Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
Welcome to the City of Miami Beach Commission Chambers. We're glad to have you with us today. If you require ADA assistance or accommodations, please notify the city clerk or any staff member and we will be happy to assist you.
As a courtesy to everyone present, please silence all cell phones and electronic devices at this time. Lobbyist disclosure reminder. If you are a lobbyist appearing before the city commission or any city board, you must have registered with the city clerk
prior to participating. If you have not yet registered, please do so immediately. Presentation reminder. If you submitted a presentation within the 24 hours prior to the start of today's meeting, please check the computer located at the podium
to ensure your file is properly loaded. When the floor opens for public comment, please step up to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone, and begin by stating your name and address for the record. How to participate in public meetings
via Zoom. Once you have joined the Zoom meeting, go to the bottom panel and click on the raise hand icon to notify the meeting host that you would like to speak. As soon as the host grants you permission to speak, a dialogue box will pop up on your screen with two options. Select the unmute button to begin
speaking. After you finish speaking, mute your microphone and click on the lower hand icon. If you are joining Zoom via phone, tap the keypad icon and press star 9 to notify the meeting host that you have raised your hand to speak.
A voice operator will prompt you to unmute your microphone by pressing star 6. Once unmuted, you may begin speaking. After you finish sharing your comments, be sure to press star 9 to lower your hand and star six to mute yourself.
We kindly ask everyone to conduct themselves in a respectful and professional manner throughout today's meeting. Thank you for your cooperation and thank you for participating in your local government here in the city of Miami Beach. [Music]
[Applause] [Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music]
[Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] [Music]
Don't make it. [Music] like that. [Music] You feel me? [Music]
I do feel [Music] it. [Music] [Music] [Music] Everybody.
[Music] Hey. [Music] [Music]
Black [Music] fire. [Music]
My [Music] 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 um and welcome to the September 11th meeting of the design review board of the city of Miami Beach.
We have a full board today. We also have a full agenda and are going to do our best to get through as many projects as possible. Um, we have a new procedure uh on this agenda of a consent agenda that
uh Roilio will update us all. >> Um, so the the consent agenda is a new procedure that is uh being recommended by the city commission that all the land use boards utilize. Um and this and the city commission is in process of adopting an amendment to the code to formalize the process, but it is it is a
process that has been used uh in the past. So what this does is we currently have six items on the consent agenda. Um if any of the board members wish to pull any of the items off of the consent agenda, you have the right to do so. If we get any significant public comment on
any of the items in the consent agenda, we should pull those items off of the consent agenda. What the consent agenda allows us to do is that these are these are generally items that uh that we felt were not controversial. They don't have any variances. In this case, they don't
have any waivers. Um um and so the the board has the ability to wave essentially the presentations and approve them all under one motion. Um we sent the staff reports for the items on the consent agenda earlier than than the rest of them. So you would have a little more time to take a look at those
applications. Um so that's that's essentially the process. chair through the chair. Can I stop you right there? Cuz I would like to ask a question on that. When you say consent agenda, should we not be approving the agenda as well as the minutes that we're approving today
or on the agenda? Should should we not have an approved agenda? That's a procedural question I'm asking. >> So, there is an approved agenda. Um, >> and should the board not vote on that agenda as being its official agenda? I have ne I've never at the county we do
um at the county we do it and that's why procedurally I I see it as >> as as something that should be done because now you have a consent agenda. You understand? >> I think we're going to be voting on the consent agenda, >> right? If you but if you get I'm already there. >> You understand?
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Once you get there, you're going to have to be procedurally correct and then have an approved agenda. You should at least in my eyes. So I motion that we do approve start since we have a new procedure then and start including the
approval of the agenda. >> So what you're saying is is select the consent agenda items and then approve and then agree that the rest of the things will be on the standard agenda. >> Correct. >> Okay. I I mean I >> that's fair. >> Okay. >> That just so everyone is on the same
>> and everybody is on the same p. >> Okay. >> That's that's where I'm going. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. I motion for that. So I don't know if I have to get get a second, but I I that's how I feel and I think it's the right way to do it. >> So after so after the items are pulled,
we would have a motion to for the rest to approve the rest of the Okay, fair enough. >> Um should we move on to the city attorney's updates? >> Yeah. >> Hi. Uh good morning everyone. Today's meeting of the design review board has been scheduled in a hybrid format with a
quorum of the board physically present in the city commission chambers at the city city of Miami Beach City Hall and applicants, staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via the Zoom platform webinar. Now, in order to participate in today's meeting, those wishing to participate
via the Zoom platform webinar may dial 888-475-4499 and enter the webinar ID, which is 82273941924 or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID, which again is 82273941924. Any individual wishing to speak on an
item must click uh the raise hand icon if they're using the Zoom app or dial star 9 if they're participating by phone. Now, before I will swear in everyone who will be testifying today, I'm going to read into the record the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration. If you're appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another
person, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office. If you haven't registered yet, you should register before you speak to the board. You do not have to register as a lobbyist in three limited circumstances. One, if you're speaking only behalf of yourself and not any other party. Two,
if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting. Three, 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. Now, expert witnesses and representatives of uh neighborhood associations uh have to prior to appearing before the board disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose
behalf they're advocating. If you're an architect, attorney, or employee representing an applicant or an objector, you also 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, modification, or
defeat. Now um I will swear in anyone uh everyone who will be testifying today. So please stand and raise your right hand and um visual speakers will will be sworn in at the one by one at the time of their presentation. Now do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you
will be giving in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> All right. You may proceed. Madam chair you may take the wheel. Madam Chair, I'm sorry, but I feel that Can I have the floor a second?
>> It's 911 and it's almost 9:0 Whatever it is right now, 24 years ago, something really crazy happened. Our world's turned. Today should be a holiday.
Today should be a day of mourning as Americans. And I feel many of us had connections with New York, still have connections with New York or were there that day. Fortunate I was not. My New York
experience had ended two years before I was back home. But even from down here, I was there because I felt it. And it should be a day of mourning. And after yesterday, I feel we need to take
a moment of silence of of whatever and just bow our heads. Let us make that our decisions today that we take on this board do not impact us, any of us that are here on this board for making any of those decisions.
We have to start learning to accept people for their decisions, for what they believe, and for what they don't believe and for what you believe. You should be respected. But at this moment, I think it's a moment of silence that I I ask right now
that we take for not only for 9/11, but are for a broken nation. And for those that were there and experienced it, I feel your pain. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Thank you. That was very powerful. Okay. Um and now let's continue with the approval of the minutes. So moved. >> Does anybody want to make a motion to approve the minutes from the July 10th,
2025 meeting? >> Did we do that yet? >> I believe we have a motion from Mr. Pies. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> All those in favor? >> I I motion passes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Is there any other any other business? >> We have no other business today. >> Okay. So, let's move on to the consent agenda. Do you want to run through this or how
>> um I guess first if any members have any items that they want to pull um if you can identify those and then I will read the rest of the titles into the record. Um and then we could open up a public hearing. >> Can you clarify what do you mean by pulling? So the idea with the consent agenda is that all of the items on the
consent agenda get approved with one motion. If there is an item that any of the board members want to discuss individually as the way we would a normal a normal item, um you can request that that item be pulled and that item will no longer be on the consent agenda.
It will move to the regular agenda and it will be discussed in the normal format that we always have discussed items. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, I move to um put on the regular agenda the DRB 251117
8101 Collins Avenue. >> Okay. That's the the North Beach log cabin. >> Yes. I'd also like to have a discussion though about DRB 25115 900 Southshore Drive.
>> Okay. So, those two items are pulled. Anybody else? >> Yes. DRB. >> Oh, turn on your mic. >> Uh, DRB 25-1120, [Music] the one of the park 2300 pine tree. Did
you mention that already? >> Oh, I think the park warrants uh review. >> I should clarify, it's not the park. It's just that one sculpture >> in the park. >> Okay. And I think it's already pretty in
in process. >> Okay. Well, then I can attract that. Uh >> yeah, the park's about to open up actually. >> Yeah, that's true. >> Any other changes, additions, subtractions? >> The the the parking on North Beach, the
the one that came back, that's supposed to be back from last meeting. >> Mhm. >> That one with >> Yeah, that's not on the consent agenda. That's that's that's up for discussion today. >> Okay. Okay. Okay, that's for discussion. Great. >> There was one I had I think it was 13115th
Terrace. Is that the house? No, no, no. Sorry. 1601 West 24th Street. >> That was the house. >> Yeah, that one likely should have been on the consent, but it had we had in in an abundance of caution, we included the word waiver in the title and so we we excluded it. >> There is no waiver.
>> I think we should add that to the consent agenda. >> Consent agenda. >> So then can you read back the consent agenda items? >> Sure. We'll move that item. Um, so we have um, and I guess I can go ahead and read the titles at this point. Um, so we have uh, item uh, number one is
DRB25-106. That's 1120 Bay Drive, lot number 9. An application has been filed requesting design review approval for the construction of a two-story residence, including one or more waiverss at a site was subject to a planning board lot split to replace an existing residence.
Then we have DRB2 11107. That's 1120 Bay Drive, lot number 11. An application has been filed requesting design review approval for the construction of a new two-story residence in um including one or more waiverss at the site subject to a planning board lot split to replace an existing residence. Um and then we have
DRB25 1108. That's 1120 Bay Drive lot number 10. An application has been filed requesting design review approval for the construction of a new two-story residence including one or more waiverss at a site subject to planning board lot split to replace an existing residence. Then we have number then we have DRB 251120.
That's 2300 Pineree Drive and 2795 Prairie Avenue. An application has been filed requesting design review approval for the construction of a public art sculpture within Beayshore Park. And then we're including uh DRB25-1089.
That's 1601 West 24th Street. And that title is uh an application has been filed requesting design review approval for the construction of a new one-story residence including one or more waiverss to replace portions of an existing residence. The new residence is located
on a site that was subject to a planning board lot split application. >> Okay. And so do we vote? >> So now we would need a a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda items. >> So moved. >> Second. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Paz,
second um by Miss Bhutaboli. Um all those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion passes. >> And so the items that were moved off the cons the items that were moved off the consent agenda when it can you tell us
where they're going to show up? >> Sure. So the order we we we generally have the uh agenda in order by file number. Um, so, uh, number five, the DRB25 11:115
would be, uh, would actually be the last item. Um, and then the other one, um, 8101 Collins Avenue. Also, they're they're both at the end. They both have the highest file numbers.
Um, so now, >> oh, I apologize. We needed to open a public hearing before >> Oh. >> Um, let we should do that. Uh just in case uh anybody has any anybody from the public wants any other items pulled.
>> Um >> is it do they have that the public can select items pulled or if they have any comments on any of the consent agenda items? >> If they have a comment it's up to the chair to decide if the comment is significant enough where it should be pulled. If it's just they want a clarification then maybe it's not worth pulling but >> okay.
>> Um but we should have a public >> actually in the bottom of caution. I would advise that um whenever we get any public comment uh the item should be pulled off the consent agenda for a full hearing and proper discussion. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um is there any comments about any of those?
Was it four? One, two, three. Yeah. Five items that we put on the agenda, the consent agenda. >> Comment is there anybody online? >> And could I could I be added as a presenter on on Zoom so that I can see if there's any hands raised?
My hand is raised and we have no hands raised on the consent items. >> Okay, good. >> Stands. >> Okay, the item stands. No need for a motion to reconsider. >> Okay. And so as per Gabriel's request, so what you're saying is now we should
agree that this is the agenda that we're going to discuss, >> correct? >> From today forward. Do you want to make a motion? >> Sure. >> That we use today's consent agenda and going forward we proceed with the same
type of procedure. >> Okay. >> It's just a it's a it's a it's really a procedural legisl It really is a legislative procedure. >> Okay. >> But I I motion that we do it for clarity
purposes and for purpose of discussion that we follow order and that is the order of of the day. >> Okay. A motion has been made. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All >> okay. Any all those in favor? >> I any motion passes. So the agenda is
set. Okay. So then let's begin with Oh, so the requests for continuances and withdrawals. Do you want to read those into the record? >> Um, we have Can you read the titles of the not I have them handy?
Okay. Okay. The request for continuences. Um, this is uh item the first one is DRB25-1087 uh formerly known as DRB24 1026 94 Palm Avenue. Um the applicant is going to be
requesting an additional variance and as a result um they are requesting that the item be continued to the October 23rd 2025 meeting. We will be renoticing it um but given that it has been discussed we we would like a motion to to continue the item to the October 23rd meeting.
>> So >> okay we have a motion by Mr. P. >> A second >> second by Miss Luen. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay, thank you. Um the next one, DRB25 1100 uh 1110. That's 28 Venetian Way
right ofway. Um that is for a um an upgrade and rehabilitation of the water booster pump station on Bell Ale. Uh public works is working on some uh additional uh modifications the design and they're requesting that the item be continued to the October 23rd, 2025 meeting.
>> Move to continue. >> Second. We have a motion by Miss Bhuta Cavali, second I believe I heard Mr. Pis. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes. Okay. And the last one, this is DRB 25-11250
Westo Drive. Um the applicant just requested that the item be continued to the October 23rd, 2025 meeting. Um I'm not certain if it's because they request to make any changes or just the length of the agenda. They didn't want to wait. Um so, uh staff staff is okay with the continuence. If we can get a motion in a
second. >> Motion to continue. >> Okay. >> I think someone wants to speak. >> Yes. >> Uh Michael Yiannopoulos 200 South uh Biscane Boulevard. Uh we are just uh requesting a continuance so that we can go ahead and conduct uh additional
neighborhood outreach. >> Okay, >> that's all. >> Thank you. >> For West Alita. >> Yes. >> 15. >> Okay. >> Um motion. I need a motion and a second. >> Motion to continue. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you.
>> All right. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> Thank you very much. >> We're now going to move on to open and previously continued items. DRB210806788 Collins Avenue. >> I can read. This application has been
filed requesting design review approval for modifications to the facade of an existing commercial shopping center. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to renovate the facade by recladding with new materials. Okay, so just a quick update on this item. On May 15, 2025, the DRB approved
the modification to the design of the retail building. Um, so the actual design of the building itself was approved. However, the DRB continued a portion of the application uh with direction for the applicant to present a lighting plan, a landscape plan, and confirmation that the drainage has been
fixed. Uh the applicant has submitted the uh lighting and landscape plan. Uh the plans include a significant amount of new landscaping around the perimeter of that parking lot and an irrigation system. Um additionally, the plans include the installation of modern new lighting fixtures and staff is
supportive of the change and I believe the applicant will be providing some evidence regarding the flooding on the on the site. So, I'll turn it over to the applicant. >> Good morning. Uh, we submitted, uh, mic's on. We submitted, uh, proof of
compliance for the drainage that you mentioned, uh, I think it was Mariah you mentioned last time, uh, Myra, yeah, last time you mentioned that we had flooding there. So, we have proof of compliance and a picture. Our architect hasn't showed up yet. Um, so maybe we
could just draw back maybe to next next case till he shows up. Shimon that you met with. >> Okay, that's that's fine. >> I see I see he's online with his hands raised if he's able to participate virtually. >> Sure. >> Um Um can we allow Mr. Shimon Simbovski
to speak? >> Do I need a minute? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Hi everybody. Can you hear me? >> Uh yes we can. Um uh just before you speak, I just need to uh swear you in really quickly. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Uh do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you will be giving in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I I do swear. >> All right. Thank you. You may proceed. >> So, I I I really apologize. I uh I'm I'm sitting in traffic on the side of the
road right now. I'm assuming I have a couple minutes to get here. Um so, I do apologize for that. Um we do have a presentation that's um available that we wanted to share and um in broad
terms the the main things we want to focus on today are essentially the landscape plan um the lighting plan and also just documentation of the the drainage improvements that happen on the site. Um, at the moment I cannot see the
slides, so I do apologize. It could just be the way that um Oh, yes, they're present right here. Um, okay. So, essentially what I what we want to point out is that right now on
the site there are 15 existing um trees. All of those are going to be maintained. Um we're not proposing any any removal of trees. Um it so from a site dis from a tree disposition standpoint, we're going to
maintain all of the existing vegetation on the site. Um if we and but the other thing is there are a lot of shrubs on the site that we we plan to actually remove as part of the the work that we're going to do. So if you look at the
first sheet that just shows you the existing conditions on the site and the the tree disposition. The next slide that we prepared is the landscape planting plan and that would be uh slide number two.
And the the main strategy that we're trying to propose for the site essentially is the barrier planting between Collins Avenue and the parking lot. Um and barrier planting on the south side of the lot that's uh
separating basically that kind of long building from its south neighbor. The strategy that we are proposing is essentially providing resilient planting um common planting to to um to what we
see in uh you know in in commercial landscape situations on uh in in South Florida um and drought tolerant planting and along Collins Avenue. What we're proposing essentially is kind of like a three- tiered planting system.
And um just I do apologize. I'm just trying to grab my my notes here real quick. And uh around the perimeter we are proposing to add um these uh
I want to make sure I have it down correctly. um the U pedacarpus and essentially and this is really looking at the border between um Holland's Avenue and the parking lot. The U Pedacarpus is a nice plant. Um it's very highly drought tolerant. They're going
to essentially create like a ring around that that area around the island. They grow to be about 6 feet tall. Um, and then we're going to fit in around those. We're going to be fitting in. Um,
oh boy, I do apologize. Oh, everybody knows. Well, okay. So around those what we're going to do is add um palypt and essentially those are going to grow those will be growing to about 8 ft and
their width is about 8 ft. So they're kind of spreading plants. Um and they kind of create this additional vertical element in the landscape. And then throughout you're as you notice we're going to add royal palms as well. So those are tall and native plants um and they create a little bit more of a
verticality to the site. So essentially we're creating a nice screening element. Um the calypso is actually pretty nice too because it adds a little bit of a pink color as well to to the site. Um now that's the strategy around the
parking lot and the um Collins Avenue. On the south side, the proposal is to add um to add um sable palms and you see they're in clusters of three. So basically three clusters of three sable
palms. Those are nice ornamental groupings of plants. Um and kind of between those we're going to be adding two pygmy um two pygmy day palms. And those grow to be about 10 ft tall and they're pretty nice ornamental kind of specimen
plants. And um along the north edge of that south planting, we're we're actually continuing that U pedacarpus. So it's essentially taking that theme, the the the ring theme of the U and adding it to the north end of that south planting. Um and really the strategy is
to activate the islands. Um bringing in some Alexander palms, also kind of cluster specimen plants. um and really just create like a really nice aesthetic um lowmaintenance condition within uh within the site as
well. Um so that's the planting strategy. Um from the plant from the planting strategy, we have the plant uh list, the plant schedule that's here for reference and just kind of breaks down uh the specifics of what's going to be planted.
And that would be slide number three. Now, as part of this presentation, we're also showing the irrigation strategy. So, we have a complete irrigation plan that that's uh proposed as well. Um, that would be slide number four. I'm not sure if you Yes. Yes, that would
be our irrigation strategy. So, essentially providing irrigation to the main island. Um, these are drought tolerant plants, but we also do want to make sure that there's a maintenance strategy in place as well. Um and that's indicated through the irrigation.
The next sheet over is just providing the irrigation details. Um and those will be submitted for the record and also submit as part of the construction document package. Um and and these slides essentially round out the the landscape architecture strategy,
the planting design. Um from there we're also showing the phototrics and the lighting design strategy or consideration of the board and that would be the next slide. So from a lighting standpoint the
objective was essentially to provide three different types of lighting modalities. Um, based on my understanding of the May 15th DRB hearing, we there was a request to provide more of a pedestrian scale lighting in that island. Um, and so what
we're providing right now in order to to address that that question or that that desire is essentially three 12t high poles. Um they're roughly spread out from the the southern corner to the northern
corner and then basically at the midpoint. Um and those are going to be providing roughly really an average of of over four foot candles into the parking area. Um so it's going to really create a nice lighting effect kind of
along Collins Avenue. Um, and then as far as the architectural lighting, we also really took to heart some of the comments that were given to us regarding the like the turret kind of conditions and that that kind of facade lighting. And essentially what we've decided to do
is really provide um more of a scale down approach to the lighting um within the new sets that are going to be created. We are going to be providing um just um um uh recessed lights essentially to
provide about an average of roughly 2 and 1/2t candles almost 3ft candles for that um western parking area. Um and then that's also going to illuminate the storefronts um in a more of a subtle sort of way. And then the third lighting strategy is
several wall packs that we're going to be adding onto the face of the canopy. And those are just essentially designed to um you know kind of enhance the foot candles in the parking lot, enhance safety. And so are those what is being shown on
page eight of the presentation? >> Yes, exactly. So after speaking with Rileia, we noticed that, you know, the because these plans are really meant to be more of a construction document sort of presentation, we did add an additional slide um that gives a little
bit more context to the lighting that's going to be selected. So if you look at the last sheet, um we have the extra light uh VNTS 159L. Those are essentially going to be polemounted
and we're going to have three poles as shown on the the lighting plan. And those are those that's the lighting fixture that's selected there. Um it's a nice modern uh light fixture, clean lines. Um you know, it's something that's going to blend in nicely, I
believe, with the landscape design. Um as far as the wall packs, essentially we're using the same manufacturer. Um so continuing kind of a cohesive look from a lighting standpoint. Um so and those are going to be again mounted along the
um the face of the set as shown on the lighting plans. And uh you know sometimes it's a little tricky to show what the recessed lightings are, but but that's uh that's a specification from the manufacturer. Um and that's essentially showing what the what the details are going to be for the for the
recessed lighting within the set. Do you have an image to show us of this lighting on the front facade of the building or everything that you provided is what you have? >> So yeah, what we provide is what we have now. We don't have like a rendering updated with that lighting. So we just
wanted to provide just kind of the the image specification um as shown in the last sheet. >> Yes. >> So Sarah, I I feel feel the same thing. There's there's those battens we talked about and how these sort of industrial lights get mounted to the facade
>> making it not like an afterthought and also color temperature of the recess versus these and also the sidewalk. Those would be my big concerns there. >> And Gabriel and then we really we we're yeah >> I'm so glad we when I saw the agenda and
that we were starting with this item I was like yes >> you know what actually let me let them close out the public portion and then we can open it to discussion. I know. I just >> Sorry, we got a little out of order. Okay. Um, does that conclude >> coming out for that one? >> Well, um, does that conclude your
presentation? The time is up. >> No, the last the last item I just wanted to point out was, um, there was that discussion in the May 15th um, hearing regarding uh, site drainage. So, we did want to just show on the on
that last slide um just evidence of that being re remediated um with uh with just kind of the the purchase order and the receipt to show that the there was like a a hydro uh like a cleaning of the existing drains on site. So, so that's
resolved that the draining issues. >> Thank you very much. Are there is that do you have any other comments? >> No. >> Okay, great. >> No, that's that's our that's our presentation. Okay, great. Um, are there any other members of the public wishing to speak about this item? Anybody online?
