Land Development regulations to allow a tattoo paror on the subject property with the following conditions one that the applicant obtain the appropriate building permits for any remodel of the Interior Space where applicable that the African obtain a certificate of use and business tax receipt prior to opening of the proposed business and that the app comply with all local state and federal regulations that ends my presentation thank you thank you thank you all right is the applicant here yes okay now is the time thank you good evening my name is rosn yukin and I represent the uh potential tenant that is going into that space we have complied with all of the regulations I have submitted all of the documentation to the city for certificate of use approval and I'm sorry it's been so long can you please state your name and address Roslin yukin the address of the space uhuh yes it is 2206 Northeast 123rd Street thank you that's just for the record thank you um as I was saying I I obtained durm approval through wasda through through um durm uh and that got approved I submitted the application to the planning department and uh we have everything ready to go and then we were informed that we needed to come to this special hearing so everything that the gentleman said is true and we're hoping that we can get approved and get my tenant open as soon as possible thank you thank you done can sit down yeah you we will open hold hold on we'll for board discussion we will open public hearing anyone for or against who would like to speak on this particular item public hearing is closed board discussion Mr veretta yes I you have a couple of question um there are like three or four tattoo parlos already uh on BC Boulevard why do you feel that this area requires another another place just City the mic please I I really can't answer that the uh tenants saw that the space was available uh that's what they wanted to do and they went ahead to rent the space okay the the the place has two parking space in a bay area that has 87 how many people or employees are going to be in the in this location so there'll be one and um this is not you know a heavy traffic type of service this will be conducted by appointment only so it will be one customer coming in getting the service leaving and then subsequently there will be others following during the day hopefully they will be busy all day thank you okay thank you oh anything else anything else for our appli any other board discussion you may sit down I just want to ask uh Derek a question I okay Mr cook Derek do do we have a uh I thought in the L use we had a a distance between tattoo Parish do we not we have one on 13th in bisc we have another one on 123rd uh between 16th and the Boulevard and I think that's on the south side of 123rd and there's another one I think on the North side in that same location so this would be the fourth one in that area I'm not against it I'm just wondering I thought we had I seem to recall that we had that in the land use but I could maybe mistaken that was the only question I had thank you commissioner e um Mr E what we have we do have in certain areas of the city we do have distance separation requirements one is most specifically in our downtown area which is in the C3 we do have distance separation for beauty salons barers shop and similar uses convenience doors is none that is existing outside of that area for um for um Ty parlers we have a distance Separation on Northwest 7th Avenue for certain uses as well thank you any other board discussion do I have a motion so moveed moved by Mr E second seconded by Mr McDade roll call please chairwoman rosin Phillip yes Vice chair Michael mcdermaid Yes board member BL Pier Lewis yes board member Evan Shields yes board member Marley monam yes board member Kenneth each yes and board member lumana Joseph yes thank you you've been approved and I good luck to your tenant thank you it's nice to be first first yes u m Madam woman chair I believe we have a new member who was not called in the roll call did we again I'm so sorry Mr Berto okay name on there thank you and I'm so focused on moving up how do you vote Mr bero I agree approve thank you thank you thank you Mr sh got all right our next case V-6 d24 variant to legalized and existing non I'm sorry Mr hell okay so we have an alternate sitting and the board is is supposed to have seven members um so the alternate would not have to vote or not be able to vote unless one of the uh seven members had to recuse them themselves or had to leave for any reason so the vote alternate should be seven people not eight who's alternate I think there are there are two alternates Mr Bera I am alternate and also that right so you don't vote unless somebody else can okay okay okay I think the second timate who's the second ultimate Mr M oh okay what an amazing thing we have a super Quorum today I know it's like the first time ever in the five years I've been on this board okay thank you all right so safy you know what to do all right variance as I said uh to legalize an existing non-conforming additional dwelling unit located at 445 Northwest 136 Street and go ahead Mr cook thank you madam chair as stated Avance to Article 5 Divi excuse me the Article 5 Division 1 Section 5-12 E1 and two of chapter 29 of the city of North Miami code of ordinances Land Development regulations to allow a detached accessory dwelling unit Adu on a lot whose size is 6,500 ft which is smaller than the required 12,500 Square ft and a building size of 258 ft Square ft which does not meet the minimum square footage for the Adu which is 500 square ft the property is located at 445 Northwest 136 Street in the R2 District said variance is to be reviewed under the criteria set forth in article 3 division 6 section 3- 606 of these ldrs as it was stated this is a variance for deviation for two criterias that are needed for you to use I have a ad you in your in the city a few years ago the city introduced the Adu and we had two criterias that either the the lot would need to be a minimum of 12,500 feet and that the unit would need to be a minimum of 500 square F feet or 10% of the size of the building of the principal building but no less than 500 square fet as stated this item does not meet either of those two criterias the lot is only 6,500 ft and the proposed Adu is 250 square ft now we looked at several criterias that are associated with the variance process we have five we have six criterias to get a positive recommendation from staff you need to meet four of those six and those six items are as far follows one special conditions and circumstances exist that are particular to the land structure or building involved and that are not applicable to other lands structures or buildings in the same zoning District we have determined no there are no special conditions that requires this variance to take place two the unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variant requests are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property no again there are no circumstances that are prevalent throughout the neighborhood that partic that precipitate the need for this deviation three the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the subject reg regulation particularly as it affects the city's stability and appearance we say yes here in this in this vein the city when we introduced the accessory dwelling units as part of our code was the intent to bring about affordable housing within the city so there are a Litany of of criterial that one needs to meet that are a part of the um at the latter end of this um presentation that is spoken of one of them that they need to be a covenant that is for low income if it's not a relative and that you need to have it for 30 years or so that covered it so you just can't do it at the market rate so it was a it was a two as I stated to bring about affordability within the city as we know which is a concern so in that vein it makes that intent of the code that we have this Adu the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ldrs would deprive the applicant of Rights comedy commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning District under the terms of these ldrs again we say no however reasonable use of land buildings a structure does not deprive the construction of the LD of this of accessory dwelling unit that meets the parameters underlying in section five -102 five the variance request is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land structure a building so this we say yes here you can look at this two ways all right they need a variance to be able to um to establish this Adu and then you look at it in this capacity too if we does this is this variant needed to be able to use the house the principal structure in the land as a whole so if you look at it on that holistic no but if you look at it in the spef specificity of this request that they need these variances a they need the variance for the lot size and they need the variance for the size of the unit if you don't these are the minimum variances necessary to allow for this use to take place six the granting of the variant will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these ldrs and such variants will not be injurious to the area involved so we say yes here um will it be an injury to the surrounding area to have a Adu um back there is it injurious to the surrounding area that the um lot is not 12,500 square feet is an existing lot um the introduction of that Adu would not be iore to use the term it would not necessarily disrupt the character of the neighborhood things that you would need to take in consideration is that you will have a unit that will be able to be rent out and that will precipitate a traffic associated with that use but that in mind we say overall we do not believe that they would be out of harmony harmony with the surrounding area and it wouldn't be injurious to the area so with that said the applicant and our assessment only met three of the six criterias and as such we're not able to render a positive recommendation by staff we leave it in your hands to make an assessment of this um request if you deem it that you would