Welcome, everybody. I'd like to call the Planning and Zoning Board meeting for the City of the Plantation, June 4th, 2024, to order. City Clerk, may you call the roll, please. Mr. Spear? Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Wong? Yes. Mr. Corman? Here. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Here. Ms. Galkin? Here. Thank you. All right. So, first order of business today would be approval of the meeting minutes from May 7th, 2024. Does anybody have any additions, comments to make about the meeting minutes? Second. We have a motion and a second. Did anybody actually have any comments about it? Anybody in the chamber? No? We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Wong? Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Thank you. All right. Due to request of staff, we're going to change the order of the items today, and we're going to commence with PM24-0035, consideration of a request to approve a practical difficulty waiver for the Kalisar residents, property located at 991 Northwest 118th Avenue and zoned RS1EP residential single family. Mr. Chairman? If you don't mind, I will proceed with the quasi-judicial process before we begin the cases. Yes, you will. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Good evening, everyone. For the public, the members of the City of Plantation Planning and Zoning Board are members of the public. They're not paid to be here. They're true public servants, and they are here to decide the cases under the quasi-judicial item under the agendas number 1-2-3. These cases will be heard in item 2, then item 1, then item 3. All witnesses who plan to testify today in these cases will be asked to stand and be sworn in prior to the cases being called. The material in the City's agenda packet will all be accepted into the record for the matter. The decisions from the board require a minimum of four votes for approval. Short of those four votes, your item will be deemed denied. These hearings are quasi-judicial, so that means you have the ability to call whatever witnesses and present whatever evidence and testimony you have to prove your case before the board tonight, and they will make a decision tonight on your case based on the testimony and evidence presented tonight. The City will present the first line of evidence, and then you have the ability to follow that up with your own case, and following that, the board may ask you questions, and the City may ask you questions. You may ask questions of the City. At the conclusion, the board will make a decision. Now, with that being said, if you plan on speaking tonight or have a case, please stand and be sworn in. You swear and affirm that the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You may be seated. Mr. Chairman. All right, back to PM 240035. Good evening, board members, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Arrestrepo City Planner 2. This is a practical difficulty waiver for fences and walls for single-family lots, to allow six-foot-high gates and columns, instead of maximum height of four feet within the Front Street setback area. The property is a single-family house in Plantation Acres, located on 991 Northwest 118 Avenue, Sun RS 1EP. The City sent out notices to the surrounding properties and received two emails in support of the application. Please see the aerial view of the property here. The proposed entry feature location will be at the front of the property between the existing fence. Except for the height, the application follows the zoning requirements, including setbacks and dedicated easement. As you can see in the survey, in this case, there is a 30-foot dedication easement at the front of the property. Although the proposed feature entry feature will be two feet higher than the requirement, the code allows up to 2.5 feet in height for lights and landscape-supporting ornamental feature, above the maximum height of four feet. Plantation Acres District is characterized by large properties and variety of architectural styles. The character of the neighborhood will be preserved. The staff is recommending approval. Thank you. The applicant is here in case you have any questions. Okay. Does anybody from the dais have any questions? Josh? This is just for staff. I don't know who, but just what is the policy goal of the height maximum as it currently exists in the code? Like, why do we have it? Currently, the front setback is four feet. I know, but I'm saying, what's the rationale for having that in our code? Like, why do we have it? It's a very good question. Okay. I think it's to preserve the character of the pedestrian and, you know, to avoid having a six feet height on the front of the property. Okay. Just generally, part of it is line of sight issues, especially if it's a corner lot. That would be compete with site visibility and also for general conformity. In some cases, it might be overbearing and look like a wall. So, okay. Thanks. I got one question about the last part that you had mentioned, that there's a four-foot height restriction, but for purposes of light or decoration to the actual structure, you can go two and a half feet above. This is a two-foot addition to the structure. It's not included within that decorative element above a four-foot line. Is that correct? So, are you asking about this case? Stop. One forward. There you go. So, the second paragraph there, it allows 296N2 two and a half feet in height for lights and landscape supporting ornamental features on walls and fences. So, these would not be considered under that ornamental feature, correct? Yes. That's why they have to apply for a variance. Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? Any questions or commentary from the audience chamber? I move to approve. Second. Um, okay. Are there any conditions that were associated from the staff? There are. Okay. Do you want to amend? Sure. I didn't see any when I read the packet. So, if I recall differently. Uh, sorry. I'm looking at the wrong one. I had three in front of me. There are items under the condition section. Okay. Sorry. I'll amend my motion for a motion to approve subject of staff conditions. We have a motion in a second. Okay. Please call the roll. Mr. Stahl. Yes. Ms. Wong. Yes. Mr. Corman. Yes. Mr. Freeman. Yes. Mr. Goldstein. Yes. Ms. Gelfand. Yes. Thank you. All right. Congratulations. Uh, next item. Yes. Sorry. Oh, I thought we missed somebody's comment-wise. Absolutely. Congratulations. Thank you. Uh, we're now going to item PM24-0034, consideration of a request to approve practical difficulty waivers for the Fuentes residents. The property is located at 540 North Holly Lane and zoned RS3D residential single family. Staff. Good evening, Chairman Corman, Planning and Zoning Board members, Assistant City Attorney Quinton Morgan, and Elsa Thompson, Assistant City Clerk. For the record, Sean LeMay with the City of Plantation Division of Planning and Zoning. The staff report is numbered PM24-0034 and is dated June 4th, 2024. At this time, I'd like to incorporate this report as part of the record. The subject site is at 540 Holly Lane. It is zoned RS-3D residential single family. The lot is 15,279 square feet in area and is located at the southeast corner of Rose Terrace and Holly Lane within the Plantation Gardens community. RS3D zoning surrounds the subject property to the north, east, and west, and then to the south we have S-CP, which is community park. The lot is developed with a 2,060 square foot single-story residence, a carport, and in the rear a swimming pool and a patio. The site is bound by single-family residential uses to the north, east, and west, and to the south is the Plantation Botanical Gardens Park. As shown on the aerial, the surrounding area is fully developed and urbanized with residential single-family uses. Please note the public notification boundary in purple. Waiver request for fencing requires notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet. A building permit was applied for by the applicant to replace an existing fence. And this is the fence location that's there now. The yellow line indicates the proposed location of the fence on the property line that results in the requested waivers. The permit was denied due to non-compliance with setbacks and height for the for the fence. The waivers are as follow. Request number one is to increase the allowable fence or wall height in the front setback from four feet to six feet abutting Holly Lane. And the second request is for the friends the fence setback to reduce the required setback for a solid fence from five feet to zero feet abutting Holly Lane for decorative live greenery. And staff conducted an on-site visit and has provided photographs of the current fence found on the property today. The City of Plantation sends out notices to surrounding property owners when planning and zoning actions are requested. To date the department has not received any written citizen comments or phone calls objecting to the request. So in this case there is some special conditions and unique circumstances to the property. The lot configuration is a corner curvilinear lot with a sidewalk installation that does not directly abut the property line. So right here this is the green is the property line and there's like a three foot area separating the property from the sidewalk. This is not a typical situation in the city. The second item that is unique the purchase of the property with the fence occurred under a previous zoning regulation. The third item is the house orientation. The driveway and the pool is all angled which is not typical of the neighborhood or within the city. And the last item to note is the typical corner lot configuration is not typical in this situation. You can see that the front yard there's a lot of area in the front yard very little space on the side and very little rear area which reduces the usable interior side and rear yards. Responses to the criteria for practical difficulty waivers has been addressed in the staff report. And staff was able to conclude most of the criteria criteria could be met to grant the waivers for the fence height and setback. So a partially partially met is the substantial requirement in relation to what is required by the code. Criteria B is met for compatibility with development patterns. The criteria for C is met for the criteria for preservation of the essential character of the neighborhood. D is met for the criteria for not causing substantial detriment to adjoining properties. And finally E is met for the property having unique circumstances. Staff recommends approval of the requested practical difficulty waivers. And in the event the Planning and Zoning Board finds the applicant has proven entitlement to the practical difficulty variances waivers recommends approval of the request. Staff recommends the approval be subject to the conditions that are found in section VB of the staff report. The applicant is here this evening. All right uh does anybody on the dais have questions? Sure just one really quick question which is because I might not have understood this correctly. There's the fence that is currently there is already six feet tall right? That's correct. Okay. Any others? Any comments from the audience tonight? Very well. With none all close comments. Do we have a motion? All right. Uh I move for approval subject to staff comments. Do we have a second? Do we have a motion and a second? Please call the roll. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Wong? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Congratulations. All right. Up next we have PM24-0043 consideration of a request to approve a practical difficulty waiver for the Hooper residence. The property is located 620 East Acre Drive and zone RS5J residential single family. Staff. Okay. Hi uh Lisa Zelf with City of Plantation Planning and Zoning Department Planner 3. Good evening. Okay. Okay. This is for the Hooper residence. They're located at 620 East Acre Drive. Let me get this right there on the corner of um Redwood Circle and East Acre Drive. Um the size of the property is 11,000 square feet and developed with a 1500 square foot single family um home. Okay. Here's the notification boundary right here and if you'll notice it is also surrounded by other single family homes in the similar configurations. Okay. The applicant is requesting a variance to have a home without a garage. Section 27-123 requires two side-by-side driveway spaces and a fully enclosed garage space for a lot of this size. Okay. Here's the survey. Here's the site plan. The applicant applied for a uh driveway permit