Heat. Heat. that heat. Heat up. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on
air in 5 4 3 2 1. Good morning everyone and welcome to the May 13th meeting of the Historic Preservation Board. And uh with that,
I'd like to ask Debbie Tacket to um continue the meeting. Uh good morning everyone. Um before we get started today, I would like to welcome our newest uh board member, Randy Haulingworth. Uh Randy was was appointed
by the mayor and city commission last month and we're very happy to have him here. He has extensive uh experience with landscape, architecture, urban design and also with uh he's previously served on the Tampa Historic
Preservation Board. So um he has extensive experience in what we do. and Randy, I don't want to speak for you if you would like um to add anything, but we're very happy you're here. Thank you very much. Um I'm very excited about the opportunity. Uh I served on the Tampa
board for two years and an amazing experience and uh really excited about being involved with that type of uh activity again because I found it so enjoyable to uh interact with developers and homeowners and trying to get things improved in the community. And I think Miami Beach is certainly a great place
to start for me here. So, thank you very much. Okay, thank you. With that, um I just one quick announcement. We will have five uh board members present today. Five members is a is a um enough for a quorum and we will be able to hear
all of the applications, but one member uh Miss Kamargo is absent today. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Nick Colleris for the uh notice regarding lobbyist registration. and to swear in any members of the public wishing to testify today. Thank you, Debbie, and
good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. Today's meeting of the Historic Preservation Board will be conducted in a hybrid format with members of the board physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall, and applicants and staff, members of the public appearing
either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate virtually in today's meeting, the public may dial 1888-475-4499 and enter the webinar ID which is 817-48347488 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again
is 81748347488. Anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon or dial star9 if you are participating by phone. If you're appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, you need to register as a lobbyist with city clerk's office. If
you haven't registered yet, you should register before you speak to the board. You don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party. Or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting, or if
you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal
on whose behalf they are communicating. If you're an architect, attorney, or employee representing an applicant or an objector, you must register as a lobbyist. These rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. Uh lastly,
I'd like to swear in any members of the public or staff who will be testifying today. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Nick. Um the first
order of business this morning is the approval of the April um 22nd uh meeting minutes. Does do any of the members have edits uh or corrections that need to be made? No. Okay. Do we have a motion? to
approve. Okay. Second. Anyone? Okay. All those in favor? Okay. Great. Thank you. Um we do have uh one request for continuance uh
this morning um which is HPB 240641. This is 1800 Michigan Avenue. The application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the total demolition of the existing single family home and the construction of a new single family home. The applicant is requesting a
continuence to the June 17th meeting. Um staff has been working with the applicant um to address some of our comments and we have no objection to the requested continuence. I see Emily Walter here
um from the applicant side. Emily, I don't know if you have anything to say. Does the do the board members have any questions for me? Okay. Good morning, Emily Balter, Burkard Delin and Tapenz, Office of 200 South Biscane Boulevard. I have nothing uh to
add. We're seeking to come before you in June. I'll move that we continue the application. I think we need to open up for public comment before we vote. Um any members of the public wishing to speak on the request for continuence, please raise
your hand if you're on Zoom or come forward. Okay. Um Mr. Chair, we do have one um speaker Steve Burke. Good morning, Steve. Good morning.
Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I uh I I live on Michigan Street a few homes away and uh you know is my understanding that that you really can't knock down any homes in this neighborhood. We are historically
designated neighborhood and uh from my understanding um this home is being sought to knock down because they want to change the zoning of this entire lot and sell it to a developer. Uh this is what I've been
told and uh I'm just trying to understand under what circumstance the historic preservation board would allow the home to get knocked down if it's clearly not structurally unsafe. Okay. Thank you. Um I see no other uh
speakers and Mr. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we're only we're the only vote before the board is on the request for continuance. Correct. So, I will move that we continue the application. All those in favor? I Okay, so the
application must continue to June 17th. Thank you. The first uh regular application under continued items on the agenda is HPB 240639. This is 8336 Street. This is a possible designation of a historic site
for the Southshore Community Center. Um given the short board today, we we do only have five members present, which is the same number we had at the April meeting. Um staff would recommend to the board that this also be continued to the
June meeting um because the board was split and we didn't appear to have the required four affirmative votes and you're welcome to discuss it but um staff would recommend that this item be continued until we have uh six or seven
members present which hopefully will be the June 17th meeting. Is this also open to public hearing public. Yes. Okay. Um so should we do that next? If if you don't have
any questions for me, um we can open the public hearing. Uh anyone in the audience, please come forward. Anyone on Zoom, please raise your hand. Um I see one speaker, uh Johan Moore. Good morning.
Good morning, board members, uh and staff. Um I want to welcome the new member uh and thank uh Debbie for her staff recommendation that in fact this be deferred by a month. Um Meridian Court community um would feel much more
comfortable uh with a fully seated board uh and we think that only a fullyseated board uh correctly and accurately can reflect community standards of preservation. Uh and I want to repeat that we in no way object to uh a
member's uh principled uh objection to considering designation at this time. Uh given the members uh as I say again principled support for leaving the uh commission the option open of revisiting
this site for heavy municipal infrastructure. But as a neighborhood association, we continue to object to that and we would consider it to be a fairer vote if in fact the board would agree to uh postpone this, defer this by one month. Thank you very much. And and
Johan, I apologize. I did not swear you in. Do you swear affirm that the testimony you gave in this proceeding is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you again, everyone. Okay. Our next speaker is David McKini. Good morning, David. Hi, David. Do you
swear affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Good morning. Uh, I would also support the um the delay of the reconsideration. I
have to raise a uh concern about the president of looking at a building and evaluating it on u the u members uh they're really concerns about public policy instead of looking at the the
building on its merit. Um in in that case I would actually uh suggest that you defer the application until members are willing to look at the building and uh evaluated according to the criteria
established in the historic preservation statute. It is a dangerous precedent to to start uh bringing in things that are extraneous to the decision making process uh there and really attaining
not just this application but I think the entire process. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh I see no other uh public speakers. Okay. Then um we'll close public hearing
and um open it for board member comment. Anybody has anything to add? I it can be continued as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it's going to change my vote. Um one thing I did want to point out, uh Mr. Hollingworth will be absent at the
June meeting. So, in the utmost um cautiousness, maybe the July 8th meeting would be more beneficial. We are still short one one member. Um we're hoping
that that that position will be filled at the end of this month, but that's not guaranteed either. Um, yeah. So, would would the motion be to continue to the July 8th meeting
given the uncertainty that we'll have six or seven members at the June meeting? My only question is on the new members, how are we going to bring them up to date on what's going on? they haven't heard all the bantering that we've had
back and forth and whatnot and they were I would be left with like, "Oh, gee, what do I do?" Well, and and staff certainly meets with each of the new board members prior to the meeting and advises them. So, if I
may, and maybe you're caught up, so maybe I'm speaking out of turn. Um, but because I wasn't here in the December meeting, you know, I was absent. Um, and so I went back and watched that meeting so that I was familiar. So I mean if Mr. Hollingsburg has not done that and he wanted to, I'm I'm sure he is free to do
so. Um, I did watch the entire meeting your last meeting. So brings me up to speed as of your last meeting. I didn't see all the previous I've been to the site as well twice now. So I pretty well up to speed on where you are in the process
at least. I have questions. I don't think they're relevant right now because I'd rather ask them at the appropriate time. Thank you. All right. So, do we have a motion? Anybody motion? I'm sorry. What?
Oh, did you make No, he kind of said he would. Yeah. No. Would you like would you like to make a motion? I I I sure I will make the motion. Um, so pushing to staff recommendation, I would uh move that we continue this application until
the July meeting in the hopes that we will have more than five people sitting up here. Second. I'll second the motion. Thank you. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you.
Um, our next application is HPB25646. This is 1300 Lennox Avenue. An application has been filed requesting modifications to a previously issued certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition, renovation, and restoration of the existing single
family home, including the construction of an attached and detached additions and variances from the required setbacks, open space lot coverage, and retaining wall regulations. Um, specifically, the applicant is requesting um some design modifications
and modifications to two of the previously issued uh variances. Um, for a little bit of background information, this is a one-story uh single family home located within the Flamingo Park Historic District. It is a
contributing structure was built in 1936 in the Mediterranean Revival Art Deco transitional style of architecture. Um, in March of 2022, the board approved the the original application which did include
um demolition, partial demolition, renovation, restoration, and the elevation of the single family home. The board also did approve um an attached and detached additions as well as variances from the setbacks, open space,
lot coverage, and retaining wall. uh regulations. So the existing uh project that will be presented today um is substantially consistent with the previously approved project. Um they are
proposing to restore the existing home and what they are they're actually reducing the scope of work for the existing home. Previously the plan was to elevate the home from the interior.
So instead of um lifting the home, the previously approved plan was to adapt the home within the existing walls by elevating the floor within the walls and adjusting uh the window openings to be
consistent with the proportions um and locations of the original windows. Um the property has been sold. The current owner did uh reach out to staff. they uh prefer not to raise it um
and keep it at its existing finished floor elevation. And you know, this is a tricky thing, right? Because we were all very excited about the innovative, creative way to elevate the home when it was previously approved. That does
result in more demolition of the original material of the home. this is much less intervention in terms of structural modifications that will have to be made to the home. Um so from a purely historic preservation point of view um again this is a lower
intervention project which retains more of its original fabric. Um from a resiliency point of view um I think working with the building department certain flood dry flood proofing um techniques will have to be used because
the home is not compliant with the current finished floor elevations. Um but staff uh does not have any objection in to this uh reduced scope of work for the existing one-story home. Um, we do have some concerns which we noted in our
uh staff uh recommendation with regard to some of the new window openings particularly on the eastern portion of the home. Um these window openings will be visible from both 13th Street and Lennox Avenue and we are asking um the
board to consider not approving them extending all the way down um to the to the ground level but to retain the proportions of the existing windows um regarding the rear accessory
structure. So again, in 2022, the board approved a similar new detached twostory building at the rear of the home. Um the currently proposed design does maintain uh substantially the same footprint of the previous approval. It is slightly
larger which is um actually resulting in the two variances that are being requested to be modified. So the two variances that are requesting modifications are the overall lot coverage and this is a result of a very
slight increase in uh building footprint size. Um it's 28 square ft is the increase um in building footprint which would result in a lot coverage of 36.1%. The previously approved variance
was for 35.7%. Um and staff would note and actually um we are going to be discussing this at the end of the meeting. Um when when you have a architecturally significant home or a historically designated home that is located outside of a historic
district, there are certain incentives uh zoning wise available to these homes. And there is currently a proposal, which we're again we're going to talk about later, to extend these incentives to contributing buildings within historic
districts as well. The incentives would allow for up to a uh 40% lot coverage. So, if this property was able to take advantage of the incentives, they would not need the variance. Um and variance
number two is for the um rear yard landscape open space area. Again, this is a very small um uh increase in the variance requested. Um it they're trying they're increasing 72 square ft.
Um and again, staff has no objection with this with this minor modification. Um, and we are recommending approval subject to the conditions within our staff report. Thank you, Debbie. You're welcome. Are
there any questions about the staff report uh for Debbie? Randy. Um, I didn't understand the V second variance request. You're increasing the land. I that didn't make sense to me that you would increase the landscaping. Are you No, they're they're
actually they're increasing the variance request. So, in the required rear yard, you're there's a minimum of 70% landscape area. The previous var variance was to provide 45.5%. Now, they're asking to provide
only 39.1%. So, they're reducing the the landscape area in the in the required rear yard. Thank you. Any other questions for Debbie? Okay, seeing none,
um, welcome. Hi. Um, this is John Udvardi. I'm the architect of the project. So, uh, the major modification that we are um trying to do here, it's the uh modification of
the U accessory building. So in the design of it besides of the two variances that uh Deb spoke. So we are trying to make it u more um contemporary and more um appealing rather than being
a a brutalism box. So that's another consideration that u it needs to be taken in place. Is that the extent of your presentation? That Okay, perfect. Yes. Um, so are
there any questions for the applicant? My only question would be is why did you pick this particular design for the auxiliary building? It's going to stand out like a sore thumb in that neighborhood in my opinion.
Uh, yes. Uh because uh with originally it was a like a box. It was like a brutalism. It was too concrete. So we want to bring something uh more uh warmed uh with some uh you know design
contemporary design. So that's the purpose of just to bring more u uh appealing to to the accessory itself. Okay. Okay. Randy. Um further to that question. Um, so this design that we're
seeing here virtually was approved already for the accessory building. The the wood facade. So, no, it was a the previous design was very contemporary. Um, but it is not what
you're seeing today. It had a flat roof. Oh, so this different material design of the accessory building. Yes. So, we've not reviewed it at all. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Do you have questions? question for the applicant.
Not right now. Thank you. Okay. No questions. Um Lindsay, do you have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, we'll have another option. We'll have another opportunity at the end to have board discussion. Um yes,
I'm sorry. Yes. What is the applicant's response to changing the windows to a higher bottom sill, please? To match the existing question to you. Uh, you mean on the east facade? I'm sorry. On the east facade. I think it was the east
facade um facing Linux. There was the windows go right to the floor. I think in your design it changes the sort of changes the character completely and as opposed to the existing windows which look like they're at a normal sale height. Mhm. Uh well, this is this is just a
connectivity with the exterior. So, we we're trying to keep the the location of it. We are just trying to make it larger because we need to access the the yard. So, it's just a function in this case. So, you wouldn't be willing to go back
to what the staff are recommending? Uh no, I mean for the design that we are purposing, no. Okay. Thank you. Lindsay, do you have any any questions for the applicant? No. Okay. Seeing no
uh further questions, we will now um have board disclosures. Are there any disclosures, discussions with the applicant? Okay. Um seeing no board disclosures, we'll
open it to public the public hearing. Um, we'll start with people in the audience. If you would have a seat for a moment and then we'll call you back up to respond to the public comments. Okay. Thank you. Please.
Hi, I'm Roger Goldlad, Miami Design Preservation League. uh probably not as a surprise. Uh we appreciate the uh fact that they're continuing the original building as they are. Uh it's a historic
Flamingo Park neighborhood. Uh while we commend the property owners commitment to preserving the original structure rather than demolishing it, we express uh concern as Rey has said, it's Scandinavian design in a historic
neighborhood in Miami just doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Uh it stands out like a sore thumb. It it's on the street. It isn't hidden uh from street view at all. Uh once you know there
There are some modern homes in uh Flamingo Park now, like one last month, and it they they at least retain some of the character. This has zero character. It doesn't seem to go along with the
building, the original building. I mean, 1936 house is it's a beautiful home. So, uh we we agree with some of the comments we've heard so far that it it just doesn't fit in. Thank you.
Thank you. Yes. Good morning. My name is Tucker Gibbs. I have law offices at 3835 Utopia Court in Coconut Grove. Um and I'm here today representing Bruce Carter um who owns and lives at um 1310 Lennox and it's
immediately to the north of the applicant's property. Um, I've got two concerns uh today with the posture of this application. This application cannot be considered as a modification of the historic preservation board order
approved on March 8th, 2022 for a myriad of reasons. I'm going to go down the reasons. Um, because the applicant failed to obtain a full building permit within the required 18 months from that date. two because the
applicant requested an extension that is erroneously based on a June 24th two 2021 governor's emergency order uh on dealing with the Champlain Towers uh collapse uh that did not authorize an extension of time for three because the
governor did not include in his order Florida statute 252363 which authorizes extensions of time for permits and authorizations like the 2022 uh historic preservation board order.
Number four, because 25 uh two 252 three, excuse me, 363 specifically applies to a natural emergency. And the 2021 emergency order that the applicant relied on by the
governor addressed the Champlain collapse. And because Florida statute 25234 paragraph 8 defines a natural emergency as caused by a natural event including but not limited to hurricane,
storm, flood, severe wave action, drought and earthquake and six because the collapse is not a natural emergency. the applicant cannot take advantage of section
252.363 to extend the 2022 HPB order. Furthermore, the HPB order is null and void pursuant to code section 2.13.2D.1 2D.1 uh because the applicant failed to obtain a full or any other kind of
building permit within 18 months of the after the HPB order was approved. I checked with the building department. The only building permit for this property after 2022 was issued on August 2nd, 2024.
It's BR2409597. Erroneously based on the governor's executive order. My client has some documents that um deal with where I got my information. How much more time do you need? Three more minutes. I think that's it. Because I'll
give you I'll I'll I'll give you two. But well, I've got a due process issue here because I've got to make a presentation. Okay. Try start for start with two. trying to just because I have to give everybody five. I understand. I understand. Um, so on behalf of Mr. Carter, I respectfully request that the
board determine that the 2022 order is null and void and continue the remainder of the matter until a future meeting. Okay. Therefore, the second concern centers upon the practical difficulty variance according to the
zoning code. If the practical difficulty variance is not permitted as listed on section 2.8.3b, the applicant must meet the eight the eight criteria for a hardship
variance. But section 2.8.3b has no list of criteria for a for a practical difficulty variance. It's blank except for the word reserve. There's no definition of practical
difficulty in the city code or the related special acts. Nor is there any definition in Florida statutes or Florida case law. This provides no guidance to the HPB when it decides whether to approve a practical difficulties variance. There's
no basis for any such decision without standards or criteria unless between the time I looked at the zoning code that provision has been changed. Number three. Okay. And and so this
leaves you with the CR with the criteria required for the hardship variance. None of the proposed variances meet the following criteria. I'm only going to talk about two. They have to meet every single criteria for a hardship variance. the applicant doesn't meet the hardship
requirement in criteria four where it failed to show that each of the setback lot size and required sideyard setbacks are commonly enjoyed by the other properties in the same zoning district and where it's virtually impossible to use the land for the purpose or the
manner in which it is zoned there okay one one more minute yeah you'll get your three minutes sorry I've got to go through these um it's for my client okay uh none of the variances are the minimum variances that would allow the reasonable use of the land, building or structure as required in
criteria five where Florida case law holds that as long as the applicant can develop or build or use or use the land, building and structure in compliance with the zoning code, the applicant has no need for a variance. any claim that
okay the ve the the variances are based on not necessity but on the applicant's choice to build a particular design. The code and case law are clear. If you can build a code compliant project, even a smaller one, you're not entitled to a variance. Here
the applicant can build a code compliant project on its property without the need of a variance. Therefore, the variance request should be denied. Finally, the applicant's proposal and presentation failed to present any competent substantial evidence that it meets the code requirements for a certificate of
appropriateness. It doesn't meet standard nine of the secretary of interior standards. Where the overall design of the site is not compatible I'm just about done if I could. Okay. Okay. Um uh let's see. Where the overall design of the site is not compatible
with the massing and scale of its neighbor. The applicant and staff report have not shown consistency regarding aesthetics, appearance, physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and properties and the surrounding community as required in criterion four. The
proposed layout and design of the site given the variance request overbuilds the lot and pays little if any attention to its neighbors contrary to criteria five. For all these reasons, I urge you to deny the application and direct the applicant to come back with a project that better fits in with the unique
single within this unique single family historic neighborhood. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any more public um disclosure public hearing?
My name is Daniel Hilter Brand. I live at 1320 Vanox Avenue, one house apart from this new project. I'm a developer myself and I love new modern buildings, but not in the last remaining pocket of protected historic art buildings. I
bought my 1935 Artco house over 10 years ago and spent a lot of time, effort, and money to restore it back to its original looks. The art buildings in is what makes South Beach so popular around the world. The new this new building is an addition to the existing house. It's on a 7 foot
rise, has two stories, and an A-shaped roof totaling about 40 to even maybe 50 ft in height. This is about a fourstory building, a huge concrete wall at the full length of the property. The first thing you are going to see when you
enter 13th Street on Lenox Circle is a four-story shoe box. And it's a Scandinavian modern design. It has wooden siding like a barn. I've never seen a wooden art or deco building. All of South Beach doesn't have a wooden
building. Apparently, all sorts of setbacks need to be waved and the existing building gets new look and new arages built almost to the sidewalk. Very dangerous if a car is is there and there is no driveway. If you approve
this project in these forms, you're setting a precedent. This is a developer who wants to maximize his profit by squeezing as much square feet out of that lot with any without any consideration for the neighborhood. If you let this happen, the historic
protection means nothing and everybody's going to build something similar. I may even do it myself. I cash out and move somewhere else since I don't want to live between fourstory concrete walls. Please do not approve this project in this form and ruin our
last remaining historic South Beach neighborhood. It's also my understanding that the permit has been expired and has not been renewed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Bruce Carter and I do live next door and I'm the person who's
probably most affected by this project. Um, I believe brevity is the way to to get a point of call. So, I'll be very short and to the point. I think the points have been made. I think it's extremely clear that this building is completely out of uh out of whack for
this neighborhood. To give you an idea, we're now looking at a 45 looking in my property in my pool. I will see a 45 foot concrete wall that is five feet away from me. And normally, just so you know, I'm pretty open to resiliency to
building But I ask you, what kind of plant can I plant between my house and a 40-foot wall that I could landscape this away? There is no escaping something of the scale. To my neighbor's point, it's so big it will actually cast a shadow
not across my entire property and onto his property. And he's an entire house away. This is something that affects an entire neighborhood. It is completely out of scale. And um I'm I'm belaboring a point at this point, but I think it's it's pretty
obvious to everyone that this is completely out of scale. And I ask humbly as people who know so much more about historic preservation that you consider this again. I sold my house on the water in Sensit Island to move to a historic neighborhood that I believed in and because I wanted to make a
difference in a historic way and that's no small thing, right? I decided to leave a very beautiful home and invest my time and energy in a place that I knew would be historic and bucolic. I will will lead with these words. They're not mine. On the applicant's application, the first thing they say in
historic is the welcoming the flamingo heart neighborhood is bucolic and dynamic. This is the applicant's words because all structures are set so far away from the street. Not my words, it's theirs. Now we have a fourstory structure 5 ft away
from the street on Linux Avenue. I humbly ask for your consideration in not allowing this addition to happen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, please. I'm the uh my name's John Rosenblad. I'm
the owner of this uh this property. I've been doing historic renovations since 1986, since the historic rehabilitation act that uh was passed at that point. At that point, I was in Providence, Rhode
Island. Uh I am a little taken back because there is no concrete wall. They appear to be thinking about the previous structure that was approved by this board. U it's a it's a small bungalow. I
don't know where they got the idea of four stories. It's a twostory building. I I they're not talking about the structure that I'm planning to build. It it's completely fitting with the notion this is not an art deco
district. I don't know where he got that idea. This is a Mediterranean Mediterranean style housing area almost predominantly the structure that we have that we are just renovating. We're not really doing anything to the main building. That's a
Mediterranean style building, not Art Deco. Uh the only thing we're adding is a small twocar garage, which is exactly the same style and structure as the garage and the building across the
street. Furthermore, this structure in the back will be completely shrouded by hedges. As you if you go there, you'll see you'll not be able to see that structure. It will be covered by hedges. So, I don't understand what these people
are talking about. There is no shadow being cast. This is a This board has already approved a brutalist style building, a concrete building. Maybe that's what they're talking about. I am going to the effort to redo the
original approved structure because I didn't think that it fit the neighborhood. This structure is similar to other bungalow buildings in Miami Beach, which makes complete sense as far as I'm concerned. A as far as extensions, we were approved by Historic
Preservation. All the the legal issues were resolved. We we we we did get an extension as per the the uh governor's order and everything we've done we've done with the approval of or approval
almost everything approval of the historic preservation uh people here. I mean the last thing I want to do is to create a problem uh an eyesore in the neighborhood and I'm not doing that. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Um, yeah, if there if we're finished with public comment, are you take off the Okay, one sec. One sec. Uh, because we're just finishing. We'll finish public comment. If there's no one else speaking, anybody
on anybody online, Debbie? Okay. So, um, if there's no public comment, we'll close public comment and then, uh, your team can respond. Thank you. Uh, my name is Ricardo Dega. I'm the architect for the cottage. Uh I just want to confirm what
John just said. Uh I'm a little bit confused as to why they think that we're building a fourstory concrete uh wall. The footprint and height of the cottage is exactly the same as what was originally approved. The difference is
that the original approval was a flat roof box. It did very much look like a concrete bunker. It did very much look like it had three four story in height. The reason that I did a pitch roof was is obviously to reduce the bulk
and scale of the previous design which I think is also more in keeping with a typical pitch roof uh of the neighborhood. It is contemporary in nature quite consciously so because it
needs to be a contrast in my opinion to the existing uh house. So yes, it is a modern house. There's no question about that. Uh in terms of the materiality, yes, it's also contemporary. But again, it you you
can't mimic the existing or the past. So So that I took a very clear view on that. But I just want to confirm that it is exactly the same footprint and height of the original twostory building, but
it's a pitched roof as opposed to flat. Therefore, it looks much lower in scale in bulk and and massing as well. But it is not a 40 foot high concrete wall and it is not four stories high. It's a twostory building.