Grant this requested variances we would ask that you ask that you implement these certain conditions I stand corrected my staff did as I requested we have request minute a denial all right thank you Mr hell has a question sure so I'm a little confused by the application because the the application and letter of T be both talk about storage unit not an Adu and the plans don't show any windows on whatever that structure is so is it fit within the definition of an ATU is that why so something that we have to speak with building about it but our determination if you have a kitchen you have living quarters then you're considered a dwelling unit and they have that within this facility within that structure yes right it it's not existing though it is existing okay now are there windows I didn't see windows in the plans so that is that is when you I if the applicant is here they can yes to address that but to to answer your question again to reiterate if you have a living facility where you have a bathroom kitchen and living Rings it is considered a unit and as such it's not a shed okay oh and Mr H I think the shed item is not this one it is wow now I see something that says 774 noreast 126 and it clearly said uh set back for shed I have a 445 Northwest 136 Street 445 136 mine always said nonconforming that's why I said the there was bit confusion I think you're referring to item seven v-10 d24 at 774 Northeast 126 Street yeah that one is the shed I I have on mine though I I have um 445 Northwest 13 that one is and it says uh storage room yes okay that's correct um if I may through the through the chair they do refer to it as a storage unit but as you look at the actual plans you see a bath B uhhuh you see a living area you see a kitchen this constitutes a living um unit yeah so what they what they did was they converted a storage shed into an apartment okay uh well before we go into the discussion let's try to stay with the proceeding how they should be thank you for your presentation Mr cook are you done just as um uh then if you choose to Grant these variances we have a Litany of conditions which are specific to adus that are drawn directly from out of the code that we ask that you um consider them as conditions if so to thank you that ends my presentation thank you is the applicant for 445 Northwest 136 Street here okay you may come forward you need to speak to the were you swor in okay both of you state your name my name is Alexander L Roa um I live at 435 Norwest 136 Street nor Miami 33168 445 Norwest 136 Street his name no no thank you is there anything that he would like to add hold on one second the city question I'm asking who's going to be translating he's communicating he's communicating in another language I don't believe we have a certified translator here this is a quasi judicial proceeding I don't feel it's appropriate that could testimony be solicited in another language without a a professional translator here to translate not only for ourselves but for the public what the statements are that are on the record he was sworn is that generally the rule yes on quasi judicial proceedings we usually the services of for a court translator I'm not sure if this was requested in advance CU normally we would make accommodations and have a translator here based on um attorney Warren's statement I would like to move to table this item to the next meeting I agree than um well question h a question before the vote okay to Mr H yeah for for for for Mr Noel and for Mr Derek in the letter that Mr Noel wrote In order to justify the application it clearly say that he wants a cheed storage uh for their tools is very clear then and he is also saying that he doesn't have a kitchen then even if it's for the next minute but why do we are we doing trying to to pass an approval for a dwelling unit that that's not what the applicant is requesting all right uh before Mr cook comes and I think as the chair been on the board for a long time the applicant May yes thank you we have a motion in a second just understand that the applic ation may be requested but staff have to do due diligence and visit the site in order to know what they're asking for is actually it so therefore with our motion and our second we will take a roll call for tabling this item to the next meeting to the next meeting with no penalty to the applicant I don't know if there's a violation with fees or anything no would if I made through the chair by moving into a date certain they will not we will not need to re advertise which cause incurrence of additional fees and our next meeting should be November 20th according to the agenda yeah are we all available Thanksgiving is the next week so everyone should be here can ask a question is this something the city provides yes the city has a contract with a and have no cost to them no it is no cost to the applicant it's something that the City offers to all applicants for all quasi judicial proceedings it's for the benefit of the applicant I agree all right so you want me to tell him yes please let him know that that he's not being penalized we we're just making an accommodation rolling the case over so that he can get a court certified translator so that he will know what the proceedings are and what is being said amongst the board as well as the board can understand what he's saying to them okay and the city will provide so did we vote all in favor for the tbling the item I I any oppose thank you you got it thank you all right I was going to test my dual lingual skills I've been doing Spanish that's good ELO this is where I said translator thank you miss Warren I said thank you you know we have to him and us all right next on the list uh is uh item v 07- 27 a variance to allow a dock to extend 28 ft 2 in where 6 ft is required and it's located at 2135 Keystone Boulevard underwater way thank you madam chair again this is Derek cook with the development services department has stated before you is a verance to Article 5 division 6 section 5- 602 B one of chapter 29 of the city of North Miami code of ordinances Land Development regulations ldrs to allow a dark extension to extend 28 ft 2 in where no more than the maximum of 6 feet outward from either the property line or the bank of such navigable Canal or Waterway or that faces the seaw wall cap whichever is closest to the edge of water or greater than 15 feet into the bis Gan Bay which either property line or the the established bulkhead line or the face of the seaw wall at the property located at 2135 Keystone Boulevard said variance is to be reviewed under criteria set forth in article 3 division 6 section 3- 606 of these ldrs so I have the first page up here as to give you um a visual of the area where we looking at you see an intersection of four um waterways coming in to where the property is the highlighted property highlighted area is the actual property in consideration again see so I want to go to this so this is not necessarily oriented the way it will be on the um property as you can see at that Peak that is where you hit the 22t into the rway so let me go back okay so you see where the curvature is at the property that Peak is where it will be all right where that that would be so you looking at a total with the dock and the extension of the dock um with the original 6ft Dock and this extension of 22t 2 in it brings it up to 28 2 in so I'm going go back again let's look at this area where it is because I'm going through this exercise because as um the board attorney astutely brought to attention through Durham they con they was concerned about vessels being able to navigate around this thing so and that is a valid concern okay because our code speaks to do extensions of docks either by flotation devices such as um floaters um um hydraulic systems anything like that that you have parameters parameters such as this that that extension can't be more than 25% of the width of the rway as we look at the rway that runs immediately north south that rway area which is immediately abundant it on the North side is 80 ft wide the rway that extends where the peak is and if you would go from that Peak all the way across to that property that is immediately across there looking diagonally that's 282 ft rough L per Google Earth and if you look if you look going to the southeast just a little south of where that Peak would be that distance from that Peak to that property Edge is 190 some um linear feet and even if you go to the smallest end as you move southw where the bridge is on the property that extension right there is more than 100 ft wide that said is to give you perspective about being able to navigate but even with that in mind you still have things that we need that we could specifically say in our code about extending into theway of the water or Canal specifically as I stated it can't be more than 25% of that width and it cannot exceed 25 ft regardless of the width of of the Waterway thus we have a Vance in front of you so you have a Vance that is specifically related to the dock the dock maximum width is 6 feet they are extending that dock 22 feet that makes it 28 to in we have the perspective that I just talked about where the code talk about even if you were adding an apparatus to that dock how far it can go out into your RightWay no more than 25% and a Max of 25 ft when you're talking about canals on biscan Bay there is a difference there they allow it to go further out to 35 ft through a erance but this is not the situation here so when you take that into consideration and you see the point of where that extension will be it's it exceeds what we would generally require allow by right even in any circumstance so either way even if it was 100 ft wide there 200t or 300t as we said it still would need a variance thus this was here so with that in mind we had we have six criterias that you are aware of that we review to determine whether we can say this is a variance that staff can recommend so as we as you heard in the last um item that we um we heard you're looking at number one are there special circumstances or conditions exist which are particular to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land structures and buildings