>> I see no hands are raised online for this item. >> Okay, I'm now closing the public portion and opening up to the board for comment. Would you mind turning off the microphone? >> Gabriel, would you like to begin? >> Yes, I'll begin again. When I saw this item on the agenda as this first one, I
said, "Wow, great." Uh, this is my item. And we're back. And for the record, I represent the the residents. Every board member here, every
every one of them fills a specific role. Professional in some other thing. A professional in some other thing. and professional ex and our madame queen here who was former assistant manager
were you not if I'm not mistaken >> assistant >> okay assists in a minute she's so humble we all serve something I I I represent the residents okay I see your your your uh and for the
record Mr. Roelio, did I not ask for the agenda back in August? >> Mhm. >> Because I wanted to see what was on the record and I wanted to visit all the properties. I didn't get to all of them. Sorry, I
didn't. But I did pass yours and I started with yours. And you know what? I see your property. It's not about lighting and it's definitely not about irrigation or getting uh flooded. It's about structure
really. That's what I feel. >> So So you don't like the new design? That's >> I don't like the new design. It's not It's not about that design. It's about structure. That thing looks like it's going to fall apart. >> Gabriel, were you I can't I'm sorry. I
can't remember. Were you here when we saw Yes. And then and I visit it. Now I visit it. >> We started with this property and we approve the redesign. Do you have any >> I see that we're not going in the right direction and I see that as another duvo
people and it's going to be our next headache and that's not where we're going. I'm just I'm just raising the red flags. >> Okay. So Okay. Roelio, can I ask just
for confirmation and recall, was the design of the renovation of the storefront approved or left for approval at this meeting? >> The the design of the storefront was approved. What was continued was um
what's happening in the parking lot, the lighting, the landscaping, and the and the irrigation. So it is it is it my understanding then am I correct in thinking that because this board already approved >> we need to reconsider our vote then you know because that's I am sorry.
>> Excuse me. So am I correct in thinking that because this board already approved the um renovation that they presented at the last meeting. The only thing that we can vote on today is the items that were
left for this meeting, which is the irrigation, landscaping, >> lighting, and drainage. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Unfortunately then >> to approve anything other than that or or to make requirements for anything
other than that like to the facade as um my co-board member here is stating it would require for this owner to come back with a proposal for us to consider. >> Correct.
>> But we cannot require the owner to make changes. Correct. It would have to be okay. Thank you. >> So, does anybody or Adam, did you want to comment? >> I I I appreciate all and and what Gabriel what you're saying and and don't
necessarily disagree, but I I I know the procedure. We did we did approve it. I've got it. I've got it here. I looked at it >> and I'm and I'm not >> and I'm hoping it's it's got to be an improvement. raising a red flag that we may have voted incorrectly and and >> but sticking to what the the vote today,
I think, you know, plants seem like they've they've gone through that in lyrication. But I I do believe, you know, that the slapping of a of a an industrial type of light on a building that you're putting all this work into should be reconsidered a little bit and
a little bit more thought put in. The rendering I'm looking at has sconces and and and store names and things like that. And what I've seen before is people just slapping on a a sort of cheap industrial light because you're buying it from the same manufacturer as the pole light company and it's a 4,000k
light and then you got warm light behind and it's just it becomes it looks like an afterthought. I don't think you want that for your property. So I would say that the the the lighting should at least the lighting surface sconces should be looked at. the poles. I don't
know if there's anything about street lighting versus parking lot lighting temperature being similar in the city like this is so close to the beach. Should this may be said to be a warmer light? >> Is that something that you that you can comment about the types of light so
close to the beach on the street in the parking lot? >> They um the city does have a turtle ordinance um so that lighting going towards the beach has to be limited. I don't think that they would be in an area that would be affected by that. The other thing that the city does have is we have regulations on uh lighting
escaping the property. I I forget the foot candles. I have to look up the regulation, but we do have uh regulations on that that they need to demonstrate that the lighting is not uh shining off of the property, that the lighting has to be contained on site uh for the most part. Um and so that that's something that will be looked at as part
of the building permit uh process. >> Okay. But now the lights themselves that the types of fixtures that's that's up to the board. >> That's just my concern that it's >> Yeah, it doesn't. Yeah, I I want to piggy back on that. That was my concern too that that and in the materials that
you're you've presented, it doesn't really I have no idea where these sconces are going to go, um how they're going to look. If this is just a sheet, you know, I realize these may be your, you know, construction documents, but we needed some presentation materials for the design review board purposes so we
could see what this building would look like with these new proposed lighting. Um, I really appreciate the work that went into um the landscaping. Certainly much better. I do find it interesting that um you know your architect repeatedly mentioned they look for for
plants that were drought tolerant that were resilient and I was very surprised to see based on that criteria that so few of the shrubs were actually native and I really wanted to encourage that to be explored because native plants are the easiest to maintain. Um it's a
comment that I'm going to make throughout today's presentations. Um, I don't know if this if if staff tries to promote the native plants. >> Absolutely. >> But that was going to those are my two main comments. I I have no I agree with
with Adam that these lights seem a little too industrial, but it's really hard for me to know either way because I don't know where these are going to go. I don't know how they're going to interact with all the other design features for me. This this presentation seems very incomplete. Um, does anybody
have any other comments or that I we have a very full agenda so I want to keep things moving throughout the day. Um, does anybody have any different comments? >> Let let me propose this in in in the thought of moving forward and
giving um the presenter some direction. Does it it seems to me that this board maybe wants to move towards um giving the comments that were just given to this person so that they can go back and
come back to this board at a future meeting with a full-blown presentation and not just the architectural drawings to take into consideration the lighting comments that were made. Um is that the desire of this board? If so, do we make
a motion to proceed in that? >> That's up. >> Okay. Yeah. And and then in response to uh the other board members comment as to the structure, the facility, the building itself, this board nor the city, I don't believe
has the right to tell you the building really needs to have far more of a renovation or new construction. We cannot. But I think as you go back and look at the lighting and the other comments that were made um that you also
consider any other possible changes that could fix the structure of your facility of your building. So, I guess I would move to um defer or um continue this meeting for this item
for the next meeting or for when they would be ready to >> When you say fix, what do you what do you mean specifically like the make actual repairs or or modify the design? >> I I cannot say what structurally is needed on the fac on the building
itself. that's up to their structural engineer and their architect. But you heard that the facility, the building uh does not appear to be in good health. So are there other things besides what was presented before that you can submit?
Then they can be considered. Roelio, I'm looking at you. Then they can possibly be considered at your next meeting when you come to us for approval. Can I ask is is this a job that that can be approved for permits with with the
exception of the pieces that we're working on to keep this >> I mean we already sort of parsed it where we approved the design but not the lighting and the landscaping and now they've come back and the landscaping you know is better but the lighting isn't. So I don't I don't think we
should keep parsing it. I think they just need to come back with better lighting. >> Okay. you know, I we've been I feel like we've been we've really tried to help you as much as we can and now we just need to get that back. >> So, do you feel that you can come back
at the next meeting or two two months from now, October or November? >> We already made renderings that are based off of the landscaping and lighting design and to uh told Gabri Gabrielle uh regarding the facade. the
we have a a 40-year reertification that we passed structurally in terms of electricity, everything like that. The facade is the problem and the design that you approved is actually taking away it's in two parts the
building. It's a cement box and then has a facade that that has arms out with with actual uh with steel trusses. So the steel trusses are being removed. that whole facade component is being lifted off. So, it's going to be a flat
building and then we're repairing the facade. >> Okay. So, why don't >> all structural in terms of discrepancies are be taken care of? Yes. >> Okay. So, can I make a motion that we continue this project for consideration at the next meeting that you will
schedule with uh the planning department taking into consideration the lighting and bringing forward a presentation so we can see um I also would like more information on the drainage, what was done to the drainage and it can be
discussed at the next meeting um to improve the drainage on the >> that's been provided. that it's been hydro. It's a normal maintenance, but it hasn't been maintained. >> Xville. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, it's good. >> So, October is good or would you prefer November?
>> Let's go for what date they have to get. >> When do you have a I I'll second her motion. >> Mhm. >> I'll second her motion and bring that up. >> But let me ask you when when would he need to have materials sent in? O >> So, for the October 23rd, we typically ask for items to be provided at least 3
weeks prior. Um, so we have time to review it, update the staff reports. Um, so that would be uh likely the first week of October. >> So you talk with your architect and see if you can meet that schedule. Otherwise, then it'll be the November
meeting. >> Yeah. So you can That's a Okay. Okay. So a motion has been made and then it was seconded. >> We need a roll call or >> um just all those in favor? I >> I >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Continue. Thank you. We'll see you next
month. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. >> But can I get back to her point saying that the that that we that the state that the that we shouldn't be able to tell them what to do, but we have a code, >> you know, but we already the problem
part of it. We already reviewed and approved the design. We can't >> but I'm I'm I'm I'm coming from a point that in the future look at this before then we vote these days. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. take into consideration what it is that we're voting.
>> Yes, I know. We got to keep going. We got to move on. >> I know. I know. But this was my item. I'm sorry. >> Thank you. Thank you. All comments are very much appreciated. Okay. Next item on the agenda is DRB 251084 7729 Carile Avenue.
This application has been filed requesting design review approval for the construction of a new four-story multif family building to replace an existing residence as well a request for one or more design waiverss. The application also includes a variance request to exceed the maximum projection
and the height for the steps and platforms in the required front yard. A variance request related to the required sight setback for portion of the first floor and the second floor and a varian request to exceed the maximum projection of balconies and overhangs on the
required interior site setback. A variance request related to the required minimum floor to ceiling height of the first habitable level and a variance request to exceed the maximum building height for new construction for the first 25 ft of building depth as measured from the minimum required front
setback. Uh this application was on the July 11, 2025 DRB and it was continued to this hearing with a direction to that the applicant simplified the front facade.
Okay. So this um as Alejandro said, thank you. The the item was discussed at the last meeting. Um the applicant has since provided some updated plans. Uh the updated plans remove the simulated wood tile from the front plane of the facade. The tile is maintained underneath the steps that lead up to
that first um first level unit. Um, additionally, the the applicant modified the garage door to be more compatible with the windows of the facade. Um, it seems that the modifications are consistent with the direction that was provided by the board. Um, so staff does uh recommend that the that the item be
approved. I believe the architect is online. Uh, Mr. Ramos, if you can raise your hand. His hand is raised and you're welcome to present. >> Hi, Mr. Ramos. Can you hear us?
>> Uh, yes. Can you hear me? >> Uh, yes we do. Um, before you present, I just need to swear you in really quickly. >> Can Okay. >> Can you hear us, Mr. Ramos? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Awesome. Um, Mr. Ramos, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you will be giving in this proceeding is
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> All right. Thank you. And um in the interest of time, since we have a full agenda, we usually have a 10-minute um time limit for a presentation and I will be enforcing it. But um if an applicant desires more time, they can um always ask the chair to extend it. Thank you,
Mr. Rams, you can proceed. >> Okay. Thank you. Um yes, the uh presentation includes quite a few uh drawings and if you can uh go to save time go to sheet 12, page 12. Yeah, this this is the actual uh uh
elevation and and and renderings that was presented at the last meeting. And there was a question. Uh I don't know if you can see my Can you see an arrow? >> We do not see an arrow.
>> Okay. The what uh what was asked was to simplify the front elevation and possibly uh do something with the tile that came up on the front wall uh up to the area of where the uh the big glass
element uh is above. Uh also the uh number two was the corner window. There was a question whether that corner window on the left side of the elevation uh which is actually a corner window of
uh of the kitchen where the window sits between the counter and the up uh and the the cabinets above. uh and then also the uh the material of the overhead door which you can see there in the uh in the
front elevation. If we go to uh sheet 12, the next page, I mean sheet 13. Yeah, this this in this elevation, we adjusted the uh material that was coming up the front wall. Uh these are the
street renderings that was coming up the front wall where the uh stair goes up to the entrance. Uh and we kept the material at the base of the steps that come into the first unit, which kind of matches the uh and ties into the
material that goes on the side elevation on the south side elevation of the property. And also uh we uh you can see partially on the uh the actual glass uh overhead door. So we're providing a glass
overhead door and the uh the glass can either be clear, frosted or tinted and it's going to be aluminum. And the uh also in in our we have two two uh two choices. We're we're in our choice.
We're keeping the corner window on the left side of that uh elevation, which is the window that faces the uh the street and then faces north from the kitchen in order to bring light. Uh if you want to
go, let's see to the next uh number 14. So, this is our primary choice. Again, here it shows the uh the glass overhead door, the uh material under the steps that comes around all the way to the other side to the side side elevation
and the corner window. These are the street renderings. Go to the next one. This is more simplified version without the landscaping where you can see the material wrapping around uh from the south side of the building
to the front under the base uh of the steps that come up to the uh to the entrance of the first unit. And you see the uh glass overhead door on the left and the corner window on the left.
And if you keep going to number 16, then you'll see the uh the different sides of the building and how it, you know, we're we're dealing with the uh the the question of the material uh the uh tile material that we have on
the on the building. You can keep going again. So, it's just different views of of how the material wraps around the the the building. Go to 19. This is the south elevation
uh showing where the material uh is on the on the facade. Next 20. Here you can see the other corner window which is on the on the kitchen on the right hand side of the elevation is the
other corner window that matches the the corner window from the front for the uh for that kitchen there which also looks to the to the east next. And here's uh uh the corner window also
more accented where the uh the kitchen's going to be which is the same as it is in the front and it's wrapping around uh the front elevation. Next, this shows you the uh on the right side the corner window and on the left side
the corner window where the where the kitchens are located. Again, the the corner windows are from the countertop to the the underside of the cabinets in the window. Next, this would be from the front.
Next, this is another view of the front. Next. Okay, this is version two. Uh it was suggested that we should look at trying to remove that corner window. So this this version of the elevation is
removing the corner window. Again, we're keeping the material under. We remove the material from the facade next to the entrance to the uh to the to the steps. kind of like to create more of a a
volume of of the same material coming down from the second and third floor. Uh next, this is the rendering showing the uh the front facade without that corner window. Next,
this is the rear elevation which would show uh on one side to the right side would be the the window that we're not making as a corner window which faces north and then on the left side we have the corner
window for that kitchen. Next, uh here's the front elevation without the corner window, just the window facing to the south. Uh and we feel, you know, strongly that we'd like to keep that corner window uh
based on the the continuity of the design of all the windows in the in the kitchen. We also want the people in the kitchen to be able to look towards the street. So in this case, they'll be looking just straight north. And and architecturally, I think we, you know,
we like the the first version that we originally uh created. Next, and here's another view of the of that uh facade without the corner window.
Let's see if you go to >> If you go to page uh 34. That's it. That's it. This is kind of like uh what uh we're thinking that the u the overhead door could be the materials. It could either be clear. The the issue with being clear is that
you would be able to see all the plumbing in the ceiling from from the from the uh from the the uh sidewalk in the front. So, we'd either make it uh tinted or uh
frosted depending on what the uh the board seems to think. And I think that's it. Thank you very much. Um, are there any other members of the public wishing to speak and chambers are online?
>> No hands raised online. >> Okay. I'm now closing the presentation and opening it up or closing the public portion. Opening up to the board for comment. Does anybody want to begin? Yes. >> Helio, can I I'm sorry. >> No, it's okay. Oh yeah.
>> Um on the page um the variance that's being requested to reduce the 3.6 to reduce by 3'6 in the minimum required sight set back. Is that 3'6
in or should it be 3t 2 in? They're required to have 20 set back 10 on each 10 feet on each side and they're going to have eight feet 4 in on each side. If if I'm thinking this
>> your math is correct is yes the the 10 ft or 10% >> read that >> one interior set back at 10 feet to reduce by 3'6 in >> just the the math is the math is off there it should be to reduce by
>> let me make sure let me make sure but I believe it's reduced by 1 foot >> 6 in the math So we go with her. >> Let me just double check the plans before I tell you the the subtraction is wrong. It should be just double check while we're talking. Let me just double
check the plans. >> But there's one more the variance to reduce the required 20 foot >> um building depth setback. um where it's normally 32 where it's normally um
they're reducing it to 15t 8 in >> right that's the up and the upper level >> that's a difference of 9 ft 2 in variance in instead of I believe 9'4 in so if you can also check that one as we do
>> discuss the project thank you >> um okay uh Gustavo thank you that I I'm very pleased with the new design. I know I was one of the people that had many comments on the last um at the last meeting with this one. Um so I really
appreciate you listening to us and giving us some options and um and just taking our our suggestions because I feel like what you did is were little tiny tweaks, but they really make the project um so much better. And I think
from the street view, this is this is just a better project for it. Um, with specifics, um, I never actually had a problem with or without the window. So, like I I'll I'll def at least from my perspective, I'll defer to you on which
of those options with with or without the window you prefer. Um, I I tend to like the third one with the little eyebrow. I think that that's my favorite. Um, but again, I'm not I don't have a strong preference either way. Um,
one or I guess two things that just I would suggest for you to do and can maybe consider with staff. Um, the first rendering for or if your version one rendering had a couple bulbous palms in the front
of that little landscaping area right by the front door. I would suggest incorporating something like that in whatever version you choose. I don't know if it was just the rendering only being on version one, but it didn't show up on two or three. Um, I do think that having some element of vertical
landscaping there in addition to the shrubs is something to to do. Um, and then one design comment, I'm not going to die on this hill, but I just feel like that wood cladding is now just on one side of the building. It almost
looks like it doesn't go with the rest of the project. And I'm very happy to not see it on the front facade. So, let me start with that. But maybe if there's a way to consider using that in other areas of the building that's not such a big piece as it was last time could be
something to consider just to bring that throughout perhaps maybe on the inside of the garage door wall or or something like that just to bring it to another piece of the facade. Um, but you know, if you if you don't agree with that, I'm not
>> What about along >> or Yeah, along the other along the u is that the the eastern side or um just the other side. Um just just so that it's not just solely on the one side is >> is my only comment. Um thank you for the
garage door. I think that that made a huge difference as well. Um so I'm I'm in support of the project. Oh, and then to clarify, can you bring up um page 30 of the presentation? Because actually on page 30, it does show that there is some
more. >> Oh, yeah. >> Along the side. So, which one is correct? Cuz some of the renderings have it and some of them don't. >> And by the way, there is bottle palms on the on the landscape plan. >> Oh, they are. Okay, perfect. Thank you, >> Mr. Ramos.
>> Reelio can >> Yes, I apologize. Does he have access? The Mr. Ramos, are you there? >> His hand is raised again, so he's not on. >> Do I need to turn this? >> Okay, we got it. We got you. >> Okay, you should be good.
>> Uh, which which area are you speaking about? The >> So, here, can you see the the the rendering that we're showing right now? Page 30. >> There was a question. Does the um the material the tile on some of the drawings you have it on this facade and
on others you don't? What are which one are you proposing? >> No, no, the they all have it on this facade. >> Okay. I guess it was just that one. >> Yeah. No, I think I think it is all on that one side. But I was just saying I I like the front facade largely as it is
and I I'm happy to see it not just on the first floor bottom, but maybe there's a way to consider bringing that through in other pieces. You know, looking at this image for instance, that side wall to where the garage door is on the left, maybe it's just on the inside
part of that wall or something just to bring some continuity to that that material. Um but really otherwise I'm I'm very happy um with how how this has come out. Um yeah, so thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Um >> you got to turn your mic. >> I second what the and have have just said before me. Um, this is a prime example of board working with community and and
everybody working together and you took the advice of these board members last time to now and you've produced a wonderful item. Um, >> okay. >> Kudos to you. Uh, it looks beautiful now serving on this board. I look out for uh
what is it? Uh, the lids. >> Oh, the eyebrows. >> Eyebrows. Eyebrows. Honey, I got some eyebrows. That's why I look I'm now looking for eyebrows. But um I I approve this. This is a prime example of what we can do here with you working together.
Just as suggestions, that's what they did. Prime example. I'm full support. >> Thank you. And I I agree. I I also appreciate the changes that you made and I think it was very thoughtful to include these variations um so that we can talk about it. Thank you. Um Adam,
did you have some comments? No, I'm all >> You're good, Scott. >> I was good with the windows in the first place, so >> Ah, okay. Okay. Yeah, I think I was I I um I think I I was the the window person. Um I want to I I have a clarification question about um the
garage door is because you showed us two different images. Are you proposing it to be frosted or clear? The question would be since since the uh the elevation of the floor of the garage is so high, it's about 4 and 1/2 ft off
the sidewalk that when you're walking down the sidewalk and you look through the garage door, the angle that you would see, you would be able to see the plumbing. >> Yeah. >> Uh on that's coming down and then dissipating to columns and then going
down. So, the question would be if if we make it either frosted or or uh or uh tinted, you wouldn't be able to see so much of the plumbing, you know, because if if if the elevation of the door was was at an elevation where you would look
straight in. Yes. But since >> since the the uh sidewalk is is a lot lower because of the flood >> condition, the flood elevation, and you'd be looking up in the ceiling. >> Yeah. I >> I'm glad that that's your response because I was going to recommend that my
preference is for frosted. Um I also I don't think that the facade needs any more of the um of the tile anywhere. I just like it along that corner and then along the side that follows it. Um and I do agree. I do like the the front facade
without that corner window. However, um my second choice and the one that I'd be willing to support um is the one that Laura mentioned at first, the corner window with the eyebrow on it. Um so I I think this is great. I thank you for um
the changes that you've made. Um and if somebody wants to pass a motion, it seems like the consensus. >> I'll support this procedural. Yes. >> I'll support you for procedural. Yes. Move on. So, it's variance. I'll make a motion that we approve that we approve
the frosted glass variance for the frosted window. Oh, no. No. So, >> or his version three. >> Okay. Version three. Thank you. >> So, to sum up, would somebody like to make a motion encouraging the applicant to use a frosted window on the garage,
to have the corner window with the eyebrow, and um does anybody else have So, I I like the tile as placed. Laura recommended maybe somewhere else. Does anybody else have a comment about where it should go? >> That's just a work with staff if it
looks good. If it doesn't, I'm not I'm not sure. >> And then with a recommendation to to see if it would look okay sort of on the inside of the wall leading into the garage, but it's not a condition. >> All right. So, I make a motion that we approve the project with the frosted
glass on the garage door and with the window that has the eyebrow corner window with the eyebrow and that they explore if the tile um can be located elsewhere on the project to do that with the administration.
>> I second. >> May I make one clarification with in regards to Miss Bagawali's comment on the variance? For variance number two, the variance should be reduced by 1 foot8 inches. There was some confusion when we were looking on the plans because they had a few projections um
that encroached into the setback. Those are not subject to this variance. So the so it so the reduction is 1 foot8 in. >> Okay. >> So we will revise that in the in the in the order >> and you want and we and we vote on the variances separately. >> Which you can or you can incorporate the variances into your motion.
>> Which of the variances are >> that's variance number two. >> Okay. So reducing the 3 point the 3t 6 in to 1t 8 in. >> Correct. >> And how about variance number five? >> Number five is correct. We checked the
math and that one's correct. >> So the 9 ft 4 in is correct. Okay. >> All right. >> So >> Okay. >> And and the your motion includes the variances. >> Yes. with the correction as stated for
variance number two that it be reduced to 1 foot8 in >> and I second that. >> Okay. All those in favor >> I >> I >> Any opposed? Motion passes.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um Let's see. >> Does anybody want to take a short break? Are you okay? >> I'm all right. >> I'm dying.