Thank you. Thank you. Uh any further rebuttal from the applicant? All right. Um sorry, just one more. Please come to the microphone if you're going to continue. One point of thing, it is within the codes. Uh it's not too close to the
street etc. It is wholly within the code. Again, what was approved, but it is to the codes. All the setbacks and heights are to the code. So this notion that we're building something, you know, totally out of context and too close to the street. The
garage is identical to the one across the road. it works in terms of uh uh the turning circles and blind spots etc. So I I just just want to make it clear that it is within the existing code. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh with
that I think we will um close the um applicant rebuttal and um open it to board member comment. So would anybody like to
um and this would not be comments to the applicant but just kind of among us or if you have questions further questions for Debbie or whatever then this is the time in in my opinion when I looked at this. The additional structure looked
like it should be on a lake you know and and a cottage type thing. Uh it's wood structure. You're going to feed the termites. I mean, it just it doesn't fit this neighborhood at all in my opinion. Uh and uh and no one's going to be able
to change my opinion on that. Uh I just don't think it it works and the additional variances. Um you know, like just keep nick nickel and dimming the variances in in a neighborhood and it's not fair to the other owners in a
neighborhood. This is a historic district. It needs to be maintained as a historic district. And something like this in my opinion will will just stand out and is something I personally could not vote for. Anybody? Um,
Pascal Deb, I have a question. Um, as far as I know, by definition, a single family home has one kitchen. Is that correct? That's how you define a single family. Correct. One one full cooking kitchen. There are provisions with a restricted
covenant to have two kitchens. So the the we do permit in instance in in certain instances two kitchens with uh a requirement for a restricted covenant advising um that they will not rent it out separately as a separate
unit that it would be one home. And that, you know, is a regular regular is relatively common um situation um that people want two kitchens and they submit the restricted covenant that's recorded. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, it's not just that the
that that no portion of the property will be rented separately. It's also that the entire property will remain as one residential unit. But there's really no enforcement of that in terms of rentals, future rentals, or anything like that. In other words, how are we to know that the owner, future owner, is
not going to rent that secondary structure out? Um, Debbie, do you happen to know if in this district would an accessory dwelling unit be permitted? No. Okay. Well, regardless, I don't think this this application has been designed in a
manner uh that would allow for u portion of it to be rented separately. The the reason I ask is the plan shows a kitchen on the first floor and the you know the new structure. So that's why I bring it up
and and the purpose of the covenant would be to ensure that no portion of the property is is um is is used as a separate residential unit. We would we would have authority to enforce that covenant if a violation arose in the
future. Well, um you're asking us to vote on a certificate of appropriateness based on the following. So, um paragraph number two, uh states that the general design scale
masking arrangement I don't think satisfied personally the relationship with ABC above other structures and features of the district. I don't believe it does. texture and material of the addition does not. Therefore, I
cannot support this project. Yes. Randy, did you want to go next? Are you finished? You'll Okay. Sorry, Lindsay. You want to go? I was going to be quiet, not say much. Um, I have two
concerns. The perspective view of the existing home with the new window pattern. I it appears it has completely changed the character defining element design of this house. I I don't even see the house anymore. I see a roof and that's all. Um it it looks like a brand
new house with a existing roof. Um I wasn't here for the previous approval of the brutalist design which I believe is in our packet at the end the shaded which to me is also a little out of
context with that property. I drove around last night three times around the block to take a look at the neighboring houses, but the character was I have to agree this doesn't the the addition being proposed has absolutely no relevance to that neighborhood whatsoever. Um I don't call it
Scandinavian. I don't I guess a gut reaction is it appears Scandinavian and I don't know whether president in Miami Beach is for this style of architecture. Um I don't think there is one. I have never seen one like this. Um, not that new architectural design cannot be
incorporated. And I really like modern architecture, but this seems to be just totally contrary to the neighborhood, the scale. A lot of the homes in the neighborhood have two-story portions, but they're part of a one-story. They step up. This is a two-story house that looks like it's been subdivided on a
property that you're building the second house. I mean, that basically what it looks like. I I I wouldn't support it either. No, no, please just wait. Sure. You have the final we have we have what we have in the
packet what you submitted. Um so Lindsay would you like to so you know um I did some looking into this um you know we weren't aware of the challenge coming before us and and not that that necessarily makes a difference to most people sitting up here but I
wanted to look into that. So um if with the chair's permission I will allow them to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both the applicant and the the person who the entity is challenging it um acquired their respective properties in 2024. So this is recent you know after
the original approval um because I was trying to get a feeling for was this someone who was here and owned this this neighboring challenging property at the time that it was the original structure was approved etc. Um so I just want to point that out. Um and then I I also
took issue um with the statement um that everything was to code because if in my mind if it's to code they wouldn't be here seeking a variance to the code, right? The code dictates the lot coverage um and the landscaping required
and if they were within that they wouldn't need a variance here. Um I you know I do think um that the structure that you're you know proposing is beautiful. I also tend to agree that it doesn't fit within this neighborhood um with my you know with my fellow board
members. Um so those are my thoughts um on the application. just just wait um please to respond until we've had a chance for the the board and then and then of course if there's information that hasn't been
presented um like with the are they is that even a possibility or I I think the the presentation's been made um we open the public hearing the applicant had an opportunity to present rebuttal if um this is the opportunity for the for the
for the board to deliberate ask any further questions and and take a vote. Yes. Um, one of the things we haven't discussed is the fact that did this require a new application. I mean, we Well, I thought what I thought somebody was going to ask ask Debbie about that
that component. Were you finished with I I wasn't and what I was going to say is that um I mean I'm not going to sit here and opine again because we didn't know about this challenge until it showed up today. Right. Um and I don't know the circumstances under which that I know we
have emails from Mr. Gibbs here from looks like yesterday or the last couple days. So I mean relatively recent. Um so I don't have the benefit of having I know Mr. Gibbs from his perspective of making his presentation listed off a bunch of code provisions and reasonings
why and he made his argument. Um I haven't had a chance to look into that myself. Um I I did ask offline um to make sure I understood that there is no building permit existing for the accessory structure. Um so as of right
now and that's what I was trying to figure out where everyone purchased into this what existed at that time. Um, for my purposes, I don't know that
the challenge makes a different or difference or not. Other than um I would wonder if the challenger and the applicant could get together and come up with something that would be amanable to both parties that perhaps they might be
able to resolve it and present something and resolve some of the concerns that the board has addressed today. whether they might be able to come back before us. Whether that is a continuation or whether that is a uh whether seeking modifications to a currently approved order based upon
whatever the status is or whether that is um making a a new full application to the board. I don't know. Um but those are my thoughts on that issue. And if we want to direct other questions to staff, I'm Yeah, I wanted to really kind of get a
clarification on um the um what um what was kind of implied what Mr. Gibbs implied about the um just not being able to be considered as an extension. Um the uh obviously the
practical difficulty variance uh the practical the definition uh the guidance in terms of practical difficulty. Can you give us some help uh thinking about that? Sure. The the issue of of um of of tolling and extensions of development
orders um is is is governed by state statute and it's handled at the administrative level. So, um, pursuant to a declaration, a statewide declaration of emergency or a state declaration of emergency for specific
counties, um, development orders, including orders of this board, are automatically told and extended for a specific period of time defined in the statute. Um, that
that's handled at the staff level. there's there's really no role for the for the board to play in that matter. Um, as to the as to the variance, that is squarely within your authority. Um, it's it's it's up to the board to
determine whether the applicant has demonstrated uh that they meet either the practical difficulties or the undue hardship standard. um you know you you are required to make that decision based on the the evidence before you and that includes submissions by the by the
applicant. It includes testimony uh it includes uh the the testimony and written analysis of your of your professional staff. Um but that is you know that is that's that's up to the board. Um and if you do find that that there are practical difficulties or an
undue hardship that that supports the granting of a variance um then you are you can only approve it on a on an affirmative vote of of five members of the board. Correct. Well, I was um I was kind of thinking about this uh going in in the
way that Lindsay was talking about because clearly there are challenges between um the neighbors. I I I agree that the um his that the historic buildings windows should not be changed so that there's greater transparency out to the pool. I don't think that's up to the
east side. I also think that the um that the way the um you know the the structure is the addition is laid out and kind of its its height and its um kind of connection to the house and but
also its connection to its neighbors need to be need needs to be reworked. Um, and I I don't I mean I will reserve judgment to this board, but I know we're a short board and we would need every person on the
board to be uh in support of this in order for it to pass with the variances and it it doesn't sound to me like we have that. Um so our options would be to um see if we have maybe take a straw poll to see if we can uh to see if we
can um have uh you know propose a continuence of this um for the parties to come back to us to kind of con converse with each other and to see if they can possibly come to an agreement
about what this um what this uh structure should should be. Is that um is that something that um that we could do? And let me can we do a straw poll? Um anybody in favor of of a continuence
and we make it I think to a a time certain. Yeah, exactly. like you know a few months so that we can maybe the July meeting or something so there's time for there to be a conversation to be for
there to be an agreement and then for the applicant for the architect to um make whatever whatever um changes that need to happen. Um would anybody agree to that? I so I would I would support a
continuence. I mean, as I said, you know, there are some issues here obviously with the neighboring properties. Um, and given, you know, the inclination of this board, it seems to not support
the modifications to the application as uh requested. um that would uh you know maybe may I through the chair if I could ask the applicant how many months be would would be workable. I mean is
are is two months enough or do they need three which would really be four because we don't have an August meeting. We don't have an August meeting. Yeah. So I would be in support of a straw poll you know and let's just let's just take a straw poll to see if the board wants to go in this direction and then we'll get back to you guys. Um, if you want to
continue it, I just want everybody to be very clear. The auxiliary building would have to be majorly changed to ever get a yes vote out of me. Okay. Yes. Yeah. This is a a straw poll on continuous. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. We have uh So, please uh if you
have any comments about the time you need or um Okay. No, no, no. Um my question is regarding the uh main house because um I know that the um issue or the big issue here is the accessory
building but um also on the main house we are um asking to not to raise the house as originally was approved. So I don't know if we can divide those two uh projects uh to be able to continue with the construction with the remodeling
because we are we are at this moment like stopped so we are not doing anything for few months but then I need to know like what's the decision on the house you had a question so one is a procedural question which is whether or not we could bifurcate in that way that
would be the first question you don't have to answer yet and then the second question would be again going back to some of the feedback I believe related to the windows on the existing structure and earlier you said that that would not be a change that you'd be willing to
make and so I mean that's that's a sticking point as well. Well, I think if we're continuing this we will see what happens. You know what we're feeling now in terms of those windows I think there's yeah um I can I can go back with the original approval on the windows. uh
the only thing that we are not planning to go back is with raising the house because of the structure because of the increment of escap so that's the only thing the other ones for now we can go back and then we can take that later and about the bifurcating the price yeah so
I think the board does have some options here um we could approve the changes subject to the staff recommendations for the historic home and bring back the the design of the new addition. You could
deny the design of the new addition and revert back to the previously approved edition which is in your package um and just you know move forward with the historic home the previous design that was approved the previous variances that were approved not the modifications to
the variances. Um so that would be I think another option or you could continue the entire application to bring back. But I I do want to point out this structure has been vacant for quite some time. It you know we're seeing in this portion of Flamingo Park um somewhat of
a trend of vacant buildings that are causing uh the neighborhood concern. Um so staff would support certainly moving forward with renovation of the existing home um as as fast as possible. Could go
ahead. Go ahead. Do we need to take a straw poll on that or I I I just wanted to clarify it a little bit just to see if we could put a finer point on that which is could we approve the um approve the existing home with the
windows um with the windows being as they are now rather than as they're proposed to be and um deny the the the additional uh structure. And then that be basically a denial of the
modified design and the the additional variances requested. So if we denied the proposed design, they would still but we would not be approving the would we be approve would the approval for the prior concrete design still remain? Yeah,
that's already approved. Yes, subject to arguments subject to Yeah. Um I Uh, so I I'm I'm inclined to do whatever I can to help you to work on the
existing house. I just think the um the addition the proposed addition needs to be needs to be relooked at with your neighbors in mind and there needs to be more conversation there. So I wouldn't I wouldn't um I would if we so if we our two
choices are to deny the current um proposal and therefore they are rem they have the existing approved proposal remaining um and that can't be and that's already been approved and they can go for permits on that.
The only way we could encourage the further conversation with the neighbors would be about it would be to do what in your would be a continuence. A continuence which would allow them to
allow you guys to have you know to move forward with this but obviously with the conversation with your neighbors. Okay. Did I say something? Um allow to say something. Yeah. Yeah. Just one sec. Just one sec. Um, you had a question. She just asked first and then I'll Sorry. I I So I think I misunderstood
because I thought you said that we could approve the modifications as to the existing house. Yeah. But then that would be a a denial of everything
else and they could then come back with a later modification application to address the rear accessory structure. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. The chair the chair asked what would be the mechanism to encourage further conversation and that would be either a a continuence of the whole thing or
approval of the modifications to to the main home uh and a continuence of the of the rest. Can we continue a portion of an application? Yeah, that's that's what I meant. That was that was the question. Sorry, I thought you were suggesting continuing the whole thing. Okay. No, I didn't really want to continue the whole thing because I want these guys to start
working on this. Um All right. And you I'm sorry. you had something you want to you want to say? No, I I think we'll just go ahead with the original uh approved uh building. So, I don't think we need to discuss this any further. We're just going to file a permit for
the approved structure. Yes. Right. The only thing is is that original is that original proposal still valid because they didn't apply for a permit within a certain period of time. I mean, that's what was brought up to us
that we're basically back to square one. I just want to make sure that we're doing whatever is is is appropriate. I mean, so I I think that's not within our purview. I mean, city attorney can weigh in on this. I think that's not within our purview and that would be something
that the challenger would need to take up at at administrative level. I believe the permit is active. Okay. If that's the case, he's withdrawing his permit today and going I'm sorry. the the previous order of this board is active. Okay. So, he's saying, "Let's go back to the original order." Then they're just
withdrawing this. We're really done. Right. I think what they are asking for would be the modifications to the contributing home that they're requesting, including not elevating the home, retaining the home. Um, so that's
part of this application as well. So, that that component could be approved. And then the remaining items, the redesign of the accessory building and the enhanced variances would would be could be denied by this board or continue but could be denied or the
applicant could withdraw um that component of the application. Mr. Chairman, one suggestion came from my client. Yes. Why not just continue the item? Period. Don't approve this. Don't
approve that because once you do that, if you start approving things and then eventually if I have to go in and file a petition for rid of cerscerary or even a declaratory action on on stuff, you guys are le these people are left hanging. So
if you just do a continuence and then we can talk, we can figure something out or not, but at least it's it's easier. Okay. All right. Um, did you have anything to say about that that idea or I mean I'm not opposed
to that. I think I would ask the applicant if they would like us to do that. You know, they had just asked to for us to move it forward. So, I mean, I'm happy to, you know, and they also recommended that they would withdraw the application
entirely, right? I thought I heard that. So what would anybody would Yes. Any I do have a question. Yes. If the windows are changed per and not accordance to what we're seeing here, does that have
to come do they have to come back to the board for that or is that a staff approval? I don't know where because I don't know the your process. So that's part of staff's recommendation in the order. Um that is something because it would be consistent with the historic design that staff has the authority to
review and approve administration. No. Ray, your mic's on. I can make a motion. Wait, no. Before you do, just just do you have a thought you wanted to share? Just I mean what they're what they were saying is they're willing to
um go to the original plan uh for the for the auxiliary building. then there's no variances beyond what was already requested and they will with the with the existing structure not raise it and we go back to the regular windows. I
think we could make a motion to do that because they're they're happy with that. So is that correct? Are you guys okay with what um could you repeat that Ray? Can you repeat it, please? That that you would like to take
the the original building and and keep it the way it is with your renovations that have been approved, just not raise it. And and that you'll accept the fact that we don't want floor to ceiling uh windows on the on the one side and you
go back to that and then you'll you'll build what you were what was originally approved as the auxiliary building. Yes. Okay. Yes. One one sec, Lindsay. You can come up. And and so what the reason I was suggesting we
speak to the applicant and it may be that the challenger is going to address this. Um what it sounded like to me is that Mr. Gibbs has said that if we approve the existing structure with
staff with the you changes recommended by staff but deny all the variances and therefore effectively deny the rear building and then they revert to the old building that Mr. Gibbs is suggesting he
will seek Sersiari on our decision and that he will then that will then delay them further. And so that's why I'm suggesting we ask the applicant which route they would let me would like us to go and maybe the challenger who is now standing at the podium might have more
to say about that. But I to me I see there are two option two ways we can go with this and I think the board it sounds to me the board would be amunable to either one. I want to know where the African legacy uh Bruce, go ahead. Yeah, I mean I have a PhD from Northwestern. I'm not as smart as everyone here.
Debbie, to your point, um I have to sleep with two guns by my bed. Uh there have been 300 visits by the police officers to the neighborhood. The applicant, just so you know, knew of this. I've been living next door to this applicant's disaster that is next to me, and it has been a holy nightmare for me.
So, you have to understand there is some level of anger because I've lived it. That said, I'm willing to live another year like this because I've already started, right? So, for your point of the they have to live through this. I know I live it every day. But that's it. I'm willing to fight to make sure that
something good these are jewels in this neighborhood. Every house is a jewel and letting this application go and just my sort of general point is is peacemealing this just makes it complicated. I mean, Lindsay, I love that you spoke about like bifurcating and wanting to move
this forward, but did you see how the level of complexity sort of, well, what does he want to do? Would he do this? Maybe he wouldn't. Where are the windows? Are the windows here? Is he raising the floors now? The level just keeps expounding, expounding to a point. It's just a mess. And I would ask that we just continue this and come back in a
way that's organized and settled and we can see exactly what's going to happen and when it's going to happen. Okay. Thank you. Um, yes. Go ahead, R. If in fact they don't raise this, isn't it subject to flooding? Why would you turn around and do all this work on your
home and not raise it and and and be in a flood zone district that that's obviously been flooding and that's the reason a lot of the homes are vacant. So, it doesn't make sense to me that they don't raise the home that we don't
go back to the original plan and and uh and forget this alto together in my opinion. Thank you, Ray. Um, Debbie, did you have anything any guidance uh that you wish to help us with? I I'm inclined to um to
suggest that we continue the whole it's just it's very complicated when we start to um to kind of break it apart and think about it in different pieces. And I think there this might provide opportunities for better
things to come out of the new um the new pro project proposal whatever changes minor changes or major changes are made. Um so I think we can probably call uh call
the vote and have a motion to um to continue this this project. Um Debbie, do you want to No, just a a quick note. I would I would recommend if the board is inclined to continue the application that we set the date for
July 8th. Um there is no August meeting. The September meeting would be beyond the 120day uh continuance period. Um so I think uh the July 8th meeting at this point. If they need more time after that, we can uh revisit that at that
point, but I would recommend July 8th. Perfect. Okay. So with that, do I have a motion? No. Um motion I'll make a motion to continue to the July 8th meeting.
Second. I'll second it. All those in favor? I think you can do a roll call. How many How many votes do we need? We need more to continue. Um Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr.
Braslin, no. Miss Levelvel, yes. Mr. Hollenworth, yes. Mr. Stewart. Yes. Okay. Uh, what's going to be the procedure in this case? So, for the July meeting, so do I need to staff will follow up with you and we should
probably set a meeting. Um, I think it's it's also a good idea to take the board's advice and maybe reach out to your neighbors, start that conversation at this point. Um, but we will reach out to you and and give you some dates and we can meet uh set up a meeting to discuss changes. Thank you. Thank you.
