Hey. Hey. Hey. Oh, baby. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. N. I'm I want you to feel me. Back again.
It fall behind. get it. Get it. get another N the
The The neighborhood Enough. Baby, nothing. 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. Today I'm joined by Commissioner Magazine and Commissioner
Bot. Today is May 26 at our land use and sustainability meeting. Um before we proceed, would our city attorney like to make any announcements? >> Sure, I'd be happy to. So today's meeting of the land use and sustainability committee will be conducted in a hybrid format with the
committee physically present in the commission chambers and staff, members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate virtually, the public may dial 1888-475-4499 and enter the webinar ID which is 850599237B
or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which is 850599237. Anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if you're participating by phone. >> Thank you. Tom, are there any changes to today's agenda?
>> Uh, Mr. Chair, no changes to the agenda to announce. >> Okay, great. Is there a motion to set the agenda? >> I move. >> Second hereby acclamation. Okay. Um, so let's let's jump to number three.
>> Okay. Item number three is consider amendments to the Miami Beach 20 240 comprehensive plan and city of Miami Beach land development regulations to establish residential use incentives in portions of North Beach. This was a dual referral to the planning board and
because this proposed u revision to the LDRs includes increases in F, the planning board is required to have two public hearings. uh their first public hearing occurred on May 5th and they continued the item to
their June 2nd meeting. A followup public workshop is scheduled for May 28th which would occur before the second meeting of the planning board on June 2nd. Um and the proposal there's a um a group that is going to make a
presentation as while this affects a larger area there is one private property owner who wants to take advantage of it and will make a presentation as indicated in the memo. While supportive of the proposed increase in F and height for
non-transient uses um staff does have a couple of concerns with the proposal. The first is the proposal includes the elimination of all subterranean setback requirements. Um the applicant I believe is going to present an amendment that
would only um remove the subterranean setback requirements on the front and side elevations and leave the required rear setback requirements. staff would still not recommend in favor of that because uh we believe that subterranean setback requirements are absolutely
critical on all sides of the building uh as they can impact uh water retention uh landscape uh pvious area as well as impacts on immediately abuing properties. The other thing we would recommend is that there is a proposal as
part of the incentives to limit the density to 75 dwelling units per acre. Currently in the RM3 district, you can have a maximum density of 150 units per acre. We would not recommend reducing the density. While this is only
applicable to oceanfront property, which would likely be developed primarily as waterfront or luxury, um we do believe that there should be some flexibility. If somebody wanted to do a development that was less than 150 units per acre, they could certainly do that. But if somebody wanted to take advantage of
incentives and have up to 150 dwelling units, we we believe that they should have that um latitude. Uh so with those changes, uh we would recommend that the land use committee discuss the item and provide a recommendation to both the uh planning board as well as the city
commission. >> Okay. Um Commissioner Matias, anything you want to add? I I kind of want to go into the details or let them let the applicant go into the details. Sure. Um, you know, this item is
interesting because I know that, you know, there's going to be a community meeting on Thursday. Um, and but I I have received some resident feedback about some concerns. So, I'm actually not sure um the direction this is. So,
let let's hear the item. >> Well, we heard it. Um, >> but is someone there is someone from Okay. So, uh, let's let's work through these concerns from staff if you guys want to discuss.
>> So, we have a little bit of a PowerPoint. >> Tom, can you educate the public? What is a subterranean setback? So subterranean setback there there's a requirement in our code that any levels of a building that are below grade and subterranean is
defined as an area of a property that is below sidewalk elevation. So like below grade um parking for instance um under the Florida building code there's limitations as to what types of uses can be provided in a subterranean area. Um,
but you are allowed to have parking and you are allowed to have certain types of storage. Um, under our code, subterranean setbacks have to follow the pedestal setbacks that are specified. And the reason for that is to ensure
that there is adequate pvious area and adequate water retention area on all sides of the property. if somebody is allowed to have a subterranean portion of the building or a partial subterranean portion of the building
come out beyond those setbacks, you could end up with property lineto-propy line development. So that's why years ago when there was a debate as to whether or not subterranean areas should even be permitted, the commission was very clear that they wanted at a minimum uh if there are going to be subterranean
areas that those meet the minimum pedestal setback requirements. Okay. What was the other concern after the subterranean setback? >> Density. >> Yeah. The proposal herein would lower the maximum density. If somebody takes advantage of these incentives, our point was that if you're going to take
advantage of nontrans incentives, you should be able to avail yourself of the current maximum density. Um, and not >> are you required to meet that? >> No. if somebody wanted to do a lower density that they could do that. This would mandate though that somebody would
have to meet that lower density. So the only people that could take advantage of this were people that were going to do really large luxury type units. We believe that there should be more flexibility. If another property owner wanted to take advantage of the incentives and do smaller units, they could go up to the current maximum
density. >> Wait a minute. Can you clarify though through the chair? Um >> because they're going to be luxury cuz they're on the ocean, you know. So, you know, how how big are we, you know, talking here? Because again, I mean, I
don't think that people need small 500 foot units either. So, if you could clarify a little bit about the square footage. >> Sure. The the the minimum unit size is 550 ft. There's no maximum unit size. Um the density uh consists of the number
the maximum number of residential units per acre that you can provide. So now uh in the RN3 district it's 150 residential units per acre. Typically as you correctly stated on the ocean most units are luxury residential. Um because
they're getting an incentive to do um additional square footage. They have proposed that the density limit be lowered so that the units become bigger. >> Wait, so you actually have to meet the density requirement of 150 currently as
we >> currently well currently your maximum density. So as long as you don't exceed 150 units per acre. >> So why would they want to change the law to >> they would need to explain why they want to have a lower density. In a lot of instances, uh, luxury buildings are well
under 150 units per acre because they're typically doing two to 3,000, sometimes larger square foot units. >> Um, I would imagine they're going to be proposing the same thing here. So, they would likely be well under 150. >> Why does that require a code change?
>> The because within this residential incentive area, they are proposing that the maximum density not exceed 75 units per acre. So if you want to take advantage of these residential use incentives, the F the height, you would
have to do much larger units, and you would not be able to do as many units as you could otherwise do. >> You're the chair. >> Yeah, Commissioner. >> Um Tom, so I'm I'm looking at this um map, and I think when we had when this item had first been kicked around in
discussions a year ago, it was a much smaller area, maybe. >> Mhm. >> Was it or memory? When they had originally proposed uh something within this area, it was limited to a couple of properties. Um there's a vacant lot that's just north of the Doville site.
Um and they proposed that general area um because they um did not want to file a private application. They needed to expand the area because this was a commission referral. And so now they've expanded the area that this would be applicable. >> Wait, why did they need to expand it?
because >> because if they wanted it specific to one property, it would have had to be a private application filed to the planning board. >> So So here's my thing. Like I you know, this is a wildly disastrously congested area of North
Beach. Um it is a topic of conversation every day in all kinds of places and and forums and among all kinds of people. Um I am very as my colleagues on the deis with me are very very interested in figuring out how to make more uh missing
middle housing. The reality is that the land use ac the land acquisition costs of oceanfront property are not going to be affordable missing middle workforce housing. So, um, I normally would say, you know, let's
keep the the density where it is because that gives us flexibility to move forward on this if somebody came with a great project. But the reality is this is going to be any redevelopment in this blue box is going to be ultra luxury by definition. Uh, I mean, anybody who
looks at Instagram will see people posting about how North Beach is the last under undeveloped, underdeveloped, unspoiled part of North Beach. and people are not coming to buy property on the ocean to build missing middle housing. So given that that's not a
benefit, then why would we keep the the possibility of having more dense usage there when we know that traffic is an unmitigated disaster and that is not a slam to Jose or to Will if anybody's here. It's just the the fact of I mean
you guys know you you see it every day. Um, >> so you're okay with the the reduction in density? >> The reduction in density I'm I am okay with, which is not my normal mo. I am very concerned though about the um um the the um subterranean setbacks. I'd like to hear from you guys why you think
that's necessary because I think I think it's really a dangerous precedent, not just for the reasons that Tom articulated, but you know, we know we have subsidance. Like that is a fact of nature. That is a thing. and maybe not on these properties yet, but but we don't want to um make things worse. And
we also know that building buildings on sand will um impact the buildings adjacent like and not necessarily badly because you can mitigate for that, but let's not make a you know a complicated situation worse. I I don't want to get
in the way of of manageable, thoughtful um progress where the owners are really mindful of the character of place. And I respect that about you guys. I know you could have bolded this through years ago and haven't. So, it's not it's not that.