in the same zoning District we say no staff finds no special conditions or circumstances here two the unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating a variance requests are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property here staff says yes that the water de located this is not applicable because this is not bis game Boulevard on bis game Bay correct so from speaking with the applicant and he's going to speak more um eloquently and specific to because it's his site and he knows what he has experienced there he believes that it's a safety issue necessitating the need for this extension of this dock um to what they were speaking of in the code um in the report that is a criteria that we look at if you need to extend your dock to a certain extent to allow for you to have a depth where you can weigh your boat this is not the situation here for this canal is deep you can weigh your boat without any issue there the third item is that the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the the subject regulations particularly as it affects the stability and appearance of the neighborhood again sta says yes um so when I initially looked at this um I had pause about it because of those circumstances that I spoke up earlier about what the criterias that we allow for even an extension to it to be going 25 ft and no more than 25% that right there but when you look at the area where that apparatus will be at its peak point it allows for maneuverability of craft without difficulty I believe and I don't think it intrudes into the um into Aesthetics of the area I don't think that it is democracies I mean that is overwhelming to the area that it sticks out like saying what how can I get around this it seems to be in um in context with the surrounding area because of that four-way intersection you see of the of the um Pathways with that in mind I said okay this works uh but I had pause initially and then you have number four the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ldr's would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning District under the terms of these ldrs we say no here um you already have a 6-ft dock that is what the code allows um it doesn't deprive him of or her of that dock it just wouldn't be able to do the extension five the variance request is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land structure or building here staff says yes the applicant is requesting a deviation from the sixe requirement which cannot approve administratively the variance is the minimum required to allow the doc to beign Designed as proposed and last the granting of the varant will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these ldrs and such variants will not be injurious to the area involved here we say yes it would not be and to what I've already spoke of somewhat here is is this extension in a manner that it be intrusive to the neighbors would it be intrusive to the abilities that someone can be able to navigate the waters and then in that framework no and it's not unprecedented in our city that we have certain docks that extend further into the waterways than the six feet so it's not unprecedent um but with that said they don't meet the criteria I see it of the four of the six so we leave it in your hands to govern whether you feel that this is a worthy variance to the code and if you do deem so we would request that you consider two conditions one that the applicant must comply with each of Durance requirements to allow the installation of the dock and two that the applicant must receive a building permit and comply with all applicable regulations that ends my presentation thank you thank you is the applicant here state your name and address good evening everybody uh first time doing one of these variances I've never done it before so uh a little nervous um my name is Julio uh I live at 2135 Keystone Boulevard I've been a resident of North Miami since 2005 um do you want to ask me a question or do I I don't know no do you have anything to add uh yes to the presentation so I have small kids um we obviously have a lot of get togethers with the kids from school um we've had some issues that the way that the lot was designed and the dock was designed um we've had kids fall in the water um thank God till now no one has gotten hurt but since the dock is very rounded compared to the rest of the properties that are more squar it is kind of a hazard um and I don't want anybody to get hurt uh I wouldn't be bothering any of the neighbors all the neighbors are on board um you know I'm in a unique corner where on the right side of the property it's a deadend Waterway there's nobody there besides me and my neighbor there's no uh you can't get through because it's a flat Bridge it's not a bridge where you could drive under um so I would I would ask you to please consider approving it um since it's a very unique situation I wouldn't be bothering anybody but I would be able to uh protect my family and our friends and our neighbors to come over when the kids are playing thank you thank you I will open public hearing anyone for or against public hearing is Clos board discussion question yes you may this is the time Mr cook um I'm curious about the um appreciation about Point number five if is if the variant requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land structure of building because the question is the the the criteria is very open reasonably use of the land structure of building but what you mention is that it complies because it's the minimum for the way that they have designed it but but they can use the the the the the dog anyway there been used for many years and and and then it's not that the property cannot be used or the L cannot be used um with less than that Dimension is that that is the dimension of the design then if that is the interpretation of that then any design that is out of the Varian of the the rights will be always complied because because the designer has designed it for is a non-compliant um with with the rights then the way that your interpretation on that point5 I am just curious about if that is the case then that will be always in any um in any case be yes Madam chair go ahead uh so actually Mr perto your question is is uh in accord with the way courts are interpreting that criteria the Florida courts the Third District Court of Appeal which is the local Court uh not recently but uh in years past has said that uh if there is reasonable use of the property then no variance would be required no variance should be allowed correct um and there has to be a situation where a property ER does not have reasonable use of the land then the question is what is the least variance that would allow a reasonable use of the land so technically if you're doing it in accordance with how courts have interpreted this criteria or similar versions of it if the property owner has use of the land through single family home use of a dock um then that criteria would not be satisfied because the existing uses are reasonable correct that's my point Thank you so for example if people falling into the water is an issue put up a little rope barrier or whatever it is to prevent people from falling in the water all right thank you any other board discussion can a go ahead go go ahead very quick question can I get a brief um understanding of what derms analysis of this particular uh project was Durham was in boid with us um with the um extension if he get a Vance why they didn't elaborate on that part in the email okay so which is not uncommon we have had Durham say say well if you are able to get the um the city to agree to do this then we will allow it to take place okay so some sometimes durm comments based upon the depth of the water and says that the variant should be granted because the property owner cannot act cannot have its um reparan right to access the water unless it has a boat dock that extends out a certain so that's not this situation what durm did I think said it had no objection and raised the navigability issue the question about um whether there would be a conflict with navig navigation in the water body but deferred to the city on that issue and the city has said it doesn't have an issue with that given the where it's located and the fact that you're not having other vessels go through because you can't even raise the bridge okay got that Chief each yeah can I have the applicant come back up please your home's about what four years old five years old uh no I just actually uh got my CEO uh January of this year I I am not a contractor but I did build it myself and it took me I'm familiar with it it took me a lot longer than normal because I was doing it myself you did a heck of a good job thank you I appreciate that where are you going to dock your boat is that going to be on the little Arch creek side or on the side that dead ends it's in where it is right now uh it's on it's on the dead end side okay all right and the only place you're putting that extension is on the curve right the rest of it's going to be 6 foot and six foot yeah correct right so you're not intruding on anybody and um the other thing I wanted to ask you what what are you going to do for the dock I know Derm is uh when you go out that far you're going to use that see-through material where the sun can penetrate or the grill work or you using Lumber okay so I reached out to Durham before I started this process to make sure that I wasn't going to waste my time with the city they told me they would approve it based on their guidelines but they told me that I had to get an approval from the city first uh before they would approve it if they re if they want the seethrough uh deck I'll be happy to put it I was just wondering yeah they obviously until I don't get the city approval and go back to them I don't know if they're going to require it I do know in kilargo and Mono County all the docks have that in this area you don't really see it I don't know if okay it's because the seagrass over there is different than here I I I really have no idea no I I'm I'm quite familiar with your your your your spot over there and yeah then you have the bridge going over