Is this yours? Okay. Ready for the the next application. Um we are moving on to HPB 254649. This is uh 121st Street. An application has been filed uh requesting
modifications to a previously issued certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition, renovation, and restoration of the hotel building, the total demolition of the accessory cabana structure, the construction of a ground level and rooftop additions, one or more
waiverss, and a variance to relocate signage um to a non street facing facade. Um this modification is specifically requesting an additional scope for demolition. Um staff has provided a background to the board. Um
in our analysis um this is a contributing building. Uh it is propo originally constructed as the seagull hotel. It is now um proposed to be a new Bulgary hotel. The board
approved a a significant project in 2021. Uh since that time we have been working diligently with the team on the building permit process. What um so we've been working with the applicant. I know um planning has
reviewed and approved a full building permit for the project that the historic preservation board approved. Um we're very excited to see um work um continue and ultimately the completion of the project. Um during some recent uh
activity uh within the interior of the structure, the applicant has advised us that their structural engineers have uh re-evaluated their initial uh restructuring of the building primarily due to the fact that it was discovered
this building was built on a spread foundation. It does not have any pilings. Um after testing and studies, uh they did conclude that that all of the floor plates will need to be
demolished. Additional um demolition of two of the facades is also requested. Um but staff would note that the primary facade that contains all of the significant architectural features um will still be retained and shored. Um
they have provided a preliminary shoring embracing plan that staff is comfortable with. Um so at this point uh we are supportive of the application and are recommending approval. I am available for any questions.
Are there any questions for Debbie on this at this point? No. All right. Good morning. For the record, my name is Carter McDow with Billen Sberg, 1450 Brookl Avenue. I have my associate Nick Notto with me. We have our structural
engineer Ysef Hakeim and we also have um our architect here if if there are questions for the architects about this. Um I need to because there's so many new members in the board. I want to take a
minute to just say this is indeed proposed. We are in the process of building a new Bulgary Miami Beach. new Bulgary Hotel. At the time we started this process, it was going to be the first Bulgary Hotel in the United States. Um, a real feather in the cap of
Miami Beach. We went through hearings before the city commission, before this this board itself, before the planning board, and I can honestly say we got unanimous votes for this project. Everywhere we went, there was one planning board member who said, "I love
the project. I have a problem with this aspect. So, I'm not going to vote for it, but I love the project. So, we we had one vote, which was not unanimous. This board unanimously approved the project. We're excited. We have been working hard on this project. Um, since
we got the original approvals, there were some delays through challenges. Um, but we've made made our way through those. Um, as if you've been by the property, you can see that we've done significant work on the property, mostly demolition at this point.
um and we are at a critical juncture with regard to this property um and with this project. We are here asking for your approval of the modified demolition and we genuinely need your help to move this forward this project forward. Um we
are at a point where delay honestly is very hard and very damaging to the project uh because we might in fact have contractors end up demobilizing uh with delay which we really don't want to see happen. To be clear, we are not
modifying the project that was approved by the historic preservation board in any way. It's not larger. It's not made no different setbacks. we will provide um to you and I guess I how do we so
please put up the first slide which shows a rendering um of course you can't see it oh now you can see it uh so that's a rendering of the north facade from the original uh packet um I do have some additional renderings which are not in this
presentation we have them on a laptop um a couple laptops that I can showed to the board. They are the original renderings. I didn't include them in this. Not thinking that I should do that for the board members who are new, but if they're board, we have a couple of additional renderings that we can show
you on the screen of the uh of our computers. Um they they are already in the record of approval. Um, if you would like us to do that for a minute, we can I can certainly ask Nick and Barbara to show you a couple additional renderings of this project from different
viewpoints. Um, just to give you a sense of the larger project. So, to be clear, we're not asking to change the project. We're simply changing the way we have to build it. U, we will preserve the north facade as Debbie has said. Um that is the most
and really the only remaining architecturally significant portion of this building. Um and based on the prior approval um when the project was originally presented we both the city and we believe that we had a substant we had an
older historic structure but that it was uh substantially sound and stable. Um what we found after the fact, unfortunately, um is that as Debbie has said to you, this building was built with no deep
pile foundations at all. Um had this been a three-story building, that might not have been a surprise. But as an eight-story building, um I can tell you it was a complete surprise to our structural engineer, to our owner, and to the design team, um it was it was
pretty much a gut punch to be honest because we now need to completely redo the structure of the building because we cannot make the project as originally approved meet applicable code requirements with no deepile foundations. And indeed the building
will be subject potentially to collapse in the event of a hurricane because it could get undermined. Um it just completely changed what we have to do to this building. As a result, we are coming before you asking to first
stabilize the north wall. We we have in the presentation and I can go through the presentation for you which is mostly just the change uh demolition plans but we have a shoring plan where where as you have seen on other projects like the Aman and the Raleigh we'll install a
steel structure to support the north north facade and protect it. That's the first step. We actually have to put in foundations under those structures as if it were a tower crane effectively. So, we're going to have to put in six new or
seven new foundations, then erect those towers, pin the north wall to with those towers to hold it up. We will then demolish the floor plates behind it um and build a new building which ultimately is better I think for
everybody because the current structure and our structural engineer can go through this in more detail but there there have been dozens of core samples taken throughout this building. Not one of them met the structural requirements
that of the design and some are and I I I use the word woefully inadequate. I think our structural engineer had a different phrase but it is it's really in bad shape. And so while we had hoped to maybe be able to put new foundations
in underneath the building, because of the the weakness of the existing structure and its instability, we really can't do that without risking, you know, collapse and potentially killing uh the the construction workers on site. We
have talked to a lot of con contractors about this along with our engineers. Nobody is willing to do that. Um and so we are here asking to remove the all of the floor plates, save the est the contributing north facade and then build
the new building which will then be uh attached to the facade again and you will get the same product that you was approved by this board. Um one small note we are demolishing the west facade. Um the reason for that is we cannot put
a structure on the outside of the building on that west side. It is a shared access with our neighbors. We cannot block it. So we can't get to any place where we could support that wall by supporting it from the outside because I simply can't install that
structure in that shared alleyway. It's 20t wide. Um, so we will rebuild that structure, that western wall. If you see, it's a very plain wall. There are a couple windows in it. There's absolutely no architectural detailing in it.
Um, and I again, we ask for your approval. We ask for your support and your help. Um, we have put a number of things in the record in terms of the engineering, but Yousef is here and happy to address you if you have questions about the
structural structural condition of the building or this approach. Um, and I think I will stop there since you had a long hearing in front of us and we're here to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. I will also say there have been communications between the principles, my clients and the adjoining
uh principles uh of the Satai. Um and they are they're fine with it. As long as we're not expanding and changing the setbacks, they're fine with it. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the applicant? Just what does this add to your time frame now, Carter?
Um you know, I'm not sure I can answer that. it does slow us down. Um, but one other thing you should also know, this project's fully funded. We don't have to close any loans or do anything else. We are moving forward as quickly as we possibly can. It is going
to cost us I believe several months of delay because we now have to I'm told by our structural engineer almost a year's delay uh because we had now have to do with your approval we can do the we've already started on the design of the new structural system but
we're early in it. We needed your approval to do that. Um so we need to then do that design get it then file it as a modification to our existing permit and that will take I'm sure at least six months. Um and from there we then get
and the demolition itself will take quite a what we will be able to do in the interim is get the pricing up and do the rest of the demolition so that we're prepared as soon as the permit's modified to start the construction of the new project. Uh but yes, it is been
ex it is extremely expensive. It's certainly not where the owner or any of us want it to be. Um it is uh it's costing a lot of money. The the the bracing structures themselves are currently being bu bid and they're in the neighborhood of $6 million just for
the braces. So we ask for your help. We ask to allow us to move forward. thing in the rendering it almost shows the uh um portico being on the same level as the street but I'm familiar with that building and it's a like a drive up and
down and in the original ramp if I may in the original approval Ray that that was modified we are lowering the driveway because because of its angle current angle and this was approved by the board already because of the driveway angle you can't use that
driveway So we the board approved lowering the entry into the building. There are again no no architecturally significant features left in the lobby. So you are correct but we are in fact lowering that entry.
Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? No. Um okay. Not at this time. All right. Uh thank you very much. Now we will go to um board disclosures. Any any
disclosures on this project? No. No. No. All right. Um opening to public hearing. Um anyone on Zoom please raise your hand. Roger DPL. Um, we acknowledge the structural challenges and be silly to
say don't do it. Uh, but we don't pose the additional demolition request as long as the visual facades as as you stated are still there, which they appear to be, which is wonderful. It's unfortunate that it has to be done peacemail. It'd be great if all this
could be done at once, but uh we it's it's a beautiful structure. The seagull hotel has been around for a while and uh it's really going to make a difference in the neighborhood. So we before Great. Thank you. Seeing no other public comment, we
will close the public comment portion and um go to board member board member comment discussion. Any anything anybody wants to add? I commend you on not wanting to tear the
entire building down, which you know, the state has made it clear that they don't care anymore, particularly north of 23rd Street and you're just a couple blocks away. So to save the the the face of the building that fronts the street
um is costing you a lot of money to do and and I personally appreciate the fact that you are preserving it and that when you're finished you will have a structure that will stand the time for the next hund and some odd years. Thank
you. And just gratuitously we look forward to joining you in your neighborhood. I'd say we look forward to joining you in your neighborhood. Okay. Any other any other comments on this project that anybody' like to share? Lindsay? Yes. I mean, I guess I'm
somewhat echoing. I I do really commend the efforts. I wasn't here for the original approval. Um obviously we were here just what two months ago, three months ago when we did the porcare. um you know the efforts and the links that this applicant has gone to to make
sure that they're doing this as far as I'm concerned right um and um you know preserving this um exterior structure or the facade rather um which is you know the most important part of this building um I I just I don't know I I it it warms
my heart and I appreciate it and I just wanted to express that that's great no it's not cheap and actually I was going to say the same thing but you said so much more eloquently than I ever could, but uh no, I appreciate the work you guys are doing on this on this wonderful project. So, I didn't I didn't have any questions for
you. I was just devastated when I heard that it it was built like a two-story building in Flamingo Park instead of um for its foundations at least. So with that, um do we have a um the staff
report obviously um recommends approval and that's a draft order. Do we have any a motion? I I will um move to approve as recommended by staff. Second. All right. Okay. Let me call the role. Um Mr. Hollandworth, yes. Mr.
Meyer, yes. Miss Laughl, yes. Mr. Brazlin, yes. Mr. Stewart, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Um the next application on the agenda is HPB
240629. This is 910 Marseilles Drive and 7116 Bay Drive. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new multif family residential building on the vacant portion of the site. And
I'm going to turn it over to Jake who will present our recommendation. Thank you, Debbie. The subject L-shaped site contains two parcels and has frontage on both Bay and Marseilles Drive. There is an existing contributing building located at 7116 Bay Drive which is
proposed to be retained and a new detached addition is proposed to be constructed on the vacant portion of the site. The new four-story building consists of six parking spaces at the ground level and 10 residential units within the upper three floors. Staff is
supportive of the building design, which has been developed in a manner that is compatible with the architectural character of the historic district and consistent with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood, including the setback of the fourth level. Staff has two concerns with the proposed project.
First, we recommend that additional landscaping and screening be introduced along the east side of the parking area to buffer light and sound from the residential buildings to the east. And second, we recommend that the west elevation of the building be further refined to break down the three large
vertical expanses of blank stuckle wall. Staff is supportive of the project to replace the existing vacant lot with a high quality building and including no waiverss or variances and we are recommending approval. Thank you very much, Nick.
Um any any um questions for staff? No, that wasn't it. I know. Um okay, then welcome and
please Yes. Hi, good morning everyone chair members of the board staff. My name is Cecilia toledo. I work at Acreman LLP offices at 98 Southeast 7 Street and I'm here on behalf of the property owner and applicant Effort Normandy LLC. With me today is our
entire team. I have my partner Gus Maxwell as well as from ownership Duron Arad and Isa SAS. I have our design architect Jan Franco Derve from Idea Architects, landscape architect Kiel Sembler from GSLA Architects and our
traffic engineer Adrienne Demowski from Kimley Horn. We are here requesting a certificate of appropriateness to develop a 10-unit multifamily residential building on the vacant portions of this lot. If you can please pull up the presentation. Here you see a rendering
of the proposed project. Now, this property is located at the entrance of Normandy Isle. It abuds 71st Street, which is the commercial core of this neighborhood. It is an area that is well served by transit, walkable, lots of commercial
activity going on in the area. We have a bit of a funky zoning condition here. The portions of the lot that have the historic building are zoned RO and then the vacant portions where we propose to build the new structure, they're zone RM1. This is of course in the Normandy
Isles historic district which is why we're before the board. So this is the historic structure that is on Bay Road. It was built in 1940, two levels. It has commercial space at the ground floor as well as six residential units. This application proposes to leave the
structure intact, but I will point out that there has been active investment in retaining the structure as recently as 2017. All of the windows were replaced with hurricane impact windows and the facade received a little TLC so that we can continue to enjoy this historic
structure. This is the vacant portion of the lot where the new construction is going to be. This has been vacant for a long time. So, uh we understand that the neighbors are excited that we're finally activating this with, you know, a reasonable residential use. You can see here a little bit of
the context of where this is going. Um, I'm going to hand over the presentation to an architect to walk you through the drawings. But before that, I did want to make two points. The first is that the code allows us to build up to 55 ft in height, but we've consciously built it
down to 41 and 1/2 ft in order to have a product that is contextually appropriate in this neighborhood. The four-story building, you can see here the Nightsbridge condo right across Bay Road is substantially taller at nine stories. So, we think our height is pretty appropriate. And the second point I want
to make is that for the first time in my career as a land use attorney, I received an unprompted call from neighbors and they were actually asking if we could build taller, put more units there, more intense development. So I have a letter of support from the Ninth Bridge condo, uh, six owners in that
condo that I will be distributing. They're very excited about the project. They think the design is very high quality and they're happy that this vacant lot is finally being developed. And with that being said, I'm going to turn it over to Jan Francois and I'll come back to conclude. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Jean Franu. I'm
partner of Idea Architects, 3233 Northeast, 163rd Street, North Miami Beach. Um we're very excited to the opportunity of presenting this project uh to you today. Um, as Cecilia said, uh, it's a very modest project. It's 10
dwelling units. Uh, we went, uh, for for for the quality of the product. Uh, we work closely with, uh, the owner and staff to to give what we think is, um, is is a good product.
Um so as we described it's a simple structure has only uh four stories and we were very uh mindful to have um the massing of the building to be uh uh as pleasant to the eye and compatible with
the scale of the neighborhood. So uh as you'll see in the renderings the um the project actually um scales back from the street. Um so it's it's a little boutique project as I said it's a very modest
scale. Uh we think that uh in working on it we we are in the details uh to make it a very uh pleasant project. Um we we would welcome your support. We think that this is the right uh
architectural design for the site and uh we're certainly very interested in hearing what you say. Uh in the staff reports there are two conditions and uh we uh we we we will comply with the condition. Um we have no um no
restriction in uh being in compliance. I'll be more than happy to answer any question that you have. I'm also accompanied here by uh Kil Simler, the landscape architect of the project. Any question you may have, he'll be uh happy to to answer that.
Thank you. Does that conclude the presentation? Uh yes, it does. Okay, perfect. Um the applicant presentation's over. Okay, so would are there any questions for the applicant? Ray, my standard question is this going to be
apartments or condominium? Um, yeah, please. So, of course, it'll depend on market conditions at the time. The intent initially is to go apartment, but if the condo market is going good, then they'll
switch over to condo, but they haven't determined that yet. Okay. Because I did notice that, you know, you've got one huge unit on the upper floor, and I thought, well, maybe the owner of this project was going to take that for themselves. No, I don't think so. And
also you have six parking spaces. Yes. Uh and you've got a 10-unit building. Um now I notice that there's four parking spaces on the street, but I believe you can't have those assigned to your building. Correct. Correct. So yes, we have 10 units and only six parking spaces. The intent is for the
threebedroom to have two parking spaces, the twobedroom and I believe four of the onebedrooms will have a parking space. There are units that are not going to have an assigned parking space, but like I said, this area is well served by transit. You have both the Miami Day
County 79 and 279 bus going along 71st Street as well as the Miami Beach trolley. It's a walkable neighborhood, so we don't think that that's going to be a negative for the project. And a biking neighborhood. And a biking neighborhood. Great. Thank you. Um, and we have
extensive uh uh storage on the ground floor for bicycles. Okay. While you're while you're up there, I just wanted to see if you would um possibly talk about the how how you're addressing the um the west elevation, like what your thoughts are on it. I I you said you're going to
be addressing that as staff recommended to further refine it, but I just didn't know if you had any comments on how you might be doing that. Uh well, it seems that it may be um appearing at as a little too massive right now. You want to pull it up? I think you'll There's the There's the
I don't know if you have you have it in elevation. Yeah, I'll show the elevation there. There. Yeah, that's right. It may seem a little uh massive. Um so uh
basically what may be an irritation here is is is the mass of the vertical uh stucco um facade. So we will basically jazz it up. It could be just with uh uh with lines inserted in the stucco, but
we'll we'll activate the design. Okay. Is that kind of along the lines of what you guys had in mind? Yeah. Just a more architectural definition to break up the vertical. Sure. Okay. Thank you. And uh the maybe the landscape architect could
talk about the first like how you're going to Oh, I'm sorry. I Yeah, this work as well. Uh hi, good morning. My name is Kale Small. I'm with GSLA Design Landscape Architects. Um yeah, as far as the landscaping, we the condition between the units, you know, we small
setback and then the adjacent neighbor has one, too. So, um, you know, we couldn't put massive shade trees in there to buffer, but we do have, uh, trees planted about 14 feet on center, uh, 10 trees on each side of the, uh, between each facade. Uh, and we have those underplanted with hedges, which,
you know, ultimately grow up to the base of the tree, which will grow up. So, we'll have a, you know, 15 20 foot vertical wall of vegetation. Um, I understand the, uh, neighbors are concerned about parking and headlights. So, um I think the shrubs going in there now, we have them 24 in tall, but we
will just increase the sizes and we'll stagger them. So, right away they'll have an immediate, uh, you know, light barrier for headlights. So, all right. Hopefully that will Thank you. Did Great. Go ahead. With the parking, couldn't you just have it where they back into the spaces instead of driving forward? I mean, that's a I mean, that's a possibility to take care of the light
situation. I mean, I know I park that way. I don't know if it's a something we can dictate. Okay, great. Thanks. Any other questions for the for the applicant? Yeah, the read the landscape plan. Is it
orange geer on both sides of the building that you're planting? There's orange geers, silver buttonwoods. Um, crab woods in there, too. Yeah. But between the buildings where it's narrow, we have geiggers, crab woods, and silver buttonwoods. Okay.
And then underneath we have rateras, cocoa plum, things that will grow, you know, 10 ft in height. Yes. I uh commend the architect on the design. I think it's a great benefit to the area. I just wanted to ask you if
you studied whether you could add additional parking uh because what you discussed was the possibility of having rental units. Yes. And more than likely uh you're going to need more parking than six parking spaces. And the way I look at it is did you study anything on
the alley side perhaps adding additional parking? There's there's um there's a lot going on on on this small site and actually we went back and forth main time with staff to make sure that we would uh uh be in compliance
with all the requirements. Uh there is street parking now. Now the requirement is zero. So we could have provided zero but we we knew that it was not here. Absolutely. Uh but what we proposed here six is really the the the maximum that
could fit uh in order to respect the the landscape buffers the the access to the building itself. And uh as I mentioned earlier uh we're providing we're providing extensive uh ground floor storage for bicycle and we think that's going to be an asset for the project.
Again, my concern is uh the tenants and number two, possible guests. So, if you have people living there with only six units having parking, any guests coming beyond tax.
Yeah, those are going to be eaten up in the next few years, too. But, uh the project is beautiful and I think it's a it's a great shot in the arm for that particular area. Okay. Thank you. No. Okay. I think that that does it. So now
um we will go to board disclosures. Any any disclosures? Nope. All right. Then uh opening for public hearing. Okay. Anyone on Zoom, please raise your hand if you would like to comment. Roger Miami Design Preservation Board.
Uh we appreciate that you're preserving the existing contributing structure. Also commend you for keeping it below the maximum. I mean that's you don't hear much about that. That's great. Uh it respects the scale of the neighborhood. Uh you add additional
housing to Miami Beach while activating a vacant lot. That's great too. We support the staff recommendations regarding the landscaping we just spoke about screening refining of the west elevation. Now we have one uh point as a
to blend in with the historical nature of the neighborhood. Instead of the curves around the uh eyebrows, if you can put vertical lines, we think would be more of a homage to the uh historical designs. Uh but with with
some refinements such as I had the potential to be a positive addition to the neighborhood while respecting its historic contracts would be fantastic. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Seeing no further public comment. Um we'll now go
to board comment and discussion. Anything? Anything? Lindsay, go for it. Yeah, I'll start. Um so I I do agree with my fellow board members. I think it's a very beautifully designed project. Um I appreciate you know some of the comments um made both by NBPL res
uh representative um and the board that you know the addition of the housing um the fact that you've you know consciously chosen to stay below the heights to really remain um in congruence with the other buildings in the neighborhood. Uh, I live in a historic neighborhood and I have no
parking but street parking. So, I'm totally okay with that. Um, having parking at all is kind of a nice perk. Um, and I'm sure the market will reflect, you know, whether or not you have a parking spot, you know, your cost of your unit, whether that's a rental or a condo. Um, so I, you know, I
appreciate the work that you've done here. Um, I think you guys put a lot of thought into this and looks good. Okay. I um I live very close to this building and walk by it almost every this site almost every day and I think this is going to be a an amazing
addition to the neighborhood and I think the way you're treating the front of it is going to be is really beautiful and I hope it will be a model for um for future for um future development in and around our city. So thank you. Um, with
that, do I can we entertain a motion? Uh, the staff recommendations were basically what we just discussed. I I move to approve with staff recommendations. Perfect. Thank you. Anybody second? I'll second. Okay.