It's just like, you know, at the end of the day, we all nobody wants to see another building come down. Nobody wants to see unmitigated traffic. At worst, it won't be good for your residents. Either case, um so let's figure out how to make this work. And and Tom if what is the increase in affairs math?
>> They are proposing to go um from their maximum F currently um would be 3.0. They're proposing to go to 3.5. >> Okay. >> I think we're just under the 45,000 ft. So we're we're not eligible for the 3.0.
That's always been the I think we're 2.75 now. And >> Commissioner Magazine, >> we're 2.25. >> How do you Okay. You feel good about it? All right. All right, Nick, let's hear what you got to say. >> So, through the chair, just on the the revised ordinance that we passed out now, it's a happy medium of 100 units an
acre. I think that addresses the reason that we proposed a lower density was precisely that is because of impacts to water and sewer traffic to try to incentivize people to voluntarily reduce their density. Otherwise, you can't really force people to do it any other way. U so this would allow for
redevelopment to come in at 100 units an acre. Plus, the code offers an 80% bonus for workforce housing. So, we have to keep that in mind that if somebody really wanted to come in with an alternative proposal, smaller, more market rate units or family style units, there would be a path for them to do so.
But the general incentive here is to reduce density uh and do larger oceanfront units, which is what's more likely to be developed there. Um, in terms of the subterranean setbacks, we have proposed a revised um set of setbacks for that. And we'll get right into >> Wait, can you go back to that other
slide? I'm sorry cuz I think this is important to point out too. >> Yeah. So, and and then Tom covered the background extensively so I wasn't going to get too much into it, but I guess one thing we wanted to note is that we're really just building off of the existing residential use increase program. So, it wasn't just an idea that, you know, we're avoiding a private amendment
application is that the residential use incentive program applies everywhere else in the city of Miami Beach up to 63rd Street, but just does excludes North Beach. So we feel that this is good policy u to incentivize multiple properties and there are multiple properties that have uh transient use
approvals. So one being uh our client's property who has a fully approved conditional use permit and HPB order for a hotel the Sherry Frontax an existing hotel that could be incentivized to redevelop with low density uh residential and then the Casablanca condominium which is uh redeveloped with
many hotel and short-term rental licenses. that's pretty much known as a short-term rental building would be incentivized to redevelop. Those three buildings are buildings that are probably the most likely to take advantage of it because they're not currently overbuilt on their F. Other buildings like the AOA or the Carolon,
which is not quite in our zone where some of the other buildings wouldn't really have any incentive to use this program because they already have more F than what the code allows. And through the chair, if I >> if I might just comment just for the record, one of the frustrations that we're facing in Miami Beach is, as you
mentioned, the Casablanca is known as an STR building. And yet there are people who live there. It's their primary residence, their homestead residence. And because we are preempted from from dealing with STRs by the state, instead of being able to kick out the STRs that
are not good operators or limiting the number of STRs that we have in that building, the likelihood is that someone will come in and offer them an offer that's too good to refuse and it's going to be torn down and it's going to be redeveloped into some kind of luxury building with hopefully some nod to its
historic provenence. And that is a crappy outcome. And I know that's not why you guys are here, but I want it on the record because I've got a lot of people in North Beach who are very upset about the trend and rightly so that these residential buildings on both sides of Collins on both sides of Indian
Creek are now targets. And it is a real issue. And you know, there's nothing before us today that we can do about this. But I just want to put this out there because >> until we are able to control the destiny of our city with managing short-term rentals and yes there's a time there's a
place for those and yes there are good operators but this kind of you know taking over the Ron Palace and the Casablanca and forcing out residents is is going to be problematic. So thank you for letting me get on my soap box about that >> commissioner
>> through the chair. Thank you. Um quick question for Tom. Tom, is the Casablanca designated historic? >> Yes, the boat that um it's a contributing building within the Northshore uh local historic, >> but they can >> So, can it be torn down or
>> if they took advantage of these incentives, they could not tear it down? >> They could not. >> No, because the the these incentives are predicated upon the retention of a contributing building. So, Sherry Frontac, Casablanca, they would have to retain their buildings to take advantage of these. >> Well, that's smart. So, but if they
didn't take advantage, they could still demolish it, right? Because >> well, they would have to they under the unsafe structures act, they would be able to demolish it and they >> they wouldn't be able to avail themselves of the extra half >> F, >> but they wouldn't be able to avail themselves of the >> And also, don't we have replication laws? If they do, if it's unsafe, what
didn't we pass something that would you have to replicate? >> There is a presumption of replication. Um, however, there may be some uh limitations that under state law that we would have in terms of requiring that, but we do have under our historic
preservation regulations a presumption of replication. >> Listen, if I may, I'm sorry. Um, I do not want anyone to take away the message that this is a way to get around things. This is this is what happened with the Doville.
We had and not its current situation now. We were past that. But the historic building was managed into the ground by its original owners and they >> talking about the Cosblanca, right? >> No, I'm talking about the Dovville. >> Oh, the Dova. Okay. >> And um there was a an unsafe structures
that was questionable. You know, we we can talk all day about that. I you know, I know you guys were here as part of that and we toured the building and there were other experts brought in and we went to Bora. there's a whole drama about it and so whatever it's done but there is absolutely no room for that to
happen in the city again. If there is actually an unsafe structure that's one thing but this nonsense of oh you know they're spalling and we can't fix it is absolute abject nonsense. And so again, for people listening, this is not a cart blanch for people to try to work their
way around all of these things because just because there's a um presumption of replication in the laws, there are have been people who have tried to work around it and we are not here I I don't want to speak for my colleagues. I am not here for that at all. So um yes,
there are protections in the laws and yes, there are people who find their way around them and so let's not put that out there. But I also want to put on the record, I agree with you, Commissioner Bot, but if if they demolish the Casablanca, they will not be able to take advantage of this ordinance. Correct, Tom. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> That was one of the reasons why we took the existing framework of the program and tried to extend it rather than come up with something. >> Did you have any more of your presentation, Nick? >> Yes. So, just to go through the the HPV setbacks. So, what we're proposing is compliant setbacks on the front uh and
the side interior setbacks. What we're suggesting is that the HPB be allowed to grant a waiver of side interior setbacks only on the side of a property that does not abut an existing building. Um, so essentially what this works out here is that for our client's property, it would be abuing a the Doville site, which is a
vacant site. The Doville North Beach oceanfront overlay legislation also permits the Doville to seek a waiver of subterranean setbacks. So their subterranean setback abuing our property line is going to be 2 ft or less. And we're what we're requesting is to be able to request from the HPB a waiver to
allow our subterranean setback only on that side that abuts the doville uh to essentially mimic the same condition. All other areas of the property would comply. So the front would be compliant with setbacks. The other interior side facing the sterling would comply with interior side setbacks and the rear
we're asking for a slight reduction in the rear setback, but we could uh redesign and comply with the rear setback if necessary. Um in exchange for allowing of this waiver, we would provide additional storm water mitigation within the property in the form of bios, rain gardens, sistns,
these types of additional capacity enhancements that are not currently required by the code but would be required. Uh and in order to justify this waiver to the HPB, we've added language that we would be required to submit a technical report from our civil engineer showing in calculating the actual measured quantified difference,
the additional storm water. We've spoken with our civil engineer Walter Lugo and he suggested that we can design this property uh to accommodate double the amount of storm water that it would normally be required to to accommodate under the code. >> Tom, but this so the the setback currently is 10 ft.