>> Okay. Um Okay. So, our next our next um item is DRB2510956 and 7 Ferry Lane. This application have been filed has been filed requesting design review
approval for the construction of a new three-story residence on two lots to replace an existing single family home including a connection through an air rights easement above a portion of the rightway adjacent to ferry lane. The application also includes a request for
variances from the required from yard setbacks for six ferry lane and seven ferry lane and one or more waivers. on July 10, 2025, the DRB discussed the item and continue to to today's hearing. >> Okay. So, thank you, Alejandro. So, the
um the applicant um received some guidance from the DRB regarding some proposed modifications that uh that they should consider. Uh the applicant has since submitted some revised plans. These plans uh include additional details regarding the materials, which is a comment that staff had. So, they're
providing an additional materials page that clarifies uh some of the concerns that staff had regarding the types of materials that were being utilized. Um the um the applicant also simplified several of the design elements on the facade. Uh they proposed simplifying the
eastern facade by removing the vertical slats or louvers um along the along that facade. On the waterfacing side, the the applicants simplified the balconies and roof overhang by designing them parallel to the facade. Previously they had uh they had an angle to them. Um and then
um and so these are the primary changes. Um staff believes the changes are cons are an improvement and and consistent with the direction of the board and staff is supportive of those changes. Um there were some questions regarding their easement um over over the ride ofway. Um that easement was approved by
the city commissioner at a public hearing on November 20th, 2024. um they had a prior first reading on October 30th, 2024 and then it was recommended by the finance committee uh months prior and they had had multiple hearings at the finance committee regarding this item. So that the the the easement was
granted by the city commission. Um so it's part of the the project that we have to consider uh before us today. So uh with that staff recommends that the application be approved with the with the proposed modifications that they'll describe to you. >> Thank you. Joseph Partardo, 1205 Lincoln
Road. I want to reintroduce to the board James McDonald, Royal Palm Companies, our principal designer. Andres Hullman, our principal architect, and Mr. Holly is our landscape architect of record. Madame Chairman, chairwoman, and members of the board. We're going to have Mr. McDonald run
through the design for those board members who weren't present at the last hearing, but I want to emphasize process matters. So, I want to take a few more moments and elaborate the process for how we got to where we are today. The property owner purchased the two properties in 2021. Uh market conditions
and the creative designing uh encouraged the property owner to see whether there was an opportunity to create a unified site plan that traversed over the public right ofway. There were conversations with staff and ultimately a land use item was presented from commission to
the land use committee to explore what that would look like. The recommendation from the land use committee was to commission an appraisal and uh at that point city staff and the property owner negotiated a reimbursement agreement whereby the property owner commissioned
the appraisal for what the value of those air rights over the public right ofway would be. Uh that recommendation went back to commission which referred it to the finance committee for further discussion. Uh at the time there was a a downzoning that was contemplated in the
area. This would have been aside from that a standalone land use board application. Uh Commissioner Magazine sponsored that item in the FK committee and at the first FK committee, Commissioner Dominguez encouraged us to reach out to the BER organization uh for
input not for direction but for input. I reached out to the bureau board and they encouraged us to uh not take a position but to recommend to the city and at that time to the finance committee how the public benefit those monies that would
be used to to to transact the easement uh air rights, how that public benefit should be allocated. And the recommendation to the city was if these monies are given to the city, we would like to see the public benefit to Bell Isle and Ferry Lane. And so the FK
committee recommended to the commission that uh the appraised value which was separately negotiated with the city at a 50% premium above appraised value uh be allocated to Bell Island and Ferry Lane. We went to the first commission reading.
We explained the process again and Commissioner Dominguez at the time suggested again it wasn't a mandate but a suggestion that of the $800,000 public benefit that was being allocated to the city that 300,000 go towards Bell Isle um at which point the recommendation to
the city from the property owner was that the balance of the public benefit would be used to improve very late that passed unanimously from both FK and city commission uh at two readings. So that's the procedural history of how we got here. Uh along the way, we were in
active discussions with the city for the air rights easement and what the rights and obligations of the parties would be. That air rights easement has not been finalized to the extent that it's still subject to process. We need to know that we have an approved design before any any money trades hands. We need to know
that the uh city is okay with the design and we have a building permit approved and process before any money transacts uh between the parties. So, that's the long- winded procedural history of how we got here today for you to now just consider the design element of this
project that we believe um is beautiful and and wonderful for all the reasons that James is going to explain. Um and and with that, I'll turn it over to him. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Joseph. James McDonald, uh 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue, Sweet 3000.
Are we sharing the screen? So, here's our house in the middle, seven and six Ferry Lane, waterfront view. To the left of our house is uh our neighbor, which was approved and under construction right now. And to the right is the future standard hotel.
These are two irregular lots. Uh six ferry lane is a landlocked lot which is 2800 approximately 2,800 square f feet and 7 ferry lane which is a waterfront property which is approximately 4200 square ft with a total F of 8,800 square
ft. There's a deadend lane as we know in between the two properties. So, we propose a design to bridge over that deadend street. And the first elevated level of the home was specifically uh located in the height that it is because we do have an FPL transformer
box at the end of this lane which we're still granting access to uh with the proper height underneath which is 17 ft. Here's the two properties located in a site plan here. And in context, here's the overall mass
of the house. Uh, in context with the neighborhood, we're not asking for any additional height to that house. In fact, we're a few feet below uh what is allowed by right. Another contextual view looking at the future development of the the side of
the island. We are also asking for a variance in setbacks at the ground level uh to bridge between the two properties uh as well as for two structural columns within seven ferry lanes 20ft uh front setback and the reason for that is
because between setback to setback we have just under 50 ft and that's quite a substantial amount to bridge. So, we're trying to reduce uh uh the amount of structure needed by adding these two columns within that 20 foot setback at a ground level. For those of you who
might not be familiar with the home, um on the left side here is six fairy lane with a twocar garage, service elevator, and stairs. And on the right, we have an open air covered parking uh with an open air understory with the uh primary foyer
to the house and a a small pool and jacuzzi. If we go up to the first living level of the home, we have a double- height living room with a kitchen and a chef's kitchen. And then we have two guest suites and a laundry room.
The next level up, we have an entertainment space and movie theater with three additional guest bedrooms. And on the last level, we have a master suite on one side facing the ocean. Um, with a roof terrace in between with a
lap pool and a spa above Six Ferry Lane. And above the deck of the master suite, we have a small terrace with a a plunge pool and a grill area. Now, uh, Joe mentioned that, uh, with
the air rights, uh, that was about 36,000 cubic feet. Of that 36,000 cubic feet, we're only occupying 33% of what we've purchased in AC space. This plan highlights uh the uh space
between the structural column that we're asking for with the setback waiver uh reducing our span from just under 50 ft to um 38 ft. Here's a section of the home that highlights the occupiable space above the right of way in the
middle here and a floor plan diagram highlighting the used space over this bridge between the two properties which is occupiable. And then for the materials of the home were consisted of four general materials
which is stucco, a light wood or white uh oak detail, travertine and a black dark metal which is consistent throughout the home. For landscaping, we want this home to feel nestled within the landscape. So a lot of lush tropical plants. We're also using planters
throughout the house for privacy and to give the house a gentler feel uh with its surrounding context. Again, here's an ocean view. To remind you, we're 3 feet below uh the allowable maximum building height with the home.
From a street view on Ferry Lane, this is looking at the entrance of the house and the dead end uh lane between. We're trying to create a a portal or entry or front-like feel to the home. And to the right of us there is um a 3D model of
our neighbor's house which is currently under construction and approved. And I'm going to go back to this slide really quickly. The last time we presented we were proposing an additional element of vertical wood louvers and uh it was the opinion that it was creating too much um motion or
just wasn't fitting with the uh remaining elevations of the home. So, we've removed those and we've actually extended some of the horizontal feature uh in front of our neighbor's house there of 8 Ferry Lane. Here's some elevations depicting the
material pallet of the home. Again, it's just four general materials. White Stuckco, the light wood, the black uh metal frames. Um and then here's a backside elevation which you guys um were asking for in the
last meeting. a side elevation here. You can see on the right hand side, we've removed those louvers as well as on the left hand side of six fairy lane and we've extended the horizontality of those planters on the right hand side of this elevation uh to
to blend in with the surrounding uh other elevations of the house. Here's a perspective rendering of that same elevation. Perfect. >> You need two more minutes. >> 30 seconds. >> Okay, great.
>> And again, from a landscape landscape perspective, um we're trying to make this house feel nestled within the property. And Joe mentioned some of the neighborhood improvements. Perhaps this is not a design proposal, but just maybe a a what if for Ferry Lane, we're
thinking of maybe repaving the streets and replacing that with pavers. And because of the hotel next door, perhaps adding some additional um security to that road to just prevent hotel guests from coming down. Um, and then coming
closer to the home on that street, we've rendered in here the house and how really it is nestled within that landscape and um, fits within its surrounding neighborhood. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Are there any um,
members of the public wishing to speak? >> Anybody online? Raise your hand, please. No hands raised. >> Okay. I'm now closing the public portion and opening it up to the board for discussion. Oops. Who would like to begin? >> Can I start? >> Yes, please. Scott,
>> thank you for your presentation. I actually think it's a beautiful presentation. Um, I had to prepare a statement because I did a lot of research on this item and I just have to speak my mind. So, I wrote this down so I wouldn't forget anything. Uh, this
project is in front of us only because it requires two variances, both of which are needed because of the air rights granted by the city. There's so much history of how Bellisle got to homes like this being developed, and I'd really like to go into that in detail on
another day, but I know we're on a tight schedule, but it's really important. It has a lot to do with process, and I have more history than anybody in this room, I would guarantee. Um, again, I don't have issue with >> Feel free to say what to make your point. This is what we're here for.
>> It's way too long. The cont I will just I'm going to go off script for one minute. The context of that house um the house to the left of it to the east of it is being built by a person that vehematly opposed the original 40story
fourstory, excuse me, threetory house that was going to be developed on Ferry Lane next door to it. All the neighbors opposed it, but it was an understory and staff, planning department, many of you who are not here, went nuts over it. They went crazy. It was the first
understory proposal. Um, naturally, it never got built, but it set a precedent. And what if three stories was the first one, by the way, people used to not even try to build two stories there. Three stories was precedent. He never built that. And these applicants later bought
this land that he paid one for 1.4 4 million. They paid 5.7 just for the waterfront land. So, let me go back to the background of this because I don't want to go. It's a rabbit hole. I asked to defer this item last time so
that I could do some research. I um I had never heard anything about this. And so, I I met with five commissioners about this. I spoke to Joe, the the new attorney, who I got to say, he's a delightful guy. Um he's a good guy. I
hold none of him accountable for any of this. But um I spoke to him. I spoke to both the president and the secretary who takes the minutes at Bell Residents Association as well as a lot of residents who I speak to all the time. What I discovered is that there was very
little knowledge by the public about this. And from what I could gather, there was zero public comment at any of the times this was discussed at the various committees or commission meetings. Everything just kind of sailed through the process. As Joe said, it
went from commission to finance and finance figured out what this would cost. Um, and then it went back to commission for a second reading after being the aisle residents being told and it really never went to a land use kind of thing or had any public debate about
the actual bridge and air rights. So to most of the commissioners, I spoke to five commissioners. By the way, the one I did not speak to was Commissioner Magazine. I had reached out to him three times. He actually called me at 10:00 last night and texted me this morning on my way. I I didn't have a chance to talk
to him, but I started over a month ago to speak to him. Um, so I'm not and and again, I hold nobody individually at responsible for this, but the commissioners I spoke to remember a
discussion just referring it to finance to get a value for the air rights. there seemed to be no discussion the implications of precedent. The they didn't even really a lot of them didn't even remember that this being a big deal at all. So the ones that did remember the item were told that precedent had
already been set by the building of two other areas for the uh over roads for the Betsy Hotel and Trader Joe's. In fact, the resolution that the commission passed on June 28th at the commission meeting, one of those whereazes stated, "Whereas the city has previously
approved pedestrian bridge connector projects such as the connectors for the Tides and Betsy Hotel. However, in this case, the grantees will be developing three levels of habitable improvements within the Skybridge connector having a total of approximately 1,841
I think square feet which will include a private balcony de blah blah blah. There is no mention from what I gathered in my meetings with the commissioners that this had ever been done over that this had never been done over a residential street and that it would set a precedent
particularly in this neighborhood with ferry and century lanes which have been the subject of just insane amounts of gigantic projects being proposed that would never fly anywhere else in the city. Although this was acknowledged in
all documentation that this is a required resident's right to know item. Apparently the system has been broken for quite a while now and the residents aren't getting any information about residents right to know. I know that I am on the resident's right to know and I
never received a thing about it. I have Fairy Lane, Century Lane, Bell Ale Development, everything you could think of that would trigger it. I never received a word about it. Um, I actually searched for all my email looking for Fairy Lane, Air Rights, Bell Ale, etc. There was nothing from the Bell Ale
Residents Association. Nothing from residents right to know. Uh, nothing. So, in in fact though, the reason I knew about the guy being opposed to it next door, I had emails from 2012 about people fighting this development on on
on Ferry Lane and Century Lane and talking about how it would forever change the character when 40 ft was proposed. Um, this item was never on a bureau agenda. It was discussed casually in a meeting. Basically, they were told it had been approved by finance and the
city would use the 300,000 to go towards the dog park if it got approved. They figured quite rightly it was a done deal and historically they have been unable to stop any other large houses in the neighborhood over the years. They never sent any type of
communication to residents regarding this. Um, again, I don't blame them. They're in a bit of disarray. They've had some drama with the standard. They're probably a little gunshy right now, but it it's just been not a very communicative organization for a couple years now. Besides the fact that this
was not known to any residents that I could talk to, I do believe that the planning department Oh, excuse me. I do not believe that the planning department clearly communicated the implications to commissioners or to the DRB of approving
this. There seems to be no reference that this was going to create a precedent in a residential community. When I brought this up to the commissioners I did speak to, they were concerned about this setting of precedences. Some of them actually offered to meet with me separately to
discuss drafting legislation to prevent something like this going forward. Now, let's get back to the variances in question. The variances are both needed to build structural columns to make the bridge work. That was only possible because the commission has granted air
rights. From the staff report, quote, "Given the necessity to connect to the easement of this portion of the lot, the required setback does present a hardship and practical difficulty. Due to the hardship and practical difficulties
identified, staff has no objection to granting of the requested variances. Additionally, staff has concluded that the plans and documents submitted with this application comply with following the hardship criteria as they relate to requirements of section 2.83 in Miami
Beach City Code. And based on that, the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. So this is where my problem ma remains with staff and not necessarily you but
in general the planning department. This is not the first time before us that an applicant has altered the land and then made an application to the DRB and claimed a hardship with the planning department's agreement based on conditions and circumstances which do
not result from the action of the applicant. So if this had never been requested, this applicant would never this this variance would never be an issue because they could never build this. There have been other instances in the planning department of greenlighting projects and advocating for us to grant
variances that set precedent, but there's been no discussion of the precedent. Some of these precedents have permanently changed the character of neighborhoods and prompted threats of lawsuits if similar variances are not granted on subsequent projects.
Sometimes these variances have occurred with strong opposition from the community and immediate neighbors, particularly on Bell Isle, although not in this particular case because we've talked about that in my time on the DRB going on 6 years now. I saw this with
the lot split on Hibiscus Island when an application went to the planning board and got permission with staff's advocacy to split one lot into three. That later applicant came to the DRB with a proposal to build three homes on those
lots, all of which needed up to 11 variances to build, claiming a hardship because the shapes of the lot that they split were irregular and difficult to build on that. I think my quote was that really pisses me off and I think I was
the only one that voted no on it. Although the planning department had issu Oh, okay. Another example, we recently saw a proposal on Century Lane to aggregate three lots to build a massive five-story tall single family home, which was an absolutely absolute
gut punch to the neighborhood. Although the planning department had issues with some of the design elements, they did not object to the aggregation of three lots, even though Cold specifically states only allow you're only allowed to aggregate two in this neighborhood. I
was not in attendance that day partially because of a very aggressive letter from an attorney. Ultimately, the DRB denied the application based on the lot aggregation even before much of the design was discussed. That applicant has now put those properties, their forever
home on the market for $14 million, complete with a picture of the project that was denied along with text in the description that reads, "Three parcels offering unmatched flexibility with a five-story build height allowing for up
to 14 luxury units or a grand private estate. Make no mistake, the implication of granting variances which set precedent is enormous. The types of home that are homes that are developed depend on what
is allowed to actually be built. Since new waterfront homes command over $6,000 per foot in this market and dry lot homes max out at 3,000 per square foot, less than half. You can imagine the
incentive for people to do this going forward and to lawyer up to make sure that it's done because precedent has been set. The precedent that air rights connecting waterfront with nonwaterfront lots over public streets in residential
neighborhoods has not been done. And the pre it's enormous for the and it's enormous. And so again, I I have no problem with the design. I think it's a beautiful design. I think it fits in with what other things have been allowed. By the
way, the standard, it was approved by this board, but the commission has not touched it until after this election. It's very controversial as we've all heard. So, that's not a done deal yet. And I actually don't have a problem with that, but just letting you know. So the
precedence back to that that connecting air rights with waterfront with nonwaterfront lots over public streets in residential neighborhoods is the reason that I cannot vote for this. Um and I would
like to say there is a reason variances require a vote of this board and I believe the planning department needs to take a serious look at how they deal with these requests. um the amount of money that's at stake, the attorneys and the skill that are
being hired. I will be speaking with commissioners going forward about this and I will ask time to discuss this on the agenda in a future meeting. So that is where I stand and I hope you understand. But I have lost countless hours of sleep and you can imagine how
many hours it took me to piece this together. It was unbelievable and there's a lot more coming. So, I'm voting no. I'm asking my colleagues to do the same. And uh there's one other thing I'd like to say. In November,
early November of 2024, the city the voters overwhelmingly passed that no city land or rights to city land can be passed without a referendum. This had a second reading after that vote was passed. I don't know the legality of that. I'm not here to
start a lawsuit. And this is not my big issue. I'm not on your issue, but I am on the the connecting waterfront with non-waterfront over public lands. Um it's it's just I can't do it. So that's all and I'm sorry for taking so much time.
>> Thank you for that very informative statement. Um who else would like to speak now? Um, I'd like to thank the presenters that are here today, but I most like to thank Scott for his time and the
research and the background and the information that he's afforded this board. Um, I have a question. This easement that is being bridged over, is it a utility easement? What is on that street?
>> There currently is no easement in place. And I want to emphasize that with as much bravado as I can. The administration and the owner had negotiated terms on which they proposed to the commission an easement could be granted. The
commission then considered those economic terms which were subject to the design that was being submitted to the commission. The same design that was submitted to the committee, the FK committee. That is the proposal that's before you. And so the form of that
easement which is to build over the public right of way. >> So let let's go away from the word easement. That street does it have any utilities? >> The street itself doesn't have utilities but in between ferry lane and on the other side the standard is a utility
vault that's accessible on the one side from the standard side. But in an abundance of caution, in the event that a future development of that site would not allow a truck to get through whatever future road might be on that side, we wanted to ensure that there was
enough height o under which an FB >> What is the height? >> 17 ft. >> 17 ft. >> All right. Um there's also a picture that you all proposed as a possibility of something that could uh be done with the money
granted to the city for this airite and it's a street closure so that people from the standard do not go down that street. >> It would be a recommendation to the city on how they might allocate the funds conceptually.
>> Yeah. understand that streets are public land and to close them off to any resident wishing to enter um is is wrong. But in addition to that, it also creates an ambiance that this is
a private property. So, not only are you blocking the street that goes with that proposal, and it's I understand it's only a proposal. Not only is the street being blocked, but the the other street um is being blocked
as well. The one that is with the bridge. >> I would analogize Sunset Harbor, excuse me, Sunset Island 1 2 3 4 Palm Hibiscus Star. They're all public roads. Even though there is a gate, it's publicly accessible. It's not closed to the public. >> Right. Do you have a guard gate? >> And and for that,
>> who pays for that guard gate? Uh everything here is a public road. And there is a guard gate and it's paid by the homeowners. So that's different. We have access as residents. Um so I um I'd like to hear from the rest of the board
members as to what they and these are just my comments. I'm not speaking as to design. I think there's bigger issues here before we even consider design. >> Um so I leave it to the rest of the board members to discuss.
>> Thank you. Does anybody else ask? Gabriel, >> I've spoken I' I've spoken enough. So, I'm going to let my colleagues speak. >> Yeah, I mean, thank you for your presentation. I agree. The design is is
great. I appreciate the the the changes you made to add the horizontal planners. I think, you know, one of my concerns with speaking on design at least was it looked too much like a hotel before. I think that this really helped with that. Um but yeah, Scott, thank you for your
um research and reach out and reaching out to all of the members in the history here. Um >> I guess where I'm maybe not fully understanding, you know, the history here. Um the project to the east that
has been approved to me looks very similar in style and character to their house. And I realized, you know, obviously they didn't have the same um easement issue here. Um like I I don't know if is are is the is
your issue with the actual easement like the bridge over or is it of the next the height and things like that? the one next door after initially opposing what was going to happen and saying they were going to move back to the neighborhood, they never they they
proposed a three-story house, then they withdrew and added a four-story house. They're not trying to cross a street that it's a te that kind of ends on that. >> And so they're tiny lots. Let's face it, they're all tiny lots. It has nothing to do with the actual design or height on
this case. It is crossing a public street which I have said over and over the streets are small. If this was not a public street to combine lots like it's it's not an issue but it's a public street and you're combining waterfront
with nonwaterfront. Clearly there were two houses built on those separate lots before. We are talking about a 30 plus million house. So again, I don't want to get off track, but the precedent that this sets to connect waterfront with
nonwaterfront doubles the co the doubles the the sale price. So once again, how many of us are able to afford a $30 million house? And that has nothing to do with it. We we oppose we we >> we do them all the time.
>> Whether I agree with them or not, I I vote for them all the time, even some variances. So this is the public right of way. And again, I do not feel like any commissioner really understood the implications of this. It it even says in the air rights, if this is not granted
by the DRB, it goes away. >> And so I hate to hold you hostage. You are the your your design is beautiful. I have no issue with that. This is a precedent and I will not be part of it. I you I've said my peace. I will sleep now. no matter how anybody.
>> Madam Chairwoman, if I may, I am going to push back respectfully and that is not to um dissuade the very passionate comments you made or the factual history of this project. This board's purview is not economics and it's not uh the the
easement. The policy, the public policy and the process through which that easement would be approved was addressed. land use fk commission commission unanimous approval. And so, if I may,
this board may not consider whether or not an easement is a good idea from a public policy perspective. Your job is to look at the design and I would encourage you as you vote on this matter to consider the design. Thank you, Mr. Diffender, for confirming you love the
design. >> With that in mind, I yield back. >> And you are absolutely right. Um, I'm not an attorney and it's why I wrote and didn't want to discuss because I didn't want to go on a tangent or get involved in something that does not affect our
purview. So, I will go back to the purview. I have a big problem with staff calling this a hardship that was not created by the applicant when indeed the hardship is the result of a bridge that was gotten and I don't think it went
through proper public discourse. So if the bridge wasn't there you wouldn't need the variance. If you didn't need a variance you wouldn't come to us. So you need a variance to build it because of the bridge that you asked for. It was not there to begin with. So, I
will respectfully and very respectfully because I really like you push back and I do not have an attorney. I'm not a freaking attorney. And if I was, I would have made tens of thousands of dollars on this little case. So, >> I I take offense to that. I apologize.