and there's a new new new construction to the uh east of you over there so yeah okay thank you you're welcome thank you very may I have a question for the for the applicant yes go ahead um if the extension is only up to 25 as is normally the procedure and not 28 that will allow you the use that you are intending to well the thing is that then it won't be a perfect square and I'm trying to make a perfect square so none of the kids get hurt um you know at night the kids are out in the yard they're playing if somebody gets hurt you know it's an issue for me um and for my family which I don't want I've been I've been a resident in North Miami from 2005 can you install a guard rail in order to avoid accidents of people falling to the water doubt I would have to ask durm I I don't know I I've never seen any of the docks there with a guard rail on the dock they have they have um like fences on the grass side uh but I've never driven through Keystone and seeing a dock with a rail on the actual dock on the outside what is that so in your case you don't have a fence and wouldn't want one no because it would it so the dock and the house are at the same level so it's part of the yard you know we don't have a lot of yard space because of of the way the house was built and if I was to put a fence then there's not enough yard space I get it yeah I I've seen that thank you any other discussions Mr cook are there any non-conforming docks currently within the vicinity of Keystone that are similar to what the applicants proposing I'm not able to answer that question um sir um without doing a investigation I would say probably so because of the nature of things but I would need to look into that to be so I could specifically address that okay they made reference to one in the analysis but that was on bis game Bay and and I didn't I didn't find that it's applicable correct all right I may we have a I make a motion that we approve I'll second okay thank you gentlemen moved by um Mr E seconded by Mr McDade roll call please hold on quick question that's approval with staff recommendation recommendation always always just clarifying chairwoman rosin Phillip yes Vice chair Michael mcmaid Yes board member bler Lewis yes board member Evan Shields yes board member Marlene monim no board member Kenneth each yes board member Lum Joseph yes and Mr hell just to clarify because um Mr Mr beretto is an alternate I do not have to yeah call correct okay thank you okay your project or your variants have been approved so thank you I appreciate your time and effort and work I appreciate it have a great night uh before we move on uh Mr that not with you uh Mr cook we're getting a lot of these dock issues back again um and I remember there was some work done back in the early 2000s uh because of such things so it might be time for us to start looking at possibly revising code and stuff so we wouldn't have to have individual variances so um this is the opportunity um to do that um we just had our comprehensive plan approved the next step is is um the update of the Land Development regulations uh where we'll be able to craft out such language if y'all would deem to want to bring some suggestions we're in that we're in that phase right at this very moment okay and we'll be having public meetings and Outreach discussing the update of the ldrs okay Mr H so um just reflecting on your comment I I don't think frequency Al loone is the determination because in in this kind of situation there are life safety issues yeah and maybe a case by case determination is appropriate yeah it's something to think about yeah see if I'm not mistaken his his his problem was he doesn't have enough space in the backyard between the building and the Sea on the SE so and the dock is at the same level so that gave him a little bit more living space out on right or maybe he didn't have to build the house to Big well you know what he can rip it down too and we don't have to get the taxes from it either so oh okay let's move on uh all right number six uh Dash excuse me v-9 d24 a variance to permit A reduced Westside setback for multifam structure located at 5 585 Northeast 129 street thank you madam chair Derek cook with the development services department it stated before you is a Vance to Article 4 division 3 section 4-35 of the chapter 29 of the city of North Miami's code of ordinances Land Development regulations to allow a reduction from the required side setback of 25 ft to a proposed set back of 7 1/2 ft on the property located at 585 Northeast 129th Street in the R2 zoning District said variance is to be reviewed under the criteria set forth in article 3 section 6 excuse me division 6 section 3- 606 so as an overview in our code we talked about this property is located in the neighborhood Redevelopment overlay District which no longer exists because with the update of the comprehensive plan we got moved rid of it but in that section of the code when it was there when a multi family development was under construction or be constructed and it's adjacent to a single family home it mandates that you have a minimum setback of 25 ft from the property line from that single family use which is the situation here and this situation is specific to the side setback the normal side set back for the R2 is 7 1/2 ft the applicant is requesting that that reduction take place for the 7 and2 ft believe they also own the property that is immediately to the west of it they own that single family home as well and they have keeping it as a single family home to fer buffer from the single family homes that are proceeding to the West as you go down the street that being said it does not negate them from that requirement that the coal has of that setback of 25 ft as such they're they're requesting a variance to deviate from that setback to set it at 7 1/2 ft that is the overview of what the request is for and applicable to the Cod section that we spoke of to give you over you see if you can see this is where it is so you have Northeast 6th Avenue that is to the east of it you have a multif family use that is immediate abet and then you have that property where they are going to build a multif family home this a multif family development this development will require go to the development Review Committee and I believe it all and it also will require going to city council for a conditional use permit okay I I stand corrected by my staff that they only need a site plan approval for this item they're not a seeking bonus units that would precipitate a need for a conditional use permit so in that vein when you go through the site plan review that will be if it's more than 20,000 ft of Development Area will require city council approval so as I've stated earlier with the other variances we have six criteria that we review an association to determine whether this meets the threshold to be get a recommendation from staff to approve the item and those items are as follows here are pictures of the um development as you can see think as you can see they have articulated the building in a manner that is presentable to the area will seem that it will be engaging um and it looks like it'll be a value property which which is based on opinion so those six items are it's been stated before and I will go through them again it's specific to this item the first one being so overall we have said initially they look to have met three of the six items that you review the first one being a special are there special conditions and circumstances exist which are particular to the land structure of building involved and which are not applicable to the other lands structures and buildings in the same zoning District we say no there are no special conditions or circumstances which are particular to the specific of this property other than the anotal comment that they do own the adjacent property themsel which is next door to them the unusual circumstances and conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not limited to the unique so sta says here yes the neighborhoods is neighborhood wherein the property is located is characterized by a mix of single family low residential and multi family medium to high residential uses due to the location and near to the previously neighborhood Redevelopment overlay District which is the nro the property itself is as well the pro properties to the north in the east side of the property are multif family structures Additionally the applicant owns the single family dwelling located to the west side of the property and the app agrees to maintain that dwelling to continue a buffer to the single family dwellings that proceed down the street to the West three that the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the Subic regulations particularly to particularly as it affects the stabil and appearance of the city we say no the neighborhood Redevelopment overlay is a very clear on the setback requirement of 25 ft abing a single family home the propos the purpose of the nro overlay setback required is to protect the single family dwelling from the encroachment of imposing multif family use structures for the literal interpret ration of the provisions of these ldrs deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning District under the terms of these ldrs again we say no it does not deprive them of the right to be able to construct five the Vance request is the minimum Vance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land and structure or building as the um member of the um board stated earlier which is correct and the um the attorney did quote specifically quote legal presidents as I stated in the very first variance it just depends on how you look at it if you look at it in the context that will this variance deprive the applicant of the use of the property or if we look at it more spec with specificity to the request at hand then you can say and inist yes the lack of the variance permit per permit proposed development is transition area set back within the portion of the sidey yard will not hinder the reasonable use of the existing structure and all the other and also as you look at it we have this circumstances here the adjacent property