>> Yes. >> They want to they want to have a possible HPV HPV waiver to two. >> This is what it would look like. Tom, >> two two feet. Correct. Yeah. >> On the south side. I I mean it >> I don't think it's just correct me if
I'm wrong. The setbacks are not necessarily just for for mitigation, storm water mitigation. It's also for aesthetics. I mean >> it's aesthetics. It's to get uh an adequate amount of pvious open
landscaping and to provide a buffer from neighboring properties. >> So through the chair really quickly, sorry to interrupt you. which is one of the reasons and we played with the idea of bringing this up and bringing up a podium pedestal and getting rid of the subterranean parking. What was really uh
discussed with the Sterling with the neighbor most impacted by this was that they really don't want a pool deck that's up in the air next to their building. Uh ultimately it creates this activated space in the original design if you see it here. Uh that is is their units are going to look over this pool
deck that gets created when you do an above ground parking pedestal. So because of the narrowness of this site, it just allows for us a little bit of flexibility to sub underground the parking, create greater view corridors. Of course, we know that the Doville um
it historically came up to the property line and the new Doville, the building is not coming all the way to the property line, but their loading area and their beach access path are. So it creates a very tight squeeze for our parking podium. So we're trying to do is solve for that, create a lighter design that that go undergrounds the parking.
Um, but in order to underground the parking, we need a little bit of flexibility to create a workable subterranean garage. And I think we're achieving that by just allowing for a waiver against the south setback where the Doville is going to be doing the exact same thing.
>> Tom, sorry. Through the chair. Um, but this is then this entire district can apply for these setbacks, >> right? >> Well, I haven't seen how they would revise their text. Um, but the unless
they wrote it in a way where it would only apply to this property, then the rules would apply to any property taking advantage of this. >> That that seems like a problem. >> So through through the chair, we did address that by just saying if you're adjacent to an existing building, you cannot seek that waiver. So there's only
three or four properties in this district that would be able to seek this. It would be our property, the Sheriff Francville, and the two properties that are put Allison Park. like finisher bot finish. >> At some point those properties, God forbid, will become might become um
empty lots, right? >> Because an existing building is only existing while it's still standing. Somebody purchases it and decides and the the the residents accept the buyouts and then it's a it's an empty lot, then all of a sudden the rules of engagement change a little bit. Like I I'm sure I'm
not getting this exactly right, but I I I understand what you're trying to to solve for with the language and I do appreciate that, but I don't think it is ironclad. I I think and I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV, but I'm to me it feels like it's not it's not getting there yet. >> Mr. Chairman, can I make a couple
comments? >> So, Commissioner Bot, like if >> if you start with the south, you know, that's a park, so that will always remain in place. It's no building there. So we will be able to ask for a waiver on the north and south sides of the parking lot of the park. Right? So
that's the ver that's two. And then you go north from there to the Sherry Frontac and as Nick told you earlier the Doville overlay permits the DO ask for a zero uh setback waiver for its subtraining garage. So there there's no building there. So it would be the north side of the Sherry Frontac property and
then it's the south side of our property. >> But Mike Michael I've never called you Mike in my life. Michael. Um, that would that is currently unoccupied, but they could develop it. It's that little parking lot thing, right? That >> right. It's I think it's highly
unlikely, but it's possible in the future. >> Sorry. >> No, thank you. >> And through the chair, the language say an existing building existing on January 1st, 2026. Uh, I understand the concern if a lot were to become vacant, then now you've opened the door to allow somebody
to seek that waiver. But of course the concern about impacting an existing building is lesser uh when that existing building is no longer there. Right. So >> and through the chair but >> yeah just one more thing but this is but they still need to get a waiver from HPB. It's not like it's automatic right
setback. Right. Right. >> But doesn't HPB have more more purview on how it looks as opposed to the functionality and the like what's there? I mean, I know it's the right board to go to, but are are they going to get
into the nuts and bolts of the structural safety and all those things? >> The HPB does have authority to grant waiverss when the code specifically authorizes it and and uh and it would only be on a design regulation like for
example a setback >> and and for you guys um the the garage is currently proposed to house many cars which is why you need the setback. So I can show you here the one level of the garage would be about 53 spaces. Um
and then they may need to our requirement is about 66. So we may need to go down one more level perhaps not a full additional level just to to round out the parking requirement. >> Okay. So you want to have 6 6 spaces. Boy, say that 10 times fast. 66
spaces. You will definitely need to go down because I'm not great at math, but I know 66 is bigger than three. So you're not bigger than 53. So you're going to need to go into another level. So if you are already going to go into a second level, just split the the the
footprint differently and you don't need the setbacks. >> Perhaps we may not need this the setback for the second level, but with the ramp, if you see, it's it's just very difficult to make it all fit within the the setbacks with the ramping and the requirements to to construct it. We're actually we're playing around with this
plan to try to see if we can fit all 66 on one level and in large part depends if we can get some relief on the rear setback. There's possibilities that we can rearrange this and fit all of our required parking. It also depends on the final unit count if they bring down the unit count and you know there's there's
a a math to be played there as to whether you can just do one level. Obviously the cost of subterranean parking is exorbitant. So if we can try to limit it to one level, we really are going to try to to limit it to one. >> How many Go ahead. >> Sorry. How many um of the 66 are for
owners versus guests? >> Uh 10% is guest parking. So >> So the Doville garage will be open within a month and they have more spaces than they need and um c could a solution be that the guest parking goes to um the
Doville garage? >> I I think we'd have to amend the code to allow to make that allowed. Uh because we we are required to provide guest parking on site now um >> by code. >> Yeah. >> Or covenant offsite or within 1500 ft.
>> Yeah. Let's um I think look um I don't want to move too far from the intent of this. The intent is to have more residential housing, decrease density, right, for traffic and infrastructure issues, especially in North Beach. Um,
and I'm okay with this setback requirement because ultimately it's going to go to the HPV. And I think generally speaking, the HPV does pretty good work. Um, when it's
when it's looking at aesthetics uh, from from a city's perspective. So, I'm okay with this. And Commissioner Matas, I mean, this is your item. So, how do you feel? I mean, I'm okay with it. If you want to move it, move this along. We can we can discuss further at the city commission.
>> I think that's a great Yeah, I can't make the motion though, right? Because I'm not on the committee, but yeah. >> Okay. So, someone else would have to make it. I don't think the chair can make a motion, right, >> Tom? >> I just wanted to confirm that the motion would be to send it to the planning
board and the commission with a favorable recommendation. And just to confirm, the recommendation from land use would be that the setback waiver applicability would only be on the south side of of the site and would not apply to the front, the rear or the other
side. And that you would be okay with their proposal to limit the densities to 75 units per acre. >> You okay with that, Commissioner? through the chair. Can we use our our revised ordinance with 100 units an acre as a happy medium compromise on the setbacks that we've proposed?
>> We recommended 150. So if the committee is okay with 100 or you could say 100. >> I mean we're kind of honestly indifferent on the density. We're just trying to reduce impact. Um it doesn't affect our project. >> I'm I'm okay with I >> mean I'm I'm still not okay with a
setback. So I'll make the motion, but I'm going to vote against it. And you know, you've got plenty of time to to keep tweaking this. So, you know, it's just to move it to another place. >> Did you want to say something? >> Nope. >> Oh, >> okay. So, do we have a motion?