to remove the existing driveway which is depicted in yellow and then to um add driveway here here. There's a shed on the property that's right here to like there and then add the walkways over here and a patio. Through review it was found that the um area of the house that should have been a garage right here is actually a office and a pantry. So um here is the elevation from the original permit showing a garage door there. Here is a yeah just go back on there. Yeah one more. You said that's the original? This is the yeah the original elevations from the original permit. Back in 56 or yeah whatever that was. Okay thank you. Okay and here is the pictures of the home. This would be where the garage would have been and then here is um whoops another another view of it from this angle as well just to kind of show you the front of the home which is also kind of angled on the lot right there. Um per the applicant's um application and um the home has never had a garage. We don't have any evidence one way or the other. The evidence that we have shows a garage door where the garage should have been. He's lived in the home for 24 years I believe and I believe the previous owner also advised that the home did not have a garage at that time either. But I'll let him speak to that one when he gets there. Okay we also have just pictures of the surrounding neighborhoods with similar models of his home. Okay we have received no comments for or against for this property for this project and um special conditions are is that the gentleman and the family purchased the home without the garage to begin with and he's just trying to correct the situation. Okay based on our criteria he meets two out of the third out of the five criteria. A he does not meet. B is not compat not having a garage is not necessarily compatible for the development patterns. Um on C could have gone a little both ways on this. I don't believe it would have necessarily be a detrimental to the neighborhood's character to be quite honest with you. D he meets and E he meets. So staff technically is recommending denial on this because it does not meet code. Okay okay but in the event that you guys do approve it we just want to improve it per staff comments. Okay of basically providing at least parking available for at least three cars. Can I ask why that particular condition? The parking requirement for the lot of this size is actually four two interior parking spaces for the garage and two side-by-side driveway spaces. So we're looking at the condition of the home how many cars are typically there and that type of thing and I think three would be um warranted. Okay maybe yeah um any questions from the dais? Yeah. Josh Lennox. Sure I'll do really quick uh so the code requires a a garage with at least space for two cars. Yes. But the neighbors the pictures of the neighbors homes that you put in the presentation. Right. Garages were tiny. They could not fit two cars. They were um the the today's code requires two interior garage spaces. Um at the time of where the when this was built they were required to have one carport for or or garage and it it didn't have the side-by-side double car requirement. Okay. This changed I think in 2000 it was either 2011 or 2014. So pretty recently not just like from when it was built but like since he bought the property. Yes. Um and my other question was from my understanding of the request it's that he wants to build the driveway to accommodate the three cars anyways. Right. With or without us requiring it. So why are we requiring it? I think just to match what he put on the permit also. We were looking at what the you know the development patterns of what was going on out there and looking at what typically is required. He is providing a parking of the driveway of spaces per the permit and we're just trying to be consistent with it. So it's just saying you have to actually follow through with what you're applying for basically. Yeah. Okay. Josh. Is the current has he ever been issued a code violation? No. No he has not. And so this wasn't made aware to the city prior to him applying for an application? No. He he he applied for the permit and it came out while he was going through the permitting process. Understood. And this might be beyond your expertise certainly beyond mine. Right. But is there some some sort of process or disclosure that you meet code when you purchase a property in the city? I don't I don't honestly don't. Yeah. There's a requirement to disclose if you have code violations under state statute but not to go have an inspection of the current city's code whether or not you're you meet it because you should be for the most part compliant. Compliant. Either either you're conforming or you're legally non-conforming is how it usually would be. But sometimes people build things without permits so. Sure. So but my general question is was he made aware of the non-conforming status when he bought the property or could he have been completely unaware of that fact? You would need to ask the applicant. I don't know the answer. Okay. But I'm saying there's nothing that requires that he was made aware of it. So. As far as I know, no. Understood. Yeah. Okay. Um clarification on what you just said about code. Okay. In the packet that you gave to us. Mm-hmm. For Delta concerns issues other pertinent information code violations it says there are open code enforcement cases. Oh my goodness. Okay. Right above recommendations. I don't have my. I was supposed to say there are no open code enforcement cases. I am so sorry. Then what? I mean I'm just reading off of what you gave us. No I I'm bad. Good catch. I'm sorry about that. That's. Well that was one of my questions. So awesome. Okay. Okay. Excellent. Um any other questions from the days. Um all right. So I have two. It's kind of related to uh what we were talking about. Uh 27 123 Bravo 2 that we're talking about. When was that? Was that the one that was written in 2011 or 2014? Kind of. Um it's a modified version that was actually enacted in 2021. Okay. We softened it. It was a lot harsher. All right. Um and then 27 52. Was that the one that was? 27 52. That was right there. Oh right there. It's the section on variances. Yeah. Okay. So that one. Yeah. Um I guess a question for Quentin. Yes sir. Is there a problem