is owned by the property owner B the standard set back for the R2 zoning District side set back is 7 1/2 ft they are just requesting that their building meet that criteria and it it's up to you if you see it's still intrusive it's up to you if you see that the fact that the property is owned by this developer that is going to be to the west of it they still going to maybe rent it out is it imposing to have a multif family that close to that property irrespective of the fact that it's owned by that developer and last number six the graning of the varant will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these ldrs and such Vance will not be injurious to the area involved so here we say yes the Vance request will allow the development of the 24 unit multif family building in the neighborhood Redevelopment overlay District that permits through the ldr's higher density further the area contains other multif family structures that AB but single family dwellings that do not observe the 25 foot setback requirement excuse me therefore the variance will not create a circumstance that is not present already in the surrounding area that said yeah that said [Music] um they do not meet the four out of the six as such we're not able to recommend approval of the item so we leave it to your hands to see if this deems this request deems that variance that they are asking of and if it does then we request that you consider the following conditions that the applicant obtain all required permits licenses certificates committee and board approvals and obtain all local state and federal approvals to construct the occupi and occupy the structure and I will modify what is with this being in the nro and it being R2 they definitely will need a conditional use permit to be able to construct these 24 units only thing you could do on this is single family except you subdivide the lot somehow to do it so they will need a conditional use thank you that ends presentation no just for clarification so I get an idea 129 there's already a twostory right on the corner of 129 and Northeast 6 uh on the North side North West Side so is that is their property a after that are they going into towards Fifth Avenue or is it more so do they have um could you bring up the um slide for me please ma'am yeah so if you look right right to immediately to the east of you that's six and you see you have that multif family right there those two buildings and then they sit right there oh right after the multi family yes okay and then they the property right after that is the house that theirs and they're saying that they are going to maintain it they originally were going to develop it as like a parking area but from what I understand the applicant Consulting with the neighborhood they would they prefer to maintain that single family home and it provides additional buffer so the single family home just for clarification thank you madam chair um the single family home they own and it's on a separate lot yes so if you would bring it back up for me please ma'am so you have where the areas that's their lot and that lot immediately to the west of is also their lot okay and it's a separate lot and with a single family on there is there going to be a covenant in place that they're not going to sell it after they get this approval you if you wish to have that as a condition you welcome to do so but I know we got to we we've got to talk about it thank you all right uh is the applicant here hi Roberto ciss 343 3234 t m Avenue uh Miami Florida with 3178 uh good evening honorable members I'm sorry I'm a little nervous okay and Madame chair are you the applicant or I am the developer and mrun here um he represents the applicant as well so okay we my name is Roberto sis I'm with bosin management we are acting as developer for for the client um and our goal with this multif family is to bring uh beautiful building with great apartments and great amenities at affordable rent prices for the community for the workforce community of North Miana um the reason why we ask for this experence is as Derek Mr C thanks uh explain was due to the 75 ft of width that we have of the lot um the request variance in the west being 25 ft and the request variance in the East being 7 and2 feet would only leave us with 42 and2 ft uh of of width to build the building uh which will not work with the sign intent that we have not only the the sign int 10 but the number of units that we're trying to propose uh at a follower rent prices uh and that's the reason why we are requesting this variance uh we're here to answer any questions that you may have um I we we believe that this will bring a positive impact on Aesthetics economic um for the business around the area especially on 6th Avenue with there's a lot of business there with the influx of the tenants that are coming in um so again we're here to answer any questions you have and we thank you for your time uh I don't remember if I saw how many how much parking is being provided 35 parking spaces and that's that includes a reduction uh because we have four uh hybrid uh spaces within that property good evening everyone UK and Ramirez I do stand here as a proxy for Mr O'Neil Kumar the representative of uh the Deep Deepa Investments LLC the owner of this property and the one to the west of it he does apologize sincerely he asked me to be here on behalf of him as a friend not just his attorney but also as a friend and close close friend basically family he asked me to be here and apologize sincerely to you all he's currently on a ship for work in Tampa just got hit with the hurricane so he could not make it so he does apologize in advance uh just like my colleague stated his intent is Workforce housing affordable housing in that area he understands that he has owned this duplex for many years now and understands that the property adjacent to him on the east side is an abandoned building is just making and degrading that neighborhood even further so what he wanted to do is Revitalize this neighborhood he wanted to bring the Aesthetics the beautification of this project so he went ahead anticipating some development project and bought the property next to it so that he can create that extra buffer the idea was if it's not utilized as a buffer potentially to create more units for affordable housing if there's a covenant to not sell that property we can definitely talk to Mr Kumar he said he is open game what he wants to bring to North Miami he also lives in North Miami his wife lives there I believe they're going to start a family as well so he wants to invest in this neighborhood not just once but multiple different areas he believes that not only are jobs going to be created with this project they're going to be able to revitalize the businesses there we're talking about 24 units um well below the standard I believe it was approved up to 90 ft High we're doing well under that my colleague can speak as to the details in relation to the building of the actual property uh the only set off we're requesting is on that side and again we do own that property immediately next to it as the additional buffer so the only real impact is with ourselves and it will maintain a rental property Mr Kumar has expressed to me he has no intention to sell it and if we have to require a covenant to sell to make that concrete I'm sure he's open to do it again affordable housing for this neighborhood we all understand here in South Florida that housing is an issue efficiencies left and right in every neighborhood doesn't look good when your neighbors are parking trailers or anything other than that because people just can't afford it and we do have early numbers it's going to be a set of eight 1- one bedrooms 14 22 bedrooms uh two bedrooms two bath and two 33s as far as the rent the projected rent prices if this variance is granted with the numbers crunched by again my colleague the 1 ons could rent at 1,800 which is very affordable efficiencies nowadays rent for 18800 the 2 tws at 2,200 and the 33s about 2500 so 2,500 for a 33 which we believe is right in line with the intent of the nro and the workforce housing in relation to this project oh and one addition thing one concern this is always a concern especially for developers and neighboring uh individuals this is not going to be subsidized this is not part of a Section 8 planning where we're going to bring in individuals who essentially can't afford these properties this is the base rent with no subsidies no taxpayer dollars this will be privately owned privately maintained and well-maintained as far as the beautification of this neighborhood all right thank you you have something to add Mr cook yes ma'am Madam chair through you I think it's something that the um applicant said that was very violent with their request they talked about the width of the lot being 75 ft that in combination with the 7 25t setback and the 7 and a half setback on the east side would greatly reduce their their their Development Area and probably would make it difficult to construct a unit it would make it if they're going to construct it it would have to even go higher which you have allowed up to 90 feet in the nro and with this if you're getting a little more F they wouldn't have to be as high as that so you know it's something to think about okay all right we'll open public hearing on this item is there anyone who'd like to speak on whether for or against public hearing close Mr H go ahead uh Mr cook I have a question so there's a state what is the status of the nro um have a statement in the staff report that they have a vested right to nro benefits why is that so okay I used that word I said that's a strong word very strong it's a legal term too so why I said that is because the nro is dead and they it did it is no longer if you came in right now there is no application to allow you to develop in the nro the fact that they are already in this development process I said that gives invested rights to be able to proceed under the nro criterias it's it based upon the filing of this application before the expiration of exactly yes and their conditional yes I was I'm speaking too much I'm going defer to the City attorney