>> Motion. >> Second. >> As amended. >> As amended. >> Amended. Did you vote against it, Commissioner Bot? >> I did. >> So, it's two to one. Commissioner Magazine and Suarez in favor. Commissioner Bot against. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And that's just Commissioner Magazine, I
don't know. You've been very quiet. I don't know if chime in. >> I'll remain quiet until we talk about nonwater. >> Got to get through this. So, >> Commissioner B, what set back back are you >> ineneral? >> What's the question?
>> What setback are you comfortable with? I I I think they need to keep working on this to find a solution that doesn't I know the do bill has the thing but I don't want to use that precedent as another as a precedent to in this whole section. So I just want them to keep
working at it to find a better solution and I have confidence that they will >> understand that. >> Yeah. So it's not it's not killing the project. It's just you know >> Well, do you want to just keep it at lame use then? >> I mean Huh?
I mean, you've got two more. You've got a public meeting coming up this week. You're going to planning board. You're coming. Where's the next place that you're coming to? >> After their public meeting, they would be going back to the planning board. They're scheduled to go back to the planning board on June 2nd. If the
planning board transmits the ordinance to the commission on June 2nd, first reading would likely be in July. >> Is that enough time to try to figure this out? >> Yes. And you you guys will figure this out so that I'm not like losing sleep over a building falling down next doors
to yours because nobody wants that. >> Okay, I'm fine with moving it. >> Okay, so we're we're good, right? It's already been voted on. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks guys. >> Thank you. >> So it doesn't come back to land use. It just goes to planning board and then the
commission meeting. >> Correct. Great. >> Next time you see it'll be first reading likely in July. >> Okay. But it does it stop at planning board first? Yes, they have to transmit it. >> Okay, great. Okay. Um,
now that we're on the topic of reducing transient use to residential use, let's call up number one. >> Okay. Item number one is discuss LDR amendments pertaining to the Washington Avenue residential plan.
>> Okay. Hey Tom, you want to bring us up to speed center? >> As the committee may recall, um a very comprehensive ordinance that would increase F and height to incentivize non-transient residential uses along the
Washington Avenue corridor uh which went through a very lengthy planning board process and and and as well as the land use committee went before the city commission for first reading on February 5th of this year, 2026. After a lengthy discussion, the committee referred the item back to the
land use and sustainability committee um for additional discussion. After first reading on February 5th, um in consultation with the item sponsor, um there were some amendments that have been made to the proposed ordinance which are included in the revised
ordinance for this discussion. Um, in this regard, the maximum building height for non-transient residential has been reduced from 100 ft to 75 ft. Um, additionally, the uh setback
requirements have been modified to move the buildings further away from properties that are closer to Flamingo Park on the uh west side of Washington Avenue. Uh, we've also included a maximum unit size requirement. Um and
these changes are memorialized in the revised ordinance um regarding heights and setbacks for discussion at the land use committee. The administration remains highly supportive of this proposal and we would recommend that the land use committee endorse the proposed
modifications and send it back to the city commission with a favorable recommendation. >> Okay. Um so Tom, right now the incentive still is to build hotels on Washington Avenue. Correct. Does that remain in place? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> The height incentive.
>> All right. And how many hotels have taken advantage of this on Washington Avenue since the incentive for hotels? >> Um, three. The Moxy, um, the Good Time, um, and the Anglers.
>> Okay. Um, and then we have another hotel coming on Washington Avenue, correct? >> Yes. The Haden Hall uh, development >> and they were incentivized by this as well. >> Okay. And then you mentioned that staff is highly supportive. Why? >> Uh the reason that we're highly
supportive is that in our experience in order to change the um um in order to change an area for the positive to activate an area to go from an area that is currently lacking in
terms of adequate types of commercial uses is to introduce a mixeduse component. a true mixeduse component. Um, in this particular instance, Washington Avenue has permitted residential uses as an allowable use
without any incentives uh as of right since at least 1989. Um, and in fact, there's actually a 0.5 F bonus to do residential in addition to the 0.5 bonus that was previously available for hotels, but nobody has taken advantage
of that. Uh in our experience, in order to jumpstart and truly incentivize mixed use by adding residential, you would need to increase the F. Um in this particular instance, we believe that the proposed uh increase in F would strike a
careful balance uh between preserving the scale, character, and context of Washington Avenue and providing enough of an incentive for developers to consider investing the money to develop a residential project. Um, there are
also a number of guard rails within the ordinance that would not allow it to get out of control. And these include things such as limiting the applicability of the ordinance to no later than 2032 unless the commission extend extends it.
So that way, if these regulations are put in place, somebody would have to take advantage of it, get a building permit, and build it, and they wouldn't be able to just sit on a development approval and hope to sell it in 10 years. Um if the uh ordinance is taken
advantage of and people begin to build which which is what the intent of it is then the commission could just simply let it sunset if they felt that too many projects were being proposed. If there was a careful balance the commission could then decide in 2032 or before
whether to uh extend it or not. >> Right. Um, and let's just go back a little bit in history for um the when when the hotel incentive was uh
given and if I remember correctly through our discussions, you advised against that and you advised for more residential at the time. >> Correct. >> And what was the outcome? You know, >> the Washington Avenue committee met for
about a year. Um and they debated a number of different things, but the majority of the committee felt that Washington Avenue was better suited as a commercial district um catering toward nightlife and catering toward um hotels
and they didn't think it was a good idea to incentivize residential because they thought it would have been too much of a conflict. We had recommended that the incentive be for residential because that would establish more of a true mixeduse live, work, play type of
environment that we've seen the success of in other areas of the city. Um the committee didn't recommend it for that and then the commission ended up uh voting on the ordinance amendment that included the committee's recommendations. >> Okay. And if someone were to take
advantage of this, would it be another alternative to, for example, live local? Yes. Explain that. Um, if some u if somebody wanted to uh avail themselves of a live local act project, um
Washington Avenue is an eligible area for a live local act. And so if somebody wanted to build uh between 300 ft um and potentially up to 500 ft depending upon their 3/4 radius um from districts that
allow a higher height, they could do that without any public hearings. um this provides an alternative because even though it doesn't go to the same uh height or the same FR um it doesn't have
the same requirement for mandatory 40% work for work workforce or affordable housing. So from that standpoint it would be a good incentive because it would give people far more options. If somebody wanted to do an all workforce and affordable project they could do that. But if they didn't want to do that
and they wanted it to be more of the attainable model where they didn't have to uh commit themselves to workforce and affordable housing, then this would be um a good incentive and a good alternative to potentially utilizing a live local act regulations.
>> If I could, Mr. Tom, are there two different groups and applicants that are currently uh discussing and showing you live local proposals for Washington Avenue between 300 and 500 ft because
they are sick of us dragging our feet and getting nothing done. And if you could clarify that these are not the typical people in our city that just throw a bunch of live local applications and throw stuff against the wall hoping to threaten us. Please confirm that these are very serious groups that have
not done business in our city before and have built and are building live local projects throughout the county. I'm I'm aware of one for sure and both myself and members of my staff have had multiple meetings with a group that is considering a project at the corner of
16th in Washington and um initially they had proposed something that was in line with what is being proposed under these incentives and more recently they've come to us with a potential proposal for a live local project which goes u much
higher and um has a much bigger building footprint and um in my estimation they appear like they would be ready to move forward with with either option. >> Tom, how tall would a live local project on 12th in Washington be able to avail
themselves >> if they're within 3/4 of a mile of 7 in Alton, which I believe that they are, they could go up to 519 ft. >> So, I'll tell you there's a live local project that will go forward on that
site. the Rishi Kapor site. It's by a group that hasn't done business in the city and is as serious as it comes and they're sick of us dragging our feet. They they waited to see if something would happen and it hasn't. And they're
going to go and put a 500t building on Washington Avenue. It should have all of our names on the plaque out front. So, um I think you know the reason I brought this item
forward, there's many reasons. Um I'll start with one is an affordability crisis. We have a situation not just unique to Miami Beach, but to date county that we have
people that just can't afford to live here. And in fact, it's getting to the point where the county is considering extending the UDB to develop in the Everglades. That's how serious it is
when it comes to housing. We just simply don't have enough housing. And for the longest time, Miami Beach has been very difficult when it comes to incentivizing the right type of housing.