Okay. Let me call the role. Mr. Hollenworth, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Levelvel, yes. Mr. Brlin, yes. Mr. Stewart. Yes. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Yes. Yeah, that was in the Okay. Our next application is HPB
240637. This is a right-of-way location adjacent to the east of 260 Uklid Avenue. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of
an odor control unit at the existing pump station located within the city rightway. Um this is an application filed by our public works department. Um, this odor control unit um is at the existing wastewater lift
station located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Third Street. Uh the existing lift station is located located primarily underground um except for the electrical equipment which is required to be elevated. Um the existing electrical
equipment which you can see in in the photographs um was actually designed as part of an Art and Public Places project um a a tile project entitled Liquid Measures by Wendy Wisher. Um the odor control unit is
proposed in direct response to concerns of the um surrounding residents. Um the existing equipment does not have adequate um facilities to to mitigate the odor
emissions of the wastewater. Um the unit is proposed to be located above ground within the landscape portion of the rightway. It is 9 feet tall um and contains filters which will remove the odors and we have these these type of units installed elsewhere in the city um
and they have been successful and it what it does is it treats the substance and vents clean um cleaned air through a 15t tall exhaust stack. Um staff would note that
the applicant has submitted two options um in terms of the placement of the unit. Um they are still looking at potential conflict conflicts with underground utilities. Um we have they're very you know similar locations. We have no objection to either. Um and
they have also proposed a tile cladding system. They have two particular designs. staff has reviewed both of these designs um and would have no objection to either being approved. Um, I think this is important to note that
the city's public works department has been working very closely, especially with the immediately adjacent neighbor at 260 um, Uklid Avenue to ensure that the resulting product is consistent with what they would like to not only see
there, but the quality of life that will be improved in terms of removing some of these odors. So, with that, I can turn it over to the public works department. Um, but I am available for any questions you may have. Are there any questions for Debbie at
this point? No. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Good morning. Uh, George Maldonado, assistant division director of public works operations. Uh, good morning, Lee Nir, infrastructure director of public works. Uh like like Debbie alluded to, we are
here seeking approval for the installation of a odor control unit located at 260 Washington Avenue in the rightway. Uh since 2020, we have logged over 30 uh area resident complaints of odor in the area. Uh in 2022, as a
result of those complaints, we underwent a $1.2 million station rehab. Uh two parallel 24 in um sanitary super gravity mains. uh manual rehabs, valving in the station. Uh we seek approval from we
sought approval from the commission for a change order in the amount of 250,000 for 14 sealed tight water hatches to mitigate the odor complaints as well. Um we still continue to receive complaints after that. So this is the final attempt hopefully that we can mitigate those
odor control uh complaints for for good. At this time, I turn it over to Byroom, which is the contractor overseeing the construction. Great. Thank you. And good morning, everyone. Um, pleased to be here in front of you. You have a technical Can
you state your name, please? Oh, sorry. It's Derek Webb. I'm the president CEO of Biom Technologies. We are the odor control systems provider on this project. And I'll uh the presentation I'm about to do will give you a little bit of insight into the project team,
try to give you some visuals and also just explain the technology very briefly. As you're aware, uh dealing with the conveyance and the treatment of sewage does produce gaseous phase emissions. They produce odors. Uh they
can be dangerous chemicals at time, hence all of the uh the complaints. So trying to integrate an abatement device into a dense urban uh environment is always a challenge. So hopefully what we show you here today is a is a suitable solution for that. And Mr. Chair, can we
just take one uh short break? I'm not sure that all the witnesses have been sworn in. Were you guys sworn in earlier this morning? Earlier this morning, we did raise our hands. Yes. Okay, sir. Thank you. You're welcome. Uh so the project team BM Technologies, we've been doing
this for 30 years. It's our specialty. We do odor control and air emissions abatement. Our specialty is harnessing the power of mother nature and we've done this literally on every continent on the planet. Our specialty is also dealing with these dense urban environments. Um, also we have
represented here today is L7 uh construction aidian con contractor that specializes in infrastructure projects particularly water and wastewater. And then while not on the slide, uh this project wouldn't have been a success without uh our local partners TSC Jacobs
as well. Um all right, so we've you see on the screen right now is kind of the proposed location. There were as was mentioned there are two potential locations. Uh one is more difficult than the other in terms of underground utilities. Part of
the project has taken into consideration just uh the impact on the neighborhood of the construction. So today we'll be talking about the one location that we feel is going to have the the shortest construction period and the least amount of rework to the existing uh
infrastructure that's there. You know, dealing with odors is one thing, but if you deal with the odors and create a noise, you're still impacting people's quality of life. So the project tries to take all of this into consideration. So, it's not only dealing with the odors, dealing with the
noise that's produced from the equipment that deals with making those odors and then trying to make it blend in aesthetically into the neighborhood. Going to give you a just a short 45 second video kind of you it really gives you an idea of how this is going to look when you zoom into the
area. So, let's experience integrity performance. Imagine an air filtration system built right into your neighborhood that eliminates odors, has no fences, makes no noise, and
aesthetically blends into the local environment. Bio makes this a reality with its compact air treatment system. It is proven to remove odors, will blend into the existing structures, and will improve the quality of life for nearby residents and visitors to the
area. Slim and low profile. Secure with hidden underground duct work. Safe with no moving parts and accessible entrances. Concealed infrastructure blending into the neighborhood. A Cuban
tile mosaic will be applied to the exterior walls of the system to enhance the overall aesthetic. The system will include several provisions for noise reduction, including concrete walls and specialized acoustical louvers within the fan room access door. Complete with
a ventilation fan, inlet sources, a control panel, and a fluid system. There are hardly any external signs of industrial equipment. Instead, it's a simple lowprofile structure, something you might pass every day without a second thought.
Inside the BOF filter, BioRem harnesses the power of mother nature to remove foul odors. The fan pushes these odors into the filter media and they are destroyed naturally without the generation of any harmful byproducts. Since the media is natural
and permanent, very little maintenance is required, minimizing traffic and operator attendance in the neighborhood. Sleek aesthetic options, adaptive architecture, a small footprint that fits into parks, boulevards, or
community paths. Behind that design is advanced biorem technology working continuously to eliminate odors safely, quietly, and without drawing attention. Biorem systems are designed to fit in seamlessly and perform at the
highest level. So, just a quick introduction so you can kind of see how the structure will actually look in the neighborhood and kind of give you a hint of what's actually inside it. Um, just to recap, you know, trying to really uh keep as much of the existing infrastructure there as possible. You know, the whole
project has to fit in seamlessly, including the construction phase. Uh part of the concept is to keep the oak trees that are in that vicinity as well as part of the the overall aesthetics. Takes long enough to grow
those. You don't want to cut those down. Um you've seen in the video the the tiles that we're proposing. If anyone's interested, we've brought some samples here as well, just so you get a bit of a feel. I mean, this is fairly flexible, but it's uh something that we thought
would blend in well with the the foliage as well as uh the color of the pavement and the other buildings there. Uh the other key features, no moving parts, right? Everything's contained within a structure, so it's secure. You don't have kids playing around with with equipment.
Uh in terms of the sizes, we talked about this a little bit earlier, was at the at the introduction, it's about 15 feet by 12 feet in dimension, about 9 ft tall. Uh about as low profile as you can get in terms of uh all of the other technologies that are available for odor
control. This is low profile, safe, and doesn't uh produce any secondary contaminants. Uh it's going to be reinforced concrete that's going to be great for sound attenuation. Um, any steel is going to be corrosion resistant. Obviously, we want this thing
to age well as well. There's no sense putting in a nice building that starts to look pretty uh horrible after uh a year of being exposed to the salt air. So, everything uh has been taken into consideration for this to remain as nice 10 years down the road as it was on day
one. Uh without getting too technical, I am an engineer by background, but just so you understand what's inside the box, this harnesses naturally occurring bacteria. Right? If I wipe my hand on this table right now, I've got the bacteria we need that's going to eat the
air pollution. So those odors uh that are in the air are actually going to be a food source for these bacteria. We grow them on a special rock and they break it right down to carbon dioxide and water. They are benign. They're not genetically modified. Um, and as I said,
use very little water, no moving parts. It's permanent, so you don't have a lot of maintenance crews continually in the neighborhood trying to change out uh materials. It's kind of plug and play. Leave it, forget about it. Uh, you guys are not guinea pigs.
This has been done time and time again. Just got three real short examples. This is an example up in Vancouver in British Columbia. You can see that the infrastructure is literally 10 ft from someone's bedroom window. In this case, the subsurface conditions allowed us to bury everything below grade. Uh just one
example there. Another example of right in the middle of a park in downtown Portland, Oregon. Same thing there. Uh out of sight, out of mind. And then finally, the last example that we have of this in in a similar scenario,
residential area in a medium in Salt Lake City. In this case, uh the client opted to go for an open top system. You know, the rocks kind of blended in with the uh the sand and rock and the desert environment. Uh but the same type of concept, right? Total odor reduction, no
noises, safe and low maintenance. And that kind of ends the presentation. Really just wanted to kind of give you a bit of a visual sense for what we were doing. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, yes. Questions for the applicant.
Well, I happen to live very close to the obelisk that was in your first picture. Okay. And that park is often referred to as Stinky Park. Yes. And it still stinks. Correct. So, what do you do different? Are you going to do different now than you did there? So at at that facility, I believe it's a capacity
issue and that's actually being expanded to deal with those residual odors. Okay. So well, you had that. Thank you. We're about to break ground on a $44 million project at that obelisk for station rehab. So that unit will be
upgraded to a bigger unit to absorb more of the odors. Well, that I mean that after they redid the obelisk and you know because it's historic and I mean it's it's really a nice little pocket park. It is you can get past the smell. So right now the only people that hang out there are the homeless but you know
so I I I'll be happy to see that come back online. And at one point in time they even talked about making some sort of a roundabout there changing the roads and everything but you never know. Talk changes a lot of times. Absolutely. Uh any any other questions for the
applicants? Yes, please. Randy, I'm looking at the two options for the location and I don't um option one appears to be slightly further north than option
two. Why is it cannot be slid even further north so that it has a little bit of a buffer? Because option one appears it's right on the sidewalk. There's virtually no. I believe it's due to the underground structures that are currently in there. So, you've got uh I believe it's the uh the sewage lines
themselves as well as some electrical. Correct. You can put it in either one or two. Wise it can be either moved back and forth in one or two. Yes. It just cannot be slid further south because the parcel is a pie shaped. No, I mean further south. I would think further north
because you actually have more area. have structures in their manholes that we need to keep to maintain the station float. So you can't go north be beyond option uh two and do you have no preference for which option? You just say that's the two
places it can go. We prefer to preserve the oak trees. We want to position it in between the two oak trees. We've already got approval from the urban forester. And which what which option is I I can't see the trees so I don't I'm sorry. That would be option one. Option one trying to preserve as much as possible that's
there and and reduce the construction time as well is option two uh option one then option two what do you lose one of the oak trees you'll have to remove the 14inch oak tree or the 11in oak tree it's hard
to see on the plan you speak of the diameter 11 in the height okay it's pretty mature tree that we want to try and see thank Go ahead. The existing I'm pretty familiar with the
with the site. I I used to live closer to it. Um the existing electrical panels that are raised, how tall are those? I'm just trying to get like a frame of reference. See, I'm six foot. They're about my height, a little bit higher. Six feet. Okay. And this is nine feet tall, right? Correct. Okay. And how high
did you say the exhaust stack extends? It's 15 feet. The exhaust stacks extends 15. So from the ground, correct? Okay. There is an existing exhaust strike at the station now that extends some 30 ft in the air. Okay. Thank you.
I was going to ask about that exhaust um the exhaust stack and wondering is that going to be the stainless the is it stainless steel like you is that a stainless steel stack? proposal would be to make it stainless. Now, we can also coat it if we want uh a different finish
to it, but we would want it to be corrosion resistant. Yeah. Yeah, of course. Of course. The last thing you want to see is a bunch of rust streaks coming down. Yeah. No, it's a it's a pretty prominent uh feature there. And um can you talk a little bit about the landscape that you're planning to add to
to I saw it in the video the the plantings that you're adding around it so that there is existing landscaping at the site right we t we we're going to coingle that the the new installation with the existing landscape. Got it. Okay. I believe it's some installations
of seo palms some lowlying green. Please speak into the microphone. Sorry. Sorry. I I believe it's some sego palms, some green island fus, some native uh species that are drought tolerant there. Okay. Is there any
lighting at night around that around that um planned? We're not proposing uh to have that. I think that would just be a little brutal. Okay. Well, I was just thinking about security just so that you're if you're worried about it
being dark and there's a something there that somebody could be around the corner, you have at least a little bit of light. Not a lot of light, not like a it's a feature that can be added if if uh that's something that's wanted. But, you know, right now it's reinforced concrete. It's going to be a a heavy
gauge door. Everything's going to be locked up. Um yeah, it's not about somebody hiding inside. It would be it would be about somebody being around just cuz you're on the sidewalk and you're walking around this kind of building that somebody could be walking around. But does anybody do that in your other do they ever address the that
issue in any of your other sites? In other sites there tends to be other lighting uh you know just normal street lighting in the area. Um okay. I believe there is street lighting in that area. Correct. So shouldn't be any problem.
It's not the most lit area if you've been there recently, but uh yeah. Okay. And there's a lot of tree cover. I mean, yes, it's beautiful tile. Maybe uplighting. I don't know. It's you know, something to that effect that just gives We have seen people try to peel tile off other structures, but um yeah, hopefully
that doesn't happen. Like you said, it's always a delicate balance between the tweet cover and the lighting. Yeah. Okay. Uh I have a question on page C3. There are two ren uh isometrics of the structure and it looks like a large
surface plate around them. Is that just a graphic that doesn't exist as far as a physical element around it? I mean, will landscaping go right up to the walls because it doesn't look like that in the renderings. It looks like there's a huge platform it sits on. Uh that's
actually not a platform. That's just a cutaway of the actual ground surface and the pavement that's in the area. So there's nothing beyond the walls of the actual box. Um, as far as uh the surface of the ground right now there there isn't. No. Yeah. Right. I believe that's
all pavement in that area, right? It's it's all ground cover in that in that specific site that we're going to put. No, I understand. But in this rendering, if you look at it, it looks like you would not be able to plant around the structure. But is you're saying that's not the case of this rendering? That's not the case of the rendering. No. Okay.
And what is the setback off the sidewalk? You know, it looks like it's like 6 in a foot. It's right above the sidewalk because it's very tight in that area. Like I said, it's a pie straight a pie shaped parcel of landscape. Okay. It's the only area of footprint that we could fit the order control. Okay. Thank
you. All right. Um any other questions for the applicant? No. Seeing none, um board disclosures. Seeing none, then uh public comment.
Um anyone on Zoom, please raise your hand or please come forward. Please come forward. Roger. Uh the gentleman from MDPL, Roger Goldblat. Um, we, you know, we believe that
projects such as these should be held to the same standards as, uh, anything else with design preservation in our historic districts. Uh, have you I'm I'm concerned whether or not I mean, it looks beautiful. I wish everybody saw
this presentation. It also smells good right there. I don't know, but they they brought samples or something. Uh but I I wonder if if you've done some demonstrations or presentations to the local uh neighbors, residents around
there uh be uh because some of them would be greatly affected. I think there's this really nice building l Cyclone uh which has all this tile in front of it and everything and just you know get their input especially if you have
choices of locations. Uh just involve the neighborhood. Uh I think that that that should be a given but other than that you know no one wants smell. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay, seeing no more public comment, we will um go back to any comments uh from board members on this. Andy, you made the comment at the beginning that I think this is part of a
public art. I I'm I'm not sure putting tile like this on the building constitute public art. I'm confused. the the electrical panels that are existing were an art and public places project. So that kind of mirrored blue tile is a is an art piece by Wendy
Wisher, but this does not have an art and public places component. They're just trying to kind of blend in by including, you know, a a simple tile. Any other any other comment board comments? No.
My I guess my only comment would be is um you know if you look at tile that's been put on like the 41st street bridges and whatnot people go and they pry them all off. These are a little larger tiles, so maybe you won't have the same problem. But, uh, years ago at the end
of from 24th Street like to 42nd, they had little round columns, you know, with the names of the street, you know, 24th Street, 25th, and they were all tiled and they've all been removed because of the fact that um, people just misused them and and and that's one of the
reasons why we went with the proposal that uh, we've shared with you today. I think those will be less likely to be pried off. But you're absolutely right. When you use the the artist piece or you have something of interest, um they tend to be What are you going to do on the
corners where they you know, are you going to put like a metal corn? I mean, no, it'll have a tile finish, a corner finish to go up. I think you just ask for somebody to try and pry it off if you don't have a a metal corner, you know, finish on on on the four corners.
That's just my opinion. Thank you. I know there was a disc kind of it's more of a question than a comment quite frankly. Um in the video that you showed showed some um shrubberier trees next to it and I know there was mention of it
being six feet from the or six feet 6 inches from the sidewalk because it's a very narrow space. But is the rendering in the video accurate that there is plans to put landscaping like on the sides of the
structure to further shield it from view and perhaps vandalism? Yes. The three other sides not facing the sidewalk would have landscaping around the perimeter, but the one facing the station closest to the panel would have just the tile wall to mimic the
glass mosaic installation there. We just don't have the footprint to put uh landscaping on that portion. And that would be the part that you're not going to have the landscape. Is that the east? That would be the eastern portion. Eastern portion. Got it.
All right. Yes. Sorry, it's a question. Um, so you have two different proposed locations and you talk about the space in which you have to work, right? Um, and maybe this has to do with the the manholes because I noticed that the structure is
rotated. So it's it's long way it's it appears to be rotated at least. Yeah. On C2 rectangular. So the structure itself is rotated. So it's it would have a north south alignment as a rectangular shape. Um in either in
either location it would be yes the same. It's just offset slightly either way. Uh south and north. Yeah. cuz that's not that's not what was represented in the drawing. And so my question was if it were a north south orientation in both instances, does that give you more clearance on one side or
the other? Can it be a north south? Well, option one and two, one, preserve the tree. Two, we have to remove the tree. So we prefer option one. Okay. Um, seeing not a lot of further comment, board comment, I'll just weigh in and say that I, you know, I'm I I I I
never like projects that add more stuff on our sidewalks, which are already pretty crowded with a lot of things. I understand the the need for this and I appreciate that you guys are really um trying to save trees, which I think is uh very important in our community. I
hope that you'll um you know really you'll that the that the landscape that you propose will thrive um there and that the there will be maintenance done to the tile so that it remains. I don't know how the tile turns the corner at the top. um you know whether that's an
easy point for it to separate from the structure or not but uh maybe there's some some way that you guys can make sure that that's um that's resilient uh to public um public inter interaction. So, um anyway, with that, I would I
would entertain a motion to approve the proposed um uh as you propose it with, I guess, position one. And we'll ensure that we uh we finish this off to last as well.
I would make a motion that we go with option number one to save the two trees that are there and and approve this. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Okay, let me call the role. Miss Levelvel.
Yes. Mr. Hollingworth? Yes. Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Braslin? Yes. Mr. Stewart? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Our next application is HPB 240644. This is 100 Lincoln Road,
CU1. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for facade modifications to the commercial unit CU1 located at the northwest corner of the property. I'm going to turn it over to Jake for
our staff recommendation. Thank you, Debbie. This is in the Deco Plage Condominium Building, which was constructed in 1965 and is classified as non-contributing. The scope of work is limited to the retail store at the northwest corner of the building, which
was formerly a Walgreens. A new retailer, Aloe, is moving in and proposing modifications to the Collins Avenue and Lincoln Road facades, including the removal of the low overhang and the introduction of a new toler new taller storefronts and a
vertical aluminum cladding treatment. Staff has no objection to the proposed modifications as they will not have any adverse impact on the existing non-contributing building or the surrounding historic districts, but would recommend refinement of the transition to the storefronts to remain
along Collins Avenue. With that, staff recommends approval of the application and looks forward to the reactivation of this prominent corner retail space which has been vacant for nearly 10 years. Thank you, Jake. Thanks, Jake. If I could just add um with regard to kind of
the transition area where it intersects with with the uh additional storefronts that are not part of this proposal. Um I know the the applicant has been working with those adjacent tenants um and trying to address staff's comment as
well. They actually submitted uh a proposal to staff just a few days ago which I believe is going to be part of their presentation. So, I'm happy to report that we've been working on that and I think uh we have a solution. Awesome. Great. Thank you. Are there any
questions uh for Jake or Debbie about the um staff report at this point? Seeing none. Yes. Good morning. Um we have a few people to be sworn in first. Sure. Could you raise your could you
raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth. All truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Good morning. Matt Amster with the law firm of Burkow Fernandez Larkin and Tapenz offices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard in Miami. Here today
representing 100 Lincoln Road LLC uh which is an affiliate of Aloe LLC. And uh that is the owner and applicant. Um this is the commercial units uh at the Decopl uh specifically CU1 2 39 and 40.