and and I'm going to use the like hey I heard there was something called law school once. Um. You slipped at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Yeah that's it. Um like we don't have any potential like ex post facto issues related to this by because I mean the guy bought a house that okay the plan in 56 shows that there should be a garage but somebody somewhere either built it over it was never constructed that way and now we're not. To answer your question directly no. Okay cool. Typically just to elaborate a little bit if you buy a house and somebody build a shed in the back without a permit that's not consistent with the code and you try to pull a permit for a pool and this is this a similar scenario the staff looks at it and sees a shed there that shouldn't be there and they tell you to move the shed or you can apply for a variance which is kind of what situation we're in today. Um so it would necessarily be an issue for the city to enforce its code for something that was not done pursuant to approved plans which in this case there was a garage on the original plan so whether it changed or whether it's a little bit different today it's still not consistent with the original plan which is why he needs to come up to today's code. Perfect. Um I guess I have a question for the resident if he's willing and just for the record if you could give your name. Jason Hooper. All right and I assume it's the same address as record 620 East Taker Drive. Yes. Uh the picture of the residence. Yes. I can look now and see that you're going to be putting in a driveway. I don't need that. Thank you though. Uh driveway, walkways, some stuff around it. Are there plans to improve the front yard as is because in the picture I couldn't tell if it was a lot of mulch or just dead spot. That's an old picture. Okay. Um there is already new landscaping there. We've come up to code with adding additional trees. That picture looks like it was right after we had the trees removed. Okay. So there's already those plans. Once the concrete is in then the additional plan and landscaping will go in. Got it. All right. Is there anything you would like to add to staff's presentation? Um I think they missed or that we need to know. There there were additional items that were sent in with this request for variance. There are three other examples within a thousand feet of our home that also do not have garages or carports. Um one of them was recently granted a variance who is directly across the street. You can see in one of the pictures there. Um but there are a couple other examples. Uh it doesn't negatively impact the neighborhood. It's existed that way since it was constructed by the Farragut Company and used it as their office space for showing the homes. Um is what the history we have on it. Uh my wife who's here uh lived next door to that property uh since 1984 and knows the house never had a garage. So that's that's as far as our uh historical references go uh other than the previous owner who bought it in I believe in the 70s who said it never had a garage. Um so we've just used it the same way it's been used before as as an office and library as well as a pantry and laundry room. Got it. Any more questions from the days? Any from the audience? Nothing else? I'll go ahead and close comments. Uh motion to approve. If subject to or? I don't think it should be subject to staff comments um personally. Okay. Because if he wants to go back and not apply for a permit and not do the project he shouldn't be forced to I don't think. Is that how that one works? Well the staff comment is that he needs to provide three driveway spaces. Um his plans whether they go through or not I think the staff is still recommending that he has three spaces. I'm not sure what the current driveway would hold. Uh the yellow is the indicated uh existing driveway. That's the way it was when we purchased them. So the yellow is being removed in that plan. Right. So if it's without the staff comments and he stops the project which he has the ability to do then it would hold whatever it holds right now. Right. It just remains as is. All right. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Mr. Stahl. Yes. Ms. Wong. Mr. Corman. Yes. Mr. Freeman. No. Mr. Goldstein. Yes. Ms. Gelfand. All right. That's 4-2. Uh motion passes. That passes. So congratulations. Thank you. I'm just writing something down here. All right. Uh well that does it for the agenda. Are there any other items of business? Just to let you know Michael Albert assistant director just to let you know um the meeting would normally occur in July on July 2nd but because of the holiday um we actually changed it and this is when we at the end of the year last year we had a calendar um to July 16th. So instead of the 2nd or the 9th it's the 16th and we do anticipate having at least two items. Thanks. Okay. Uh anything else? I got one other thing. Is this one that is pertinent to this meeting or do you have to? It'll be pertinent to this meeting. It was something that was brought up at a previous meeting. Uh when the property by the Bank of America came in it was suggested that uh at the time to increase the rate to get the council to increase the radius for notification. Has anything happened with that? They they did a notice for a community meeting for a thousand feet. Okay. Yeah. And we had uh we had an amendment to the code that planning and zoning board heard back in December and the council heard back in January to change the 750 to a thousand feet. And when is that going to be effective? Um I believe it's already effective. It should be now. Yeah. Okay because I noticed on this one it would just add. Right. The radius is still 300 feet. This is for homeowner variances. That's different. Okay. It's yeah. But for certain things like Lupa land use plan amendments and. Okay. So it's going to be a thousand feet. That was changed to a thousand feet. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Anything else? Just just be clear. When you do a homeowner variance they have to pay for the notification themselves right? Uh we take yes. Yes. We have a trust account. Right. Something I don't want to. I wouldn't want to increase the burden on the individual homeowner to apply for a practical difficulty waiver. Awesome. Anything else?