We've, you know, not we, but through the years, the commission has certainly greenlighted many luxury residential development. And for the past 10 years, we we don't
really build any more housing that caters to that missing middle of people who make more to qual more than they would qualify for government housing, but they can't afford a two to3 million
plus dollar uh new construction uh um unit for for residential. And there's a reason for that. It's because land has gone land cost has gone up, construction cost has gone up and more importantly our zoning code hasn't
changed since 1989. >> Correct. >> So think about that. in 1989. I was just like five years old when when this was passed and it we we h unfortunately haven't has not
caught up to to modern day and you know Miami Beach can continue to approve these oneoff projects. I don't want to have to deal with any more developers coming to me for uh a
spot zone. I want to have real urban planning that addresses a corridor that in my opinion is struggling with vacant storefronts and unsevery businesses. And
if we can if we can reszone a corridor, have real urban planning, our planning director is fully supportive, and address the affordable housing component. I think this is a win-win.
Um, so I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say, Commissioner Bot and Commissioner Magazine and and Commissioner Matteo Selenas. So, um I applaud you for hearing what the resident said and I know we had a very heated productive um sunshine
meeting seems like a lifetime ago. >> Um so I I'm I appreciate these changes. Um and I we all share as we've already discussed the desire the need to do something about missing middle housing. Um a couple
questions Tom. I know we had talked about this at one point. I don't I just don't remember where we netted out about lot aggregation. Is there a maximum number of lots that can be aggregated to take advantage of this? >> Yes. Currently under the regulations
um the minimum unit size is 13,000 but there is no maximum. So if somebody wanted to aggregate an entire block they could aggregate an entire block but there's a minimum. And the reason we established a minimum was to ensure that it would be um a housing project that
was not geared toward larger boutique luxury units. >> So 13,000 square ft is approximately like what an eighth of a >> two lots. >> Two lots. >> Yeah. >> So um >> which aren't >> and that's the minimum, >> right? So I I would like to toss out to
the group um putting together putting uh in a maximum lot aggregation so that we don't end up with a monolithic block. Um, I remember years ago we talked about lot aggregation on single family homes. We were trying to in incentivize different kinds of development and it
was a hot topic and we did end up putting in I think it was a three lot aggregation that served the community well because you you could incentivize different kinds of h building without um without taking over and really changing
the character of a neighborhood. So I that's something I'd like to to chat about with the group. And then also um h has there been further conversation with the affected neighbors flamingo park >> with this >> let's talk about your first point. Okay.
>> Um >> and then well just the other thing just where where does it stop after here just so I can understand. >> So currently this item is pending at first reading before the commission. So depending upon the recommendation and the action by this board, uh it could go
back to the commission for first reading unless you wanted to have additional discussion at a future land use meeting. >> So let's go back to the first time the first point you brought up, Commissioner Bot. Um a lot of aggregation, you know,
there is a perfect example of a short moderate housing that was built on Washington. um back I think in n 2010 was the cosmopolitan.
It's on Washington. It takes the whole block and it is one of the best success stories of attainable housing Miami Beach has. >> How tall is it? >> How tall is Cosmopolitan? >> Uh the that portion is 75 ft. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> And think about what the Cosmopolitan was able to do. It was south of Fifth. It was not oceanfront. It took up the whole block on Washington Avenue and it was one of the catalysts that really brought South to life. And not only that, if you also think about it, it was
also the birthplace of a billion dollar company that we have today, Pure Vita. Um, it started there. And just think about that for a second because that mixed use was so successful
as in terms of housing and and starting a business that everyone from around the world was going there because it was successful. And so that's why I'm a little cautious to put a cap on on the
lot. I mean, I would be okay putting multiple blocks, but the Cosmopolitan was such a success story. I I want to see that repeated. >> So, to clarify, I forgot about the Cosmopolitan. What I'm thinking about is um u the Good Time Hotel monolith. I
mean, even the Roxy is better than the Good Time Hotel. And I'm not talking about the merits of their business units or what their uses. I'm just talking about the presence on the street block. And for the record, I am a huge fan of mixed use. I mean, every serious city in the world, you know, it's part of the charm. like you get your bagels
downstairs and you walk up your third floor walk up or you're in the you know whatever Aon D small in Paris and you've got the the stores that have been there since you know Marianette was was beheaded like it's it's not recommending anybody getting beheaded for the record.
Um want to be really clear I don't want my words to be misconstrued. Um but you know that's part of the charm of living in the city right if we wanted to live in the suburbs we'd be living in the suburbs. So I have no issue with with the goal of this. I mean, I think we've all been united on on this goal for a long time. It's it's been the details. So,
>> right. I just think it's a little unfair to to compare what happened at the good time to what would happen. No, but that's what I want to make sure that like I so I if it's not law aggregation, is there some kind of provision that it needs another review or some kind of
conversation so that before like I don't I don't know what the right thing is and I guess maybe the the review is what happens in the DRB or Tom I don't >> HPB >> HPB or Tom I don't know how we would just like make sure that they're not building like Soviet era goologs they
wouldn't but it >> there's a very robust historic preservation board review process associated with this. Um, and I think if if we were dealing with uh empty blocks, then I think a lot aggregation limit
would likely make sense. But since we're dealing with blocks that are all built out with zero lot lines, um, we have a robust enough HPB process where the HPB can control both the movement of buildings as well as the separation of
buildings. And they have done that in the past where when you're dealing with larger lots, they've required separation in buildings so that you don't have those monoliths that you're talking about. And I think that with our current HPB process, they have that. And that
flexibility is also important because there also are a number of contributing buildings along Washington Avenue that you would want the flexibility to build around so that you maintain that contributing building and then have the flexibility of putting the new mass somewhere else away from the
contributing building. Can I ask the chair and this is goes against what I just said about sitting around dragging our feet but especially with these proposed changes that you read in today. What I would recommend is
that we buy in comprehensively about just the general idea of what we're looking to do. But the last thing in the world I want to do is have policy change that serves as no catalyst because it's not feasible.
Right? So what I would suggest actually is if it's the will of this body after discussion have another meeting that talks to some of the property
owners that would like to develop it and say we're leaving it to you to attempt to thread a needle. You need to tell us what works that is enough of a catalyst that gets done but is minimalistic
minimalist enough that is politically feasible. Right? So if we pass okay it 75 ft but it needs this parking XYZ and that's just not realistic. Well, we've wasted our one opportunity to do so and we're just kind of with respect flying
by the seat of our pants throwing some of these things up. We should actually try and talk to the property owners to say help us thread this needle of creating a catalyst that'll deliver a pure vida-esque
environment with the cosmopolitan what needs to happen. But if you try and be a pig, you try and be a hog and do too much, it's not going to be personally nor politically palatable. Um, that's what I would suggest. And I don't know if the chair would humor me. Um
I I did create a little presentation over the weekend uh in a >> goatee simplistic uh fashion that I'll speed through uh if we could just see because we do a lot of talking up here right and sometimes we forget what we're trying to achieve where we're at. So if
you just humor me maybe for two minutes to just kind of go through this. >> I'm going to get a little jealous of all of us. >> Yeah. Essentially it's okay. Why are we doing this? Right? It's not because development and not this. It's one of the reasons is housing is out of control
in our city. Right? Rents have gone in a non-luxury from 2500 to $5,500 per month. And why is that? It's simple economics, right? Supply and demand. Because of the efforts of a lot of us and the craziness in some other places,
Miami and Miami Beach have become a much more attractive place to live. So, as you increase supply, I'm sorry, as you increase demand, and supply is static, that's going to shoot up your prices. And that's exactly what we saw. And one
of the things that is lost on a lot of people is we haven't added any housing inventory at all. That is not luxury on the water. Tom, you sent me the actual numbers. In the past 12 years, we have added thousands of hotel rooms.