you're talking about the variance application the variance application and the fact that they have a cu cup in right CP would be to the Planning Commission yes for the bonus for the bonus units yeah so I would I I would agree with staff on that that's based upon the filing of the application correct we we were aware that the developer had already acquired this property for that purpose and had already put development applications in place so City staff is correct and and their um statement to you that the city does believe that there is a vested right in the nro development okay um so is there anything that would prevent them from putting a similar building on the property on the property that they own next door other than what they're discussing right now well what it is next door they couldn't the property next door is not in the nro it is just zoned R2 okay it's on what I didn't hear you R2 duplex thank you well that allows for single family a duplex uses existing which is non-conforming you have to be all four for a duplex of more okay so um as Miss montine raised earlier it's possible that we could ask them to commit through a covenant to ensure that it maintains a status as a buffer um and maybe even provide some sort of buing buffering characteristics I don't know to protect the rest of the the question is how far you want to take that idea whether you can make it a condition or defer to another date and have them profer a covenant that's something that the board could discuss if I may through the chair in that vein you could um it's important to reiterate that they do need to go through the conditional use permit process we could have that as um a part of that condition they say based on the varant to request that they need to have a covenant for this uh again I may be I'm going defer to the City attorney I I would recommend that it be a condition of approval for the variants as well as a condition of approval for the cup I agree does the board want if the board entertains this want to discuss the no the Covenant in in more detail you have a question go ahead uh Mr cook sorry for going back to this but according to the point five again um they can use the land even without the variance I understand that 46 will be will be a uh stretch but it's could be used in that sense the point five should be know and in that case they only meet two requirements of the six the case that you mentioned at the beginning is completely different because the the the CR the criteria number five is concerning to the use of the land not concerning to the design of the developer because then they feed the purpose of the requirement then the the in the item number one it was different because it's it's a construction already there it's a 258 um construction noncompliance and then I could understand that in that case if the variance is not approved then they cannot use that building because is not approved but I am just trying to to to going back to the point that that five that that criteria as Mr held has mention it um in that case should be know also then that that that application will meet only two or four just just make that that is a question or statement sir okay okay the question is do you agree or not with my statement so in principle what you're saying is correct but as I said even with that first application even with this application I said it depends on your perspective your perspective is as the law stated as Mr hell stated that it deals with if you can still utilize the land and then I said if you want to think of it in the specificity of their request then you can say then for that request it may be it could be a yes because if you don't Grant it they will not do there be able to do their request it does not circumvent the reality as you're talking about can the land be used or not this has a different criteria in it I think it's very valid what the applican stated dealing with that the lot is only 75 ft wide you're looking at a 25t setback on the on the West Side coupled with a 7 1/2t setback on the east side you're looking at what 42 square feet and a half that they're shrinking at and you need to have that as Development Area and the next question is you know will that be a development area that is really viable for a a property that can be enhancing to that Community or not this is all for you as the board members to assess on what whether or not you feel that this is a valid request understood that will stretch the area to build uh may I do a question for the developer um affordable housing is very important it's critical for the city uh most of the last developments um for for addressing affordable housing are for renting but we would like to have affordable housing for homeowners uh not only rentals because if the city if all the projects are for for for rentals then we won't have an stable affordable housing for the citizens of this city my question to you is have the owner or developer consider to sell part or the units in the near future or just rent it forever as far as I know he's only willing to rent the units for now it doesn't mean that he's not willing to sell it at some point but the right now the development and all the numbers that have been put into this have been for renting in a long term thank you if I may miss through through you miss chairwoman just to respond on behalf of Mr Kumar uh in relation to selling although the developer was not asked to Crunch these numbers we did talk about it him and I personally did talk about whether or not it's it's better to sell to create that permanent home for individual the issue that we ran into was well if we're asking for this variance and we own the property next door if we start selling these apartments does that mean we have to sell the single family home or does that create a conflict as far as the the point that uh again the council brought up in relation to the Covenant do we run into another issue if the variance is approved we sell all of these individual units what happens then when the single family is sold are they're going to be upset they have 24 next to them we talked about that in detail and we asked the developer just to Crunch the numbers as far as a rental for now if that's something that the board wants to consider perhaps we can talk about it and revisit that issue but again the presentation was we also own the property on the left so we wanted to make sure we created that buffer for the renter so not have issues instead of with one owner 24 owners thank you Mr MC yeah a quick question would you go over the number for the the rental prices for the various units yes so we when we asked the developer as far as the projections for rent we have eight one bedroom one bath those are projected to rent at 1,800 $1,800 for that single uh bedroom single bathroom the 14 two bedroom two bath uh projected rental rate of 2,200 and the two 33s are projected to rent went at 2,500 I believe the developer my colleague here can talk to the details as to how he approached those numbers I believe we looked into the workforce project or the intent behind the workforce to make sure we hit those numbers and the reason this property was constructed or at least developed on paper with this number of units this much architectural space was to hit those numbers if we were to revise that or not be approved for this variance those numbers either got to go up or the projects can't happen thank you can I ask any other yeah I just want how big is the property to the Westy what's the width on that the second you family that we own yeah I believe it's also 75 ft I don't have 75 by dep it's 230 roughly they about identical law now right now there's a duplex that your your your client owns is that cor 585 had to beautifully landscaped as I recall well that's at 575 that's the single family unit yes beautiful okay I mean and he's knocking that down to build this right no no no the single family at 575 Northeast is staying as the buffer okay I got you and development is at 585 which also has a yeah I was just thinking uh you know we talking about ownership and I I I think that's vitally important in the city and and you know right now you have that uh single family house there and I think you you want that barrier and if you subsequently want to go to condos then I would suggest that you landscape that extensively and knock down that single family home make a beautiful Greenery over there make a beautiful Park you know uh one of the things I admire about this project is you going to use a rooftop garden I I've seen that in here I think that's that's absolutely excellent we're also on the Planning Commission and we approved the project not too far from you and uh it's just another stero apartment no pool no amenities nothing and the developer told us he said well he said the amenities are in the apartment it's a lot of bolic you're going to come home from work and you're going to sit there and you're looking at your four walls or looking at your balcony looking at Sixth Avenue it's a lot of nonsense what I admire about this project is you are putting something in there where you can come home from work go up on a roof relax have a cocktail meet your neighbors socialize and I think that's important but you want to might keep that in the back of your mind or tell your develop I think I met I I met him several times I think we met him at the Planning Commission and I was pretty impressed when I was out there looking at the the site and and how he had his place landscaped beautifully and I thought it was a great amenity and a great addition to the neighborhood and I and I do agree with uh home ownership I do agree with you know not everything should be rentals not everything can be affordable and and I think you know looking at this project and conduit it if you're going to make to the west of it I I would make that spectacular make that into yeah I'm spending your money but uh uh you know I've been in the city 50 years and this is something i' like to see happen I I I and I think that area definitely is being revitalized and and I think it's absolutely important and maybe we could go along with your with your Covenant put that in the