Uh this is the prominent southeast corner of Lincoln Road and Collins Avenue. It had for many years a Walgreens store. Um however, that has been dormant and vacant for a good nine years now. and uh Aloe is here to come
to the rescue and finally uh reactivate uh this prominent corner. Um with us today and we do have a presentation if that can be brought up. Um we have from Aloe Jackie Balm Balmanukian, head of architecture and store design. Uh next to me is Daniel
McFarland, our architect from LAR March Architects. Uh and my colleague from the firm, Ben Sherry. uh handed out to you. Uh what Debbie was referring to. Um the Collins Avenue frontage is basically
roughly half uh owned by Aloe and half owned by another owner which is GFI Investments Incorporated. And I believe that a representative may be on Zoom uh from that group. Um but we've reached out and had many meetings with them in
order to address what Debbie called out anyway is the transition between the the two uh units. Right. Ours is uh for um re redoing the storefronts now, but we need to maintain the existing frontage
on those southern units. So I'm pleased to say that we have come to an agreement uh and uh the code actually does require when we make an agreement right with any anyone for either support or an agreement not to object that we have to
formally um state that on the record which I'm doing right now as well as provide this in writing uh which we gave uh both by email and hard copies a few minutes ago uh to Debbie and to Nick uh the uh the the essence of our agreement
with our neighbor. Um you don't need to go through your plans necessarily. Um that's included in our presentation. Daniel will will walk you through what we've agreed. We basically um the little top page was basically to add we hope in your u vote
of for recommendation of approval that we include this exhibit that we've handed out as exhibit A to supplement our originally submitted documents so that this agreement and this uh transition between the two properties can be reflected uh in the record as
part of the approval. With that, I'll turn it over to Daniel. Thank you, Matt. Um, I've sort of already gone over the basics of the site. Um, we're really looking forward to bringing life back to the corner here at uh Collins and Lincoln. It's like you say, it's been 10 years uh dormant. So, really looking
forward to making exciting again. Um, just uh real briefly, if you're not familiar with Aloe and who they are, uh they're probably most well known for their yoga apparel. Um, they strive to make the best yoga apparel in the world. Um they're also a brand with a
commitment to to wellness and fitness, mindfulness. Um and they do that um through their stores, but also uh through wellness centers that they're creating. And this project will include one of those wellness centers, one of four uh internationally. Uh the others
being um uh Soul, Korea, London, and Beverly Hills. So they're looking this is a is part of their uh core collection of wellness centers. So, excuse me. These are other examples of um aloe
sanctuaries. They call their store sanctuaries, sanctuaries uh across the globe. Um while they always are looking for uh you making a presence on the street, um often we're working in historical districts such as this one. Um so, you know, of course you want to
make your presence but but without overwhelming the context. And that's something we always try to do. So, uh, the interiors, these are these are shots of other locations. Aloe locations. The interiors strive for
modern, clean lines. Um, the merchandise is fairly sparse comparatively to other other retailers. Uh, and it really kind of goes for a modern almost museumlike feel in the interior. So, the other component is the wellness center. So, the wellness center
is kind of like a health club, but it also offers, you know, other treatments. Um, there's special exclusive experiences like a snow room where you go in, it's snowing inside. And, you know, there's other um there's Pilates classes, there's a there's a gym. Um, but also yoga, and that's really core of
who Aloe is, is this uh uh commitment to yoga. So, that's there's a and this is all taught by their, you know, top-notch trainers, and they have the best yogis. They're really into yoga. So the um the the site is here uh um
Collins and Lincoln, you know, super prominent. Um the corner entry is the store entry and the wellness entry is on Lincoln Road, which we'll see. This shows the the survey of the
interior. This is the um the four units that um Matthew described which are uh which were the former Walgreens units. So it's the exact same footprint as as the Walgreens was. Uh this has already been mentioned
and it's part of the Ocean Drive Collins Avenue uh district um but not a contributing building. So this is this is the existing condition. Um, and of course it's vacant, but you can see there's
this low canopy um, creating somewhat of a cavernous feeling on the sidewalk. And that's something that um, we really want to work not work with, we want to modify. Um, and I think this this shows the
adjacent the adjacent uh, uh, you should speak to this. Yeah, just uh again you can see basically all the black is the aloe store um you know footprint and even uh interior but the yellow outline is uh our neighbor to the south. I know
they've now switched so the top is south and that's how you can see just that roughly speaking each has about half of that frontage and so that transition which again we'll get to on the exterior uh this just outlines uh where that takes place and just as a point of
context north is um not up it's down. So at the uh at the south side uh is the entry to the parking and loading area to the decoplage and just to the east there is the uh another is a parking garage entry right next to the portico share of the
decoplage. There's a little planted area at the at the end. So, I think this this slide really shows kind of the core of what the transformation that we're we're looking for is is to take the take the streetscape and literally elevate it
from where it is now at 8 foot6 up to 14 ft. Um, this requires removal of the existing concrete canopy and its structure and restructuring the facade higher. Um, the the existing structure of the roof allows for a 14oot ceiling.
So the glass and the ceiling just go straight in. So everything um is really going to come inside and out is really going to speak to each other a lot more than it than it does now. Um Debbie I mean when we first started working with Debbie she had suggested
you know we got rid of this canopy like how about you know let's maintain some protection and so we're proposing to do that but with the canopy much higher we're also making it shallower so it's a lot less oppressive is a strong word but
you know allows more air uh into the storefront. Um this shows in terms of you know interior and exit. This is the Walgreens plan. Before you would look into, you know, standard drugstore aisles. Not really much to look at. Um
the Aloe plan is far more open, especially at the perimeter. So, um the area on the lower right is the store. Uh there are store fixtures in there which are not shown in this plan, but they're fairly sparse. And then the along the along the uh Collins, excuse me, along
Lincoln um is the entry to the health club which is separate. It seems like a a more appropriate location for the entry of the health club. Um it's a little it's a little more private closer to the decoplage entry. Um and then of course the corner is the obvious place
to put the entry to the store which is where the Walgreens entry was as well. Um this shows the roof condition with the new canopy. The new canopy is 3 foot seven deep. Um that's 14t high. Uh
then we're uh we're uh you know removing a lot of equipment from the low roof there and we do have a location where we have some HBA equipment there. But this shows the relationship um of the sidewalk to the canopy. Um it also shows a condition at the end that we are
working with a neighbor on which is the um a small neutral zone which we'll see in a rendering soon. um but also a canopy section where there was um some sensitivity about drainage of the higher canopy onto the lower canopy. So, we're going to pitch the higher canopy away
from the lower canopy so there's no um fall from one onto the next. How much more time do you need? Uh I'll wrap it up quick. Um two minutes. Sure. Sure. Uh let's go back to the section. So, this
shows the section of the canopy and the relationship. You can see it's 14 foot high with a 14 foot ceiling. Next, this shows the really the comparison of of old to new. Um you can see there the low canopy that is what
will be demolished and moved up. This is a sighteline study showing um how the canopy relates to the entire streetscape across Lincoln Road. Um showing you we have do have some mechanical units we're proposing there. They are not
visible from across the street. And then this shows the the corner entry. So this canopy is constructed of aluminum tubes which are powder coated or kinder coated. We're working that so they're not they're not corrosive. It's hollow. Um so it creates
a you know a pattern kind of like this. Um it's slightly inspired by you know you see a lot of screens in Mimo architecture. We sort of started with an idea of that, but then this is sort of more modernized um and and and more
delicate. Next, so the the hollowess allows us to put lights within it. So at night, it will glow from the inside out like a lantern subtly, not too much. The energy code won't allow too much lights we put in there. This shows um the
condition at the uh where we transition to the neighbor. The red line is actually the property line. So the the existing canopy will extend over the property line to maintain um the protection to where the the neighbor has outdoor
seating. The the end of the canopy will also terminate in a curve. So there's this sort of dialogue between the new and the existing canopy ending with a curve. Let's go to the next one. Here you can see the curve nighttime shot.
This is the This is the looking at the neighbor's perspective. And and then one more. This shows the this shows the um the entry along Lincoln. Uh one thing I do want to say is there are there are three
locations where these screen elements come the whole way down to the sidewall. Um, and they pro they happen where we want to provide a little bit more privacy like at the health hub entry or on on the uh Collins side there's a location where there's a building egress corridor and we're using these um
vertical slats to to to unify the struct unify the visuals over that egress corridor. The base is cast stone for durability waterproofing. Another nighttime shot. Uh, one thing I'd just like to discuss quickly is we do I know there's
real sensitivity to enclosed show windows and we are proposing one along Lincoln. Um, it's bracketed by two completely open uh storefronts and so what that is, it's going to be lit with mannequins 14t tall, completely illuminated with merchandise. It will be
very bright, but and I don't think it will um really be seen as blocking views into the store or as any kind of hindrance to this to the street experience. Lifetime shot
beeping the entry. Okay, just real quick. Thank you so much. Just real quick, you know, this is a a true and much needed adaptive reuse to finally activate this long dormant commercial corner. Uh the project we feel satisfies all the applicable
criteria for both the demolition of the storefronts and then the new design. uh as well as being fully compatible with our neighbor based on our agreement to put in that uh neutral zone as a proper appropriate transition uh and then it we
believe uh fully and in fact uh activates and will be a catalyst for the further redevelopment of this area. Uh we respectfully request approval of both demolition and the proposed design with of course uh an acknowledgement of this exhibit A that we handed out for the
transition to be added uh to the record. We agree with all other staff conditions uh and our team is entirely available for any questions and we'll reserve any time should we be needed for rebuttal. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you very much. Um now are
there any questions for the applicants? I just have a quick question back to De did you say this was a non-contributing building? Yes. So, uh, my question would be way back in 1998 with it being a non-contributing building, why did, uh,
this board require all of the storefront windows to be maintained, which Walgreens didn't want, so they blocked them off and then we had art windows uh, that were uh, overseen by Ulite. If it was a non-contributing building, why would that have happened? So there there
is a criteria in in our uh review that is more about connecting the public realm with the with the private area in terms of transparency into a space kind of the it's really good urban design to
have active storefronts. So to what Walgreens, I wasn't here in 1998, believe it or not, but what I believe they wanted to do was just block all the storefronts in to remove that activity from the, you know, from the passer by and the sidewalk. And the
compromise was to allow certain storefronts to be blocked in, but to program them with with art space. So it's the same criteria that we very similar criteria that we have outside of historic districts. It's not necessarily, although it can be tied to
because it's a historic building, it needs to have this transparency. Um, in terms of good practice for urban design, we we focus on that citywide. Okay. Thank you. I have a different opinion now, now that I know all this. Thank you. Yeah. Can I ask the
applicant, what is the um depth of the canopy on the sidewalk now on your building? Uh, eight feet. I'm sorry. 8 ft. And what is the canopy on the new design? 3 foot seven at 14 feet. Yes. Okay.
Thank you. The depth of the existing is 86. It's almost a square underneath. Got it. Any other any other questions for the applicants? No. No questions. All right. Then
um disclosures. Any disclosures on this application? No. No. Seeing none, open Nick to public hearing. Um, anyone on Zoom, please raise your hand and please come forward. Uh, Roger Golad, MDPL. Um, we obviously
have nothing against this this project. It's been vacant for so long. It's going to make a real big difference in what actually is a very historic corner as as many of you might know. Uh the entrance to call Fishers uh home. Uh he'll be
very happy to have a yoga place there. Uh uh but it really will revitalize that neighborhood, be a great pedestrian experience. Uh if you can kind of work on across the street from there too, that would be a
help. But uh we're we're definitely for it. Thank you. All right. Very good. I think that uh uh closes public hearing. We have um on Zoom Russell Galvitch. Excellent. Hi, Russell. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I so Thank you. You have three minutes. Thank you. Um I will tell you that I am so excited to see Aloe um come to this
corner and to actually see an active and beautiful use like this. I think the Lincoln Road Street end is one of the most important street ends we have on Miami Beach. And as most of you know, I've been working diligently to to help Lincoln Road throughout this period of
time and many many years. And I just want to thank Gallow for selecting Lincoln Road. I think it's a street that's incredible. It's it's mirrored in the history and the and the foundation of Miami Beach. Uh and um and remind everybody that we still have Rosie in
the Canopy Park in South Beach. And Rosie, as most of you should know, or most of you do know, is the elephant that helped build Lincoln Road um and help build the street end with Carl Fischer's house therein. So um the use is absolutely terrific. Uh we're very
excited to see it. Um and uh we hope that this project moves forward expeditiously. Okay. Thank you. Uh I see no other members of the public wishing to comment. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Uh so now it's time for uh board member comment on the project and
board discussion. Sorry. Um, I I think that the removal of the canopy is really unfortunate for the pedestrian, especially facing west. It is the most hostile side of the building. Uh, the intersection is also where a lot of
people stop for crossing the street. If it's raining, you're looking for shelter. You will not get it from a 3-ft overhang at 14 ft. There's no there's virtually no canopy on the new design. There's a a a gesture to it, but it's not a canopy. And I think it's really unfortunate that all of that will be
lost with this design. I don't think um extending a canopy out would hurt the design at all and it would provide a much much improved pedestrian experience which is what we're looking at and how do you increase the opportunity for shelter from the sun in the afternoon
from the west facing and from the rain which we get all summer long in the afternoon. So I I I I really hope we can promote something better than just a three-foot at 14 ft. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Ray. It It's very interesting
because my whole point when I looked at this is I didn't like the fact that we lost the eyebrow. You've turned the eyebrow into an overhang. You you brought your your your uh right out to the very edge. And if the eyebrow continued further, then
you'd maintain some character that was originally there with the building. I understand that you wanted to raise it, which you know, and you've showed the the transition now, but I would really like to see that eyebrow go out further. Maybe not all the way to the 8T or
whatever, but to show as an eyebrow, not just as an overhang. And that would be my comment. Thank you, Ray. nothing from your house. Lindsay, do you have any comment? I, you know, I I'm not opposed to the
suggestions made to have additional coverage for pedestrians, but outside of that, I'm you know, uh I think Russell said similar to what I would say is that, you know, I'm very much looking forward to the activation of this block,
this corner. Um, you know, I I've been excited about this project since I first heard it was happening and I'm glad to see it, you know, come taking shape and coming before us. Um, so generally I'm in support. Um, you know, and if there are modifications
to improve it, I you know, I don't know that I'd have a problem with that either. Thank you. Lindsay Pasco the architect. Why did you choose 3 foot seven? It's a good question. um what initially started off at three feet but because the addition of the of the um lower
tubes uh we just thought three feet was three feet was enough to provide a small amount of coverage I could I agree that certainly in a in a gale wind or a lot of rain it's not going to help but we thought it was the minimum amount we wanted to keep our projection minimum to keep our exposure within to the maximum
before it was I mean to Ray's point both rays uh it was one to one essentially it was 8 feet 8 and 1/2 ft above uh street level projected out 8 ft. Um you would have to to address your concerns go out substantially to provide
any coverage. But I don't think that um from a technical standpoint it's not an issue. Correct. Not really. And from a visual standpoint, it's not going to be an issue because if you're standing across the street and you're looking at it, it's not going to be an issue as well, is it? No, I don't think there's
really any anything keeping us from extending it. I mean certainly given the comments this is the sounds like the critical issue. Um we certainly can go out. It's we encroach into the rightway more but I think that the existing one does that anyway. So I don't think we're going to have an issue there where they can't be encroaching. So we certainly
can explore pulling that out. I think the question is what's that magic number going to be where it does provide enough coverage? Is it five feet? So we have to figure that that number out essentially. I mean, if you're up 14 ft up in the air, you're going to have to
go one one to provide the same coverage as before, and that's not realistic. I realize that some lamp thinking that No, I was I was just thinking if we could keep it out where it was, even though it's they've raised it, it it it really looks like an
eyebrow. And yes, it's not going to present the same coverage for the people underneath it, but um I I don't think it it it hurts the integrity of the design, but yet I feel that it it makes it feel more like it was before. Um and you
know, to me, that's that's important. Right now, it just it's almost to the point of being too modern and not taking into consideration what was there before. Um, my concern with bringing it to eight
feet is that because the the the nature of this thing is essentially a box made out of tubes, is that it might start to feel heavy, like a big mass. Um, I right now it's somewhat slender and it has that portion to it because it's it's not
as deep as it is tall. So, I'm a little bit I, you know, it might require study. I mean, I think we get out to probably five feet we still be okay. I think eight it's going to make me feel where right now it's just a visor, you know. Well, I I wouldn't re recommend
that you would bring the tubes out to the 8 feet. I would think you'd leave them where they are. Just the canopy comes out just so that you have the same feeling you have when you look the building to the same building with the other. No, I think bring tubes out would be terrible. It would be way too
massive. Okay. Just a thin line of I didn't understand. Just a cement. So right now the tubes sit on top of what the the canopy itself is a metal plate. It's very thin. It's only going to pivot. But that that eyeb eyebrow as you could jut out. I I think be a huge
improvement. I think I think that would be fabulous. I think it really help the overall design of the neighborhood. you you may not like it yourself for just your project, but I think overall when you're looking at the the neighborhood
and and it brings it it brings that little art deco flavor back into it. I I think it's a it's a necessary addition. Hi, this is my client. Sorry, I represent Alo. So, I think Could you please intro uh step up to the
mic and introduce yourself? Sure. Hi, I'm Jackie Balmanuki and Matt introduced me a little bit earlier. Um, I represent Aloe from an architecture and design standpoint. Um, we work together, not necessarily uh the other way around, but
I think um the points that have been raised are valid. Um, I think that what we were trying to do was um was really simplify this corner a bit. I think that, you know, if I'm hearing correctly, if we're to take the
metal plate and extend it out 8 feet or whatever we deem appropriate, I feel like that will look like a mistake. I feel like it will look like an add-on. I think we spent a lot of time developing
just an eyebrow. There is no there is no more cement. The cement is is you would add it in when you're building it out. You just put it back into How would that Excuse me. Sorry. How
would that integrate with the box that you're talking about? I don't think that would feel like a very integrated design. Well, if you want my approval, you're going to have to do it. That's all I'm saying. Thank you. Do you want this development? Um, let me let me just step in here
because um, I think the design as it stands now is very elegant. I think there is um, it'll be a huge addition to this corner. I also think it could probably be thickened a little so that it's not just three feet. It can be, but
I I I also, you know, I think we should admit that even if it were eight feet, it's not protecting you from our rains. Um, so or our son in the west. I I work just a block from here uh in a building that doesn't have eyebrows on it. It's a
it's a contributing uh 1940s building and it's a very um you know it you it it works it works with because of because of the streamline quality of that building and I think this is what this building is kind of
looking at that kind of streamline mod. It's also mid-century modern. It's kind of pulling this horizontal uh area around. If the applicant is willing to work with staff to to deepen that that distance between the building and the
edge of the of the a bit. I would say probably I don't know. I would say two feet maximum more, but that would be about it. that would help, I think, work with you guys and maybe, but I wanted to ask Debbie if she thought that was something staff would be able to work
with the applicant on. Yes. Um, and I I think it it would be helpful to put in a deepening up to a maximum of of two additional feet, right? I think would be helpful. Okay. Is that something that you guys can agree to? Yes. Without
changing like Yes. It would be looking like this but just a little deeper. So John, yeah, what you're suggesting we incorporate is actually bringing the the structure that is now three feet extending, bringing that out to up to two feet more, right? So that we're not
this floating box sitting over us, right? But also providing a little bit more coverage, but not the existing eight feet. I I would support that. I mean, I I agree. I was thinking about this, you know, I was thinking about this. Um, you know, a lot of the storefronts on Lincoln Road, there is no
coverage. I mean, if you're caught in the rain, you're caught in the rain. And I I haven't I live in a 1930s building. Like, we don't have any eyebrows. I open my back door and, you know, the water drips down on me. You know, it just I mean, I understand where you're coming from, Ry, but I I think that that's a
good compromise um to extend the existing design. Um, and it does kind of harmonize it um, with the neighborhood and and again, I mean, the activation of this space I I think is is of paramount importance. I really do. Um, and you've
we've got a solid contributor who wants to come in and put into the space. I mean, they're in Brooklyn, they're in I mean, you know, you saw the different places they are. I mean, so so just to define it, leave it exactly where it is now, the 3 foot7, but bring the cement part of the
eyebrow. No, no, no, no. Ray, Ray, we're talk we're just Hold on one second. Maybe that's We're just No, we're talking about simply thickening this entire portion here so that it's not just 3T 7. It's actually coming the whole thing's coming out. So you get the same coverage that you're asking for.
The whole thing is a thickened eyebrow essentially. That's what that's what we're No, it's an overhang. It's not an eyebrow. It's in the scheme of the of the entire height of the building. It stays where it is and there's two petra otherwise it doesn't get my vote. It's
plain and simple. Okay. Do should we take a straw poll to see if anybody else would support that compromise of thickening the thickening the aloe essentially an eyebrow to allow for to provide better more shade but not
changing this um this design. Are you okay with that Randy? And you're not are you okay with this? extending this whole thing out. Okay. And you're okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
Sure. Sure. Go ahead. Right. Uh to extend the eyebrow, you're going to have essentially two elements then, right? You're talking about the concrete eyebrow. Yeah. And then recessing the their vertical elements back from that eyebrow. Right. I that's a complete
design. been pretty succ is is that's what you're asking for. Yeah. I don't think that's what we're talking about. We're talking about just extending this and you're not okay with thickening it so that it gets to it gets to Ry's earlier point. I would just like
to see more sidewalk coverage. I wouldn't mind if that facade up there stayed back there, but I know you're not talking about a concrete um overhang. You're talking about a metal which is going to be integrated with the vertical structure. So I I just would like to see a little more sidewalk coverage because
I don't think 3 ft does it. So yes, can we can we get a motion to this effect? Yes. So I I would make a motion um that we approve. I apologize for interrupting. The the motion would need five votes for approval. Five. There is
demolition associated with this application. Oh, okay. It's not just a certificate of appropriateness. No, we had outlined the the demolition in the de demolition criteria in our evaluation to to remove the existing
eyebrow basically um and some of the storefront demolition. We it does include demolition. So, while it's not significant, it's relatively minor demolition, it it would still require five votes.
What would you like to do? So, with the applicants, I I you know, I mean, look, it's based on our SH poll here. Um, it does not appear we're going to get five votes. I would I would be open to a
continuence if if you guys would. Yes. Could could I ask a couple of questions? Go ahead. I want to understand the motive behind the eyebrow continuation because obviously these would be at different the existing eyebrow would be at a different height as the new eyebrow. So is it the architectural
language of the eyebrow that you're looking to Okay. Sorry. Can you be on the mic mic? Ray Ray Ray. Yes. It's a significant significance of the eyebrow that that I'm interested in. Okay. Because I think looking at
it might um I I think we should look at it because I I think it might not look as as good as um we might think it it could. We're not considering leaving the eyebrow at 8 feet. No, everything's
higher. No, just if if you had what I at the bottom of of that had a two-foot eyebrow that came out from there all the way around that that would bring back to me what was originally there. So, I think a
couple of things in doing so, I think you would block a lot of the light, the natural light that would be coming into the space. I think you'd also be blocking the visibility of that, you know, what we envision as this, you know, really beautiful sort of um canopy structure that's illuminated at night.
Um, I think you would block a lot of that visibility. So, can I I I He keeps saying concrete, but is there no way to actually just extend that metal out two feet? I don't think two leaving the facade of the tubes at 3
feet, moving the level that they sit on out two feet with a metal structure, I don't think you're going to lose visibility back 2 feet up 14 feet in the air. You just you're just not. But it will give sort of a skirt to the horsepower. Yeah, I think we would
probably consider that. Yeah, I I think that's doable. It comes out five feet. That's what I think he's trying to get to as an eyebrow. Whether it's metal or concrete doesn't matter. That's just not I want I want to have something coming out. I see like a base. The plate. The
plate. The concern elements where now they're one. Sure. I think we could probably work with that though. Can we call up the presentation just to make sure we're all talking about the same thing just for clarity? Yeah. Thanks. Well, Debbie, can you also
um Is this Would you be able to do this administrative? I believe so, if I'm clear. Yeah. I mean, and it sounds like we're extending out just the the plate at the bottom of the overhang
out an additional approximately two feet. So, this area here underneath the the upper can Yeah. Go ahead. Were you about to say something? I have a question. Yeah. Go ahead. And then and
then um so and I just want to understand um when we're talking about extending so there's two things I think not competing but two different things that we're trying to address here. One is what I think we've already addressed which is giving an additional two feet of coverage right that that's that we've
addressed. Um, I think from a perspective, and I'm not an architect or a designer, so I'll allow obviously ask you guys to weigh in on this, but um, from a harmonization of what was one element is now kind of becoming two elements that we want to harmonize
together. Would it be okay that they work within that two feet? like it's not necessarily unless they want to three feet plus two feet of metal or could it be 3 feet plus one foot of or four feet plus one foot of metal or whatever it is
that works well in their design. Is that workable to you um with staff? Yes. Okay. Can can we pull up the um section? You were trying to do it on the elevation but maybe on a section so you have some details.