Thousands. We have added less than 200 in 12 years nonwaterfront multifamily housing units. And full disclosure, I use five park is waterfront. Okay. Um so including that is waterfront. That's debatable.
>> So does the marketing team. >> Um but that is ultra luxury and it was designed not to be attainable housing. We have added 200 multifamily unit housing units in our city. That's less than one little
building in Winwood, right? And while this isn't scientific, I would guarantee we've actually had more multifamily housing units taken off online in favor of transient usages. You know, in Collins Park, some of those older uh
neighborhoods. The shocking fact that we've started quoting Miami Beach is the only city in all Florida that has lost full-time residents. And when we talk about character, it's not just about architecture. It's about the substance,
not just the style. And that's reflective in our economy and the types of businesses that are in our city. Why there are souvenir shops and vape shops. And now, as of this weekend on Washington Avenue, after what Espanola
Way has done to make it one of the coolest streets in our city, in our region, you know what is opening up right across the street? French Montana Liquid Gold. >> Is that >> uh he owns a record company called the
Coke Boys. Okay. all the hard work we're doing. The owner of a record company called the Coke Boys and it has nothing to do with soda has his signs in the window across the street. >> What's the opening?
>> Liquid Gold nightclub >> strip club. >> Yeah. >> Where is it? >> It's on Washington. >> Right next to the new Chicken and Frozen Derty store. So when we talk about the character of Washington Avenue,
>> also there's also a pawn shop that opened up on Washington Avenue, a pawn shop >> right there. When we talk about character, it's not just about architecture, right? Imagine if any of us were running for reelection and we were meeting somebody, we were meeting channel 6 and wanted to do an interview
about what we're proud of. Would we tell them to meet us on Washington Avenue? Right? I if you were meeting with with families and trying to sell them on our city, would you take them to Washington Avenue? I wouldn't take my own family.
I'm embarrassed. Right? So, the result is people can't live in our city anymore. We're not just talking about, oh my gosh, uh we need affordable housing cuz the poorest in our society can't live here. Middle class people
can't live here. Okay. Segredo why they shut down. It's not because of a greedy landlord or high rents. The city owned that building. The city went to them and said, "You know what? We'll give you a revenue share. Don't pay us rent because I still can't make it work."
Right? Because there's no residents that support those types of businesses. Okay? So, what this is not, this isn't some developer giveaway. Live local is. Live local is a developer giveaway. the sponsor of the bill. I I begged for a
change the day that it was going because I knew when I saw it written, I knew exactly the developer that written that amendment. Exactly. And I asked for an exception of that and we didn't get it. You know what? Because billion-dollar developers are a lot more stronger than
us. So, we should do something that is for us, not developer driven. Right? That is the solution. PJ, if we could go to the next one. But that's why Tallahassee stepped in. >> That's why Tallahassee stepped in. And
these laws, these are the ones that threaten the character of our city. 500T towers, 300 foot towers that we have no control over. That is what threatens our city, right? That's what threatens the
historic nature, the lowcale density, the livability of Miami Beach, right? That is the threat to Miami Beach. We can do better if we can control that. So when we talk about this, this isn't, oh my gosh, let's redevelop. It's creating a city that we want to see. If live
local wasn't even the alternative, I'd still say, you know what, Washington Avenue is not acceptable in our city. Let's create what we want to see. That is what zoning is. So when we talk about changing zoning, if you had to have a one sentence definition of what zoning
is, it's creating the city you want to see. So why would we not pass zoning that creates the city that we want to see? I don't want to see French Montana's Coke boys on Washington Avenue. I don't want to see frozen dacardies. I don't want to see Taco Bell
Cantina serving frozen margaritas with alcohol. Right? I don't want to see brawls outside of nightclubs at Vendome. I no longer want to on Mother's Day Sunday go to Washington Avenue at 9:00 a.m. to
meet with the news talking about a bouncer that was executed after being shot in the head. That's how I spent my mother's day two years ago. Enough. We can pass zoning creating the city that we want to see. It's not smoke
shops, vape shops. It's a livable, walkable, vibrant area with corner cafes like in Paris, like Pure Vita focused on the health and wellness we all talk about. And per perhaps it's the catalyst, perhaps it's secondary, but it
also provides a dignified living for people that have been priced out of our city. All right? So, it's our choice. It's our future. we can drag our feet or people are going to get fed up of that. They're going to open the Coke boys
liquid gold or they're going to submit a live local application for 300 ft or 500 ft. And if you could humor me on one more slide, right? The only way I know government wants to be the end all be all solution
and put our fingers on anything. If demand stays constant or rises, the only thing that can be done to bring down prices is more supply. It is the most basic economic principle that there is. But this isn't
just about housing. It's about creating a stronger local economy so those businesses can be supported. Draco, everybody's favorite sushi place on Lincoln Road. He said it in the newspaper in Miami New Times. He said, "The the crowd that I had that would
come to my happy hours no longer existed in Miami Beach. It's great for Cheesecake Factory. It's not great for books and books." Right? Better retail. You walk down Washington have souvenir store, souvenir
store, vape shop, tobacco shop. Why is that? I don't blame the stores. I don't blame the landlords. They are essentially responding to the ecosystem that we have let form around it.