>> So, that's where I am with that. It This is why I'm pissed with staff. And it's not you guys. It's it's who whoever it goes to the top. When you you divide a lot or you combine a lot, you have created the difficulties and needing a
variance. If you didn't need any variances, build it. You wouldn't have to come to me. And I'm not pissed at you. I am pissed at this planning department. I I do think too that the the way that the lots are set up with the the public
land bifurcating the two private lots is almost akin to the three lot aggregation that we just saw on the century lane. um it's maybe giving it's it's basically equating to three lots um where we where
we clearly do have you know variance approval and I I I don't know the code well enough to you know reference that but that that's maybe causing some hardship with how the massing is looking for this building >> I don't think we approved that we did not
>> um I would say Adam do you have some comments >> yeah I thank everybody that was great and so I'm trying to put on my head here in my hat to talk about setbacks and structure which is what I'm
looking at here in a diagram and keeping this um about the drawings and about what is what is listed here and I'm not trying to look at the hardships but I'm trying to understand a little bit the
structure that is requested to be in the setback versus the side of the house that is in and and what exercises have happened to reduce those amounts and what happens if you
didn't have as many variances you were looking for and and what I can see here is you know maybe the car can't park in the garage on on one lot potentially and
this is where my head is going is a pool causing so much weight that that the the the span of 38 ft is is so much concrete and steel that >> that if that wasn't there, would would
we be able to push the column line back? And if and if we had maybe a one less guest room, we could if the the massing of the waterfront house was pushed. I'm trying to see like how to how to how how to modify this potentially to not come
here asking for things to trying to be trying to make some people happy and and try to have the discussion go this way. >> Let me answer it this way which is the the commission approved conceptually the policy of an air rights easement pursuant to the design that we proposed.
That design which includes the skybridge fundamentally requires structural support. It's it's a stretch over the public rightway and it does require structural support and the only place for that structural support is up against the setback. That is what requires the easement. Now, if I hear
you board member Meshberg, you're asking if we can come up with a structural analysis which eliminates the need for the setback variance and all we're looking at is the easement, would that pass muster? Uh, according to Mr. Differender, I don't know. uh our
position would be then we would remove the need for a variance altogether and we're looking strictly at the design. So if that's a consideration that this board would like us to explore rather than um an alternative then we would explore that.
>> Um I would say I I first of all thank you very much Scott for all of your work and your research and um thank you. Um, and I also I was thinking to the point that you made about sort of what our
purview is and isn't. And I would say that and I should also say too that none of us are allowed to speak with one another before in between meetings about these because it is a public process. So conclusions have been made independently. Um, I'm very glad that
Scott did what he did and came to the conclusions that he did. I also feel very uncomfortable with the selling of air rights over public property. Um I'm also extremely concerned as was Myra about gating off fairy lane which please
don't propose that. Um, so but however, we are the design review board. And so that actually is part of my my objection in staying in my design lane is this idea that structures
straddling streets in residential areas from a design perspective, from an urban is just too much density. This type of design is wrong for our community. You can get away with it in a commercial area. um you can get away with it and
you know a small alley where there's a bridge between two small hotels. Um there are certain areas throughout the greater area that you have structures straddling streets and it works fantastic. I'm thinking of um Bickl City
Center. It's great. It's a great urban gesture and to put this multi-story private space on top of straddling a public street is from a design
perspective way too dense for what our structures are, for what our community is. Um, it it's it's the wrong gesture I think for Miami Beach. Talking about precedent, what my concern is as well is it's not just these public our city is
rife with residential areas that have streets that dead end and there's a there's a small street there and I don't want to set the precedent where other property owners and developers are coming in and wanting to create homes that straddle these streets as well. And
Scott's point about the um the market is just there to prove that this is going to keep happening. I don't think that Miami Beach from a design from an urban planning perspective should be full of homes that straddle our streets. That is
just not the right gesture. And so, um I'm opposed to this as a concept from a design and urban planning perspective, which is exactly the purview of the DRB. So yeah, Madam Chair, um I would like to interject since uh there have been the
usage of the word president several times by the members um and the applicant and I would just like to clarify that um that a board's decision is binding only on a specific application and even though it's binding it is not um it does not set legal precedent only courts are
uh can set a legal binding precedent but you are here in a quasa judicial capacity um but I mean at the same time the board does have responsibility to inconsistent on the application that it receives, but your decision should be tied to the specific um facts that are laid out on this application.
>> I really appreciate that comment >> and I I hope that when other lobbyists come forward and they start to make an argument to us to pass something based on precedent that you bring that up because that's that's what tends to happen. And I think that that's Scott
and I are, >> you know, we we're the most experienced people on the board and it comes and thank you. Thank you for that comment. Madam Chair, if I may, if we look at the unique circumstances of this project, the unique process that this project has gone through, the unique posture that
this process is in, the fact that our clients came in after the fact that we've gone through the public process as best we could and that we're nestled in the corner away from a an Alton Road uh sort of public streetway, we would implore upon you consider just this
project, just this design, just this application as you make your vote, please. >> You know what? I wish I could, but there are this sort of setup is throughout the Venetian Islands. It's all over North Bay Road. There are so many situations. It's in Normandy Isle. There are so many
situations where you have two homes and then a dead-end street where I can foresee this happening throughout our community. So, as much as I want to treat your project uniquely like it deserves to be, unfortunately, this is the first of what we've seen and it's hard not to. This is not a unique
situation throughout the city. So, >> if I hear you correctly, you're not going to follow your city attorney's guidance and you're consider this as precedent for other projects, which I don't think is inappropriate. >> All I'm saying is that it concerns me to do this once to then have other lobbyists come through to say, "Hey, you
did this already or to then lobby the commissioners to be like, hey, there's precedent. The DRB approved this over here." So, whether you call a president with pre president, whether it's legal or it's not, I'm not a lawyer. It's not my job to parse language. I'm just saying that this is going to be treated
as precedent and it is going to be it is going to become a model for other projects and I think that that is a conceptual mistake that the city could make. And so I I don't agree and I you know I appreciate the effort that has gone into your design. I really
appreciate that you incorporated the suggestions that we had to make. Um, but it's it's the design straddling a street is what I have a problem with. >> However, that being said, this committee will
vote on this project one way or another based on its design and the word uh density uh was used um you know the the size of structure was used before. I have a question for OSHA. Yes.
>> Um which is more of a procedural question. Um so the commission approved this um sale of the air rights on November 20th of 2024. At that point the commission was aware
of the vote from Miami Beach voters that they wanted any sale of land to go to referendum. Um because that happened I believe Scott you would know the exact date but it happened at the beginning of
November 2024. Am I right in my sequence of events or >> um I can't really uh I'm not really super aware of the actual timeline, but um are you are you trying to discern? >> I'm just trying to figure out, you know, we had an election beginning of
November. >> Correct. >> Um usually the first week of November, the first Tuesday of November or something along that line. And then we had on November 20th a commission meeting. Um and by then the votes were
already accepted by the commission at a previous meeting >> which usually takes place after the election. >> Correct. >> So by November 20th when they approved the sale of these air rightites >> they were aware of
the fact that residents or voters did not want sale of public land which includes air rights unless there was a referendum. So, if you could just get back to this board just as a a matter of knowledge, a
general knowledge, which whether it was approved properly or not doesn't matter because we're here to approve a design and and no more no less than a design. But I just have that question because unfortunately that approval is what
brings this project to this board today. >> Madam Chair, if I may, there's no sale of air rights going on. there is a contractual easement which is a trade of responsibilities under which our use of the air rights not sale our use of the air rights we don't believe the referendum
>> thank you for that correction >> yeah and I'll let you just uh also follow up and say that um it had its initial approval before the referendum um in referendum language uh the charter amendment specifically um exempt the projects that were awarded prior to the election >> that's what happened
>> but the commission meeting that finally approved it was on November 20th Uh, correct. But um I believe there's a prior um there's a there was a prior approval for that. >> So why come back on November 20th? >> Second reading. >> Second reading because the second
reading was by the time second reading occurs the vote the election had already occurred. >> So they could have stopped it at second reading. And I if you could just look into that for us because unfortunately it is that action that brings this
project to us. And to us as a board we look at it not whether the commission did or did not do the right thing. Whether an easement is the thing to do over a public street. Um that's not for this board to decide. What this board is
deciding is on the design and the density of this design. And I think they all think the design is beautiful. However, it is it it is a big structure. Uh and obviously it's over three lots.
Um but it does appear as a big structure >> and um it does create density uh on what could be something less densed if I may. >> And then I'm sorry. And then, you know, we have our board member that brought up
the issue of the pool and the weight of the pool and does that require you to then bring and require these variances to bring the um structure closer to the street without having the required
setbacks. So, I I um I I don't know if there's any other board members that wish to speak. >> If you could let us continue, I want to move things forward. Um, I will also say too because you brought up the other three lot combined that we talked about. That was that was the big issue with
that one. It was just too dense in this small street. The design and I'm really trying to stick to design issues here as much as we can. Um, so I don't know, Laura, are we going to add some more? >> No, I mean that's that's that's just
really I think the issue I'm seeing with it. It's almost like getting this easement grant added another lot. >> Granted, you don't have your first floor and you have 17 ft of open space, but I think that's what's causing this massing issue. Um,
and and I know we clearly have purview of a three lot submitt um ordinarily. Um, so I think that may that's that's where I'm I'm seeing I'm seeing some strife, but um that's that's really all I have. IO, it
um Scott mentioned and I want you to confirm that in this area the um accumulation of more than two lots is not allowed. You cannot combine more than two lots and if you do, does it
need to then go to the planning board? Is this considered a combination of more than two lots? >> So that's correct. More than two lots is not permitted by the code. That if the only way around that would be by the granting of a variance by this board >> by this board. >> From this board. Yes.
>> Is this then considered a accumulation of more than two lots? >> It's it's technically two lots there. The the the middle is not technically a lot. It's an easement. So it doesn't follow the definition of what is a lot per >> even though there's a bridge on the air rights. Correct. Connecting the two
lots. Okay. >> And this was by the city attorney's office. Technically, it's not even an aggregation of two lots because the two lots don't touch. Um, for an aggregation of lots, they have to be touching. So, they're essentially two independent lots
>> um that do have an air rights easement touching, but the lot line, they don't have a shared lot line. >> Was the square footage of allowable >> Sorry. Was the square footage of allowable air >> within the F limit? We're not asking for a square a single square foot more
height, density, nothing more than we would otherwise be allowed on the two separate lots alone. >> So the the two floors that are bridging are three floors that are bridging >> could be on correct could could be two
two tall buildings on either side. >> Um I'm going back to the setbacks. I'm trying I'm trying to go back there. So you're you're connecting there's that is there there's it's I'm going I'm circling back
to what Laura saying with the with the three lots because we're we're like we're we're crossing over there's no setbacks on the second floor or the third floor and we're we are lot line built on there and
I I don't know I'm just trying to wrap my head around around the what the the variance is being requested for and I'm and I'm looking at it in section and >> it's the column that has to sit on the lot line to support the sky bridge
across that's it >> and then the sky bridge itself >> this well the sky bridge itself is subject to the easement that the city has co-signed but yes the the sky bridge does cross over and up to the the lot line itself by necessity >> from setback to setback back. It's
nearly 50 ft. >> I'm also going to make the argument that the concept of the design is part of what we're here to discuss. And the concept that you're presenting to us involves a sky bridge across a public street. And that's that's what I don't
think is appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate for this context. And we make decisions based on context. That's that's what we do. So, I I would like to say I do not support this project. I do not support the design for this
neighborhood. I don't know if any of you would like to continue the discussion. If anybody has any other points, >> I just have the Would the board feel differently? I I'm I'm I'm I know we don't have any time to do this. We have all the time to discuss the
>> Would the board feel differently if this was a bridge and not four bedrooms and a pool? I'm just I'm asking everybody here >> like it is is truly it's truly what it is. You have two lots. They want to connect. I get it. You have lots of F.
It works better. I I would want my garage and my guest rooms on one one lot and I want my main living quarters and I would want them connected. I would not want to cross the street if this was my my uh >> sweet spot. Um would the would the board
feel differently if it was a bridge, a real bridge, a connection, not a >> me personally, I would not see it differently. But I I do have one question, Roelio. If these are two separate lots, what is the maximum unit and lot coverage allowed on each of
these lots? So um the maximum these these are this is the RM1 district. It's not a single family district. So they use F. Uh the F is 1.25. So that would be >> 3546 >> 3 >> which is bigger than the size of the
lot. >> Right. So maximum F. Yep. That's correct. >> And the same thing with lot seven. However, they're so >> they're proposing less than the maximum F, >> right? And the only way you can get to
the maximum F is if you build up, I guess, you know, in which is what they're doing in this case, but they're not building to the maximum that they can build. >> They're a little bit lower than the maximum height for this district. And if it were e even if it were treated
as two separate properties which they are uh with two separate homes you still would go with F not unit and lot coverage even though it is a residential home. >> Correct. >> The primary use is residential. >> Correct.
>> Not multif family or because of the RM1. >> Thank you >> Laura. Um, I was just responding to Adam, your question. Like I was I was that's what I've been asking myself too. Like I I feel like if if the bridge was
there and it wasn't use of an easement for an extra lot, um, I I think that would largely address my concerns with it as
it is. Would that look good though from a design perspective? I'm not so sure. And so I I don't know. And yeah, I I don't know. That's >> Have we considered removing the scar bridge between the two structures?
>> If you remove the sky bridge, you have two single family homes on two separate lots. >> Yeah. But >> still the same >> but but making it exclusively a bridge and not a couple guest suites. You're you're now unwinding the conceptual design which formed the basis of the
land use fk and commission approval. You're going back to economic terms. You're revisiting policy that's already been conceptual. >> Actually, we're trying to help you try to help make it work. I'm I'm trying. I'm like, if you came to us with with a variance to sort of, hey, I want to max
out my lot coverage >> because I want to size down >> the bridge and not make it a threetory structure over the road. I I don't know. I feel like we could have that discussion potentially.
>> And that's why I asked about the bridge. Like I know it's skinny and it maybe it's one story or it's two stories and it maybe still h can have a lot on top of it but it's circulation versus the bedrooms and the the mass of it. >> Did you have some comments?
>> No problem design. >> Oh, speak microphone. So I actually have no problem with the design and the far rights don't really seem I know it's precedent but it doesn't seem to uh I don't feel as strong as about some others but uh I'll wait till we vote. I
think we should vote soon about it but yeah >> okay >> does somebody want to try to make a motion? >> There are no wrong answers here. >> Oh actually just left. Well, um before the board votes, I just again I just
want to make it clear that um the application is probably before the board. Uh so whether you vote to approve or deny it um just as long as it's confined within the design criteria that is set before you. >> As long as >> as long as what? >> Oh, as long as long as your um voting decision is uh confined within design
criteria uh that is before you. >> Okay, I'll make a motion then. Yeah, we're basically making a motion to approve or disapprove the variances which is based which is for design you know so >> I think we've been clear with that but thank you foca
>> I think we should wait one second because Adam just stepped away and I think we need everybody's Adam stepped away for a sec >> sorry any other comments while we're waiting
um Now >> I can hear. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Thank you. Okay. Who would like to make a motion? >> I will make a motion. I'm just going to make a motion to deny the variance. And the only reason I am denying the
variance on this is because variances are required because of hardships. the following hardship criteria based on uh hardships and practical difficulties identified
and that is based on that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. This variance is required because the applicant had the action of purchasing two separate pot plots of land and then
went to try to combine them with air rights. So that was created by the applicant and that is why I'm denying the variance. >> Bara, is that legally acceptable to deny it on based on that before we
make a a vote? Yeah, we do that all the time. >> Well, hardship is part of the designer review criteria. So, if >> Scott is finding that there's >> hardship has has to not be part has to has to not be on the behalf of the applicant. >> Okay.
>> And it isn't it it's it isn't just up to the planning director and and department, but also up to this board to decide if there is truly a hardship or not. So we are in our rights to say okay I just want to make sure
>> it is up to you to make that >> thank you. >> I second motion to deny there's two variances so this would be include both both variances >> both variances are for the same reason. >> Okay. All those in favor >> I
>> I >> I >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Do >> we need a motion on the project as well? >> Um, there should be one on the project. The project's essentially moot, but but
it would be best to have the record. >> There is no project if you don't approve the varian. >> Yeah, I would suggest and let your city attorney confirm that once you've denied the variance, the project is moot and we'll we'll leave it to the variance issue that's been raised by the motion. >> There should be some conclusion of the
>> Thank you. Okay. >> What the conclusion should be >> deny the deny the design or >> it's designed. >> Okay. >> Should the I there there should be a conclusion to the to the design because that that was just the variance >> the because there's two pro there's two
issues. There's the design review approval and the variance. The motion was specific to the variance. So there should be a conclusion on the design either uh with you know uh deny the application essentially would be the >> Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion related?
>> Motion to deny the application. >> I second. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I heard I heard a motion by Miss Kaboli. The second. I apologize. I missed. >> That was me. >> Oh, you. Okay. Um, all those in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? Nope. Motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Our next item is DRB 251086,
formerly known as DRB24-1015 1801 Alton Road. This application is requesting a modification to a previously approved project that consisted of the construction of a of a new one-story commercial building including a variance from the minimum landscape requirement bordering a
temporary provisional surface parking lot a building a property line street or sidewalk and one or more waiverss replacing an existing two-story commercial building. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to retain the existing two-story commercial building and is requesting variances for the
continued use of the existing parking lot lighting to maintain existing asphalt hardscape and maintaining existing landscape borders around the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to modify the design of the proposed building to include an elevator and a staircase to
allow access to the roof deck and the and a green roof. >> Okay. So, this this um application uh this is a modification to a previously approved application. The application previously became came before the board for the approval of the one-story
commercial building. It was a a Chase Bank building on the corner of the of the site. The applicant was at that time proposing to demolish the two-story structure that's existing. Now, the applicant is here for a modification. They're proposing to still build that one-story structure, but they want to
keep the the two-story structure that that is currently on the site and connect the two. As part of the application, they'd be they'd be uh building a green roof deck on the one-story building that and the building would be connected to the existing two-story structure. So, they would they would sort of be integrated. Um the
applicant is requesting variances to keep the existing parking lot that's on the site. Um so the two the the variances are the following. The first one is um a variance regarding the minimum illumination levels for parking
structures. Um the code requires uh a specific minimum illumination. Uh the the lot already has existing lighting. The applicant wishes to keep that existing lighting. They they don't want to include new lights as part of that application. Um at some point they propose they're going to be proposing to redevelop the rest of the site and
remove that existing building, but for the in the meantime they just want to keep that parking lot as it is. Um they're requesting a variance um regarding the design surface parking lots. Um the code requires open air parking lots uh to be constructed with either a high albo surface or a porous
uh pavement. Um again, they're proposing to keep the existing asphalt. So they're not they're not going to be complying with those with those requirements. Um and then another variance for the landscaped areas in permanent parking lots. Um they want to propose keeping the existing landscaping that's on that parking lot and not have to provide the
new landscaping that would be required for a new parking lot. Um given that this lot is existing, uh they're not proposing to reconfigure the site in these areas where the parking lot currently exists. Um that does present uh the code requirements do present a practical difficulty to the applicant.
Um and staff is supportive of the granting of those variances. Um and staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the attached draft order. >> Okay. Good morning board members. Uh my name is Kendrick B Jr. on behalf of the applicant Santa Elena Holdings LLC. My
address is 3800 Northeast 1st Avenue Sweet 200 in the city of Miami. I'd like to begin by thanking staff for their presentation and their recommendation of approval. And on behalf of the applicant, we accept all the conditions set forth in the draft order. Um, so just by way of background, uh, this
property is located at the corner of Alton Road and Date Boulevard. Um, some of you may recall that last year you approved an application to build a twotory, excuse me, a one-story commercial building and to demolish the existing two-story office building on this property. Since then, the property
owner has consulted with their tenants and decided that the best way to move forward is to retain the existing two-story office building um, while still constructing the one-story commercial building, which brings me before you today. Um uh the property is approximately
if I could get my presentation. There we go. Uh and there's the diagram of the proposal. Okay, this doesn't work. It's okay. The property is approximately 1 acre in size uh and is zone CD1. You can see it
highlighted in yellow here. Um the property again is improved by a two-story office building that was constructed in 1982. Um, it's gone through several internal renovations over the years, but its use as an office building has always remained the same. Um, some of you are very familiar with this property. Um, it sits at the
intersection of two key commercial corridors. Again, Date Boulevard and Alton Road. So, to the west you have a retail shopping center. To the north you have a Walgreens. Uh, to the east you have Publix and nearby. Construction has begun on the Whole Foods for Alton Road. Um, so this is an area where residents do their daily errands, whether that be
shopping, banking, buying groceries, and the applicant is mindful of this uh properties uh role within that context. So, as I mentioned, in 2024, this board approved an application to demolish the existing two-story office building and construct a one-story commercial
building. That appro at approval included several variances and waiverss. Um because of the changes proposed to the uh uh project um staff requested that we return to amend the prior approval. So this application seeks to amend the
2024 approval by retaining the two-story office building while continuing with the construction of the previously approved one-story commercial building and substituting the variances and waiverss approved in 2024 with the following updated requests. A variance to utilize the existing parking lot lighting. A variance to retain the
existing asphalt paving. a variance to retain uh to legalize the existing landscape borders on the property and a waiver of the code's pedestrian circulation zone requirement uh which requires uh again a pedestrian circulation zone along frontages greater than 150 ft.
So this is uh a rendering of the project as proposed and again uh just demonstrating the retention of the two-story office building and the construction of the one-story commercial building that was previously approved. Um staff has noted that this iteration uh produces a better design outcome than than what was approved in 2024 and we
agree um particularly because uh last year's approval would have uh effectively replaced the office building that you see here with an empty parking lot. So uh the design of the one-story commercial building remains largely uh the same.
I think my mic just turned off. There we go. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, so the design of the one-story commercial building remains largely unchanged from the 2024 approval. Um, the only modification that staff mentioned is a stairwell and elevator uh
lift to get to the the uh green rooftop deck and those improvements won't be visible from the street. Um, it goes without saying that those minor changes don't uh uh detract from the overall design intent. So, some of the highlights of the updated landscape plan include uh new
10-ft sidewalks along most of the frontage, um a green rooftop on the one-story commercial building, which you can see highlighted in green here, um and Florida friendly landscaping to soften the site's appearance. And it's our hope that these improvements will enhance the pedestrian experience between Sunset Harbor, Palm View, and
Lincoln Road. Um, in conclusion, this project built on the vision approved in 2024 um by preserving uh the neighborhood's commercial character, improving walkability, and enhancing a key commercial intersection. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.