So, the proposal I was making was to bring that whole box, thicken it so that it was 3 feet wide and whatever that height is there. Um, Rey wants to have a Yeah, it So, what do you have there at the bottom of that structure? It's It's
just a metal plate. It's a metal plate. It's open within. So the rain falls through on top of that metal and then drains off the front lip. So it's weather it's a weatherproofed metal plate. And Ray, you said you want that metal plate to come out two more feet at
the bottom. Is that metal plate going to be able to come out two feet and then not have any problem with with the rain running off and whatever. I mean I I What's the thickness of that metal plate? It it's right now it's So right now it's sort of hidden quart inch with with it doesn't show. I mean on here it
shows that there's some thickness to that. It's difficult to tell on that one. I have you know on the I mean I'm looking at this one you just handed out. I mean it looks like there's a thickness to it. I can show you. Yeah. Yeah. You can show I think with the with
the metal um it does made it go away. Sorry. See I was just looking at here. It looks like there's a thickness. Um, we got to be on the we got to be on the mic if you guys are going to have a
conversation. So, yeah, you can maybe there's a carry mic if you want to do that. But yeah, Haskell, please. Can I try that for a minute? Right. It shows the thickness of the canopy. It's quite thin. You have lighting underneath. Currently, you just have a fascia and a
sophet, right? A continuous fascia. Oh, yes. What Reyes wants to see is an extension, if you will. Right. So, if we extended another two feet, I think that might provide you with some additional ability
to light up because you're providing lighting on the underside of that box, if you will. Right. Correct. Because the lights are within. So you could integ if you could I mean you could essentially create a 6- in deep high eyebrow and you could put all your lighting within that
eyebrow and it might provide you with a better lighting scheme for your storefront and it will appease u my colleague. Does that make sense? Yes. I mean it's not we're sort of talking about two different things. I don't I'm talking
about one one thing. Always have I always have the extension. No more deep bucks. the the the handle levered eyebrow would go about six feet out. Your box still remains at 3 foot6 or 3 foot seven. But it'll give
you an opportunity to provide lighting throughout that eyebrow. I think we have we have lighting though. I don't think that we need depth to have that eyebrow will appease. At this point in time, I'm willing to defer to my four other
colleagues and vote for way it is only because I really wanted to see an eyebrow which be cement. You bring out something that's metal, it's still not I mean it's it it defeats what was originally there. Um so if these four
think that it's fine the way it is, then I'll vote for it. Thank uh Okay, thank you Ray for that. Uh, Randy, how are you? Are you I I still would I think I would leave it up to them. Do you bring that facade out to
the five feet above or are you able to keep it back so there is a defined ledge? I'm I would just like to see better sidewalk coverage. That's my I imagine you would bring the box out so it would be a bigger wider and it would be very beautiful like that too. And I think we can work out the details.
Right. Okay. It sounds like we have um if we did a straw poll Ray and we've got it out. We're extending it out. Are you still We're providing more coverage. Otherwise, leave the Okay. So, Randy,
are you willing to leave the to approve this design as it is? I would prefer to see the 5T. I know you would. And I would prefer to see the top piece. How much do you prefer? I agree that pulling the whole top piece. I understand. I understand. Ray, but
Randy, would you be willing to let me ask the is it possible to bring a a projection out that gives that impression there is a base there so that you get the sense that there's a bit of an eyebrow, but it brings the side the coverage out to 5T and you don't bring
that facade all the way out because I think it will look very heavy. a little maybe it only sticks out a foot beyond or something like this. I I think I'm happy they work with staff to come up with Don't look at me. I'm not trying to redesign your project. I think it's very nice. So, may I make a motion? Wait, I think
we just have to make sure we're all on board with what what an emotion. Um, you want to just without making a motion, can you just talk about what the motion would be and then you guys can decide without making a motion? Sure. I can talk about what the motion would be. But this is this what we're this is what
we're Did you guys see Did you guys see this? You saw this? Yeah. But maybe that looks a little thick from here. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, my suggestion would be um at somewhere between 3.7 and two feet
out. So, 5.7 not 5 foot seven, excuse me, not 5.7. Um that goes out two feet. Correct. Yeah. So, um that the applicant we approve I would I would recommend Yeah. Just a recommendation to make sure
that Rand is on board. I would recommend um or if I were to make a motion, it would say that we approve with um staff recommendation subject to the applicant working with staff
to satisfy a condition providing for some sort of eyebrow. Yeah, I guess it's eyebrow. Yeah, I will. Um, this is just discussion purposes and making sure that it's size. We just want to make sure that if we say it okay. Um, is this
going in the direction that you guys are okay with an eyebrow or eyebrow like structure? How's that extending from the front fascia? Um, okay. They're willing to you want to want to say now I got to say it again. Okay. Call that a motion.
You do the whole thing. Say it. Say it again. Um, so I would move that we approve um per staff recommendations with the additional condition that the applicant work with staff to
incorporate an eyebrow like structure that extends from the front fascia of the front facade of the the slats that the vertical slats um up to two feet out from the 3.7 a minimum of two feet
out I think I think we were talking about five feet right five feet so okay so it's it's five feet up to five feet extending from the front uh facade of the building that's my motion did you get
all that Debbie is there a second I'll second okay hold on let's make sure Debbie got everything yes and so that is to require wear a five foot coverage. Okay, we would take five foot coverage with some sort of with an eyebrow like
projection from at the bottom of the projecting overhang. Yes. And Okay. Mhm. And whoever seconded. Yes. Randy seconded. Okay. So, let me uh call the
role to make sure that with the addition of the Yes. the exhibit A right transition. Yes. So the exhibit A will satisfy um the first condition. So we will reference that in in the final order for the transition. Um let me call the role.
Mr. Brlin, yes. Uh Miss Levelvel, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. Hollingworth, yes. Mr. Stewart, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It will be beautiful. Sorry. Okay. Um, Mr. Chair, we have two
uh discussion items. I'm They may be lengthy. They may not be, but we also have um lunch. So, if we maybe want to grab your lunch and we'll we can discuss the the last two items
um at that time. So, we have you take a five minute break, grab your lunch, and then we'll move on to the discussion items. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1.
Okay, welcome back everyone. Um we're going to get started with our our two discussion items which will finish the agenda today. Um the first discussion item is a um is a recommendation to the mayor and city commission regarding um
the proposed uh legislative uh modifications that came out of the uh historic preservation ad hoc ordinance review committee. Um just a bit of background. This committee uh was formed
by the mayor and city commission on March of 2024. Um the sponsor of this item was Commissioner Fernandez. Um and a uh again ad hoc historic preservation ordinance review advisory committee uh
was was formed. We had um seven members. Uh just real quick, uh Rick Lopez, former chair of this board, was actually the chair of the committee. Uh Michael Goldberg uh was the vice chair. Alex Witoff, Andrew Howerin,
Scott Needleman, Daniel Seraldo, and Javier Grand uh were the remaining uh members of the committee. The committee was tasked with a comprehensive review of the city's historic preservation regulations um including the possible expansion of
the certificate of appropriateness criteria as well as providing recommendations to the mayor and city commission to improve and/or streamline the review process for projects located in historic districts um or individual historic sites. The committee held uh
five meetings between June 27th and October 15th of 2024. Uh all of these meetings were publicly noticed. They were all held after 5:00 p.m. um to make them as accessible as possible to anyone who wanted to
attend. Um the again the committee met um on five separate occasions. They reviewed three major areas um and issued recommendations according to those areas. The first was to take a look at the certificate of appropriateness
criteria. Those are the you know 40 plus criteria that we outline um in our staff reports to the to the board every month. Um the second area they looked at was the actual historic preservation review
process. both the historic preservation board review process as well as the staff level review process. And the third topic of discussion were to uh look at enhancing incentives for
historic preservation um for historic properties throughout the city. So with regard to the certificate of appropriateness criteria, if you look, we do have um a drafted ordinance. This entire ordinance, I should uh preface
and say, was reviewed by the planning board at their May meeting. Uh the planning board did unanimously recommend a favorable recommendation that will be transmitted to the mayor and city commission.
Um the um again the criteria um we looked at and it was noted um throughout that we did have significant redundancies in our criteria. Um we had some criteria that were actual code
requirements um not actually criteria for certificate of appropriateness review. We had certain criteria that um wereformational only. We had um specifically in the in the
demolition criteria, I think there was a lot of uh recommended cleanup. This the revisions that are proposed for the criteria are in an attempt to help streamline and consolidate um not only the board's review but
staff's review because when we uh issue a staff level certificate of appropriateness, we also use these criteria and also to make it clearer to the applicants and members of the general public um the specific areas we're looking for without getting too
confused. Um, as part of this process, we did do a significant amount of research on other historic communities and did note that we had probably four to five times the amount of criteria that most historic preservation
communities had and that maybe that could be impacting the appearance of of a a difficult process. Um, we we did not eliminate any criteria. We simply consolidated, removed redundancies
um and clarified that the criteria we did eliminate were not actually criteria. Those are things that are required by the zoning code um or were just purely anformational item. So we think this is a positive improvement
um and the administration is supportive of that that set of recommendations as was the planning board. Um the second topic that the that the committee looked at um was the review
process. Uh most of you I think understand the process, members of the public listening may not. Um we basically have two tracks of historic preservation review within the city and it is a a dependent on the scope of work that is
requested by any particular property owner uh whether those elements can be reviewed and approved by staff through the administrative process or if they require uh historic preservation board review. Um the committee did focus on
potentially um looking at areas where we could increase the expansion of our administrative review. Um in part we looked at um we looked at the criteria for design
review. So if you if you go through the design review process, that means you're outside of a historic district. and we noticed some inconsistencies that were likely not substantial in terms of not only what we do in practice but in terms of the level of alterations. So for
example um and I I'll go through these uh sustainable roofing currently um a sustainable roof could be defined as a is a white roof right a high albido surface a white roof is a sustainable
roof technically our regulations require that to be reviewed by the historic preservation board which we think is is rather cumbersome and not in line with our resiliency um goals in the city and we we do
believe that something like that could easily be approved administratively. Now, sustainable roofing could also be a metal roof. It could also be a green roof. Um, again, we would be looking at the certificate of appropriateness criteria. So, for example, if a
Mediterranean revival home or building came in and did a very modern or um vernacular type metal roof, staff would review it in accordance with the criteria, determine that likely it did not meet the criteria, and then we would
ultimately um either change the style of the roof to be approved administratively or submit an application to this board. Um, property walls, fences, and gates are not clearly defined as a staff administration. Which page do you want?
This is on the committee report. You should have the final report. I think that was Is there a page number? It's on page three at the bottom. Um, minor public interior modifications. Um, these would be minor
modifications that did not destroy any significant fear features. For example, the introduction of a small bar counter. Um, the you slight modification within the interior that that also satisfied
the criteria. Um, minor work involving improvements upon right ofway and easements. Again, that is also consistent with our review process outside of historic districts. Uh, demolition and reconstruction in accordance with historical documentation
of architectural features. Now, in the ordinance, we have have provided a definition of an architectural feature um and a limitation on on that, but that would be reconstruction. So that would require
significant uh historical documentation to ensure the accurate reconstruction and it would not be I think more than uh 25% of the area of of the facade. Uh railing replacement this is
something this board has reviewed often. Um, so a railing, you know, specifically we have and and I'm preaching to the choir here concerns with um older buildings that may not necessarily be historic buildings in all cases um due
to the current life safety requirements of a 42 in in height, uh the 4-in rejection requirements. Um, we're also seeing more and more structural issues with particularly with concrete railings in terms of the weight of these railings
on projecting surfaces. Um, so this criteria would would allow the railing replacement in an alternate material that might be more sustainable and structurally appropriate for the building that match that closely matches
the original design. Um, so that was a recommendation to to be a staff level review. Additionally, the committee did recommend that for non-contributing buildings, non-contributing buildings
within historic districts, that staff be able to approve alternate designs for railings subject to the development of design guidelines um, which would be brought back later to both this board and to the city commission. So that instead of of these
condominium buildings going through the 40 or 50-year reertification process, they would have a a menu of design guidelines that they could actually re we could actually review and approve administratively instead of bringing each one through the historic preservation board
process. Um a a second recommendation to the process was a modification to the existing two-step process. We currently have a two-step process in the in the code. Um, no one has ever used it. So, the the question came up um as we were
going through this is, you know, why hasn't anyone used it? It is extremely vague as currently written. As currently written, it it um requires the board to determine eligibility for the two-step process.
So that creates all all types of challenges because they would have to submit an application to the board to determine their eligibility before they could submit an actual application for the two-step process. Um, so we have included uh criteria that would be
required for a two-step process and it would be the planning director's determination to to see if a particular project did satisfy those criteria for the two-step process. What the two-step process currently allows for is the
review and approval of a of a site plan, a detailed site plan, um, and a which would be a binding approval of a site plan, and then up to a certain time frame, the applicant would have to return with all of the
architectural details. This is particularly um helpful with extremely large projects where um you know we often can't get through an extremely large project in one meeting um because not only are we looking at the site
planning issues, the demolition issues, but you know in terms of height massing, we're also trying to to look through all of the architectural details of a of a book that may be this thick as as a lot of you have experience with. I think
this this is a great uh recommendation and it may ultimately result in better quality projects because then we'll have time to really get into the details of the architecture um instead of review trying to bite this this huge apple all at once we can have
multiple bites at it and I think that that from the developer side comm of the community that would be helpful for them too because there are certain financing thresholds in terms of getting a site plan approval. Um,
and I, you know, I just I think that that's that's helpful. We'll see if if if that is adopted, you know, maybe that would be utilized. Um, the third recommendation was with regard to the transportation analysis and mitigation plan
requirements. Currently, a transportation analysis and mitigation plan is required for all commercial and mixeduse developments over 5,000 gross square feet and multi-family projects
with four uh new units. That that is practically every application that we have. Um and that has been something that we've gotten a lot of feedback from applicants on that it is it adds maybe two to three months
to the process. In certain instances it it requires maybe six months in addition to the process. Um so this was unanimously supported um that that we would keep a transportation analysis mitigation plan requirement in but the
threshold for projects would be raised to a 50,000 square foot um which are really the major projects that do do have circulation issues, delivery issues and um um impacts to to the city's infrastructure.
Um the third process was to expand the existing special review procedure for single family homes. So the current um special review procedure does permit expanded already administrative review
over um additions and exterior improvements to single family homes. However, um for administrative review of new additions, there are certain percentage thresholds outlined in the code. Um for example, for a 5,000 foot
lot up to 10,000 foot lot, staff cannot approve an addition uh greater than 20% of the existing square footage on the site. And going through this, it it appeared that a lot of these regulations were
not drafted with single family homes in mind. We have very few single family homes in historic districts. And when you're dealing with commercial or multif family buildings, you know, 20% of 10,000 square feet is a lot different than 20% of 13,000 square feet. our
single our historic single family homes are very small leading you know to no you know unless you want to do a 200 foot edition you're you're ending up going through the historic preservation board um and I think this would be for
for larger additions that are not visible from the right ofway that don't require the demolition um of any significant portions of the home. Um so we think that will be helpful. Um there's a couple uh cleanup items. Um, number one, to be consistent with all of
the other board not notice requirements, uh, we are recommending that the continued items not require an additional an additional notice in the Miami Herald. They would require just the the standard notice that's required for all the other boards. And a um, the
last one under this topic is to include a procedure for historic designation removal. Um this was brought to our attention that we do not have a provision by Miami date county um as a certified local
government. We are under the umbrella of Miami date county in terms of their historic preservation program. They do allow municipalities to have our their own historic preservation programs which we do here. However, any municipality
would need to meet their minimum requirements that are outlined in the county's ordinance. One of the county's minimum requirements is to have a procedure to remove historic designation. So we were although we are in very good standing with both the
county and the state, this was one area that we did not comply with. Um, and we have proposed similar language to what the county has, which would say, um, the city commission or historic preservation
board as applicable may amend or rescend any designation provided it complies with the in the same manner in procedures used in the original designation. Um so basically you would just do the entire process again to
remove the designation as you did to designate. Um finally the committee looked at incentives. Um that was one of the charges of the committee and one of their tasks. Um there are several recommendations here. The first is to
expand the advalorum tax exemption program. So, the city currently has an advalorum tax exemption program, but uh only single family home properties are eligible for this tax exemption. What it is, and it's consistent with Miami date county's
program, is it allows for a property owner to exempt up to 100% of the value of the increased building value after renovation and/or small new additions
are added to a property. So, it's not exempting, you know, the entire building value. It's not exempting the property value. It's ex exempting the additional value after work is completed. So, if you renovate your home and the the
property appraiser, you know, assesses your property at $100,000 more than it was before the renovations, that that would that portion the $100,000 would be exempted from your tax from your property taxes for a period of 10 years.
The county currently offers that program for their portion of the taxes for for any use of building. City of Miami Beach offers it currently only to single family. This would expand it to multif family and commercial properties as
well. Um the committee also recommended that the city explore a transfer of development rights. This is not part of the ordinance. This is something that we discussed at the uh commission land use committee and we advised the committee
that we needed to to perform a market study to determine how this would work. This is a much more complicated program than our than our tax exemption. Um and we are currently we've been directed to currently pursue that. So we are currently gathering more information for
potentially exploring a transfer of development rights program. Um, another incentive and and we had an application earlier today was to extend the existing single family home zoning incentives that are offered to historic
homes outside of historic districts and architecturally significant homes that are not designated. So this would be to expand this these the zoning incentives to the contributing buildings within historic districts. These are things
like maintaining an existing setback for the vast majority of the single family properties we see here are asking for variances for setbacks and they're simply trying to follow you know the existing property setback. We allow that
for many other homes in the city and the idea would be to extend that to contributing buildings and single family homes as an incentive. The only thing the only incentive that was not recommended be translated to contributing buildings would be the unit
size. So currently the allowable unit size is 50%. Outside of districts, if you're an architecturally significant home, you can get up to 60%. uh the committee did not feel comfortable extending that incentive to contributing buildings. So
all of the incentives would would be would apply except for an additional unit size uh incentive. Um and that is pretty much what the ordinances amend with the
exception of the TDR. So, the TDR is not in this this text amendment for the ordinances. Um, but all of the other items I discussed have been um included in this. This is um
currently scheduled to go to the commission at their May meeting. That's at the end of this month. Um, and we would like to provide them with a recommendation of this board. And I I know it's a lot. I'm I'm
happy to answer any questions uh you may have. Um Deb, I was going to ask especially regarding the um the uh transfer rights. Did what do you know whether they looked at um
buoyant city the buoyant city guidelines that have been approved because it's extensively dealt with in that? Correct. Um we did you know contemplate a lot of the buoyant city uh you know recommended uh incentives and the you know the
transfer of development rights um can be very successful. It can all also not be successful. And and what really in our research what it came down to is is there a market for a transfer of development rights program. And we
are currently uh working with a consultant um to to do a market study to see um you know if there's there's real potential for that program because it is a complex program. It does take a significant amount of management and
oversight of a of a program like that. Um, so, you know, hopefully we'll we'll get some some more information to to see if that's a viable option and then that would come back if we move forward with that as a separate item.
I had a question about the administrative review expansion. Um, you talked about minor public interior modifications and I'm just trying to get an idea of what that encompasses. You said like for example a small bar counter. So just to use a recent
example, we had the um the Nautilus. So would that be administrative or would that be before the board? Um, I think we would likely and I I don't think there was any demolition. So, if there was demolition of any
significant interior, it we we would not be included. Um, we would likely be able to work with them administratively. That was that's that that's probably the extreme. Um, most of the, you know, the
interior modifications we see are not as significant as that. Um, so I would have to to look at that, but I don't believe they they had any demolition of significant features. Um, so we may have been able to approve that
administratively if if this was in effect. Okay, that's what I want to know. Thank you. Okay, so if there are no questions for Debbie, would it is there are we opening this to public comment?
Yes. Go ahead. Um, one other question. Um, I like the idea of the incentives for historic preservation. Have we done any sort, you mentioned a consultant about some other things. Have we done any sort of analysis on what how that affects our tax? I mean, selfishly,
like when we do improvements on my building, it I we would not qualify, but from a tax perspective, what does that do for City of Miami Beach? if those buildings, you know, could make improvements and then have ador exemptions for 20 years. Is that right? It's for 10 years. Sorry. Um, we're
gathering the information from Miami D County on because the county has received several applications over the years for Miami Beach properties because their program for the county's portion allows that. So, we're trying to to kind of understand
um any potential fiscal impacts. From my experience with the single family home program um which we do administer here, it's not a ton of money. I mean, you know, part of me wishes it was more, but because it's based only on the increase
in building value, it's not going to cover things like large new additions. It's not it's you know repairing your building or even making significant upgrades to your building is not going to increase that building value tremendously according to the the tax
appraiser. So from what I've seen it's um it's not a huge savings but again when you're restoring a historic building anything helps. Um, and it's it's hard to determine what according to the property
appraiser, what increases your building value. Does impact windows, for example, and this is a question I've asked, if you replace all your windows with impact windows, does that increase your taxable building value? I get, you know, I've gotten different answers from that
question. Sure. Okay. Seeing no other comments. We have public comment. Hello, I'm Ken Harrison Robbins. Um, I'm a practicing lawyer. I've been involved with the historic preservation process in the city of
Miami Beach, having worked with the uh commission for the drafting of the original historic preservation ordinances in the city of Miami Beach. I've been actively involved with representing both developers and opponents of developers over the years.