Covenant also if you want subsequently rent it down knock it down the house that that be comes landscaped and you know so forth and so on thank you I'm sorry to okay yes I have some question for the developers um you want to beautify the area but you have an abandoned building right on Sixth Avenue on 129 Street what is the plan have you talked to the owners of the building yeah we I can definitely speak to that thank you for your question through the chairwoman uh yes I've done my due diligence I knocked on the doors it's obviously abandoned I believe there's a few homeless people living in there I've talked to my client we want to buy it we want to make sure that we can also beautify that one and that one we also talked about and to address the home ownership we believe that one's in a better area as far as that corner right on 6th Avenue for those Condominiums because we have less requirements or less restrictions I have contacted or attempted to contact the owner of the company I believe it's an investment company company that owns the property I try to contact them the next thing I got to do is a background search to find out who the individual is to see if I can contact but yes excellent question we have been doing our due diligence that is something we are looking at as far as perceiving for possibly the next project or if we get a response I I don't understand why they haven't utilized that property it's the ideal location and we were just talking about this it's it's it's a shame that it's there it's an isore especially right on 6th Avenue is that the one right right on 129th and and actually they've done work on it recently you drive by it looks like when new windows have been put in it used to have boarded up with that's been taken down so I don't know what they plan on doing so it looks like 129 right across public yeah right across the street yeah well my route to the east of the current subject property the first property as you go into 29 going west okay on your right hand side yeah it's been painted looks like new windows and stuff so I don't know perhaps that's why they ignore my requests maybe all right any other this oh I'm sorry thank you so I know you have current residents in that property in the single family yes no in the duplex dup dup so what are your plans for them well um we talked with the owner about that and the ideal to situation would be to move them to the new development um reloca them in the meantime will be uh a question for how we're going to do that but we have I've also spoken with them uh personally um recently actually and they understand that this is on the works um and they have agreed to it they don't have any reservations okay so you're going to assist them with with location to another property or that's something that we still talking with the owner about yeah but we we do the what we spoke with Anil well I spoke with Anil was about you know ideally moving them into the new construction once it's done the relocation process is something that we still need to determine and also you have a mask i' across the street yes that's correct yes so have you guys contacted them which are to the neighbors see how they feel about this property I personally reach out to the neighbor around uh on Saturday this last Saturday I knocked on that door I didn't get any response so I personally haven't honestly I haven't talked to that particularly particular tenant MOS I have done the you know some of the other neighbors as well and on behalf of Mr Kumar we've also attempted with no luck to contact the individuals again I I have not gone into the public records to find out uh any alternative addresses we've done the same we've reached out and we had no luck actually speaking to any individuals at that property that's what I was trying to do it personal could yeah even though you want to beautify the area which we will welcome for you to beautify the area you should consider the neighbors as well have a conversation with them and I would make a recommendation that we do so to find out how they feel about the new property that they are building the neighbors surrounding this new potential property just to I'm sorry sorry to to clarify I don't know if it's something that well that's that's what notice of the hearings are required yeah I think re a notice I'm not that far from there is your address listed on the um that's a 500 foot radius on the 500t radius and all the addresses currently in the agenda that were they received notice so typically that kind of condition is where there's a neighborhood association or a larger project that you can actually give notice to an association require a meeting before a future board meeting um but if you just require a condition that they contact the neighbor sometimes it's viewed as an unlawful delegation of legislative Authority um so I understand but I I see I can foresee parking as a issue that's one uhhuh because you can have a beautiful building if you don't have enough parking space then it affects the whole neighborhood people will go at different housing looking for parking to park and then it's going to affect me eventually may not be directly now but all right so that also sounds like a plan commission issue because they're the ones that be granting the additional units anyway my purpose that they want to yes they need to consider the neighbors and they need to talk to especially the people across the street so yeah if I may just to clarify that point um the person who I couldn't reach out is the the representative from the mosque I did reach out to uh other neighbors around the property obviously next door the second house um I don't have the addresses in my head but uh I spoke with probably about 10 people 10 neighbors around that area and the and the uh uh notices were sent obviously to the the neighbors of of the five 5 yes correct okay and you do have what 30 5 parking space that will be provided so it's 24 families so each one will have at least one car and then they will have whatever left over for whoever may have two cars in there so I don't know uh okay uh any other discussion Mr cook I see you stand so to the parking so they would have been required 38 and they're proposing 35 okay oh thank you would that include the reduction based on that 38 is the actual number you have 24 units 24 1.5 per unit plus 5% brings you 38 parking spaces would have been the required number they did a reduction of three parking spaces for 30 which with for confident if they don't sell and do anything next door they could have parking next door that was originally they were looking at doing that but that and other things but we came down to the fact that they're going to maintain their residence and um keep it as a buffer is there a variance for the parking as well no no we have in the code that you can do a deviation from the parking up to 15% if you do what we call preferential parking for sustainable such as Van Pool car poool hybrid and if you have additional bike bicycle parking which is five bicycle parking spaces for every one reduced parking space then you can reduce that way without having to go through a variance and they currently are meeting that criteria they are meeting that criteria okay okay all right any other discussion does someone want to make a motion I'd like to make a motion to approve with the together with we had a suggestion on um with the condition with a condition Covenant that the Covenant that the single family home um remain a single family home for I think I think I think there were addition I have something written buffer so um and the key points would be they maintain it as a buffer to the to the west but allow the property to be used as Allowed by zoning so can you repeat that I didn't hear clearly so the full thing would be the applicant shall enter into Covenant subject to the review and approval of the City attorney to retain ownership of the adjacent lot and then I have something in case they want to sell it but they provide notice to the subsequent owner that they would have to maintain it as a buffer um so that would say provide notice of of the development of the subject property if the jent lot is sold prior to construction of the subject property and then maintain it as a buffer to the uses to the W but allowing the property to be used as Allowed by zoning meaning if there's a duplex on it they can still use it as a duplex it's R2 zoning I'd like to add just a little bit more to that um I appreciate what you guys are coming to do and the little Parcels that you do have you're beautifying I'm not holding you to anything else outside of that um but is it possible I guess if the board will consider um adding an expiration date on the Covenant because cuz I also considered a developer who you know things change after a few years maybe they want to reconsider maybe they do want to sell um so I don't want to hold your feet to that for its entirety um perhaps you know we can reconsider in 10 or 12 years or something like that stand standard conditions usually allow them to modify the Covenant but they have to come back for so that's perfect and I'm I'm good with that yeah I like that if you knock it down put that in yeah that's good so move approval with the Covenant as proposed by Council second okay roll call chair wman rosin philli yes Vice chair Michael mcmaid Yes board member BL Pier Lewis yes board member Evan Shields yes board member Marlene Monas yes board member Kenneth each yes and board member Lum Joseph is it okay if I let board member no no sorry and you're not allow yeah all right the item carries thank you thank you so much thank you all have a good evening all right welcome so if I made Madam chair before um we got quite a people few people in the audience uh is we only got one item left and this is for um maybe they were not here a storage facility kind of thing 5T about yeah so okay if you are here I'm sorry go ahead Madam chair if you are here for 1547 Northwest 119 Street and 15 yeah the two items if you're here for those two items they're table we're not going to hear them tonight we're going to hear them at another meeting that was said at the beginning okay oh