>> Thank you very much. >> Sure. And the design team is here on Zoom Zoom if you have any specific questions about the uh the plans. >> Okay. Do they want to present anything or >> um if they're not raising their hand now, I imagine we're okay. >> I see no answer. >> Okay. Okay, >> good to know though. Thank you very
much. >> Um, are there any other members of the public wishing to speak? >> Any other hands? >> Anybody with your hands? Anybody please raise your hand if you'd like to speak? >> No hands raised. >> No. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I'm now closing the public portion and opening up to the board for comment. I have a
clarification and actually it would be for the design team. One of the I should say I can see why this is an improvement. Um, one of the the main questions I had was the section along Dade Boulevard where the old building
meets the new building. We don't seem to have a very good image of that and what we do it looks a little bit awkward. >> Okay. Um, let's see. >> It's not even in the presentation. Um,
I think >> looks like it's in front of >> Yeah, I think if you go it's in the in the plans, the architectural plans. Um, on page 27 is a rendering. Could you bring that up? >> So, this is as proposed. Um, but if it's
on page 27 of the plans. >> Yeah. >> To bring it up, too. >> Uh, I think our architect is on Zoom. Renee, do can you bring up those plans that page the plans? I see >> I see Gonzalez architecture with the
hands raised. >> That would be Renee. >> Can you share your points? >> Yes, I'm here. >> Hi. Um, before you present, I would like to swear you in. >> Okay. >> Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony that you will be giving in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. All right, thank you. You may continue. >> Okay, I'm actually pulling up the plans as we speak. Um,
>> one second. >> Okay. Page uh >> 27. >> 27. Yes, there's a rendering on 27 and then there's an elevation on page 43. just so everybody knows, you know, what we're talking about, >> right?
So, yeah, page 27 is uh the same as uh I think page seven of the PowerPoint. Um so, if you want to pull that up. >> Um >> Oh, then maybe I'm thinking of the elevation on page four. So, well, the image on 27, you can't really see where
the two buildings meet. um that that was you know which I think we already approved the design of the new building. So I really think that that's you know what we're here for to see how is the new going to interact with the existing. Um so if you could
bring up page 43 >> I guess it's just a we don't really have a rendering from Dade Boulevard. >> And then at the bottom there's a where it says propose comparison elevation. So yeah, unless Kendrick had uploaded into
the city for the presentation, I I can't Can I share on Zoom? >> No, >> I don't believe so. >> Okay. Um, so yeah, I I understand you're talking about sheet A405. >> Can't we bring up the M? It's on It's
available public online. >> PJ, is that something that we can do if we send you a PDF? Yeah, it's right. >> Right. So, essentially it's the um it's the com it's the comparison elevation. It's a A405 is is the one elevation that
you're talking about of how it it joins in. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um see, yeah, it's the architectural plans. >> Oh, perfect. >> Page 43. Sorry, N. Just wait a sec. You know, and I just want to clarify
because this is I mean all sides of the building are pretty prominent, but this side. So, if you scroll down to the bottom of that page right there, there that's this seems to be the really the main thing that you've presented showing us the view from Dade Boulevard. So the
the elevation is taken like dead on and as you as you know that we have two angles to to the plan. So we have a plan view and and the elevation view. Uh so it's a little deceiving as as to that little corner. Kind of looks like it just flattens out and smooshes together,
but uh in reality it actually turns from the angled part of Dade Boulevard. I guess the the the part of the intersection that that angles to like go on to Alton going north. Um that is dead on and and and it actually turns at a
90° directly back towards the the elevation that is also angled uh of the existing building. So, it has a I guess a more clean uh elevation than than the actual kind of the view that we're having that is directly from Dade
Boulevard looking directly north and where the angles don't have um any depth to them. Um and we took some special consideration at the datam for the second floor uh window line uh to kind of mark that uh
demarcation to where we have that new building roof line so that they had some sort of kind of inverse relationship uh where you know that solid piece of the parapet was actually you know in line with the the window line of of the
existing building. And then is I guess I didn't look at the at the the floor plan as carefully. So, but the bu the new building you can't go into the new building and then connect to the old building. Is that correct? Or or >> that is correct. And and if the on PJ if
you can just like pan down the sheet so you can see both together. You kind of like So where A405 is at the bot there? I don't know if you can just No. No. Yeah. Scroll down >> the other way. >> Screw up. Yeah, scroll up. I'm sorry. It's like
reverse. So, you see how the plan and on that particular sheet they're, you know, so that you could look at both at the same time. Um but yeah to answer your question they are not intended to connect and I believe you know I mean the primary reason like we were
presenting on the last DRB was that uh in order to really make this work and you know financially uh legally with leases and tenants and whatnot we have a longterm tenant with Chase um we have to keep them operational and functional
while we build this building um and that was just you kind of a you know the way everything played out we we had mentioned that in the last DRB. So now that we are really going forward with this and we want to build this you know where does Chase go if we were to demo the building and there was that question
of if we have this in the DRB that that building is gone then how do you do the main permit um you know to get everything done and then how do you close it out if if the building is never demoed and you know Chase is still there until they can transition into the new building. So that's that's one of the
the impetus for for keeping the existing building and and just maintaining, you know, kind of like an adaptive reuse. However, the the two structures are separate. Uh they're they don't interact with each other in in terms of that. So we do have a you know an eress stair
here at that at that corner of Dade, but it it's supposed to be meant to look integrated and not as as uh something that's separate. um you know and but the the intent is that the entrances actually happen on Alton
and the main entrances um for the building itself have always maintained that they're actually from the parking lot uh to the north. So, if we can maybe scroll to uh A 100 or A sorry A32 which is just
right above A100 I guess page 34 of the PDF should be a the next page H A32 that's correct there. So this shows the condition you know where we're not incorporating the the temporary parking lot uh which which was really the basis
of a lot of comments uh on the previous uh submitt um you know so in this case we're we're keeping the existing building and you know the shape maintains largely the same uh where we had a utility room is is where the tower
maintains uh that's in the existing structure you if you remember the building you know right Now, from this view, uh, you know, the building has a tower where the the the chase insignia is mounted. Uh, and we maintain that and
that's where our utility room used to be. So, that's kind of primarily the biggest plan change. Uh, but everything else remained the same because we felt like the architecture was already in line with um the previous existing building.
>> And can you talk a little bit about the elements that you're using to make this seem cohesive? the old and the new. >> Yeah. I mean the I mean before we I guess this was also a an an iteration we had prior to submitting the the
submittal with the parking lot. Um so we were using these elements of uh the textured concrete uh you know to be uh an you know kind of an adaptation of of the existing uh structure which is like pure concrete um panels. Um and you know
trying to soften up at least give an element for that uh frontage uh you know it's a little bit softer you know with the wood elements the louvers uh than before uh where the existing structure was like a brutalist very very hard structure. So in terms of we do have a
very extensive and Vincent Filigenzi did a great job in terms of the landscape. So, in order to soften up the existing building, we're completely renovating that whole area that you see in green along the existing building. Um, and I believe Scott had a question on why
couldn't we maintain the code of, you know, the 10-ft pedestrian circulation, which we are. Uh, so we're are implementing all of those frontage um design criteria by the, you know, the new zoning code of the resilience code.
Um, so you know, in order to make that transition more acceptable >> and then with the variances, these elements are just non-conforming, but they're there and you don't want to have to redo them. That's the idea. It's very >> it's Yeah, it's the parking lot. It's like, you know, we don't want to repave
the whole asphalt parking lot and, you know, have to introduce the two foot of pvious uh area within each parking space. um you know we just want to keep the the lot as is keep it functioning as is keep Chase and Social Security Administration which is on the second floor uh
functioning as is and that's where I was getting to yeah the entrance to the building is always for the existing building is always maintaining the same so that's on that north side where you see that stair um you know where the handicap parking lot uh parking area is located
parking space is located I should say. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? >> Um, I had a question. So, what are the repairs planned for the existing building facade? I don't I didn't really hear a clear answer. I see I see the
textured concrete of the new structure. I see what it looks like. Looks nice. in order to sort of blend these together and not look like it's completely a new
addition. Are you planning to try to do anything to the new paint or anything to to blend a little bit? >> Uh, at the moment for this DRB, uh, you know, we're keeping the existing building as is. I mean there there probably some repairs uh as soon as the
tenants move out. Um you know regarding you know windows you know anything that that is uh in disrepair we would fix and and clean up. Will >> there be will there be an expansion joint or anything like that between the two buildings that they
>> Yes. >> prevents Yeah. Um and the new the system will be demoed eventually. Is that correctly? >> That is correct. I mean that I mean the idea is that uh yes the whole
uh the rest of the lot would be uh developed and this would be this would maintain this structure here the singlestory structure would maintain with the new development >> and the new development will look like just a new structure going in imagine.
Uh I yes I mean we haven't designed it yet but yes it >> it would be the uh the starting point for sure. >> Okay >> and it would be yeah definitely more integrated. >> Is there an increase in nonconformity of
parking spots by adding build the new building addition or is everything comply with what's existing there? >> They they comply with the parking requirements. They had a they had um I believe they had some exit spaces and they're also providing um the code allows you uh the ability for
alternative parking incentives where some of the parking can be provided by bicycle parking, scooter parking, moped parking, things like that. They're they're providing some of that. Okay. I would suggest that there be a little attention taken to the existing building to so that they they match and
that's damage happens to the building when they approach it and I don't know maybe a paint color or something to refresh. Well, >> a little more cohesive. >> Can we make that part of the vote that uh once the project is completed with
the enhancement in the front, the expansion that's be for us today that they um pressure clean and paint or do whatever is necessary to the existing building that remains so that it blends
with the new structure. Well, I also think Adam's also talking about other design elements, not just cleaning it, but just making the two structures seem cohesive to not completely disregard the new one as part of the con maybe as part of the condition to say work with staff
to examine ways, explore ways to make the buildings. >> We're more than happy to do that. Absolutely. Is the new building going to be kept when the old building is demolished at some point or is this just like a temporary building? >> This uh Well, I'm not quite sure. I
can't speak on that. >> No. Yeah, it would not be demolished. This >> Yeah, I mean and that I mean that's sort of assured by um the legal reasons which are really just uh tenant lease uh contracts. Um there's a I believe it's a
20-year lease uh that's in play right now. I don't know the exact numbers. Don't quote me on that for sure. But, uh, it is a long-term lease that that and that is the reason why we're I mean, for all intents and purposes, you know, jumping through some hoops to to put back the existing building from the
previous DRB. Um, so, you know, the idea is when the rest of the lot is developed, this this building will stay. So, it is a permanent structure. >> And we've got 20 years on this. So, I think it's important to to work with staff to to blend these two so this
doesn't look like someone messed up. >> Yeah. Do you have any specific recommendations things they could explore? You don't need to, but >> I would do a color study um on the existing building with the proposed building. Um and
>> would you not Can I just ask cuz I'm not the architect here. >> For me, it's the opposite. these buildings really have nothing to do with each other and that's tenant your fault and I think trying to combine them is kind of stupid. I think that if you just
actually contrast them more so that you know they're not meant to be look like each other cuz what are you going to dumb down the new one to make it look more brutalist and ugly than to match the old one? I I I would actually do complete opposite and and juxtapose them
but that's not speaking. >> I agree with that. Yeah, >> it was it was approved already. So, I didn't want to make suggestions on the >> the the new building. So I was focusing I was f focusing on the old but that is one approach right there's the
approach of co combining and and and making it cohesive or separ separating it but from the elevations and what the architect said he said he was trying to blend it and and and have datam lines >> in in materiality yeah alone not not
necessarily in design aesthetic I mean I think Scott is more spot on in the sense that we are trying to make them different uh because the previous architecture I think is is unanimously not preferred. Um and we and I do agree
that you know and with the landscaping I think is going to tremendously help the existing structure uh from the way it currently looks. The materiality of the existing structure is a you know uh a pre-cast concrete paneling system. Um
you know we we don't intend to paint it in any way. We can we can definitely, you know, uh spray wash it, you know, try to make the the existing structure, how it's aged to be in a more new fashion. Um, you know, we can definitely
address, you know, the the windows and the mullions and things like that and and repair them so that they're like new. Um, there are some metal work that's part of this. If you look at the uh the rendering I guess on page uh 27 of the original uh submitt
um you know you can you can see that you know there or there you can't really see it but there were these walls that were that that are there that had this metal work and you know you can see it when you drive by after the after the hearing. uh that that can, you know,
maybe be introduced and have some some similar wood element uh versus, you know, that matches our new structure versus these uh black metal uh 1970s um you know uh elements. Um so and and
eventually this is going to be demolished, right? this um you know at the time when Chase can transition safely >> uh to the new structure um and the and the new designs in place uh you know
this existing building will will be replaced. So it seems right now how how you have it and I think why it's creating this discussion is that it just seems like you've got these two legs and they mush them
together and it seems like there's a direction of either make it very different or make it more similar because it seems like right now you're not really achieving one or the other. Um,
>> so do we bring them back on that issue, approve what's before us today and have them come back or have them work with staff? >> Um, well, it does have to come back when we do a new design. >> I'm sorry. >> No, I think I mean it will have to
>> we're concerned with what this is going to if we were to pass approve this today. I that's what we're concerned about the the what you're proposing, >> right? >> Not the future whenever that is. So I'm actually the question is more for the board. What >> I'd like to see it again.
>> You'd like to see it again with the direction of if like make it different. Don't try to blend them. >> Pick pick a pick a direction. >> This is if I may. >> I think the gentleman wants to speak. >> This is definitely worth a longer
conversation with staff. Um I would just note that the existing two-story office building is only temporary. So, at some point, again, I imagine when this one-story commercial building is constructed, we'll be able to move tenants into that building, and perhaps a property owner will do something with the existing office building, but um
it's just something to consider. Of course, we're more than happy to defer, come back. Um you know, >> Chase is a 20-year lease, right, >> Renee? >> So, I mean, it's it's it's in the long-term lease. Yeah. I'm not sure, but it's definitely like 15 >> 15 to 20 years.
>> Okay. So I me as one member I have no problem in approving what they're asking for today and ask that they come back at a future meeting be it October or November or December with the
recommendation after having worked with staff as to how they're going to blend or pull apart you know the design and the visual of the two structures. So you want to continue?
>> I want to I think I would approve what's before us today so they can proceed with that at least >> uh because it takes time and then they can takes time and money but >> to come back with how they propose after
working with staff blending or not blending the two structures just on that issue. come back but approve what's before us today so they can proceed with that. >> I don't understand cuz you're saying you want to see the changes they're going to make the design but you also want to
approve the design. Am I wrong? I hear the only approving the structure, approving the fact that they can keep the retain the right >> existing building and and they can probably start permitting the the the new commercial building because that likely is not going to be changing,
>> but then continue um the details of the facade of the existing building and how that's going to be treated is what I'm what I'm gathering. I mean, it seems to me that there's there's a potential to have a lot of there's not much to this building besid besides it seems that there's going to
be a lot of changes. There could be and so approving stuff. So, peace meal, I don't I don't know if that's really going to save. >> I would I would suggest that we approve the variances and waiverss before you today. Um, and again, uh, just given the fluidity of the situation and in the
interest of the property owner just having whatever options they want to use their property in the future, um, I think it's okay if we approve the variances and waiverss, work with staff, um, to perhaps, you know, harmonize the design between the exist existing building and the new commercial building. Um, but of course, we would
prefer not to return. Um again I hope you trust Tap's judgment and you hope you trust my word that uh we'll work to again harmonize the two uh parts of the site. >> Harmonize or not harmonize >> harmoniz again again it's worth having a longer conversation.
>> What we're approving today are the variances and the and the waiver to keep what is currently existing. It's not that they're going to change anything with this. Um, what they're coming back with in the future after working with
staff is how they're going to blend or not blend the two structures, the one that's being built and the one that is staying. But at least it gets them a go to start with something. >> We call it a facade study that will be
just we prove it and then we just like to see a facade study that's worked on with staff. and for the final design or is that is that breaking it into pieces? >> Yeah, I I think you know if you let us just figure this out. Thank you. Um it seems to me that there needs to be some
pretty comprehensive reworking of the facade. So yes, I I think for a waiver, if I'm not correct, that's part of the design. So you can't approve the waiver goes with the design. So either we approve or we continue the design. And then the variances are separate. If we
approve the variances, does that help move the project along or does it not matter because it's really the design of the building? >> The only issue if we don't have a full board next month, um, you know, the varian it would be good to approve the variances today because it requires five votes. >> Uh, the design only requires four. So
that's okay. >> Yeah, because the variances really don't have to deal with the integration of the two buildings. They're other stuff. So, okay. Um, so does anybody want to make a motion to approve the variances but then continue the design?
>> I'll just I'm just going to say like I'm I'm okay with the design. Um, just as just to give to be different than a lot of my board members here. I I don't think that's entirely necessary. I think the materials here have been consistent enough and the landscaping is blending
the building. So, um, you know, I'd be in full support of making a motion to approve everything. I don't know. It doesn't seem sound like that's going to happen. >> I would second it. I feel the same. >> I feel the same way. >> I um, one thing I will say, and this can just be a a staff thing. I'm think I've
mentioned this every single time that this has come across and I I it could have been listened to, but this is a very like hot intersection. So just ensuring mature landscaping and it looks like you're using a lot of existing trees that so that's great. Um just
ensuring that the new plantings are of mature height that can start giving some shade to that intersection I think is very critical. Um so I will I actually have a comment related to that. I'm glad that you brought that up. Um sorry I forgot to ask about
>> you're now having a roof deck. There's access to the roof. Yes. >> For this. So, and then the elevator. So, you It's not pictured in any of the renderings. There's Will the elevator, you know, be on the roof to get up there. >> Um, so I think
>> Yes. Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> I don't know. Please, that's either Rene or Vincent, our landscape architect. Please go ahead. >> Well, in ter in terms of the landscaping, yeah, everything is uh at the front edge of the the structure. So,
if we go to I guess uh uh 37 of the PDF A101, uh you can see that the elevator is pushed back all the way to the corner. It just works out in elevation where we don't touch the actual structure. Um and
that's where the the single stair also goes down to the first level. >> And there's not going to be any sort of shade structure. There's you're not planning anything for to activate the roof. It's just going to be accessed. >> No. It's just accessible at this point.
Um, nothing is proposed to be no umbrellas, no structures, no anything like that. We do have, as you can see, the mechanical screen, which would also be required by our zoning code, and has been lately enforced, you know, on a lot of projects, even existing projects. Um,
so that mechanical screen is there, but it's also set back a good 20 ft. Um, you know, so most of the landscaping is is is right at the edge and it pushes back, you know, in in a wave form anywhere
from 25 ft to to 15 ft. Um, you know, and where we have just, you know, either unoccupied roof deck because we had a 50% requirement. Um, and where we have just roof screening, you know, just to kind of push everything towards the
existing building and away from the street edge. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. Know, and I appreciate the green roof. And then, you know, to Laura's point, too, about it being so sunny, you know, if if the roof deck does decide to become activated, you're
definitely going to need sheet. >> Understood. >> Right. >> Um, okay. Do we have a Does somebody want to make a motion? I I'll put it out there. I'll make a motion to approve the design and the variances. >> Um >> would you want the friendly amendment to
work with staff to see about the integrating or you're happy with how connects? >> I would do I would suggest working with staff to you know pressure wash you can you know cleaning up the building? I'm as far as the design consistency overall
I think it's fine. I I wouldn't suggest, you know, I'm worried that they're going to like slap some wood cladding on areas and it might just look worse. Um, so that's that's where they would work with staff to do that. >> Yeah, I I think it's fine as is. So I that that is my motion just doing
regular maintenance if that's needed. Um, that that that'd be the extent of my suggestion there. So that's my motion. If anyone wants Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> No. >> No. >> It's fine. Um Okay. >> All right. Motion passes. >> Uh and do we need to make a motion for the variances? >> The her motion included. >> Oh, it included them. Okay, good. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Um, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, should we move on to one more and then take a lunch break? Everybody okay with that? >> This one should be a quick one.
>> Okay. Um, yeah. So the next item on the agenda is uh DRB21094 aka or formerly known as DRB22-0825 111 1311 15th Terrace. Thank you.
>> This application is requesting a modification to a previous design review approval for a new four-story multif family residential building currently under construction. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the placement of a transformer
within the required front yard. >> So, as so this is a project that was approved um after the project was approved, FPL uh required that the applicant install a transformer. Um this is an interior lot. Typically, these get worked into the ground floor. Um they do
have to provide certain types of access. At this point, um, the design is so advanced that it's it's it's very pretty much impossible for the applicant to put the transformer and integrate it into the structure. Um, so the applicant is requesting a variance so that the the uh
the transformer can be located in the front setback. Um, the applicant is proposing a setback of 10 ft 6 in. Uh, the the the the transformer structure will be screened with significant amount of landscaping uh minimizing its visual impact. Um, so
they do have a hardship created by the requirement from FPL. Um, they are proposing to screen it. It shouldn't affect the overall design too significantly. Um, and staff recommends that the application be approved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are they >> You did it. That's exactly what I was
going to say. >> Um, yeah. Hopefully this is a quick one. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, Tony Leon, 3D design architecture. This is a project that you know when we start we always kind of try to do all these due diligence and we reach out to FPL and we do a electrical load calculation for six
units and we send it in and they kind of give us the okay that yeah there's a transformer in the back and then as you go two and a half three years later you know we're right at the end and and it turns out that oh yeah you need a transformer because the wood pole in the back can't handle the size that it needs
to be. So it just kind of came up very last minute and and here we are. It's the only department. We're in permitting. We've been permitting for over a year, about a year and a half, I think. And uh we're everything's approved. It's just zoning. >> What is the size of the transformer?
>> Uh they're about 4 feet uh wide and about 4t tall and it's very narrow. Uh but they have some clearances around it. So, we're landscaping it uh to death. We know that if it ever needs to have any access to it, you know, we'll lose the landscaping, but it's a small price to
pay. Um, so >> I don't think we should be labor this. >> Okay. My only question was is did you have a picture of what you're proposing? You know what we're gonna >> Yeah. Let's see if I can There's a rendering. >> Yeah. I think with the uh >> that they're just covering.