I probably have presented been participating in presentation of over 100 applications before the board though I haven't been doing that as much. Recently I am serving as a land consultant for um property owners of well over a billion dollars worth of
property and in Miami Beach. So I have a significant interest in preserving uh historic preservation in Miami Beach. Um, I think this board has a unique view or should have a unique view of what's
being proposed. This board is should be protecting and I'm sure wants to protect its own jurisdiction and its own power. Up to now, other entities have been looking at what you should or should not do, how you should review projects,
what's the criteria, and what should be the process for review. And I I looked at this very carefully. I've spent probably 30 hours studying this, comparing it to other to the current um
format, comparing it and going back to many briefs that I wrote involving these issues. I'm going to need a few more minutes than what's being proposed here. But I want to go over a couple things. I only have a couple suggestions. There's one. It's about design review criteria.
And if you go to page eight of the legislation and it's design criteria M which states and this is being proposed to be removed from the criteria I think it's question from what happened
even earlier today it says one criteria would be any addition on a building site shall be designed cited and masked in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with the existing
improvements that's being proposed to be removed. That doesn't make sense. In fact, in the projects I've been involved in involved in on the litigation level, that is one of the three key issues that we had to deal with both before the
board and in in litigation was whether or not the addition on a site is compatible with what's there on the site already. I do not understand why that particular criteria was removed. I think it's a very poignant criteria. And what concerns me is when it's if it's
removed, it's going to be a message that that's no longer a criteria for this board. And even though there might be ways of interpreting other sections, I have another two minutes. How much more time? Two more minutes. Okay. Another section. Even though there might be
other sections you might try to apply, really this is the best section for explaining the need for compatibility when you put additions on the site. I think it's taking away your power. I think it's taking away the review process that's been effective for over
20 years and this this particular criteria has been applied for many projects and many times and many presentations over the years. The other criteria and this is also about taking away your power and your authority.
Right now there is a threshold requirement and it might be too low. I agree it might be too low where um any um uh multif family building which is over 5,000 square feet you have to get a traffic mitigation
analysis traffic analysis and mitigation plan. that might be too um too low. But to go all the way up to 50,000 feet, which is 50,000 feet could be a you know a 75 unit building and to say that's the
criteria before you have to look at at least do some of the traffic analysis that seems to be way too high. And I think there needs to be a you need to look at that number. And I I think you need to protect your rights to look at that this board not deferring it to the
planning board. not deferring it to anybody else. And if it's over 50 thou, less than 50,000 square feet, but more than 5,000, no, very often no other board will review it. So there'll be no public airing of a determination as to whether or not the traffic issues have
been properly addressed. So I think it's important for you to look at that number again and lower that threshold. Um, also it lowers the threshold of commercial buildings. um I believe from uh 15,000. It raises it
from 15,000 to 50,000 square feet. Once again, that seems to be quite a bit of raising of a threshold and I think you're going to lose your power. Yeah. By doing it. And may I have 30 more seconds? Okay. under the under the city charter. Under the city charter, there
was a requirement that should a proposed regulation reduce the power of this board, it would have to go to a city referendum. Now, with the machinerations that have occurred in the legislature, which have taken local control
away, taking local control away, there's a question of whether or not this matter would have to go to referendum. But I don't think we need to go to referendum on this issue and protect it by referendum. I think this board should protect your own jurisdiction and have
reasonable criteria especially the right to look at traffic impact analysis especially when those those projects are not going before any other board and when you it's the only way we can have public review on those issues. Thank you very much. Thank you. U Mr. Robins wait
can I ask you a question? Are you were you representing yourself and your own opinions or are you representing someone else here? I am not representing anybody because if I started talking to my clients, I'd have to then be retained by they would do it. They would pay it, but
then they'd be paying like 14 fees and the paperwork and everything else. It's just not worth it. Yeah. For all. So, I just went up here and I felt it was in the best interest of this board and everybody on this board and the public of the city of Miami Beach. You know, I ran six referendum campaigns to keep F
under control. Six in the city successfully. I ran the city of Miami Beach save Miami Beach campaign, the literal the original referendum campaign. So, I have a tremendous interest in this thing. And as everybody knows, I ran, you know, Mayor Durmer, I
was his campaign manager when he ran for office. So, I mean, I have a big political interest, but this is the interest of Miami Beach historic preservation. I mean, I personally have owned historic properties. I don't own them anymore. I did sell them, but the Seymour Hotel that was going to be
demolished if I hadn't bought it. And in many and I've helped so many of my friends work through this process, you know, pro bono to be able to preserve their properties. So, anyways, I'm doing this for the best interest of Miami Beach, not for any developer, not for
any particular inter interested party. Great. Thank you. Thank you. So um Debbie can you start or Yeah, if I can just these three issues. So the
criteria which is 2 M as in Mary on page eight. Any addition on a building shall be designed, sited in and masked in a manner which is sensitive and compatible to the existing improvement. If you go to page seven and you look at criteria D, right,
it's the same thing, right? That's what I was that's what I So part of this again, you know, I'm happy to, you know, go through these one by one is because the the sheer number of these criteria can create some perception
issues with how we treat historic preservation in Miami Beach. Um, I thought removing redundant criteria was was beneficial. See, I disagree with Wait, wait, one second. Let me just let me do the board thing. Let me just read then D. In in conjunction with two the
examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria stated below with regard to aesthetics, appearances, compatibility, safety and function of any new or existing structure, public interior space and physical attributes of the project in
relation to the site adjacent structures and properties and surrounding community. The historic preservation board and the planning department shall review plans based on the criteria stated below, etc., etc. D. The proposed structure or additions to an existing
structure are appropriate to incompatible with the environment and adjacent structures and enhances the appearance of surrounding properties or the purpose for which the district is created. Criteria M says any addition on a building site shall be designed, cited, and masked in a manner which is
sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvements. So in my opinion these are redundant. So respectfully I I would disagree. Um because I think M kind of further
narrow I do Nick looking at me funny because M narrows in on specifically on like on the site and the existing improvements on that site as opposed to adjacent structures which could be your neighboring property or whatever you know. So I I mean I think the appropriate thing to do and I'm sorry to
interrupt would just be to amend D. I well that's was going to be my suggestion is to take portions of M and incorporate it into D. That would be my suggestion if if we're going if rather than if you think they're redundant to have them in two different places. Maybe it's better to have them consolidated into one. Um but to say that they say
the same thing. If I were up here arguing I might say that they're different. And I I understand um where he's coming from that someone might think that we have eliminated that. Now, if I were doing
the research on it, I would say look at the legislative history and what the discussion was and the discussion we're having now. Um I think that there, you know, a consideration of making sure that it is designed, cited, and masked in a manner that's sensitive to and to and compatible with existing
improvements, you know, on the site or something to that effect. um you know incorporate that into D if if that um serves the same purpose. I I'm getting funny looks from our city attorney. So Nick because I
think the D adjacent structures is without regard to which property it's on. Right? I mean I think that was the the the thought of the committee. Um right and that's that's that is how we treat the criteria. We you know when
we're reviewing it adjacent confettual with the environment and addition structures is all structures. Yeah. And the neighborhood but we could certainly put existing improvements. Yeah. I think it's I I mean I agree that it's structures. What I'm talking about is to
me I read one as compatible with if you will neighboring properties. It doesn't explicitly say that but neighboring properties the neighborhood etc. And then M to me speaks specifically to this site. So for example today we had you know the
um accessory accessory unit that was presented right and so is that you know setting aside the neighboring properties just looking at that site in a vacuum is it um design sighted in mass in a manner which is sensitive to the existing improvement on that site and then taking
a step back is it appropriate and compatible with the environment and adjacent structures which would be our neighboring objector. Right? So it's two different I agree you're looking at it we're not looking at it in a vacuum but to me that's what these two different provisions address. Um that's my thought
process. I I kind of I kind of feel that um that D is an umbrella that covers M and M is more specific. It's not clear what existing improvements mean. Um you know it could be what an improvement to the driveway to the whatever. Um and so
it's more specific because it's design which is this building site is more specific than the building environment and it's adjacent structures. So I kind of see D as being an umbrella that that
um includes M. They're not the same but they're but one interprets the entirety of what the other one contains. I think M refineses D, if you will. It's more specific, but also more ambiguous because what are
existing improvements? I mean, it's more specific because it says building site rather than environment. But it says existing improvements rather than the building itself. When you're talking about a structure, you're talking about the structure as it exists, the improvements that have been made on it,
either over time historically or being proposed to be made on it currently. And then that I think is is probably the thinking why um this was redundant. Not because it's a repeat, but because it's
a subset of another of another proposal. So, but perhaps from a legislative standpoint, if we were to bring them together, it would Yeah, I don't I don't mind. Are we at a point where this can be wordsmith a bit or are we not at that point? We can
certainly make those recommendations. And then does it have to go back to planning for approval? No. No. Okay. I would I would I mean I I don't see it as being I I didn't read it as being as being um as being necessary to
understand. I I didn't think it provided that much more any structure that didn't already exist in D. I didn't think M offered anything more. I thought it offered more specifics would be which would be covered in D. But perhaps to
clarify since there's some ambiguity that could be it could it could be this could D could be modified to include um proposed structure um add um you know building site or
additions or you know no additions to an existing structure building site and then um blah blah blah blah blah then to enhance the appearance. I guess I go back to I mean I read D it says or the purposes for the district was created like D is the neighbor like
everybody the bigger picture right it's proposed structure so that's that's it that's the project the proposed structure or addition or addition so it expands from the from the project itself out that's what I see is happening here and that's why it covers M which is just
that's building site yes I guess my point was is that this seems to talk about how the project as proposed interacts with the entire neighborhood and then this talks about how whatever change within the project
itself interacts with existing structures on that site. That's that's to me the distinction and I mean and if if I could just also point out and you can see maybe why this is necessary through um we also have the
secretary of interior standards those are staying in and we have a standard that says new additions exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize oh wait is that the
um Hold on. Do you want the jacket? Yes. New work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. So that's also very similar
to these. Um the secretary of interior standards are 10. Those are remaining here. Um those are kind of the gold standard. So, I do think that also covers some of this.
Um, okay. So, let's let's go through the let's go through the other two, too. I I think maybe there could be some word smithing there. Um, okay. But I I just I'm I'm it's hard for me to find the words that the phrases that you'd put in
take from M and put in D that would make that would strengthen D. I I just that's what I'm looking for. And maybe that's something Lindsay you have in mind. Lindsay, are you um are you focused on in M M references the existing
improvements? Is that something that you are proposing? again for me. Yeah. M seems to address how changes a project coming before us, especially um an addition interacts with the buildings on that
like whatever exists on that site right on that piece of property versus how the project the entire project interacts with the neighborhood at large and the district at large. Does that make sense? So I'm just thinking is it is it a
clarification to adj looking at D is it is what you're saying a clarification to what is adjacent structures? I think if you look at J on page 8 any proposed new structure shall have an orientation and massing which is
sensitive and compatible with the building site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains important view corridors. So I think you know that also is similar because that's specific to the
building site. Um so I think if you take J and D together plus the Secretary of Interior standards I I do think we're covered. Um but I'm I'm happy to you know incorporate any
recommendations. Um I mean maybe it's any new proposed structure or addition on a building site right because one is talking I you know again what's the definition of addition and I don't think that's doesn't appear to be a defined term um
at least looking at this um um Lindsay is your question whether additions to an existing structure includes like a ground level addition I'm I'm sorry, say that again. In D, it says the proposed structure, comma, or additions to an existing structure.
That's right. That's what that said. And then again, to me, D talks about how the project exists in the context of the district, the neighborhood, etc. Right?
As opposed to looking at the site itself and how things are masked oriented, situated on the site. And I agree with Debbie that Jay does seem to address some of that. And so perhaps J and M are the better combination rather than M and
D. Okay. Does that make sense? Um well they both are future looking. J is talking about what a new structure shall have and M is talking about what a building site shall be. Yeah. So any new proposed structure or any addition on a building
site, you know, shall have an orientation and massing and shall be designed and sited in a manner which is sensitive and compatible. There we go. They both say compatible. No, no, I no. Yeah, they do. They both do. But I was just saying Yeah. So any new proposed
structure and building or addition on a building addition addition is already um shall have an orientation and massing and shall be designed and cited.
Do you mean addition to an existing structure? Well, so again, J is a proposed new structure and M is any addition on a building site. Yes. Which presumably would be a new structure. Well, is it is it that or is it an addition to an existing building? Well,
the addition itself is what we're talking about and the addition is a new structure. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an addition. Okay. It would be the structure. Fair. I I mean but my question is well I mean if you if you do an addition on your house it's a new thing that's why
it's called an addition an add-on I'm not sure we have to do I'm not sure this helps the the board strengthen I I think we point I think it's a maybe there's a simple way to um include it just just leave it alone just leave it
as it is the point is it gives it the focus focus and on that particular problem. Oh, you mean leave m in? Yeah, leave it in. And it gives it the focus. So, you know that question, how does the focus differ in because look how ambiguous this is. Look
how complicated is just trying to structure it. You guys are experts that do this all the time. I mean, review the design review criteria and you're having trouble even articulating how to do it. If you can't articulate it easily, then there's a problem with being able to
apply it. But we're trying to articulate how to include what's missing. What M is providing what the lack is. It's a sight specific as as pointed out by Miss Levelvel. It's a sightsp specific analysis as against the neighborhood analysis and you're
looking at another does it work within the site. J is a sight specific analysis too. Exactly the same thing. Why why doesn't Jay cover it between surrounding but it's and the surrounding looking at surrounding but then you have to go back. So you look is it compatible with the neighborhood then you look at is it
compatible with the adjoining properties then you look is it compatible with the buildings on the site itself. So there's different layers of analysis. Jay says that already. I Mr. Mr. Chairman, I think that the language in D is I hear what everyone's saying, but I
think the language in D is really the broadest by saying the proposed structure or additions to an existing structure are appropriate to and compatible with the environment and adjacent structures. Adjacent structures means on the site or not, right? Yeah.
And if you look at the heading under number two, which all of these are under number two, it talks about you know compat consistency with regard to aesthetics, appearances, compatibility, safety and function of
any new or existing structure. Yes, I find it very hard to dist to discern anything in M that isn't covered elsewhere. M seems kind of to my mind and it doesn't seem like a a withdrawal of power. It's just it's already there.
It's going to be I know how it works and you're going to see some agents next month saying uh no that that criteria that specific criteria internally of one site has been removed and I know it because I've actually made arguments oral arguments if you look at number two
it has it says in relation to the site adjacent structures and properties and surrounding community Right. All of these require
compliance with number two. The goal but then it limits itself by saying these criteria referenced above are as follows and then it defines it and limits it to the those particular criteria if you read it. So the problem is is it's there
and now it's going to be removed and I hopefully hopefully we'll be able to figure out a way that we can include it and make it very clear that that sightsp specific analysis has to be done. I don't have any objection. I'm just coming bringing out this problem. I don't have any objection adding it to
one criteria or another. But I know how the developers are now going to do. They're going to take advantage of it. And I know they'll come in there and with their lawyers and they're going to say this criteria, this sightsp specific analysis was removed by this board. The
city made a conscious effort to take this out and whatever. They'll say it's been overregulated. It's been appropriately handled. I mean, you will see people say a lot of things about a lot of things. I'm just saying but if if really works the evaluation but we can
put anybody who's interested in site specific site specificity we can point to J and we can say there it is the building site it it is not only in M every piece of M is located someplace
else M has nothing unique in it which is probably why it was taken out as being redundant. Now obviously the act of taking anything out of anything is can be and the goal of this exercise and the direction the committee was given um by
the commission was too streamline because again you know we have been facing some real challenges with higher authorities preempting us. I I don't think there's a single person who works for the city um or who sits on a
committee that is happy about that. Um so the goal here was to um streamline, clarify, make the process um more transparent because you know we're going through these criteria and
imagine a lay person or or a property owner you know it is confusing because they do sound the same or mean the same thing. Um, and I think, you know, when comparing our list of criteria to other
highly reputable historic communities throughout the country, including, you know, Charleston, Savannah, New York City, Washington DC, ours were extensive. I mean, I'm saying I'm saying maybe three to four
times more review criteria than than other communities. Um, so I think, you know, we need to be cognizant of the image of of historic preservation in the city. All of the incredible historic preservation work um that the city has
done over the past, you know, four or five decades shouldn't be overshadowed in bureaucracy, right? Um, and I think that was one of the one of the goals. I I think this is a a pretty e I think this is
a a pretty good exa a good example of something that can be eliminated without eliminating content but can streamline this document. Um there are other things that um that Mr. Robbins pointed out that I was also interested in kind of following up with you that were seem
um you know like like for example the 50,000 uh square foot um recommendation is being um so this recommendation came came directly from the committee. Um, you know, we had
flagged it as an ongoing concern of applicants um and the committee looked at the regulations. We we currently have um a 50,000 square foot threshold for um
commercial districts for neighborhood impact type establishments that require uh planning board review. So that has been the threshold the city has used for higher impact developments is a 50,000 gross square foot
requirement. Um the planning board does not review for example 50,000 foot projects in multif family districts. Um but if it's if it's going to cause the traffic impact in a commercial district and operational impacts in commercial districts, it's going to cause the same
type of impacts in multif family districts. So, this would capture all of that. Um, I didn't have a number um to recommend, but because this is consistent with the the higher threshold type projects that we send for
additional reviews in general, um you know, I did not have an issue with the 50,000 square feet, but it's something that does add um significant time and cost for applicants. Uh it is something that is
looked at during the actual building permit review process. Um we do have a transportation department here um that reviews these types of of impacts when the project is much further along. Um it's it's really, you know, up
to this board to determine if if you think a lower threshold is better. Um it's something that um a lot of work is done before this this hearing with transportation and an outside consultant. So we the city does have an
outside consultant look at all of these um uh transportation analysis. It's not something that can be used to deny a project for example. So, if a project is going to have a traffic impact, that's
not a basis for this board to deny an application. Um, and I think that's that's because I think there's a lot of um misperception out there that oh, if it's it's it's going to increase traffic, so this board can deny the
project. That's actually legally not the case. Um so it did seem at least in some instances that it may be creating unnecessary um bureaucracy and delays for certain applicants. Not to say that traffic analysis is completely ignored
throughout the entire process because it is looked at um during the permitting. I think the real concern is the traffic circulation analysis when people pull out buildings which way they go things of that nature. How is everything regulated? And that's really I don't
think you need a full-blown traffic study on it, but you there's parts of that that are very helpful because no, there's no scientific analysis being presented to figure out how to address those issues. And you know somebody
building 25,000 square foot home you know multif family building with you know 40 units they're not going to be looking at that and they don't have the expertise and then it's dropped on the lap of what of who? The city doesn't
have a review process so that analysis is never done and then you have more problems. I don't I agree that a full-blown traffic study, you know, tens of thousands of dollars may not be appropriate, right? But, you know, there's something because, you know, I've seen this board get frustrated. And
I'm not talking about, of course, we don't have regulatory power to stop something just because it adds um cars, but certainly should have ability to handle things that are impacting the neighborhood and impacting, you know, the driveways and the walkways, the
pedestrian traffic and things of that nature that could be actually affected by the design of the building. So I I think there needs to be some type of review process especially when most of these building when it's under 50,000 square feet it's not even going to go before the planning board. So there's no
means for the public to address the issue and to bring that issue to your you know uh to your attention and it's those neighbors that are being actually impacted and they're the ones that going to speak up and then once it's approved what happens they're stuck with it and
that's not fair. Thank you. Um, you guys still working on language for the uh previous one? Previous one. Which one? For this for transportation? No, for the previous one. But I I put something together. I can read it if Okay. It's up
to you guys. Sure. Okay. Um, so since we were discussing perhaps J could be modified to incorporate the things, okay, that at least I thought were missing or eliminated when we lost M. Um, and I also got rid of some nominalizations, but that's neither here
nor there. Um any proposed new structure or or addition on a building site shall be oriented, designed, cited and masked in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with the or sorry with
existing improvements, the building site, and surrounding area comma and which creates or maintains important view corridors. Yeah, go ahead. I I think that word is the key if I may. The word designed
taken out of U M and placed into J. And the reason is for as an example. Let's say I build a two-story edition. I can mass it. I can orient it in such a way. But if I don't place any windows, if you will, that's which is part of the
design, then I'm just creating a blank wall which my neighbor may have to stare into or anybody from the street. And I think that's the operative word. I'm not an attorney, but to me that's what it sounds like, the designed portion in M if we're going to join J&M.
Yeah. Um, so I agree. I also think that I mean there's probably an argument that orientation and sighting I mean they're different to me but but so that's why I included them all and and to me clearly at some point some for
some reason they used the phrase new structure and addition and they didn't necessarily use them interchange now whether they meant them interchangeably when originally drafting this or not I can't say but to the extent that there's
a distinction between a new structure and an addition. That's why I incorporated them both in the language. I'm I'm fine with what you proposed. I do think it's redundant in and of itself, but it's not adding another it's not it's taking away m um which I think
you know I I do think I think anything that's proposed has been is a design that's being proposed like that's the let's otherwise they wouldn't propose it. There wouldn't be there'd be nothing there. I mean if there hadn't been design with or without windows. So
that's that was my thinking. But if this if if we want to go in that route, I am fine with that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's good. Thank you for the word smithing. Now back to the um uh
what transportation. Yeah. Debbie, I wanted to just ask you about that like um Oh, or did you have something you want to say? I just had a question cuz I'm trying to picture in my head. Give me an example of like 15,000 ft versus 40,000 square feet. Oh, you do?
Okay. Okay. We still have four. Okay. Do we need five though? Do we need five to to move this forward? Uh, no. This is this is just going to be a recommendation. And so it can just be four. You only need four. Four is a quorum. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you. Um were you you I was just trying to come up with an example for example with the project that we in North in North Beach that we saw right so that was probably 15,000 okay new square feet and then
50,000 would be um I'm trying to make a frame of reference that's all would the would would the hotel would the um hotel be 50 I think it was 60,000 something like that. Which hotel? The the um 21st Street. Yeah. 21st Street. The um
Seagull. See the It used to be the Yeah. Seagull. No. Seagull, right? Yeah. That would that would be larger. Yeah. Much larger than 50. Much larger than 50. Okay. Seagull hotel. 120 here. Okay. Okay. So, half that
size. Well, do you do you think that we're are are projects that would impact trans that would benefit? I think part of the part of the things part of what Mr. Robbins brought up was that the analysis that the analysis and plan shall at a
minimum provide the following. It goes through these four things which are quite ownorous which are which are a lot. Um right and and the board does have in our criteria um circul you know vehicular circulation
pedestrian circulation as part of the review criteria. What this would streamline is the steps before you get to the board, which is probably again a month to two to three months beforehand working with transportation and their
peer reviewer to get things approved. So this board would still retain those criteria to look at general circulation, both vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site.