I'm sorry before we started when I said were there any uh amendments to the agenda Mr cook stated that the people at 1547 they decided to push their items they're waiting to do some additional things before coming to the board I'm so sorry yeah we know glad thank you Mr cook I'm sorry are you not L make sure the next time it's posted okay and if you yes so let's oh no no I'm sorry so let's let's be clear on this this was supposed to be to a date certain which is the next meeting which is November 20th November 20th 20th put it on your calendar I just remembered we're not posting anymore well because because we moved it to a date certain if you don't move it to a date certain you have to right on the baby you announced it that was announced clearly you know not everybody some of them came yeah and I'm doing that's hard of hearing all right uh last uh item v-10 d24 a variance to permit A reduced Westside setback for a portable storage unit that's the shed 774 Northeast 126 street thank you madam chair I'm Derek cook with development services department has stated the item before you isance to Article 4 division 3 section 4-23 of chapter 29 of the city of North Miami kosa ordinances Land Development regulations to allow a reduction from the required side setback of 10 ft to a proposed setback of 2 feet 2 in on the property located at 774 Northeast 126 Street in the C3 District said variance is to be reviewed under criteria set forth in article 3 division 6 section 3- 606 so the applicant is looking to establish a new Brewery at the subject property the applicant is is intending intending to add a portable storage unit for cold storage and Brewing raw materials such as hop and yeast and to store inventory in local and international brand um beverages the request before you is pursuant to Article 4 division 3 estated section 203 of the ldrs to deviate from the minimum 10 ft set back to 2 and A2 2T 2 in this is the location of the property as stated it is Zone Z C3 which is Central Business commercial in the future land use map and on the zoning map it is known as commercial office here is the site plan as you can see it and as you can see that the portable storage area be located should be located to the south on the property so we looked at the six criteria that we have discussed at link this evening as it relates to variance request and as with every one of them you need to meet four of the six criteria to be receive a recommendation of approval from staff so the existing situation is that you have the building which is the principal building that has a setb that is that 2 feet 10 in 2 feet 2 in and the applicant is seeking to keep that with his portable um FR um coold storage area so he's just trying to maintain that same setback to do so requires a Vance to do it and that's why they are before you making that request also in consideration you look at the size of the lot the lot is small it's not a very wide width it becomes difficult to put that at 10 ft and not be in the drive out from the side setb so with that in mind staff went over these special are the special conditions and circumstances exist which are particular to the land structure building involved and which are not applicable to other lands structures buildings in the zoning District again yes you have that existing building which has a setback of 2 feet 2 in and they're going to mirror that setback um the property has been improved with a single family building in 1926 um the current structure is non-conforming with a side setback of 2' 2 in as I've stated the additional thing is that you have in the C3 District the minimum lot size for C3 would be 10,000 ft this lot is just 6,650 ft so you have a smaller lot that they're working with dealing with that of course also with the width of the lot and you already have a a building that is with that set back of 2et 2 in they're just trying to mirror that two are there unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request present in the neighborhood and not unique to this property yes many other structures exist in this neighborhood who do not meet that 10it safe back so we're not creating a situation that is not prevalent in the area three that the requested variance maintains the basic intent and purpose of the subject regulations particular to particular as it affects the stability and appearance of the city the proposed addition of the outdoor cooler storage structure in the rear of of the adjacent lot of the adjacent lot to the parking lot to the east would not affect the stability and appearance of the neighborhood in a nutshell as we've already stated you already have a existing principal building that is at that same setback putting a small cooler unit at that setback will not further deteriorate the build of the neighborhood you're just keeping the same setback and as you can see on one is um see where the property is located you see has a parking lot that is to the east of it four the literal interpretation of this provision provisions of the ldr deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning districts under the terms of of these ldrs no the African would still be able to operate their their business without the portable storage five the variance request is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land structure or building due to the narrow nature of the lot and the position of the existing structure on the lot the storage structure is reasonably proposed to be in line with the side setback of the current main structure as such we say yes it would not be um is the minimum variance necessary six the graning of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of these ldrs and such varant will not be inous to the area involved again we say yes the placment of this outdoor storage cooler is harmonious with the character of the area and several other properties contain ancestrial structures that do not comply with the minimum setback as such the variance will not be injurious to the area additionally as you can see to the east of the property you have a parking lot you're not talking about a use going on that would be find that that that cooler on that property line would be intrusive to that use in any way as such we feel that this application meets the criteria to be for a recommendation for approval and we ask that if you so deem to do so that the applicant meets this condition that we obtain all necessary permits and approvals to install the outdoor storage cooler that ends my presentation thank you thank you Mr cook uh the applicant is here good evening good evening my name is Todd space 12935 Griffin Boulevard right here in North Miami 33161 right down the street from the project we're talking about in the mosque um thank you guys for having me tonight uh Mr cook thank you that was wonderful sopie thank you for getting me here and getting through all the processes I'd also like to thank the CRA for offering us grant money to help us get this project going as well which is super cool super blessed for that um I just want you guys to just picture this it's about 8:51 on a Wednesday night you've had a long meeting we're the last ones and you want to go across the street by the way if you didn't notice logger logger house by the way is the name of this establishment right across the street and you say I would like a Guinness I would like I would like a Prestige I would like a red stripe I don't know what whatever you're in the mood for or maybe just maybe just a lemonade or Kucha whatever yeah whatever you're in the mood for um and I say I'm sorry I don't have cold storage because I have a 1,200 foot building and I don't have enough room to keep all the beverages cold all the time so I'd have to find a place to you know have some extra storage for this um so that's what we're asking for and as uh Mr cook said the existing building the 1926 Spanish style building which is so cool is up against the that fence line of the adjacent parking area so you would just have that and then this is it's only8 foot tall uh I mean I haven't bought it yet because I'm waiting to make sure that I can get a variance to to make it happen um but it would just be kind of like right next to where the fence is I already have an 8 foot fence against that parking lot anyway uh and I have to repair it every so often so I know that we're uh code compliant for that stuff so anyway uh that's that's my side of it so if you guys have any questions let me know all right I have one question or I don't think I heard this but I just want to make sure are all of the surrounding properties like really close by they're all in the C3 District okay yes ma'am thank you so thank you and I open public hearing I only see two individuals here are you here to speak for or again so for individuals right for or against okay I'll close public hearing uh okay I'll just leave that alone uh board discussion I make a motion we approve second all right it's been moved by Chief e seconded by M name uh roll call please chairwoman rosin Phillip yes Vice chair Michael mcma Yes board board member B BL Pierre Lewis yes board member Evan Shields yes board member Marlin monast yes board member Kenneth E yes and board member lumana Joseph yes the item carries and may we just ask congratulations and make sure that you keep your gate how long how long have they been in business do we know how long have you been in businessed okay uh junor oh hold on do we need oh not yet all right any old business any old business Mr cook safie old business something you have something Miss mon no old business Madam chair okay new business so just wanted to um revisit the minutes that were approved I apologize I forgot to mention um they need to be updated cuz I defin definitely was not here on May 15th I was excused my birthday I know I wasn't here thank you you remember that far okay and so did we resolve what the and other people are here for two items that will REM uh the 147 that no it was it was5 and I'm so sorry 1575 noreast 128 Street no we didn't even have that on no those were removed okay I'm sorry uh well do we do I have a motion to adjourn so move second all in favor I who wants to stay chair oh you do