>> Yeah. So the top top left corner it's kind of hit. Again, there's a lot of landscaping and this is probably not um uh too far from reality. Uh there's a there's a rectangle around it. You can just kind of barely see it. At least I can't. It's a blue rectangle. And then the view on the right also kind of shows
it a little bit better. That that whole view is clouded. >> It's it's in the bottom left corner just under. >> How far is it from the um street from the sidewalk? >> Uh 10 and a half ft. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Madam Chair. >> Okay. uh question. Um this would allow this transformer would allow what >> the electricity for the building >> at what level? >> Uh it's a three-phase uh uh
uh I forget what it is. Let me see. I don't have the electricity. Uh 277 >> volts. Yeah, >> it's because of it's because of an elevator. >> Okay. >> I think that may have >> Okay. Well, I make a motion that we
approve the um variance of course >> to allow for the placement of the FPL transformer. >> And I'd like to add a friendly amendment that this is always covered with, you know, screened with landscaping and if there's a storm or
they have to that the landscaping is put back as a condition. >> Okay. Yeah. >> This is the owner of the property, the developer, so he's here. I'm sure you want to make it as nice as possible. I understand. But yeah, so just for future, not just now, but moving forward,
>> you know. Okay, we have a motion. Does anybody made a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Those in favor? >> Thank you. >> I oppose. Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, >> Madam Chair,
>> I know you said you were going to take a lunch break. uh the Star Island project. I think you've probably all seen it. We have a model to show, but we're going to be really quick. If you might consider taking us, I don't know how long your lunch break is intended to be, but we've
been here for 3 hours and we would love to get out of your way. >> Can you give us five? >> Huh? >> I mean, I personally had some questions about it. I don't know what every >> okay >> everybody else said but looking at the
model you know I mean I had a few questions I don't know what anybody else >> I understand we've been here for three hours too >> I know I understand we have a whole design team who's here >> um but if you have questions and you want I mean how long are you envisioning
>> oh yeah I mean I I we can we could proceed what does everybody want to do you want to >> it's probably going to be what another 30 minutes >> another 30 minutes before 10 minutes for your presentation and then you know >> I I don't think we'll be 30 minutes but
maybe we will >> but just planning >> um I mean I'm I'm okay with it. Is everybody okay with doing it? >> Sure. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Okay. So we're calling up item uh DRB
2510 1105. which is >> this application has been filed requesting modification to a previously approved design review approval for the construction of a new two-story residence with another story including previously approved variances. Specifically, the applicant is
requesting some modification including additional height as of right per recently approved amendment to the resiliency code and three new variances. A variance to exceed the maximum height for a one-story accessory structure. A variance for a for the driveway material
within the required front yard and a variance to the understory material for the non-air conditioner area including one or more waiverss to replace an existing pre 1942 residence. >> Okay. So, this is uh this is a home that was previously approved by design review
board. Um the applicant is uh requesting some modifications to that previous approval. Um the changes do result in a slight reduction in the unit size of the home. Uh but the home overall follows the same design intent as what was previously approved. Um the code since its original
approval the code has changed. Um we have the new understory regulations that are in place that that uh that modify some of the requirements and some of the limitations for the for the understory areas. So they are requesting some variances um and a and a waiver. So the first waiver that they're requesting is
for height. Um as part of the understory ordinance that was adopted, there was a requirement that if you um want to seek extra height, that is done through the process of a waiver. So they are requesting a waiver of uh for 3 ft of extra height, which is allowed by the code for the DRB to issue. Um so that
would increase um the maximum height to 34 ft for for this property since it's an understory home. uh given the size of the lot, its location, um it's it's an appropriate location for those extra three feet. Um that they're very large setbacks, so no negative impacts are
expected. Um and staff is supportive of the granting of that waiver. Um the next variance, the next the thing that they're seeking, the the changes that they're seeking are variances. Um the first is for an accessory structure. Um they are asking for a variance of the height for an accessory structure. Um
the accessory structure is in the rear yard. Um the code provides that um uh one-story accessory structures have a height limit of 12 feet. Um the applicant is was seeking a five- foot variance for for the height of that structure. Uh the code only allows for
height variances to be up to 3 ft. So staff is recommending that that that be limited to 3 ft. Given the scale of the property, the location of the property, um it would look out of scale to have uh that accessory structure at 12 ft. And so staff is supportive of the of the granting of the variance. And also they
if it were a two-story structure um they would be able to have a much taller accessory structure. So even even with the granting of this variance it's lower than what they could do um per code. The next variance is um is require is
regarding um requiring um pavers not set in st sand required in the front yard. Um the the requirement the code requires for understory homes that all allowable exterior walkways and driveways in the front and side street yards shall consist of pavers set in stand or other
semi-pervious m pvious materials. Um and then the same for the understory area that all portions of the understory area that are not covered or air conditioned shall consist of pvious or semi-pervious material such as wood deck, gravel, paver, setting stand. The applicant is
proposing in both of these areas um a coral stone paving um and it's a very large size coral stone paving and this does require that there be some structure be beneath it. Um so they're proposing a concrete grid in order to
support that structure. The grid is open. It is porous. It complies with the intent of the code which is to allow water to drain but the code prohibits the concrete in the understory area. um in order to support these these these pavers they they they the applicant has is uh indicating that it does require
this concrete but they are complying with the intent which is to allow for drainage. Um so given um the size of the lot the quality of the paving materials that they want to use uh staff is supportive of the granting of these variances because they do have a practical difficulty in this case.
>> Um so with that staff recommends that the changes be approved subject to the conditions in the attached draft order. So, sorry. >> Thank you very much. Um, for the record, my name is Carter McDow, Bills and Sunberg, 1450 Bickl Avenue. I'm here
with my associate Nick Notto. Um, our design architect from Domo is here. Um, our our architect, Reota, is here and Raymond Jungles is here, our landscape architect. As you've seen and heard,
this project was approved two years ago. This is an evolution of what was approved based on continued design work which happens with every project. Um the code changed in the interim to allow us to ask for 30 the waiver to 34 ft. We were at 31 ft with the prior approval.
Um that's before you um this lot is 300 ft wide and 400 ft deep just to give you an idea. It's on Star Island. All of the residences on Star Island are pretty exceptional. and the and historically
the board has recognized that and indeed we have a much larger project to our north um that was recently approved. Uh it's really a very simple thing and I have an maybe an odd question. We're preparing to make a full presentation go through all of it invite you to come
down look at the model the model reflects the current design. Um there have been a few design additional modifications since we filed in our final filing which we've handed out to you. They are truly evolutionary.
There's nothing if you looked at the two plans together you probably wouldn't be able to identify the changes. Um we know what they are. We talked with staff staff staff said in an abundance of caution you probably present at least present copies of the plans to the board. Um, we probably could do all of
that under substantial compliance anyway, but I we've given you and the re the model does reflect what we handed out to you. We're prepared to make a full presentation or no presentation and just answer questions if that's appropriate because I know you have a
very large agenda and we'd like to get out of your way. It's truly an extraordinary project as you can see and obviously we went to a lot of trouble to provide the model and all of the plans and renderings. Um, we do have a presentation that shows you before and
after renderings on all of it, but >> what does everybody do? I can only speak for myself obviously, but I would like to know what the hardships are that grant um the approval of these three variances and if that requires a full
presentation, then so be it. I you know, >> let me address those directly because I I think they're pretty straightforward. >> But Carter, I just don't know. I'm sorry. I just don't know how the rest of the board feels. I'm only one out of a few. >> I understand. Anybody else? I mean,
>> I'll hear the hardship. >> You You don't need the full presentation. You just want them to focus on the variances. >> I think that's fine. >> That I mean, that's what when I was reading it, that's what I was focusing on. That's what I I don't know. Do you have any Do you want to hear a full thing? However,
>> however, as not having any really training to your degrees >> at all, I found this project super interesting and I thought, um, I wish I could go and see it. I didn't dare drive
over in this one >> in my little mini, but >> Okay. >> I, you know, all honesty, that's why we >> I thought it super interesting. So with all due respect, I mean, you know, >> my heart goes out to it. I found it interesting, so I would like to see a
site visit, but that's that's another that's in another term and another >> when you guys have the opening party, right? >> Um, why don't you just run through the variances cuz I think that was a really good call with the model. It does do a very good job >> and it's very complicated geometry which
is why we produce the model. It's a hard set of drawings to read to be even for professionals. um which is why we produce the model. So that and I would invite you to come literally do it at eyeball level um if you would would like to on the variances. So this is the accessory
structure. Sorry you need a microphone. >> I know I have to have a mic. I don't think there's a traveling mic. Um that's the accessory structure. Put simply, it's at 15 ft. We can have a two-story structure in that location that size that's 20t tall. We're five feet lower,
but we need a variance to be five feet lower. Otherwise, it would be 12 feet. And in the scale of particularly this backyard where there's a lot of different levels, it really doesn't make any sense. But it's less than what we could otherwise build without a variance if we simply put a second floor on it,
which is in my view kind of a hardship that's imposed to be perfectly honest by the code. it we have very large side setbacks because of the width of this lot being 300 feet and there's a percentage of the lot width that is the set the side setbacks which we meet we
don't have any require any variances on that so I don't know somebody will tell me but I think our side setback is like 60 feet on that side maybe more um somebody will answer that question so that's the variance there it's less than what we could otherwise build if you
denied it we could redesign it as two story structure and which is >> not what we want to do. The other two variances and by the way that and both of what we're about to talk about were in the approved plans in 2022
just they never got caught. So the reason for the other two variances which is to allow a support concrete support structure below grade underneath the pavers
in the understory and in the front yard the front 25 ft of the property. The code, for reasons none of us can figure out, has no problem with us having concrete structure supporting all of the driveways and other things in between the front yard and the understory, but
we can't put it under the understory or the front yard. The in the design and Raymond Jungles is here as you can see. It's an extraordinary landscape plan. We are using Carl Rock pavers that are
three feet wide and six to eight feet long. We're not using the typical little pavers that you would see because it's really not in keeping with the style or the quality of this project. But when I get a PA that's 6 to 8 ft long, I need
additional support. Otherwise, it's going to settle and crack >> as the vehicles drive across it. It's completely below our proposal is a concrete. And ironically, it says you have to put the pavers on sand or other imperous material, but the next sentence
says you can't make it concrete. So, I could put a fiberglass support under there theoretically and not need a variance. But in the real world and in this lot in particular, we have found that the soils conditions here really do require additional support. And so we're
going to do essentially a concrete matrix underneath and then put the pavers on top of it. It will be it will be pvious as the code wants it to be. But I can't make this material in this setting on this lot work.
Um and in the handout that we gave you, which is at the back of it, there's a picture of the papers. Um, it really creates an extraordinary and beautiful >> What page is that, Carter? >> Uh, >> 9.4 9.4
>> 9.4 94 and 95 are the areas in question and they both have the picture of the large pavers. They're 3 foot by 6 foot and they're 8 in thick, by the way. Um,
>> does this thickness just point clarification, but but does the thickness make a difference? >> It's just it's a big block of of Carl Rock >> that we need to support so it doesn't twist or in fact crack. >> Okay.
>> And my construction folks reminded me that the soils conditions here not only required for this but actually for our water and sewer connections and other things. We need extra support because the soil conditions are pretty bad in this previously filled island.
>> That's the three additional variances that we're asking for and the waiver on height. And that extra 3 ft does make a difference in this project largely because of this the structural spans and other things that we have done uh and
that the project requires. And I truly would invite you to come down look at the model. It's it's an extraordinary thing. I'm excited to see it someday. I'm sorry. You may have spoken about this, but the first variance is to allow the understory to be substantially enclosed on the east side.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Those are existing variances that were already granted. They are not new and they're not being changed. So, they're still in in place. It's not a new variance. >> You're right. Yes, >> there are three prior variances that do
address understory conditions, >> but again, it's 120,000 foot lot >> and we meet that our setbacks are extraordinary. I might add that the principal who is doing this project lives immediately to the north. So, we
only have one neighbor. >> With that, we're here to answer any questions. Raymond's here to talk to you about the landscape if you would like. >> Um, any other members of the public wishing to speak? >> Nobody online. Um, I'm now closing the
public portion, opening up to the board for discussion, questions, comments. This is more just for us as a board. I guess a couple meetings ago, we had an applicant with a similar variance request for the papavers and I made a huge deal about it at the time. Um, I
think that this applicant's done a much better job of meeting the code here. Um, but I more just speaking as a general maybe we need to not us as a board but the planning department whoever sets these standards may need to look at this
portion of the code because we're I knew this was going to start happening like we're we're everybody has a pool and they want these nice pavers and the sand's not supporting it and so the applicant previously was trying to off they were going to do full concrete they were
going to have imperous surfaces. says, "I don't think you were at this meeting, Sarah." And so, but they but so they were offsetting it with some drainage system. >> Mhm. >> And I I took issue with that because it said no concrete and they're putting a bunch of concrete. Um, so that's this is
more just a point that I think that that part of the code needs to be looked at because this is going to keep happening. I think here in this situation, the intent of the code is there. You're using the impervious surface papers. they obviously have a very natural look
and they'll drain um that you're just having this grid structure to support. So I I'm and for the reasons you said I I do think there's a hardship. Um so thank you for explaining that. I was I was unsure. Um and I and I didn't have
an issue with the uh the accessory structure variance, but I just wanted to mention that part for the >> to to clarify. So you you you'd like to see the code change to be more inclusive of options or to be more strict? What specifically? >> I think Yeah, I think I think we just
need to know what the point of that no concrete >> part in the code is. I I don't I don't know if it was solely just to deal with impervious >> to make sure there's impervious structures, then maybe that prior applicant >> should have been granted. But like why
do we as a board need to approve them doing a water offset or a drainage offset there? Like that we shouldn't have to be doing that every single time like include that in the code. >> Um for the code to be analyzed a little bit further a discussion item for October.
>> Okay. Yeah, that's right. >> Based on based on our conversation where we didn't think we needed to re reevaluating it. >> Um so but I I I I like your approach more. I like obviously I like the use of natural materials more than having some
secondary system to offset concrete. Um that's always going to be the in my opinion the better the better route. So um I'm in favor of it. I just wanted to raise that as this is this is coming up again. So thank you. Um, other comments
>> I make uh well, okay, I make a motion that we approve the uh three variances um for the project to proceed. >> Second.
>> Yeah, I'll second. >> Okay. Um so motion for ju just for the variances. Do you um do you want to include the waiver and the and the modifications design or or would you like that under a separate motion? >> No, we can include it all in one motion. >> Okay.
>> Um but let's do them separately just in case because not that the project's going to come back again. But >> um yeah, for the three variances and what is so that would be the first. Do
you want to take a roll call on that? >> Sure, we can do a roll call. Um, so I have a motion and I believe Mr. Meshberg, you seconded the the item. >> Okay. Um, so we can do a roll call. Uh, Miss Bhutavoli, >> yes. >> Mr. Defender, >> yes.
>> Miss Killer Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Lester, >> yes. >> Miss Leuen, >> yes. >> Mr. Meshber, >> yes. >> Mr. Pis, >> yes. >> Motion passes for the variances. >> Okay. And then the second motion is for approval of the modified design.
>> Design. Okay. And that includes the waiver as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second by Miss. Okay. Um all those in favor? >> I. Any opposed?
>> No. Motion passes. >> Thank you very much and thank you for delaying your lunch. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. And so we're going to take a 30 minute recess for lunch and be back. Thank you.
[Music] 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 afternoon. Welcome back to the um September DRB meeting. We are now going to hear DRB number 25-111 FKA DRB23-0927 290 South Coconut Lane. >> Hello. This application has been filed
requesting a modification to a previously designed review approval for a two for a two-story residence with an understory including one of more waiverss for a home that is currently under construction. Specifically, the applicant is requesting an after the-act variance of the interior sideyard
setback and allowable yard encroachment for the placement of a mechanical equipment. >> Okay. So, this is um a home that was previously approved by the DRB on July 5th, 2023. Um the applicant um was
constructing the home on a site that had previously been an abandoned construction site and the foundation work had begun on the on the prior home um in 2013. Um they had used an asbuilt survey that was incorrect where everything was shifted by 11 in to the
um I believe to the east if I'm not mistaken. the um and so as a result of that, the home is being constructed as it was approved by the DRB, but everything is shifted 11 in over. Um so as a result, they are requesting an after the-act variance of the side
setback. They comply with the sum of the sideyard setbacks, but they're not complying with the side interior setback um by 11 in. And and in the same under under the same vein, the side um uh sideyard encroachments for mechanical
equipment that is also encroaching into the setback by 11 in. Um so they they do have a hardship given that the construction has already started. They were utilizing a faulty survey um that had this incorrect information and and relied on that. And um it doesn't
benefit the applicant in terms of additional unit size, additional uh open space. there's no um there there's no there's no benefit in terms of the the the design of the home. So staff is recommending that the variance be approved subject to the conditions in
the attached draft order. >> Hello, I'm Ralph Chof. Uh >> Mr. Cho, can I just say one thing? Is this something that uh the the what is being requested is a very straightforward?
>> Do we need to hear a presentation on this? Does the board want to hear presentation is my thought or can we go forward with >> Well, were you planning on doing an abbreviated presentation? >> Very abbreviated. >> Okay, go for it. Okay,
>> so yes, uh my client bought a home and uh it was under construction. The the foundation was in the walls were being built. We then uh got the house approved. Um again it was there was some modification
but never a modification to the footprint or the size. Uh he then sold the home uh and the new owner we requested the new owner get a survey just to make sure everything is copacetic gets the survey. Survey is different from the original survey. The
house was built to the it's actually to the northeast uh um 11 in a little about 11 inches over. So where the northeast uh side setback is less than seven and a
half ft at 67, the uh southwest uh setback is more than 7 and 1/2 ft. It's 93. It's the same exact house it was except it was built there. So uh and so the that affects also the air conditioning uh pad which has to be 5 ft
uh from the side and it's 310. There's no other place to put it. And uh that's that's my presentation and I'll stick to it. >> Thank you very much. Uh any other members of the public wishing to speak?
>> Anybody online? Please raise your hand. I see no hands raised. >> Closing public portion. Any comments from the board away? This seems pretty reasonable and straightforward to me. And I know you've been back with this
house with all little things like that. I'm I'm in favor of approval. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve or sorry. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Who gets it?
>> Um I I think I heard Mr. Defender for first. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Ralph. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Sorry. Okay. Next item on the agenda is
uh is DRB25-1101 1140 Alton Road. >> Yep. Okay. So, this is uh DRB25 1101. It's for 1140 Alton Road. An application has been filed requesting design review approval for modifications to the f to
the facade of an existing religious institution. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to reclad the north and east facads with new materials, including one or more waiverss. Um the the applicant here is proposing uh to modify one of the corners of the
building. It's a chamered corner. Um and they are uh replacing the facade. This is for the Lubavich Educational Center in South Beach. Um they are doing this a lot on a lot of their facilities around around the country where they are replicating the facade of their
headquarter in Brooklyn, New York. Um in order to uh create a uniform uh uh uh theme for their for their for their religious institution. Um, so this is a a um different type of architectural
style than we're than we than we typically see in South Beach, but is an important religious element um to the institution. So staff is supportive of of of the modification. So what this does, um, they're going to be removing the central threetory glass and bronze
design at the corner. Um, and then they're going to be replacing it with a three gabled brick elevation. Um, and and then it's going to have a central bay window. uh large door openings, a proposed ornamental shingle roof flanked by decorative chimney and flutes. Um and
then there's going to be a red cladding uh and the elevation is detailed with a pre-cast stone details that include moldings around the windows and doors uh pinnacles and finals between the the gables um and and other ornamental features. Um one one issue that staff
has with the code is the code does prohibit ashalt asphalt asphalt shingles. Um they are proposing some asphalt shingles on the roofing elements of the structure of the of the corner piece. Um asphalt shingles are prohibited um as a roofing material in the city. So staff does recommend that
they provide an alternative roofing material um in order to be in compliance with that code provision. Um so with that staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the attached order. >> I'll turn it over. >> Yes. Good afternoon. Sorry. My name is
Haime Shapiro. I'm the architect for this project and which is quite self-explanatory. You know, I will start showing you the original facade in Brooklyn, New York.
I think this one will do it. That is the actual Lubich World headquarters. and uh they are replicating this facade all over the world. Luave is
a multinational Jewish organization and uh that's what we're doing here. Basically what we're doing is redoing the facade which is going to be
in front of the existing facade is a 45 degree. If you look at that at the boundary survey, the 45 degree in the corner, that is going to be exactly the facade that we're proposing.
This is what we have now. The Chattahuchi has been replaced for stackle on the building under a separate permit. And uh we're coming only for the facade
in the in the corner. The materials we are going to be using are basically a replica of the exiting building and the asphalt shingles are going to be slate actually real slate.
Okay, that's the way it's going to look from uh this the side elevation. the other side. The building as we are proposing it and all of the applications are going to be
cast stone, the windows, frames. And uh here you know we added an extra drawing showing the the roofing material which is going to be slate and we have selected already the
manufacturer or an an approved equal and that's it. That's the end. That's the facade. >> Thank you very much. Do you have anything to add? >> Yeah, my name is Mendy Corf. I am a
board member of the organization. Um, I also happen to be the son of the head rabbi of the state of Florida for Lubamovich, who unfortunately just recently passed away, my father. And um, this facility has been there since 1973,
give or take, right around that time frame. I actually uh went to school there as a three-year-old and went through there my whole uh school education. Um this facility is the headquarters, as was mentioned before, for Kabad of the
state of Florida. And there are other places already in the state of Florida that has a replica built like that. There's actually a miniature one of this in Miami Beach on 40th Street, but it's not an exact replica of it. There's
another one up in Broward and there are many throughout the the world and including the US there several in California and in other states. Um, many people have approached the organization that they felt that it would be the appropriate thing to do uh
to this facility for many reasons. number one that it's the headquarters and also because of the Jewish community in South Beach particularly is not as large as it used to be. um when I grew up, it was the prime place for the Jewish community. And they felt that
reviving the facility and making it um a much greater uh attraction to many people including tourists and others around um that come from all over to South Florida that are Jewish that want to come to synagogue will be able to um
relate to this facility and um it would be a an attraction for those people to come. So we are proposing this and requesting that it be granted and if there's any questions of the history I could elaborate on that if anyone has.