This isn't about totally disrupting the character. This is about restoring, right? This is about restoring the character we want to see. I have no interest in preserving something we're not proud of. I have a significant
interest in helping craft something that in 30 years from now, people want to preserve because of how special that it is. This also provides public safety. More residents have a more vested interest in looking after the community. There's
more eyeballs always on the street. Simply talk to Chief Jones. He said it in here. We have problematic areas in our city that continue to be a hotbed and a magnet for trouble, right? And they are always in our rundown bladed
commercial corridors. There's a reason why there's not a lot of not a lot of crime outside of Pure Vita. And it's good for our environment, right? We also can master plan the public rights of way. We can have lush
green environments that go along with this. I'm not interested in the concrete canyon. I know none of my colleagues are as well. So we can dictate, we can drive what is going to be in the public rights of a way around that. This can be a gem,
right? If we have a comprehensive vision that we get right and the slate is blank. That is the beauty of this. It's actually one of the reasons why Lincoln Road probably won't work because that actually performs well enough. It is very hard to provide a catalyst for
change. We're lucky we don't need to provide a 300 foot or a 200 foot catalyst to redevelop a smoke shop, right? So, we have a blank slate. It's not all going to happen all at once because these places have leases. So,
we're worried about, oh my gosh, there's going to be so much change. That just doesn't happen. It's not the way the world works, right? More value, more stability, more walkability. This gets cars off the road. This gets people walking. Think about how many commercial
businesses are on Washington Avenue. Probably hundreds. There's no walkability there. So any of them that are being supported, by definition, people have to drive to. That is why our traffic is so bad. It's the same along Alton Road. There's no
walkability. So by definition, people have to drive to them. I want to see pedestrians. I want to see a vibrant neighborhood. This isn't about development to me. If I could make the all of these goals happen by keeping it as is. I'd love to, but we can't. So,
let's create the city that we want to see. And that's why Thank you, PJ. respectfully, I think the best bet is if we can buy comprehensively into the soap box that I just got on, but say, you know what, over the next couple of
weeks, we'll sit down with some property owners and Tom can be included so it's all out in the open. Let's get the details right. Let's get, okay, this parking is going to work. This height is going to work. this setback's going to work cuz there's no
sense going through this agida and then passing something that just doesn't work. So, let's get it right, but let's be swift and let's do it with conviction. The community reacts to the tone that we set. If we do this kind of
biting our our our teeth, oh my, okay, fine. No, if we sat here and all bought into this and said, you know what, this isn't about development or this isn't about this. Part of the problem is I don't even know who any of these property owners are, as I know most of you. So, this isn't some
developer-driven giveaway, right? If we would sit there and go, you know what, this is going to be our lasting legacy and we are so freaking proud of this. It's unreal because an area that no matter who you ask, no matter who you
ask, stand outside of Whole Foods, talk to a visitor that's here for the first time, uniformly, they would say, "What the hell is Washington Avenue? We get to create our lasting legacy here, right? Our lasting legacy. This
could be the most impactful catalyst for Miami Beach, for affordability, for the dignity of people living here, for the vibrancy of our city, and creating something that is worthy enough that commissions 30 years from
now want to preserve what we've created. >> Commissioner, thank you so much. Um, appreciate you putting that together and really being passionate about it. I think we both share that that sentiment. Um, and
I think you hit it on the head, right? Let's really plan out what a city we want instead of the other way around where a developer comes to us saying this is how we want. This is my vision for for this particular uh block or
neighborhood. You know, I I want to create a a neighborhood that my kids can live in the next, you know, our kids, all of our kids can live in the next >> all of our kids can live in the next 20,
30 years. And most importantly, something that they could probably afford by themselves and not have to come to us for, you know, to to to borrow money to or us to pay their rent where it it's affordable. Um, and it's
similar to what South of Fifth was when it was when it was built 10, 20 years ago. And by the way, the reason South Fifth is so expensive, so now, at least in the infill, is because they just don't make any more of that that infill new construction that people really want
and are sought after. And I believe we discussed this with Commissioner Bach is you we have that move up theory. I think you're the one who who brought that forward or or explained it is right now people who live in Flamingo Park, they can move
up to the next level of a new construction and it it provides more housing opportunities for people that do want to live to the beach and who can now move into Flamingo Park because the people living in Flamingo Park have now moved up. And so, and Commissioner, if I
could also add just one point to that because I'm going through it with my own family right now, right? You take somebody like my daughter's mother. If she wants to or needs to move to Miami Beach and she goes, "Okay, my my budget is $4,000 a month, let's say, right? And
housing like this isn't available, well, they're going to go and bid up the price of Flamingo Park." And that's why Flamingo Park has become so expensive. If you look at two twos there, right, you're talking, and I just did this analysis I've been doing for the past
few months, two two rentals in Flamingo Park, 700 square ft. They're actually two one units going in the $3,000 per month range, right? 6 or 700 square f feet, two bedrooms, one bath, and it probably
wasn't even really meant for two bedrooms, right? Are now 32, $3,300 per month. But what's going to happen? People like my daughter's mom are going to come in and go, I need to live in Miami Beach where my daughter's growing up or I just really want to live here, but you know what? There's no housing
like at the Cosmopolitan available anymore. So, I'm going to go and rent in Flamingo Park, and that's going to displace the people that can't bid with her that force that downward. >> Commissioner Matas, did you want to add?
>> Um, yeah, a couple things. I um Commissioner Magazine, I appreciate what you stated about um meeting with some developers because I agree with you. You know, we might have in our mind we want this, we want the courts, we want the
cosmopolitan, but is that realistic? And then, you know, because I worry that the legislation, it has a minimum, well, our minimum unit size is already, what is it, Tom? 500 >> 550
>> 550. So this is lowering it to 500 square f feet per residential unit and then it caps it at 1300 which to me is too small. I mean if we have people like your daughter's mother and I have friends as well that have a kid or two that want a two-bedroom that's not 600
ft. So and I can guarantee you every unit in the Cosmopolitan is bigger than 1300 ft. >> No, not not necessarily. Tom, what's the average? >> They go from about 700. They would go from one bedrooms about 700 up to your two bedrooms probably 1300. If you
wanted three bedrooms, they'd be slightly larger than that. >> I thought the two bedrooms were 1,800, but I could be wrong on that. But >> but just to that point, the reason we capped it and and this wasn't an arbitrary cap. This is what our planning director suggested is to really have luxury.
>> Exactly. Luxury. Listen, by the way, we just said >> the reason why we put a cap on the maximum unit size is to prevent ultra luxury on Washington, which by the way, >> we we just approved, right, for to move forward on on the ocean front.
>> Mhm. >> Where's two blocks from the ocean? So, I think which So, my point is >> not ocean front, >> right? Correct. Which is why it won't be luxury. >> Well, >> but it's close enough, right? But at any rate, you know, >> at a certain height, it does become luxury because you are looking
overlooking the ocean. >> But I'm just worried that that whatever the height is, the units will be too small to actually have what we need for families to thrive here, for people who want to grow a family. You know, we need
more. And we all know this, we don't have enough two bedrooms or three bedrooms. We don't have enough even sizable onebs. So, so I just want to be careful that we we may want something, but it might not we might get something different because if we get a bunch of
500, 550, 600 units, studios, we're not going to have the type of Washington Avenue where we have families walking around, you know. So, I I want to be careful about that, which is why I appreciate what you said. Let's talk to these developers to say, is this even feasible? I don't know. Because I'm not
a developer or an architect. Nick, I have a question for you. Um, would it be feasible to create a CRA in Washington Avenue area to to have to what do we do? We we say it's blighted and then we can create a CRA.
>> I I can tell you that the county I've had many conversations with Gy they're >> well first of all the state is trying to end CRAAS unfortunately and then the county >> they're they wouldn't give it to in fact one of the county commissioners says we need another CR like we need a hole in
our head. So, okay, >> I I don't think that's going to happen. But, >> um, look, I I do I do understand your concern with families, but again, >> it's not just for families, it's also for school teachers, right? For nurses. Um,
>> but we do need a mix also for families. So, it can't just be 500. >> And correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, but you can have a one or two kid family in 1300 square feet. Sure. That's I I think that's perfectly normal. Um, you know,
it's it's it's not again it's not for families with four or five kids, but if you are a married couple and you have one kid, I mean, you could certainly make the you can make it work with two >> and then >> you know what? >> When you when you in your family does grow, you move up. You move up to the
next level in Miami Beach, maybe purchase a single family home. It's not necessarily for everyone. It's to accommodate a missing middle, especially the people that already work in Miami Beach. I mean, if you think about at
5:00 and 9 9:00 in the morning and 5:00 at night, there's traffic, right? And they're just leaving the beach. Why are they leaving the beach? I mean, you have people who work at the Found Blue. You have people that work at Mounts. You have people that work at the Lowe's. You have the whole industry. They're leaving because they can't afford to live here.