So maybe my question is Yeah. Um I think it's is it Kimley Horn that does the the office have the So if I if an applicant comes before us and has a building that's smaller than 50,000 square feet
but clearly it's going to have some sort of impact on traffic. I think is so we still have the ability to ask them those questions and and and expect those things and analyze it based upon that but if they've not done the work in
advance how do we do that or is that going to be I mean I guess the question is is staff going to say you know this is going to be a concern you should perhaps look into this but it's not a requirement at this point that's kind of my question right yeah I mean during the site plan review process in the initial meetings with staff we comment on, you
know, circulation and both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Um, when reviewing projects, we have, you know, minimum criteria for for parking areas and turnaround radius and loading and those types of things.
Um, so we're looking at that and identifying any major issues that we see and certainly we would bring those to the board's attention. This this would eliminate that formal process of the submitting the methodology, having a
peer review um team look at this, and then the back and forth with our transportation department, our peer reviewer, and the applicants traffic consultant. I I guess, you know, with all due respect to, you know, our
resident who called in earlier, um you know, I drive by um new tower on Fifth and Alton every single day who way bigger than 50,000 square feet definitely had to go through this process in advance and every single
day there are trucks in the way there are parked in the rightway there I mean it's it's you know it's problematic and they've gone through that process right so I mean that's kind of I don't know even even when they've gone through that
process we still run into issues. And so I I mean I guess the lift associated with it for a smaller scale development is I mean I guess that's
probably the reasoning, right? Yeah, I think so. That's just too big too much for for the building say in north in North Beach that we saw today to go through that whole thing. Yeah. to put six parking parked cars on the on the site
and which would be the I think what Mr. Robbins was kind of suggesting was in the range of buildings that were not being captured anymore were not being their impact wasn't being explored anymore.
Um yeah, I don't know. I I I You do you see the point of what the 50,000 right? I mean, I see the point of 50,000 when we're talking about, you know, just again for frame of reference, uh, the
hotel that came before us today is 120, you know, so half of that is 60. You know, that's a big project, but it's not that big. Um, but I can also understand the lift of a a much smaller project, which, you know, 15,000 square feet, four units.
Um, the lift of going through that process formally in advance of in getting to this board. Um, and then like I said, I kind of as color to the ar or color to the discussion is that you I see ones who who've gone through that formal process
who who could carry the lift and we still have issues. This is the thing. If they don't consider it before they build and they miss it and you don't have a professional traffic person looking at it and they build it out, you're stuck.
Is that a possibility, Debbie? Is that is that is that a like nobody would say have you been thinking about transportation? You hope they're not, but there's no formality and formality. Right. Right. Right. No, but I'm wondering in the other stages of the process, are there other reviews? So the
onus would be on staff to say you have to look at this in this board to then make sure that it happened assuming it comes before us. Yes. You wouldn't be able to if it was less than 50,000 square feet, right? Really? I mean during the permit review
process all of that comes up even for smaller projects than 50,000 under this new I mean I think if we have an issue flagged for example if there's you know loading issues or parking circulation issues I mean we
have very clear standards for you know driveway widths and curb cuts and all of those. What's the square footage, do we recall, of the project that we recently looked at on Washington, the combined development?
Um, that's well over 50,000. That's way over 50. I I just know we had a lot of discussion about how they were handling their loading and this that and the other, right? I mean, that's a that's well over 50,000. Yeah. And they added residential in here. I
mean, they're going to be for multifamily, I guess, to include multif family. I think it's primarily this primarily the circulation analysis that has to be done. And I'm not saying that Debbie doesn't do a great job and the staff
doesn't. We have a really great staff, but that's not the question. things are missed and without having a public coming out there and looking at it, it's unfortunate, but then it's the same public that's going to get stuck with it. So, if there could be some type of
even not formal, but a a circulation analysis or something that has to be done to address these issues and even if it's a civil engineer, not a traffic engineer, somebody to make that analysis to make certain all those problems are looked at at least. I'm not expecting
perfection, but I, you know, just to get it out there. That's just a suggestion. I'm I'm thinking I'm just thinking that 50,000 might be way much higher because then nobody's formally looking at it. Well, go I I don't know. I'm
I'm If you're comfortable with the 50,000 as a as a that we try that. I mean, what do we do then? Well, I mean, it's amendment. It's an amendment. It's amendment. We're amending the code. So, I mean, it's not just a we're going to try it and see. We
can promote I know it's not like a trial period, but we I don't know when the code was last amended, but maybe it was a long time ago. A long time ago. That's the problem. I just don't know where to pick a I don't know how to pick a number out
of a hat. Is there some middle ground for the 15,000 to 50,000 that's not a full peerreviewed transportation and is there something a lesser scope that could be done? I I
don't know enough about this to speak to what could or couldn't be done. Let me ask like that question maybe slightly different way of the four things that you have to do that are all required. Is there one that could just be required if you're between five and 50 or like so
that it's a lighter load like either the details of the impact of or is it or strategies to mitigate or you know um could one and two be required if you're between five and um I'm on page
seven of seven. Yeah. uh one of two one and two be required if you're between 5,000 and 50,000 and all are required if you're above 50,000 or is does that make any sense at all? I would want to consult with our transportation
department who has much more experience um with the submittal of these studies um you know to see if there's something that they would feel comfortable you know recommending and have you found that um projects that are five that are
over 5,000 but just over 5,000 have trouble with this? Yes. Yeah. Yes. So it's really a bottleneck that we have to address. It is a bottleneck. No doubt it's a bottleneck. I imagine it's I mean it can't be inexpensive anything. It can't be. So I'd rather I'd rather keep
the higher I' I'd rather have it be somehow the language be in there that um you know maybe it's while um transportation analysis and mitigation plans are recommended for every applicant
um you know commercial residential misuse developments over 50,000. So there's something in there that says it's it's not that we don't value this that it's that we're expecting this to be somehow addressed. No. Is seven uh this one in
this this document the the Rick Lopez document. Yeah. It starts off that. Yeah. The seven of seven. The last page 77. that it is.
Okay. Maybe something in the language of the the top part. Am I reading the the draft correctly or is that not the d is this just the uh this is just this is Rick's uh this is Rick's memo, but it's not the
um but that's how that's consistent with how it is in the in the ordinance text. Could it be that? Um, you know, I think the point is that we want to we want to emphasize that transportation
uh transportation's important to projects at of any scale and that it's it's not that this means you don't have to think about it if you're less than 50,000. Well, and I I think that's why it's in your criteria. Um, and it's in, you know, staff criteria, too. So when
we meet with an applicant and there there can be an issue, it's still information that can be requested, right? So it's at any scale. Yes. At any scale for any project. So, I mean, and that's what I was going to suggest, but it sounds like it's there is that, you
know, projects between five and 50, you know, five and 4999, um, you know, can be required, you know, should staff require, you know, something to that effect. And I don't know if it needs to be as can you point to as per like the
um the line that that notes that transportation will be reviewed. Where is that in the that's in your criteria? Criteria um is it which one is it on page seven?
F. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that clearly defined segregated pedestrian access to the site in all buildings is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces are usable, safely, and
conveniently arranged and have minimal impact on pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow on these roads and pedestrian movement onto and
within the site as well as permit both pedestrians and vehicles a safe ingress and egress to the site. Should we be adding bicycles to that? Because I mean several years ago the city made the bold statement pedestrians were first,
bicycles were second, cars were third and and we're not talking about that at all. Oh, vehicular does not include bicycles. I have an idea how this can be solved. I got it. Okay. I think that it
do the 50,000 to start with but to reserve the discretion of the board should it identify significant traffic issues to be able to order a plan for any project over 20,000 or anything for any project.
So if there's a problem and it's addressed and identified then this board would have the authority to ask for such a plan. And wouldn't we already be able to do that in based on that based on if I don't think you could compel them to
do it. I don't think you'd say we're not going to approve it unless you do it. Unless you So here's here's my here's my concern. Thank you. So certain I agree. I So I tend to agree, but my concern is if if the information isn't available
when they come before us, how like that means come back once you have that information. Yeah. Um, the board does have authority to to request additional studies from applicants in general, by the way. It doesn't not limited to to to
traffic. Um, I would recommend that whatever whatever standard is going to apply, it needs to be clear and measurable. I agree and and that's obviously if staff for sees an issue, I I think that they would make a recommendation. I
just what I don't want us to get into and I think what we may have seen in the past, right, is that someone comes before us and we're like not quite come back, not quite come back, not quite come back because then that has the practical effect of causing other issues. And so on one hand it's
eliminating the lift the requirement of the lift right of the transportation study and saying we're not going to require this of you upfront but also know that if you come before the board you know they may be
asking for that. Now again t you know typically I think staff is very good at identifying that and and will identify that. I have I have no doubt that you know Debbie and Jake would do that. Um, but also sometimes we don't agree with staff. It's rare, but it happens.
And if they come before us, you know, and and I'm not a traffic expert. Um, so, you know, circulation. So, you know, without the information provided, I guess that doesn't preclude someone from providing it to demonstrate
like on their own to demonstrate that they satisfy that. Um, I I'm pretty I'm I'm I'm pretty uh confident that we could do what um Mr. Robbins recommends in situations in which it's in which it's needed and
that we that's our discretion as as you said, Nick. And then um we could leave this with the 50,000 to make sure that we have we don't hit people with you know these traffic transportation analyses who don't need to be doing
them. Okay, we got one. You okay with that? We do. Yes, I do have we do have another um speaker on Zoom. Okay. Oh, wait. He just put his hand down. John, John, are you there?
Okay. I think he just left. Okay. Probably a wise move. Um anyway. Okay. So, there was a third thing that um Mr. Robbins uh discussed and that was what was that? This was the uh the
referendum. The Yeah. Yeah. So, the the city charter um the city charter requires that prior to any amendment to the land development regulations that
reduces e either reduces the powers and duties of the historic preservation board or adopts a less stringent historic preservation standard um that a that a referendum is required. state law was amended uh
within the past couple of years. I believe it was in I believe it was in 2023 um to broadly prohibit any referendum or initiative process that relates to a land development regulation. So any any
amendment to the historic preservation ordinance that that uh that that adopts a less stringent uh standard um would would would no longer require a referendum, right? Could no longer
require a we Yeah. Yeah. The city is Yeah. is now prohibited, right, from from calling a referendum. Okay. Yeah. So that's pretty much done. All right. Well, I think we've um belabored this. Any anything else you
guys want to add uh from the quieter part of the end of the board? All right. Um so we need a a consolidated recommendation would be good. So, uh do we make a motion for a recommendation?
Sure. All right. Well, before before I make a motion, can I ask a question? Yeah. Um this is a soft straw pull I guess. Um are are my fellow board members amenable to the recom the modifications I
recommended as to the site massing orientation design etc etc. Okay I'll hand that over to you when I get done if that's okay. Yes that would be great. Okay. Before you just before you do that, um if there are some like there um problems with the
numbering uh on the document, do we we don't do that now? We don't they'll figure it out. They'll figure it out. Okay. Thank you. Um, so then I would make a recommendation to support the final report and
recommendation of the 2024 ad hoc historic preservation ordinance advisory review committee with the limited change to incorporate some of the removed
provisions from M in from 2M into 2J. J and I will provide I can read it. Can you read it? I will read it in. Okay. Yeah. So we would we would suggest that 2J say any proposed new structure or
addition on a building site be oriented comma designed comma cited comma and masked in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with existing improvements the building
site comma and surrounding area comma uh and which creates or maintains important view corridors. Um I'm okay with general word smithing of that or elimination of commas if I got too many. I like the Oxford comma. So um
and were there any other changes to the report and recommendation that we wanted to incorporate? That was it. Um so with that change, we would that would be my motion. We would support the committee's report and recommendation
with that minor suggested revision. Uh, got a second. Second. Okay. Okay. All those in favor? I I Okay, great. Thank you very much. Um, we have one last item.
Um this is another proposed ordinance that will impact as currently drafted um you um the historic preservation board's um review authority. So this is
an ordinance um to and a comprehensive plan amendment to incentivize the development of buildings for school use. So this is specific to um schools. Um this was
um reviewed by the planning board at their uh May meeting. Um basically uh the planning board did recommend approval um with a a modification. So let me just summarize what the ordinance
again to incentivize school uses. And this is citywide um but citywide would also impact um projects under the the board's jurisdiction. Um so the construction of new eligible educational
facilities would be subject to staff level review both within historic districts and outside of historic districts. um as long as new construction did not exceed 25,000 square ft of new floor area um or the
maximum uh allowed whichever is less. Um the building height may not exceed 50 ft um or the maximum allowable height whichever is less. Currently, a a project proposed with these um thresholds would require either review
by the historic preservation board or the design review board uh depending whose jurisdiction it was in. So, that is the the ch this significant change in this proposed ordinance that impacts this board's review authority. Um, other incentives
that are included in this, just for your information, are that eligible um, educational facilities may request a commission warrant to increase F up to 10% or not to exceed 5,000 additional
square feet. Um, educational facilities could also seek warrants for a 50% reduction in setbacks, open space, and lot coverage. Currently, all projects can seek a commission warrant for up to a 25% reduction in these. Um, in
commercial and highintensity districts, conditional use approval would not be required for facilities that do not exceed 50,000 square feet. Um, there would also be a elimination of parking
requirements for school use. Um, that's a basic summary of the incentives contained within this ordinance. Again, what we're looking for here, because this does impact um the board's authority for review, is
a recommendation to the mayor and city commission um with regard to that specific element, but you're welcome to discuss um the entirety of the of the ordinance. um as the city I think you know part of this is as the city is
really um working to transition and have a more balanced economy um balancing residential and tourism. It seems you know over the past 10 years or so we've had a significant increase in tourism as
we're looking to incentivize residential development throughout the city. One of the amenities that a lot of people look to when they're deciding which community to live in is schools. Um, and there is a desire to enhance
um the the selection and the opportunities for different types of schools uh for people either existing residents or people looking uh to move here. and and you know this would be helpful um in in
incentivizing that. Debbie, remember we had uh well well over a year ago the school that came before us on Washington Avenue between second and third or whatever. How would this have affected that? because he went
through a lot of hoopla with setbacks and everything else, you know, and yeah, that that project was reviewed several times by this board and also the planning board. Um because that, you know, school use in general um requires a conditional use approval. So, this
would have streamlined that process um that would have met those thresholds in terms of the height and the um square footage and could have been reviewed administratively. Now, I will say to that point, uh, during the planning board's review, uh, a couple weeks ago
of this ordinance, the planning board, you know, supported the ordinance and issued a favorable recommendation, but with an additional recommendation that the conditional use process remain for all schools um, that that are currently
required to obtain a conditional use approval. So, as drafted, the proposed ordinance would eliminate that, but the planning board's recommendation was to keep their review for conditional use in
and I think we would do the same thing. But the the planning board is the one that that evaluates conditional use uh applications. So they wanted to keep their review of projects, but we I mean we would have to add that in to we agree
to that, right? Is that is that something that's in that's in here that we that's part of this? Well, for for this board, the the biggest change would be to not require historic preservation board
review for projects that that met a maximum threshold. So, for example, a 25,000 foot new school that did not exceed 50 ft in height would not require historic preservation board approval,
but would be reviewed administratively in accordance with the certificate of appropriateness criteria. This would not include, and I think this is very important, this would not include demolition. Any demolition under this the way it's drafted would continue to require the review and
approval of the historic preservation board. But when we would approve the de when we would review the demolition application, we would not see what we would not have be it would not come back to us with what they were going to propose on the site. Correct.
And we would have no control over what was being built within a historic district. Correct. I don't think that's a good idea. Okay. And is and schools are schools like um
like a class of type of amenities for um for communities that are that include other things like go ahead. When can and I'm sure this probably is defined Mr. City attorney somewhere.
um what uses this applies to? Like what is defined as a school use? Is it FIU? Is it elementary schools? Is it any sort of educational use? I think it's any. Yeah. Any that's that's a bonafide school. That's either a public school or a 501
um nonprofit school. It wouldn't be, for example, a cooking school that was a for-profit cooking school or a massage school or, you know, there's other schools that are for-profit entities that aren't necessarily under the legitimate IRS classification of school.
And I to your point it would be you know elementary school, high school, university that would all be covered under this. Yes. Yeah. Well, other and other I can see other public amenities if this passes
other public amenities coming under this too which would could police departments, fire departments, it could be other other things. I mean, I'm just saying that I'm I'm not sure where this where this, you know, begins and ends
and how how did this come to pass this how did this origin? You know, I don't have a lot of background. I do know this was commissioner uh David Suarez sponsored this and I I think the the desire is to as part of our ongoing
efforts to really incentivize more permanent residential. You know, we do have residential, right? But we have a lot of seasonal residential and in a lot of these new luxury buildings are not full-time residents with families. So I think the idea was while we're trying to
incentivize stable long-term residential and diversify our housing stock to to offer, you know, incentives for amenities that again people moving here may may want to see more of. a daycare school, something like that. I
mean, a a preschool is certainly part of this. A daycare, I think, is a separate daycare would be a separate non-school use. Early childhood education center, early childhood education center. That would fall under it.
And this says Commissioner Fernandez. It's not his item. Um, I believed it was David Suarez. I believe it says David Suarez was a co-sponsor. Yeah, it says April 3rd at the request of Commissioner Fernandez. So, I apologize. It's fine. I just
trying to sort it out. And then Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez referred to the planning board. Have we had instances of schools wanting
to come to Miami Beach? We have. We have. And no, no. And then didn't because they thought it was too ownorous that we know of. I mean, I don't know. That's what I'm trying to figure out. And And is the incentive just that they don't have to come before? I mean, they're getting F.
The generally the incentives would be a streamlined review process without necessarily the the requirement to come to the historic preservation board, design review board or planning board. A reduction or actually an elimination of the parking requirements
um and some enhanced incentives where they could request a minimal amount of additional square footage from the city commission. So, I mean, and I don't even know if I mean, my thought process would be I like the idea of incentivizing it, but I
don't know that within the historic districts at least that I now obviously the commission can overrule me or overrule us, right? But, um, that I still think that there should be, you know, board oversight and it's it's less about board oversight to me and more
about public oversight, right? That's the benefit of the board meetings. It's less about I mean in our last item we had Mr. Robins in front of us talking about oh the board should retain control this that and the other. To me it's less
about that and it's always been about the board is an opportunity for the public to know what's going on and know what's happening right and it's a public forum where anybody can speak for or against something. Um and it gives them, you know, another
um layer of protect, you know, protection, I guess. Um well, just understanding of how of how their neighborhoods are changing and how the processes are being I think it it's it supports a healthy city. It supports a healthy community um to have this kind of knowledge. I I
completely agree with you um about that. I do like the idea of offering incentives I think would be amazing. I kind of I'm operating in a vacuum. I'm not as familiar with this item. I haven't been following it since April of last year. Um but I like the idea of offering
incentives um to incentives to educational institutions to come into the to the um to the city and develop here. And I if the commission, you know, thinks that is warranted, then then I'm in support of
that. Um, but I don't think that incentive just like I think you said planning board, you know, or planning board said that's great, we can have the incentive, but we're not going to, you know, take away the oversight of the conditional use permit. I think the same thing here is that, you know, the
incentive can still exist. um but subject to the oversight of the board that you know necessitates a public hearing. But the only the only incentive is the uh no the only incentive is not having to bring it before the board that can go administratively through the
process without board unless there's and that's not the only incentive again the parking reductions and and the ability to request additional relief from from certain zoning regulations and additional square footage is also but those don't come through us. Those would
go through administratively if it's less than 25,000 square feet. Correct. Well, the additional square footage and any relief on the setbacks would go through the commission warrant process. So that would be the mayor and
city commission. Exactly. I think we still need to see the design. Yeah. From a design perspective, I think that's so I think that, you know, if we were going to do anything here, just like the planning board added what they wanted, I think we would have to at least see a plan and approve it because
it does have to fit within the neighborhood. Okay. And you could certainly make that motion. So that would be from what I'm hearing a favorable recommendation to the mayor and city commission with the um
with the condition that historic preservation board review would still be required. Yes, I would make that motion. Um Oh yeah. Yeah. No, I was just going to just continue the conversation that
we have a motion and second about this. just just quickly just maybe there's a way to um maybe reduce the threshold of uh vote voting threshold for example uh on a school. I'm I'm trying to the reason why
they removed us as part of the process is because this is an ownorous part of the the whole thing getting a a package prepared and things as opposed to just getting it to Debbie and going back and forth and the staff going back and forth like that. So maybe if we say that the that the
um that would require only a like a four uh 47th vote rather than a a five that 47ths would be the maximum vote or you know you know what I'm saying sometimes you they raise you can raise the threshold for what the votes required if you're going to try to make something stricter and if you're trying to make
something less strict I think if four of the seven board members feel that this is appropriate that it can pass. It's an easier It's an easier lower bar for a school. I mean, is that a is that a possibility? I mean, unless they're
requesting a variance, it would be four of seven or dem or demolition. Demolition. So, demolition. Okay. Would be five of seven. So, but demolition would be coming before us anyways. I'm just saying I I was trying to make
it, you know, that there wouldn't be a condition at which it would have to be 57s. But well, um just is that even is that even a way of thinking about this? Like I'm trying to think of how it can come to the board, but it's but the board review
is a lower is a lower bar for schools. I'm trying to be in the spirit of this of what they're approach they're without saying we don't see it at all in a historic in a historic context. I think you probably want to be careful
with demolition, I would say, because if an application came before you, you'd still need and if it were for a school, um I think you would want to review the demolition the same way you would absolutely any other demolition. Um, but if they wanted variances or things like this, well, the variance
threshold is in our, believe it or not, it's it's it's five, but it's in our special acts. Um, yeah. Okay. It's not it's not a leverage. It's not a tool that we can use then. Okay. I get and I mean I think you know this is still just a
recommendation to them. you know, it's a we're making a recommendation that we keep it either and I think either we keep it as is for the reasons stated and perhaps they rework it or come back to us. Okay. Um Okay.
Have a motion. Yes. Yes. Yes. I just wanted to get that little I just had to ask about that, but I'm I'm fine with this. Okay. Uh all those in favor of the motion I Okay. Thank you. U Mr. Sure. That's all I have on the agenda uh
today. I don't know, Nick, if you have any updates you want to share. Not today. No. Okay. Well, thank you everyone. Appreciate your time.