>> Okay. Sure. I think well during the discussion I'm sure there will be additional questions. Okay. Does that conclude your presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak? >> Anybody online that would like to speak please raise your hand. >> No hands raised. >> Okay. I now close the public portion and
open it up to the board for discussion. Who would like to begin? >> Um, >> I'll start. Um, thank you. Uh, is the scale of the of the width of the Eastern
Parkway facade similar to the width of what's being proposed here or like the original building's width? How how scaled or how scaled or changed are the proportions in terms of
replicating it? >> Less than 4 feet is the width height is identical. >> And in the other cities that I see that you've got when you've done this, you try to preserve the same proportions. >> Yes. And some cities the they do they're
some of the facades on the side. They've also extended it onto the side. We were in our discussions with staff were recommended to keep it that not to over do any you know make it overbearing. >> Um do you use the same pre-cast manufacturer and same brick
suppliers for each project across the country? >> No, it's not available in certain states. Also, because of our requirements for hurricane rating, we're going to have to go through structural design that's going to only allow certain manufacturers products that are
approved. So our our ability to choose from manufacturers is going to be a lot less, but our intent is to match it as close as possible. >> Um, >> could I ask what the um material is on the other facades? Isn't it like a
pebble material is or is has that I know there's like >> so >> coverage there right now >> due to the 40-year reertification all those uh Chattahuchi had to be removed. Um there was structural uh damage behind the Chattahuchi and we're in the process
like the architect said under a different permit to remove all of that re uh repair the building itself and then um stuckco the finish and that's already in process and I would say about 60 to 70% complete. >> Okay. So that those facades will be just
a a stucco kind of like you have in these renderings. >> Correct. >> Okay. And also to clarify with the scope, you're not necessarily adding to the building. This is this is just a facade. That's right. >> There's not, you know, behind the
>> There's not not going to be a sort of a >> no square footage added at all. >> It's just going to be interesting. >> Other comments? >> Um I mean I don't I can appreciate what you're wanting to do here. I I think
I think there may be a way to do an homage to the original structure that's a little bit more Miami Beach. Um I you know I know that this is important to you all though. So it's just it's just what I'm seeing. I live in this
neighborhood. I um just it's it's quite different obviously than it's this is very New York. This is very you know gothic almost. Um, I don't know if like maybe the brick is a lighter brick or we could like maybe play with it a little bit or you take
certain elements that I think that that that might benefit the neighborhood more. Um, I don't know. I'm just trying to balance like like for example like with those umformational signs that are in every city now, those blackformational signs. We didn't allow
that to happen and we made them do a Miami Beach flare to it. And I think that they're excellent. I think that that looks so much better and it it just I don't know that's so that's just my opinion. I realize it's a totally different thing, but it's just it doesn't always have to be the exact
same. Um where you know we have such a unique architectural style here and this is just so different than that. So I'm that's I'm just struggling a little bit with this um and even maybe especially more because it is the one facade. Um
that's that's That's just my opinion um right now. >> I I I appreciate your comments and I I've been I've been struggling with this since I reviewed it over the weekend and I did a lot of background. And I was really curious about this model that you
have and I noted that it had been reproduced all over the world. And so I went and I looked and to see what I could see of other versions of this and how if in other communities there had been modifications made to incorporate it better into those communities. Were
were you involved at that at all or you're just the architect for this project? You know, I've been working all sorry working only in this project and basically what we wanted was to
replicate it to get as close as we can because that's the whole idea, you know, to >> to bring it down here. No, and I think you know what I'm I what I'm struggling with is just that is this idea of I understand the concept and the reasoning
and I'm familiar with the organization. Um and also why having a sort of branded look to attract people is such a core I'm going to say part of what the institution does. Um, but also too, you know, this is such a prominent corner
and Miami Beach does have such a sort of signature look and feel and this is so diametrically opposed to that. Um, but I've been I've been but I I want you to be able to realize your vision and your purpose. Um, and so I was thinking about
this and I was going to suggest to the board to think about it maybe in terms of almost like a franchise. I mean, this is what you're trying to do. you're trying to ensure that wherever anybody is in the world, they see a building that looks like this and they feel comfortable and they know what it is and they they know what they're going to get
when they go in. Um, and so I started to think a lot about how Miami Beach how other franchises have realized their brand in Miami Beach. Um, and I don't know, I might be wrong. I don't know if staff has any other
thought about this, but it seems like what tends to happen is that the Walgreens, the CVS, whatever it is, they come to Miami Beach, they have they're able to mix their branding with our sort of signature architecture style. So, um,
and that I don't know if that's part of our code or I I don't know what, but I I'm curious to know I don't know, have other projects come before you that are so this is what this looks like because of the corporate brand. How have you proceeded with that? >> So, so generally we we don't like the
cookie cutter look and we we work with the applicants to make to make their designs unique. I know in in the next couple months we will have some franchises that will be coming before the board that that we've discussed with them and and they're they're they're not using their typical prototypes um to come before the city. In this one, we
had the same conversation with the applicant with working with them to see maybe is there a way where we can pay homage to the original um using uh different textures, different more more uh uh different textures materials that
are more common for Miami Beach. Um in that discussion, the facade was very important to the applicant. Um and maintaining that original signature look was very important to the applicant. So given the the the religious significance staff staff decided to support um um
their design in that regard. But we that's definitely a question we asked of them. That's something um we tried to see if it was something that we could explore that we could work with them coming up with some some more unique materials primarily um while keeping perhaps the same shape, the same form but with more modern materials. But um
but but they have a vision that they'd like to to to keep. Um and given that it is one corner, one facade, we felt um we felt that it that it um that it was acceptable. It was for them to proceed with their vision. >> And I would say too, you know, the thing
I I would be more comfortable if this was on a side street for the street. Great example. But this corner is is smack dab in the center. It's so central. Um, I will also say too, I did do a lot of research again about this
and I did see that there were a lot of models over of the 17 or so that you've done that did the brick was grayish or you know there were different modifications >> and proportion modifications >> and proportion modifications location I
I mean let me ask you another question. You said this is going to be the headquarters. Are there I mean is the intention that every headquarters in every state is going to look like this? >> So there's a couple things. Number one,
this was studied by uh organization out of New York. They actually made a book on the history of 770 with all the architectural significance and the measurements and everything. And we took that book information as the guidelines
of the size of the building. Almost all of the locations that have replicated the building are identical in reference to color and style. You have different shades of red or orange or green or blue, but the color is there. Um the
facade, the the um the stone around the windows and the front door and all of those are all there. Um like we said, the the New York original facility is a shingle roof. We were asked that that's not an option. What other options? So, we went with slate because it looks like
the shingle roof and it gives you the same color. So, those type of things we were able to adjust. We actually on the original design when we came to staff, we had this brought up as doing the entire facility, all three sides that face the street, similar to like one of
the larger ones out of California. That we were told was too overbearing and that we should bring it down. And we brought up different ideas doing it on Alton Road, doing it on 12 in this area. There's Flamingo Park. I was born and raised there. Lived there my entire life. I own my house there. My kids
lived there. My father who passed away lived there. All of us live in that same area. So I was I was raised in Flamingo Park. Um you have the football field on one side, you have Whole Foods on the opposite corner block before that. You have apartment buildings. Then you have
two um twostory apartment houses that were turned into a medical facility. So there's not anything really happening in that area. And this building was always a unique structure because from day one when it was made in Chattahuchi, there's not one building on Miami Beach that has a Chattahuchi facade on all sides. So we
were never fitting into any scheme that was ever done on Alton Road. And growing up here, there's so many things on Alton Road that were taken down that should have never been taken down growing up. I mean, I used to walk to Mark's Cleaners. It's not there anymore. I mean, I could list could go on. the Wells Fargo bank
that was used to be there. It's not there anymore. We're not looking to move the headquarters. We want to keep it there because it's a it's one of the few pieces that have stayed in Miami Beach religious wise and, you know, from the original stores and offices and
buildings and everything that's been on that corner. So, our point was to try to work with staff and we came down to making it to just that corner without having to change um like if we would do it on Alter Road or other areas, we ran into other issues with doing that. So,
we felt and everyone felt that that was the best, you know, approach to take and do it that way. So, I'm not sure how many other options we have besides changing the facade and and not matching like everybody else has. And then to answer your question, each state
operates on their own. So there are several states that already started, but it's a funding issue. They people that are doing this want to do it, like I said, for the reason of revitalizing the area. They also want to do it in memory of my dad, but that's not for this, you
know, hearing. And they um therefore they're coming forth with the funding to do it. Um, but each state on their own will or will not do it. It's not a requirement to be kabad to have that. >> I'm gonna >> I have a Okay,
>> I'm gonna jump in with a different philosophy. Um, I think trying to make this South Beach is is a fool's errand. There's no there's no way, shape, or how that this fits in in any way, shape, or form. Like to your point,
the current building has nothing to do with anything else. And this, I gotta tell you, it's gonna be a head turner and just kind of like it reminds me not like the Forge on 41st Street that had nothing to do with anything else in Miami Beach, but it was the Forge and it
was everybody knew it. So, I think >> this fits their intent. It's a religious institution and not a McDonald's franchise. So, I respect that you just can't put the golden arches sign and have someone recognize it. That you're using the facade to do it. I think they've backed down with doing just part
of it. So, I really I mean I don't it's not my idea of what I'd put into a >> but it's part of the urban fabric and it's a unique situation and I don't have any problem with with with it. >> Let me ask you, you mentioned that
there's several Lubavich um places of worship throughout the country. How many are there in total? would you say if you know of >> I can't say for the country but my dad who started back in 1960 he was one of the first rabbis here in Miami Beach called it home the state of Florida has
now over 250 locations alone with over 500 rabbis which these locations include schools you know uh community centers etc >> and how many of those have been renovated to um have the facade of the Brooklyn
>> in Florida alone there's only three, I believe. >> Okay. And then we have another one here on Miami Beach, which is on 40th Street, almost across from the post office. >> Correct. >> I I I ask you a question, and I'm not an architect, but if you want to make this
a little bit less gothic looking, um there are some um architectural features on the top of the roof, the points. I don't know what we call those. Would you consider removing those? Does that make it any better or worse? It's a thought.
Um, the other thing I will say is that back in the 30s, one of our famous uh architects in this city was Russell Pankost. And Russell Pankost actually used bricks uh red bricks as you're using here uh for the facade and even
the interior courtyards of his uh projects of his homes. So, you're not too far from where we were in 1936, and I appreciate what you're trying to do of follow your faith in your
facility. I understand that. And I I I also agree with what Scott is saying. There's been um hash pesh of things all throughout Alton and even throughout our city that
don't look as part of the South Beach uh picture. So, thank you. At the same time, across from Whole Foods, there's the Walgreens that is all very myo, you know, and then there's a CVS. Like as many buildings as there are that aren't
of a Miami Beach look, there are that are >> there's some there's some there's other Yeah, it's a mix of of everything. >> It's a mix and I feel like if we're if we're going to accept the facade, I feel like we just need to lean in all the way. I I I don't know if I I don't know, you know, you've already started your
your work on the stucco, but it's like almost like two completely disjointed things now. And like I don't know, it just looks like we just stuck something on one corner. It's almost like that brick should continue along the whole. I mean, it's just it's it's even more
>> like prominent and different when it's one wall. >> And I know I know that staff told you >> expanding it to both sides, we wouldn't have a problem. >> Yeah. >> It it wouldn't be above the roof line like you have now with the peaks. It
would be lower on the two sides >> because there's no need to make that >> that entire thing like Even in New York, it's on the sides. It's lower. You don't have that peak. And we could do that on the both sides, but we were encouraged not to go down that route. >> I understand. Yeah. >> Maybe that is something that they can
work out with the administration as far as the sides are concerned where the brick is the brick um design is taken to the sides, but not necessarily from ground to rooftop just uh to show a consistency, a blending of the sides to
the front. definitely open to that. >> Is it too far along or can those can there be a thin brick applied to >> Yes, we could continue. >> Yeah, I I I think I disagree with the staff on that like and I I like this goes back to the other Alton project.
It's either >> all right. >> Go go go go go blend and and make it cohesive and >> or >> or this looks like you you put it on the side of a of a nondescript building and and I'm I think I I was going to say you
could tint the sidewalls, but brick and maybe a little bit of pre-cast detail could make this celebrate it a little bit more. >> We we could definitely do that if that was part of the condition. It would be a little bit more than, you know, now that we already did the stuckco, but it would be something they would definitely do.
>> Florida Florida head state headquarters. >> Yes. >> And I think if we can also when you meet with staff just I don't know what we call the features above the the pointed roofs. Uh um I don't there's >> I'm sorry.
>> What was that? >> Okay. if you can take a look at those and see if you're agreeable to not having those. It it is it too much of a change from your Brooklyn facility. >> I don't know. I I did Laura, were you done? >> Oh, yeah.
>> Okay. I was say I I have a real problem. I don't think that there is an architectural tradition in Miami Beach to have brick. Maybe brick used as um like a highlight or something for planters. But there's a reason that
homes in Florida or South Florida aren't made with brick because we don't have the clay. Um, it's very expensive. It's not great for hurricanes, etrapping the entire building in brick is even more, I think, a mistake on this corner
because this is an enormous building. It takes up half the corner. Um, I mean perhaps but I would like to see some you know I what I would like to see I think there's room for compromise here because as presented this looks to me like Harry
Potter like I'm walking down in Universal Studios because it's just this facade and there is no relationship between the sides. Um, and it really is. is you're just you're just putting a you know like a like a set for for a movie slapping it on the front of this
building and there's no relationship with the environment. There's no relationship with the rest of the building. Um it's artificial which you know I mean I understand the intent here and why you're going around and populating with this sort of building. And in some places, again, I I looked at
that book that you were talking about. Um, and in some places it does work because, you know, they use bricks in other parts of the country. Um, they use bricks in Europe to build, but we don't do that here in Miami Beach. And we have pretty um, I don't know, high design
architectural standards. Um, so, you know, actually in the book, they talked about it as being buildings that are out of place. And I've been asking myself this question of this is a this is a building that is out of place and is that beneficial to our community or
is that something that is just going to feel out of place? Um again, if this was on a side street and somebody stumbles upon it and then that becomes oh this sort of hidden gem, but this is so prominent. Um, what I would like to see
is some sort of compromise of maybe it's not red brick, maybe it's gray brick or maybe it's white or something that both acknowledges your language as well as the sort of native language of Miami
Beach architecture. And I I think that there is I think with some creative thinking that there is a way to move forward, but I would really like to see some sort of compromise. Um, and the buildings that I've seen from other
parts of the world, there have been modifications, there have been compromises. So, I don't think we're asking a lot. Again, I don't want you to compromise. You know, this is just this is just my opinion. like this to me it's it's
it's going to become I I don't I don't want it and I know you don't want it to become an eyesore. I know you want it to be a successful destination and I just sort of worry about it because it's not in dialogue with anything and that's something that the board
staff we've all sort of you know tried to push away from. So that's my opinion. Why don't we do this um in in the essence of time and so that you can feel that you have a project that meets your goals >> and your thoughts.
Are you acceptable to going back working with staff and maybe introducing the brick on the sides as mentioned by some of the board members, not on the entire facade of the sides, but as details and
maybe reducing some of the brick on the frontage um so that it's more of a detail instead of just all of the wall if possible. I understand that that's not what you have in Brooklyn. Uh, personally I like red brick. Um, there's
even an orange brick. And we do have these brick houses all throughout Miami Beach. We have them on Lake View Drive, Alton Road, Upper North Bay, uh, Pine Tree Circle, uh, Loris Island, again done in the 30s um, by several of the
architects that um, that were around back then, but that you consider another color of brick as requested by one of the board members. Is that something that is acceptable to all of you? >> Let me tell you this. If we don't go
this way, I mean the old purpose uh the mandate you know that we had from the institution doesn't I mean doesn't have any >> resemblance to reason you know it disappears. Number two,
I'm sure all of you have been there. The rest of the building, the one that has been rest now, you cannot see it because you have trees on both sides and the drawing that or the rendering that we
are showing is the way it's going to to look really. you know, you are going to be experiencing only that facade. The rest disappears and and I understand the trees are
there. You know, we are not going to get rid of the trees, you know. >> No, absolutely not. But one of the some of the board members are saying that it would not be offensive as you had originally presented to the staff to introduce the brick on the sides. And it
could be a detail under the windows or around the windows or on the lower part. >> Uh even though there's landscaping that would block some of this, but >> uh but it still would be visible even through the landscaping because it's not
totally covered. >> We wouldn't be opposed to that. We wouldn't be opposed to expanding it to the sides. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we could change the front to a different color or change the style of the front and still get the people behind it to make the project
happen. The sides for sure is not a problem as much as they want. Whether they want one story, two stories of a brick or none of it or that's not the issue. The issue is really the facade in the front. if we would have to change that or not. If it would still be a project that people would be behind,
>> but maybe there are some changes you can make to the front. Maybe not the color of the brick. Maybe there's some reduction in the amount of brick used in the front facade. Is that a possibility? or it's not even I mean there's so many different elements that you could consider modifying that would still
maybe make it recognizable but also more context appropriate. I think that you know it's not it's the brick. It's everything combined. It's yeah it's it's the turrets it's the you know the elements sticking up out of there. It's
it's the surrounding of it's the stone around the windows and those shapes that the stone is made. I mean this is very decidedly of a very very specific historical >> architectural style that again is it's
all we're my question was are you open to compromise >> let me tell you this you know I've done very important buildings in this city for inance the satire hotel okay I know
what architecture is I know what the style is and because of that I took this design because I think that is okay. I personally think that is okay. We are
not doing anything wrong you know by not following exactly you know what you feel it should go should should be I >> you don't have an issue with it being a
like a stage front and not not the building and it's it's it's just a it's just a single facade that doesn't bother you. No, we wanted it the whole thing. So, we're still pro doing the whole thing, but everyone said it was
overbearing, too much. Let's scale it down. It should be just one area. It shouldn't do the whole thing. But that's we're not opposed to doing the whole thing. It the the only thing that we're technically or discussing opposing is modifying the main feature or the main
staple, which is the front facade. So basically they're willing to do more but they're not willing to do less >> right >> in the front. >> And I think some of the ideas of more pre-cast or certain things like that as as slight changes if they end up being okay is is not a substantial shift to
the architecture. That's for sure. >> Um >> yeah something I mean like you said Sarah I the the what I'm concerned about is it looking like a movie set. Um, and so something I think like if especially if we sounds like, you know, it needs to
be red brick. I'd like I wish I could see what that brick is going to look like. Um, I like like Myra's been saying it's it's been used in the 30s. I I'd like to see this building look like it was built in the 30s. like not that it's like and that it's been there and that it it was
supposed to be there and it's not like brand new brick or like you know it just looks it's just meant to look like a movie. Um, so I mean I just ask you to really consider material choices here like use, you know, authentic brick to I
mean like I just I I'm I'm con I'm concerned that it's not going to look like it was built in the 30s >> and and if we were to take a vote today, I don't know if you would have all the votes that you need to get this approved. So in lie of getting it
disapproved, taking that risk, would you be opposed? Would you be agreeable to going back meeting with staff and seeing what can be done? Agreeing that maybe there's some brick elements that can be done to the sides.
Maybe something else can be done to the front. You found a solution for the roof. You went from shingles to slate, which is a beautiful roof. Um, so maybe something you can work out with staff and come back at a at a later meeting
and maybe bring some of the sample of the brick that you're considering because I think that would be helpful as well. >> Uh, what do you think? Yeah, >> I'm also going to say too, you know, I think what's happened here is you got
you've the organization has taken a building that is notable not necessarily because of the original architecture, but because of what happened inside and how it became a symbol. And so now you're exporting this design to
different communities where and it's not it's not an architectural masterpiece. you know, this just happened to be the building that was settled in. This just happened to be the first one. And now you're bringing it into our community and saying, "This is important, not because of what it looks like, but
because of what it is and because of what it represents." And you're bringing that into a community that does have a very particular perspective on what our structures look like. And also happens to be very, very different than in other parts of the country. I mean, as a native to Miami, you know that so much
about how we live, what we build, etc., needs to be very different because of the climate, because of the lifestyle. And so, this is what I'm struggling with that in and of itself, this isn't I don't know if I would even like this if I was in one of these other areas, if I would say, you know what, the
downspouts, why are there downspouts on the front facade of a building? You know, we've done away with that before. All all of these other little elements. So I think that's also why I'm very much struggling with this because it's not like you're presenting anything novel or noteworthy
or or whatever that is. Um, so that's something that's another reason too why why I feel like, you know, there needs to be some compromise here and there's a lot of areas to do that. And I do wish that in your presentation you had included some of the other locations so
we could have seen diff this building in different locations throughout the world to have a little bit more context with which this is being done. Um, I don't know if anybody else has any other comments or thoughts. No, I go back to, you know, this is
something that can be worked out possibly to a a project that can come back to the board and we can continue talking, but we shouldn't be designing from this board. Um, you know, from this group over here. We're just giving you
our our comments. Um, and my thought and my recommendation is that you don't ask for a vote because I fear you're not going to get an approval and that would be devastating to all of you, I believe. But in fact, that you go back
and try to work something out with the administration, come back and give us the recommendations that you're hearing from both my sides. You know, show us what you've done in other cities. show us the type of brick that you're proposing to use and and then maybe we
can come to some agreement. >> Um, >> Adam, you had a comment? >> No, no. I I was just saying look at I'll echo that. Look at Baltimore. Look at Tacoma. They there's little there's little some have some some roadblocks
sticking out and some have smooth brick and there's a twotory structure. Um, maybe I I I like the idea of coming back to us and just showing us maybe a comparison and and and what you guys thought of and tell us retell us the
story. >> I don't think what we're asking is something that we haven't asked other people before who have come with buildings that they want to reproduce from other locations. Um, yeah. So, I I know um we we have we have a
hard stop at 2:30 and so I don't I don't know if anybody wants is ready to make a motion um on this just throwing out there and whatever happens >> whatever whatever whatever you think is appropriate like I I'd like to see this
again based on what we've we've talked about. I think you've heard, I know we all have different opinions and they've been different than what maybe staff has told you, but I think at least there's guidance for you to play around with materials, explore the whole building again, mixture of both.
Um, so, you know, I I'll make a motion to continue for whenever you um all are prepared to come back. >> I'm going to second that. >> You know what? >> I'm going to second I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, I'm going to second that because everybody who's we've asked to come back
has come back listening to the demands and thoughts of and it's just improved of the overall project. So, I ask that you know this
works for you as well. >> A a motion has been made and has been seconded. any motion to continue to the October 23rd meeting? >> Uh, I would say November because we're like piling on October. >> What it's When will you be ready to come
back to the board? Is October too soon? You would have to have all the documents and conversations with staff by beginning of October. I think it's October 5th. Roelio. >> Okay. Either that >> or November. work it out with the
administration. If you can have it by octo by October, fine. Otherwise, go to November. >> Okay. >> You can work it out with staff. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, october or you think >> we'll have to get back to you because
it's not just we have to Well, we have to when they continue they have to set the dates so that way the public is aware >> when it will come back to. >> Yeah. >> Just give them time. >> Okay. What is the meeting of the November >> motion to include? >> If you set it for October, they can
continue it if they're not ready to November. >> Yeah, but I think there's only a certain amount of times that it be continued. It's better to do it in November. Give them a little bit more time than the first time it gets. >> They're not the only ones making the decision. >> What's the date?
>> It will be November 20th year. >> Can I skip? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. the I apologize. I have the second by Mr. Pas. I did not get the who made the motion. >> We won't be able
to interrupt. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> In favor, by the way, all those in favor. >> Oh, I I >> And do you feel like you have some enough direction? You know I think that >> the problem we have is that the concept or the way you're looking at other board
I've been member of the board in various city and then I know exactly you know what it goes in your mind and what you have to decide but I think conceptually I wouldn't have taken this commission if
I would have felt that it was wrong. is not wrong is very good. What we're doing is with the existing building is an harmony by contrast. We have that element which is very rigid
which in in a certain way the modulation has elements of the >> for the sake of time I'm going to have to cut you off but please we want to hear this more when during the continued the next time that we see you. All of this is really good information, but in fairness to everybody else who's been
waiting, I I we do need to move on. A motion has been made. So, we'll I'm I'm eager to hear your further thoughts at the meeting in November, as I'm sure I'm sure the rest of us are. Thank you so much. >> Well, >> thank you. >> You are the board. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> The next the next item on the agenda, DRB21104 5685 Alton Road. So, Roelio, we have four items left. I was mentioning to you. Are we going to have enough time because we have to be
out of here by 2:30 for the commission land use meeting. >> Yes, we're going to have enough time to hear that. >> Okay. All right. >> So, and then I'll try to move it along as fast as I can. >> Okay. This application had been filed requesting design approval for the construction of a new golf course
clubhouse, the relocation of tennis courts, four new paddle courts, the addition of three comfort station, a new driveway, and a variance to the required ancillary structure setback with one or more waivers to replace the existing clubhouse. Okay, so this is uh going to
replace the existing Lagor Country Club. Um, it's going to be at the exact same location as the current country club. Uh, the clubhouse is designed in a contemporary style and composed of two primary buildings referred to as the south and north buildings. Um, the buildings are linked by a landscaped
area that includes a centrallylo one-story pro shop. Um, the um south building is more open towards the east uh and incorporates significant glazing that overlooks the golf course. Um, it has materials that include stone, clapboard stucco, painted metal doors,
uh, and windows and PVC louvers and traditional stucco. The north building is of a similar pallet with additional vertical louvers that provide screening for stairs and circulation areas. Um, and and both have uh, fenestration that balance the facades. Um, um, the
one-story building, there's a one-story a couple one-story buildings. One um, is a performance center and pro shop in the center. It follows the same architectural language as the building. Um, and then they are proposing a um a uh security uh security house, a
security gate in the front of the facade. The applicant is requesting a variance of the front setback uh to reduce by 50 ft the minimum required uh setback fronting Alton Road uh for a setback of 125 ft in order to um
accommodate that that uh gate house at a setback of 75 ft from Alton Road. Um the setback that's required is significant. This one-story structure um is minimal. It's minor in nature. um and and moving it will will uh will affect their uh
their traffic patterns um and and minimize their ability to have appropriate circulation on the site. So that is a that is a practical difficulty and staff is supportive of the granting of the variance. Um the applicant is also proposing to move the um tennis courts and paddle courts. Um they are
located behind some residential buildings. they own one of the buildings, so there shouldn't be any issues, but it isn't near um other residential buildings, and we want to make sure that uh any issues with those tennis courts are mitigated. Um so staff does recommend that each court be enclosed with solid flex plexiglass
panels, which help contain sound and prevent noise from escaping uh and being carried into the neighborhood. Um, the applicant is considering constructing a solid block wall within that setback area which will uh be fully screened and covered with and and so staff does recommend that if they do that that it be fully screened and covered with
landscaping in order to help mitigate any additional noise and and visual impacts. Um, and then the 20ft setback area for that to be densely landscaped with a combination of hedges, mature evergreen trees, uh, creating a natural buffer that enhances the privacy and provides additional sound attenuation
for those homes that are next to those tennis courts. Um, so in the uh, essence of time, staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the attached draft order. >> Great. Uh, good good afternoon, madam chair, board staff. Michael Lark and Ton
Southgate Boulevard here reor Country Club. With me today is Brad Meltzer. He's the vice president of the board of trustees of Lagorse. Also been today is our architect Christopher Lucas from Hart Howton. Our project manager mana Morgan and our lands of architect Bob Dugan. Lagor has been with us since
1927. It has grown up with the city. It boomed until about World War II and then it fell on difficult times. The city actually took it over, made it a public course. But then after a while, the real estate development interests came in and wanted to convert the entirety of the club and all the golf course to
residential housing. A group of citizens banded together and believe it or not, they bought it for $1 million back then, just around after World War II. So then Labour started booming again. Uh Jack Nicholas actually used to play there as a child growing up um in the early
2000s. They have a new clubhouse that they designed and built. There is some inadequacies with that clubhouse. So that's why they're here before you today seeking a designer review approval for a new clubhouse. Uh next slide please. Keep on going. Next slide. That's so the
location obviously is North Bay Road, excuse me, Alton Road in the 50s and of course the golf course stretches north and south of the clubhouse with all its different amenities. Now they can turn over to our architect and let him go through the design with you all.
Thank you, Michael. Um, good afternoon. Thank you for your time today. Appreciate you getting everybody in here that you can um on a tight schedule. So, I'm going to take you through a few slides uh just walking you through the design goals and some of the strategies that we employed to replace the existing club with one that better fits within
the community. Um, one that is sustainable, more resilient, and better suits the needs of today's members. Starting with the overall site that you see on screen, uh the focus is mostly on the new clubhouse and the buildings that we're designing there. But you'll also
notice that we have two comfort stations, uh one north and one south, strategically located to be in the front and back nines for the golf course itself. Um looking at the site plan, it shows the new clubhouse location, parking and
tennis courts, which are all largely in the same location as they currently reside today. Um, we're proposing a gate house, as Michael alluded to earlier, uh, an ancillary building that's that would be set back 75 ft off of Alton Road to allow proper stacking of cars and to make the club more secure. Uh, we
also removed one of the curb cuts in the middle of Alton Road, and we'll be replacing it with more vegetation. The new club is 227 ft from Alton Road, which is 27 ft further away from Alton as it currently stands. The first floor
will be set at 13 ft NGVD uh which is 8 ft uh BFE plus the 5 ft of freeboard. Along with raising the club, we're proposing to raise the tennis courts and in doing so bringing it behind the setback lines where the tennis courts actually currently impede. So making
sure that we're currently uh hitting zoning with the new with the new tennis courts. Um the the pedel courts which are off to the left, the smaller courts that are there uh as as mentioned are proposed to have the plexiglass around the courts lighting contained within and
are set back uh about 20 ft 6 in off of the rear yards and property lines of those residences which is more than the 7 ft that's necessary by code. Um, as you can see, you know, the current the current clubhouse itself,
um, is very visible for Malton Road. And so, we're we're working to create a sense of entry. Right now, you have three different curb cuts. You have multiple entries and exits. So, we're we're trying to limit that and bring you to a centralized entry point for the club. Uh, treelined, more landscaping
throughout. Um, a guard house to to give you that sense of arrival. And then as you can see here with the clubhouse kind of set in the back, it it's it's actually shorter than the the existing clubhouse too by about 3 ft, but being set back as well and the club the materials that are being used for it, um
it really starts to blend in with more of the landscape and the surrounding area. So coming to the the entry porco. So, as you come up past that gate house and get to the arrival point, um you can start seeing some of the inspired uh contemporary Caribbean design that we've
employed here, uh coral stone that is used on the columns of the porc, but also on the buildings throughout. Uh PVC clad um or even metal clad tubing and uh edging throughout that'll be kind of bronze in color to match the the metal
on the facades and the the windows. uh underside of all of the overhangs looking to have a faux TNG and then um just some stucco added throughout to accent the club. The south clubhouse building is going to be home to the the club lounge, the
dining room, um and a flex meeting room which will be used mostly as a card room for the club. Uh the kitchen and support areas are also on this south side of the building kind of tucked away away from the entry, away from the road. Uh we're adding a loading dock which is currently
missing from from the club now with a loading yard that'll have uh 14t walls that surround it to make sure to screen from Alton Road and its neighbors. Uh it also contains a couple mechanical units in there again screened for for noise and visibility.
Upstairs in the in the clubhouse we have the admin spaces proper facilities that are kind of missing from the club today. they don't have proper break rooms and staff lockers and such. And so adding these amenities along with some new admin staff offices that are all
self-contained up here um is is a positive for for the club. Moving to the backside on on the golf course side, so kind of facing away from Alton, we we're still going to continue those materials and you'll see this as a theme throughout. Um all the ancillary
buildings have a lot of the same pallet and materials. So the coral stones, the TNG, uh some of the stucco you'll see on the top second level, we we're using a collaborate stucco to actually have some depth and shadow added to it. So it's not just a a plain facade at the top.
Moving back towards the entry. So now we're standing kind of in front of the pro shop looking towards the the north building, uh the wellness building as we call it. Um I'll just point out here that as mentioned before there's a a structure uh that's the stair on the lefth hand side. We're also using a
metal screening to clad that and to just kind of complement the metal edging and aluminum clad uh columns that are throughout. This north clubhouse building has the the men's and women's locker rooms, some wet areas, uh lounges off of those lockers, and a tennis pro shop that
overlooks all the courts. Upstairs we do have the the pool deck, the uh cabana cafe that enters and opens up onto it and then a fitness area uh both fitness studio and a movement studio for the club.
This is just a rendering of the the pool deck um trying to vegetate it. We'll have glass railings up here as well to mitigate some of the noise at at low levels. And then the stucco will kind of be brought up here uh on the on the cafe and the fitness
Pro Shop is right in between those two structures. So, it's an ancillary structure being under 2,000 square feet. Um, but well beyond the setbacks that are necessary for that. And uh here again, you'll you'll see it right in the middle of this rendering where we have
the continuation of the coral stone uh coming across and cladding the entire building. The Golf Performance Center, which is north of the Wellness Building, is again an ancillary structure that is under
2,000 ft, under 20 ft in height. Um, it sits uh about 150 ft away from the the rear setback or excuse me, the rear property line, which is more than double what is necessary per code. that building which will be home to some
hitting bays um and a putting table. Uh the club members will come over here. It'll be kind of an extension of the driving range. Again, clad and the coral stone and the the wood that you see here. Turning our attention to the comfort
station. So, the the two comfort stations um which are are probably closest to the neighbors. And I think um there were comments made previous to this just about how how close they are. Uh again, they are, you know, 154 feet and 262 feet away from the existing
property lines and are well beyond the 75 ft necessary by ancillary buildings >> and are simply replacing the two that we have. They're not new. >> Well, one is replacing Yeah, one is replacing uh one that is existing. That's the one on the left. The other
one is moving um moving a location that's existing but a little bit closer uh to the edge of the property. Those those two comfort stations are are actually rather small. So So there's not much to them beyond restrooms, a little
storage area, and a snack slash um you know, water, you know, filling station. Rendering here shows it kind of sitting in the landscape. You know, we do plan on heavily landscaping it. Um, at the end of the day, we plan on having a hurricane shooker come down and and
bring security to to the front there so that um it can shut down at the end of the day. But this largely kind of just sits within the the context of the site and stays out of sight and out of mind not only from the golfers but from the neighboring properties as well.
Um, I don't think I mentioned it earlier. I did touch upon sustainability just kind of wrapping up our presentation, but the project is going for lead gold certification. So we will be looking to achieve that and have started those conversations. Um I think that's it. >> Great. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much. Um are there any other members of the public wishing to speak? >> On line we have Elliot Bassner. >> Okay Elliot. [Music] >> Hi Elliot. Before you proceed um I will need to swear you in. Please confirm whether you can hear me. >> I can hear you. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you will be giving in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. You may proceed. >> Thank you. And thank you for allowing me to speak. Uh I am a resident uh on 5931
North Bay Road and uh I'm joining this and I've never done one of these before. Uh but it is uh something that concerns me quite a bit. Uh, and it dates back to the um the Gors's prior renovation of their golf course when they redid the
whole golf course and a lot of the drainage. And I would know cuz I speak with a lot of the neighbors in uh North Bay and also Walton Road that since then the uh flooding has been noticeably worse uh as a result uh since then. Uh
so I don't know what was approved then. I wasn't part of that. But I do know it there's a real belief it's had a real negative effect on the flooding on our streets which if anybody's gone down our streets when there's been heavy rain it's bad. Uh so what I would like for
the the the board to consider here and maybe is that the before this is approved that Loris does a study to understand one for the current request here uh that it doesn't make worse and even makes better the flooding uh of um
our roads because I didn't see that in the presentation. And then even as part of that, maybe they work with the the the city and the county to just look back to make sure that uh any any other issues in the prior renovations uh are or fixed to the extent that it does
cause more damage uh and and and it's been pretty a lot of neighbors have spoken about this for years now. So now that they're asking for another variation, I want to make sure it doesn't get worse. So my request to the board is that before they approve this
uh that a study is done to understand how it impacts the flooding uh on the roads on Alton and North Bay and and maybe on the east side but I I don't live there so I I don't know how it affects them at all. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public online?
>> We have no one else with their hand raised. >> Okay, great. I'm now closing the public portion and opening up to the board for discussion. Who would like to start? I'll start. Um >> Oh, turn your microphone. >> I'll start. Um
to Mr. Bner's point, um many residents complain on uh you know, and the roads there near them, the Gor Drive especially, it rains and it just floods immediately. And the
other thing is the electricity just goes out um on such a high density and spot and wealth. So I would look into that as well. You know I would like to see that report. So I support that >> regarding flooding electricity
everything. I think Raelio have you has city staff come across this with the flooding? So, so it's it's as part of their building permit process, they will have to present uh um storm water management plan that has to be approved by the public works department. I can tell you
our our standards have increased significantly since this was last approved uh since the since the current um clubhouse was approved in in the early 2000s. Um so they'll have to meet the new levels of service that are required in the comprehensive plan and that'll require them to uh install drainage and other facilities.
Typically, that engineering work happens after the DRB approves the design concept because they if the DRB doesn't approve it or approves changes, it doesn't make sense for them to spend the money on the engineering at this point. Uh, but that is something that will have to happen as part of their building permit process. Um, and they are
required to maintain all of their storm water on site. They're not allowed to have that storm water discharge out into the public rideways as part of the new construction. As as I note, the uh engineering firm that we've hired is also the engineering firm that designed the golf course. We want to make sure there was harmony
between the golf course and the new building so that it wasn't a new engineer. So that would be part of the the you know the new design would incorporate all the comments that you mentioned. >> Yeah. And if we could just have a if we could have maybe a special note to pass on the project to public works to
monitor that because there seems to have been a lot of community concerns. >> Okay. So, um, the Mr. Basner was referring to the flooding that occurred after the golf course was renovated sometime in the early 90s, mid '9s. >> Um, what they're doing,
>> it wasn't the '9s. >> It's gotten worse since then. >> Uh, that's when Jack Nicholas renovated it and it created these low retention areas >> which unfortunately haven't worked and they were required by Day County Derm.
But moving forward, what they're renovating is not the golf course which caused the drainage problems. It's a clubhouse. Um, and as Roelio stated, there will be requirements that they maintain any water from that property be
kept on that property. However, because public works is going to be looking at this, they need to look at, which they've done numerous times, but it hasn't been fixed. The um entrance to Lagor right now on
57th Street um is under agreement between Lagor and the city of Miami Beach. And there is a manhole, two manholes, maybe one if I remember correctly, that allow
for the drainage of water into the storm sewer. However, that pipe was disconnected somewhere on Alton Road after the agreement was signed and so Lagor floods and that needs to be reconnected so that
Lagor's in that area that north entrance to the clubhouse does not continue to flood and cause a flooding problem on the sidewalks and the properties along that area. So that that's the information I have. Alton Road as it is
will be renovated and it's now slated for 2035. I don't like calling them because they'll probably tell me it'll be 2040, but uh it is slated for 2035 with an 8 foot storm water pipe under
the road uh in the water and under the road. Um so uh on another issue the um Patel courts um what distance do they have from um the home
next to the Lor's property that was purchased? >> It's about 20 foot 6 in. Yeah. >> Um >> 20 foot 6 in >> 20 foot 6 in from the property line. >> From the property line. >> Okay. Um and and that's from not 5757
Alton but from the >> home adjacent to it. Okay. And for that reason they're requesting or staff is asking for the plexiglass. >> Yes. >> Uh to keep the noise out and you feel the noise will be kept out.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> You know Pedell isn't like pickle. Pickle Pickle creates some crazy noise and that was a discussion we had as a membership and that's why we went Pidell because Pedell's a much quieter game. >> Yeah. Okay. I I just I I there are some
Pedell courts >> that even this board has approved and it's adjacent to multifamily homes and yet that requirement wasn't made. The ones on Normandy Drive heading uh eastbound I forget it was a few months
ago maybe last year. So, I don't know that >> we genally >> because I know there's a lot of landscaping between that home, I'm sure, and the podel courts that are going to be. >> We we generally don't require it on single family homes because we don't
expect the use to be as intense as we would at a at a facility like this where where you likely will have members playing at 20 at all. >> This is that facility that is being built. I don't know if they finally built it on Normandy Drive. It isn't a single family home.
>> Oh. Uh, >> and it's several of them and raetball together with that. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know. It's something to just look at. If it's needed, it's needed. But, >> um, >> thank you, Mayor. >> And there's also in the in the staff
report, there's a recommendation about enclosing or having a wall to separate the paddle the pedel courts and then operating hours as well to minimize >> all that. All that. >> Okay. Did you see that? >> Okay.
>> Anybody other comments? Ailia, >> one question on the east elevation of the building on the second level. There's clapboard stucco. >> Yes. >> Applied instead of coral stone. Is there reason why you carried a coral stone up to the second level?
>> Not then. And you chose clard clapboard stucco instead? >> Yeah. it in in essence of of I think trying to keep the coral stone where you can see it and feel it and touch it. It's a little bit more of expensive of material. We want to make sure to to use the uh that that material in the places
that make the most sense. We thought in lie of that stepping up and away from the building there's there's going to be you know it's much further from everybody else. We thought going to a stuckco would be more um it would be a better solution for that that elevations too. Sometimes if it's all
coral, you lose the definition of some of the coral that's in front of you. It just kind of blended in. >> Overall, I like the design. Looks like a resort. You see like Bahamas or the Caribbean. So, it's nice. >> Thank you. >> This is Brad Meltzer, by the way. I don't know if you all knew, but he's very energetic. Good client.
>> An architect by education as well. So, >> um I just had one thing. The So, the gate house is what we're here for mostly. >> Correct. That's the V. It's the design review approval for the main clubhouse and then the variance for the the guard house. >> And if I could if I could say something
about the gate house, especially in light, you know, we have some members who are literally right now like on the president's commissions and things like that. And right now it's very easy just to wander into the into the parking lot and just find yourself on the golf course. And it's the one thing we wanted
to try to have some little bit of security in light of what's gone on lately. >> No, I think that's not it. I'm just wondering is there a reason I know that we're looking for 50 foot uh variance there. Is is there any reason why the the lane couldn't the the whole lane
couldn't be shifted back and enter the motorcade from the center versus coming out from the from the west side coming into it from the west side. That's a >> it bifurcates the the parking lot in the center. Um, and the the idea is to try to to drive
in, pull up by the pro shop, you know, drop off your golf clubs and things like that or drive up to the Porterchair, the main entry. Um, >> so there's also, if I can add this, there's a median uh in the center of Alton Road in the
center of where is now the exit of the clubhouse. I don't know if you can put it up for them to see, but >> uh the state in its um redesign of Alton or renovation of Alton >> has been asked by the residents to
consider a traffic light in front of Lagor's Country Club. and they said if they re if they approve a traffic light, it would be at that um entrance on 57th Street where they proposed the guard
gate. Am I correct so far? >> Yeah, the north entrance. >> They haven't decided to move ahead with that, but >> yeah, unfortunately they feel that there are no street lights necessary on Alton. There isn't sufficient speeding or traffic. That was the response to the
residents by FDOT. So they're still pursuing getting a traffic light there as well as on 51st Street. So if the traffic light is on if it happens, it would only happen on 57th Street because it continues from there. It's an
intersection versus the other is a median um in the center of the road. >> Adam, were your concerns efficiently addressed? I'm not I'm just again why can't that that arc be pushed in further
and come into the middle? Just walk me through the the how I'm dropping my bags off and then parking. >> The thought when we first embarked on this project was that when you pull off to Alton Road into the club, you just enter into a parking lot currently and it kind of feels like you're at Walgreens maybe, right? Or Costco. Um,
so that hard Howardon has done a really great job working with our parking consultants and uh trying to create a little drive entry so you feel like you're have a you know an entry um versus just pulling off the road abruptly and if you put it in the center you'd end up with parking lots on both
sides again. So the idea was to kind of shift the entry to the north and the >> No, I'm sorry to cut you off. I'm just >> I understand the question. You want to take that arch you want to move it all the way up so that the the gate house actually gets past the ancillary setback. >> Yeah. I'm just I'm just And then you enter the motor court from the center.
I'm just asking. I'm sure there's a reason. I just want >> I can answer that, Adam. I'm sorry. We haven't been very clear. So, >> no, I like the gate house. I think that's all good. And where you've placed it for terms of, you know, how it is now is is a myth. >> The front setback from Alton Road for accessory structure is 125 ft. We're
setting back 75 ft. There's a tension between making sure it's back far enough from Alton Road to accommodate the stacking that will occur, usually three to four vehicles. But there's also a tension. You don't want people that are necessarily exposed to violence to get too far into your property. So you want
to to back up and not have them go so far into your property. So that's why it's it's there at that location. We want it in the property to accommodate stacking but not so far in. >> That's right. I knew there'd be a good good reason for it. >> But thank you for your question. >> I think it'll be nestled in the
landscaping and it'll be a a sharp structure. So I I don't have an issue. I just needed to hear at least some reasoning behind it. >> Any other comments or thoughts from anyone? Well, I was say I think the design is lovely. Thank you.
>> Um and um does anybody want to make and I'm supportive of all the things I'm happy that there's some operating conditions? Does anybody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the design and the variances.
Okay, >> I seconded it. >> Okay. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> Great. Thank you. >> Congratulations. Thank you. >> Thank you for accommodating us. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, we have to stop. I mean, we have five more minutes technically and I don't know if we can really do this, but I know we talked about another meeting this month. What can you tell us
again what that date is? >> So, we have a meeting scheduled for Febru September 19th, which is a next Friday, uh, at 9:00 a.m. in this chambers for any items that we didn't get to, unless anybody wants to be deferred to October. Um
but otherwise the items can go to that meeting. We have three items pending. We have three items that we did not get to >> and at the meeting those would be the only items discussed. Correct. That would be the whole point of the meeting. Um >> yeah, I mean I can't imagine that we'd
be able to do what we need to do in four minutes and also then vote about the the next ones and then be out of here. Um so how does that work? Does somebody want to make a motion to continue? And I apologize. I've been trying all day to get to this point, but
>> I appreciate it. Just quick question, Melio, if we should get started. I think this will be a quick one. >> Can we go over two, three minutes past the hard stop? >> Um, I will I don't think so. I think they need 30 minutes fully to reset for the land use committee, which starts
promptly at 3. >> So, I apologize. >> Just asking. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, are you available to come back on the 19th? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so >> yeah. >> Um, so does somebody need to make a motion to
>> Yes. Motion to continue the remaining items on the agenda to to September 19th? >> I make a motion to continue the items remaining the three items remaining to the September 19th meeting, >> Friday, 9:00 a.m. >> And if you don't, let me just read the items into the record so that it's
clear. Um, that's DRB25-113, that's 409 East San Marino Drive. DRB25-1115, that's 900 Southshore Drive, lot number 10. And DRB25-1117, that's 8101 Collins Avenue, the the log
cabin. >> Okay. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second that. >> Mhm. >> I apologize. So, so for 900 Southshore Drive, lot number 10, they have a companion item which is the other the
item of the lot split coming in October. So, they would rather just go to the October meeting. So, if we can take that item separately and continue that item to October. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, this would be continuing 409 San Marino Drive and 8101 Collins Avenue to the September 19th meeting.
>> Uh, we have a motion by Miss Bhutavoli. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mr. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> Any opposed? >> And then uh if we can get a motion to continue DRB25-115
to the October 23rd meeting. >> I'll make a motion to continue that one. >> Okay. Any second? >> Okay. Uh all those in favor? >> Any opposed? Perfect. Motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I oppose.
>> Okay. We'll see you next week. >> Mhm. >> Thank you.