They would love to. >> I disagree. They're leaving because they want space. They want more spacious apartments. >> Well, I think there's both. >> It is both, but it's how much are you willing to pay for your space? >> Exactly. It's not that workers I'll keep using my daughter's
mother as an example. It's not because there's nothing in Miami Beach that she could afford to pay for. It's what you get for what you're paying, right? And I think we're saying the same thing. Yeah, you know, affordability is also what you're getting for that price. >> And and that's just my concern. I would
like to see us bump up the minimum unit size a little bit maybe to 600 ft and the maximum to maybe 14 or 1500 only so that way we don't get a bunch of small units that you >> leave all these options on the table over the next month. >> Yeah. Yeah. But as we speak with developers, >> I know you're not a part of this
committee, but I am more than happy to looking at and accommodate that. I think if we need to bump it up, um, that's fine. I I I I also want to refer defer to our to the experts on the matter, Tom. Um, how do you feel? How does staff
feel about increasing the minimum size to 600, by the way? And the only reason I like 500 is because my first place that I purchased in Miami Beach was I think like 520 or 550. >> And it was a great first starting point
for for me as like a young adult. um and a first-time homeowner and I think that is attainable. But as far as the maximum, how does staff feel about that? >> I mean, it's um our goal, as you
correctly stated, was to ensure that these don't become large luxury type units. I think increasing it to 14 or even 1500 is reasonable because in 14 to 15 like 1300 um you'll still be able to
get uh one two three person family in there very easily. Um once you get over 1500 ft I think at that point it does start to become more of the larger luxury type units that does impact the number of units you can have. So I I would recommend keeping the 500 ft as a
minimum because as you said it does provide for more variety. >> Okay. >> Um and then >> Commissioner >> what was the other point Commissioner Matio Selenus? It was the maximum
>> and minimum. Okay. >> But this is something we can work >> between now and um and first reading of the commission. Commissioner B. Do you have anything else to join in? >> Yes. And with uh I'll take a point of privilege if I might. Um
>> Oh, >> yeah. Strap in. No, I'm kidding. Um you know, you you somebody said $3,200 for a per month for a condo. Um as point of reference, um my mortgage when I left my
Parkview Island townhouse was around 3200 including insurance, which is, as we all know, super expensive here. It was a four bedroomedroom, three and a half bathroom, 22 square, 2200 square foot, just under
um twotory townhouse with four parking spaces >> and you're on the water, right? >> Waterfront, 30 ft, no fixed bridges to to open water. That's what I was getting for 3,200 square feet for $3,200 a month um for a mortgage. So yeah, there's
there's a problem that two bedrooms, dry lots should not cost that much money here. >> I mean, we're talking not just dry lots, 700 square ft of 60-y old buildings, no amenities, no. >> But that's what not adding supply does.
>> So just for point of of reference, um and I will miss that townhouse every day till I die. Um, I also want to just say, um, Joe, you and I have been friends since I was on the planning board, and you were just a, um, oh, just you were a
well-informed, very smart resident who would send me things to think about as I was pondering and and we became friends that way. And now look at us here. >> It's insane to that. I thought anybody that was elected would actually read these like 15page diet trobes on pension funds and things like that, but you
know, I I digress. Now I know better. It is um it is a a privilege and um really fun to do this together because this is something you and I have been passionate about for a very very long time. And um you know we're the three of us are two
and a half years into it. And um it has been a bumpy road. I think we can say that fairly. And uh I am really proud, David, of your working on this until it can get to a place that I think most people will feel good about. Um and I
love the idea of of you know slowing this down just slightly, not delaying months, but having some more conversations to make sure we have the details right. And what you guys may not know, and Monica, you may not know also, um, is that, um, Saul Gross and Bernard Ziscovich,
um, are meeting with Eric Carpenter next week to talk about potentially doing a sort of a holistic master plan that takes this kind of thing into account. and what you talked about in terms of greenifying certain streets and you know proper holistic um community building
urban planning with all the bells and whistles like how do we connect Washington directly to Flamingo? Can we make some green spaces? How do we connect it to uh Lincoln Road? Can we make some some more green spaces? So I think this this is coming in for a landing on what's been a really bumpy
flight over the last I know year and a half since you've been working on this. I'm I'm really um and I agree with with Monica about um maybe the sizing can be tweaked slightly to to just make sure that we're not um cutting anybody off.
But I um I'm very happy to say and proud to say that I'm supportive of this um with the with the caveat that we keep having the conversations. We talk to Bernard and Saul and the property owners and just really, you know, make sure those eyes are dotted, the tees are
crossed, and we measure twice and cut once as I throw all my metaphors into one place. >> Yes. >> So, well done. Seriously, I I give you a lot of crap. >> Um, but I will happily throw you flowers. >> You don't give me a lot of crap, Commissioner. >> Give you some crap.
>> Thank you. Uh listen, we're at the end of the day, I think all of us here have the best intentions for Miami Beach. We we just >> I know that >> we we just want to make the best use of our time here for the future of our children. And you know, everyone up here
has children and we have to think about the future for what our our family, our friends family, our neighbors families and their future. And I think um I think we're on the right path. Um I also have
a meeting with Saul and and Bernard. I'm more than happy to hear what they have to say. And and speaking of of public input, I think you know if there's any public comment that I don't know if there's anyone on Zoom who wants to speak, but I'm sure
>> Thank you, Charles, for always being involved. >> Oh my gosh, you guys. I know you don't want me here. >> Of course. >> No, we absolutely do. No, no, no. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Uh, thank you. Thank you guys. Um, first I wanted to thank you guys for hearing residents concerns about height and kind of
modifying how you did that and uh that goes notice. So, thank you. Thank the com the the committee for that. Um, so I had uh one thank you for for making some of the changes around height and and I appreciate that. I just have two quick
things I wanted to say. I'll take less than 90 seconds is I uh there is a concern of these kind of large blocks that have been developed on Washington Avenue um in the past 10 years uh where it feels like the storefronts are all
empty and I know we've talked about it a million times good time moxy there's a parking garage which doesn't go up very high but still is a big kind of block development between fifth and sixth empty storefronts I'm unclear how to It feels like when we are building these
kind of large buildings, I don't know what the finances of that is, but the storefronts a lot of times remain more empty than just like these smaller tiny little art deco buildings that have been around for 100 years. >> Well, you know, just just to speak to that, we'll give you plenty more time to
speak, Charles, but they're hotels, right? and their transient use and you don't have a full-time 365 resident base to support the businesses down below. And unfortunately, you know, our economy
is very dependent on seasons, >> right? So in summer month, if if they have a 50% occupancy, that means there's 50% of the people in that physical structure to go support the businesses down below. And so you can't have a
business that is sustainable where it's just based on a season. Especially if you're >> if you're putting a lease for 10 years, >> you don't know where the you know the fluctuations are are going to be when it comes to travel. And so that's in my
opinion why those storefronts are are vacant. It's because there's not a business who is willing to risk >> mh >> um catering to a transient nature where it may be you know one year it's very
slow here uh you know you got Zika or co you know and it's completely dead and and your business is just it's impossible to run. So and that's why with a full-time resident base >> there it's always going to be busy. You'll have maybe a grocery store. Mhm.
>> A nice coffee shop, a bakery. It's something that would cater to a full-time um residential base. But let me let me let you continue. >> And I also want to just add to that because that's part of it. But the other part, and I think this is what you were suggesting, is that those retail spaces
are so large that a little business can't get in there. And when they're building these big buildings, they don't make little spaces. They just have one big huge space and it's too big. And that's why the 11-1ven block is also vacant, >> right? >> Because those stores are too big. I don't bring this up as a reason to not move forward with this kind of incentive
program. I bring it up with a it's something I've noticed with these large build because there you know small buildings one block over will do perfectly fine in them like Cafe Bastile which is in the five or 600 block of
Washington Avenue. It's a super cute cafe. Y'all should definitely check it out. It's in a tiny little not redeveloped place, right? So, there's something about when these large developments come through, the whole block is killed. I don't think it I I
hear what you're saying with full-time residents, but there are full-time residents that live in Miami Beach as well. So, like, you know, I I whatever the solve is for that, I think it should be good luck. I guess I don't know what the solution >> you bring up a good point. Uh Tom, is
there something that we can do to and we we don't have to do it now, but maybe to address the storefronts so that it is unique to um different businesses that want to go open up instead of just
having one vacant or not one vacant but one large storefront on Washington Avenue. Yeah, there there's ways that we could adjust the design guidelines that we follow because individual buildings, it's very easy to cater to that unique
identity. But when you have a brand new building that has uniform storefronts, it starts to become more challenging to establish that unique identity. In the case of Good Time, for instance, you had multiple individual buildings and so
people can create their identity much like the ballet valet garage opposite that between Sixth and Seventh on Collins. Those were all individually retained buildings that form that street front. But I think moving forward, if we have a situation where a brand new
larger storefront is created at the first level, perhaps we build in the ability to create that type of >> and that would probably address some of the concerns my colleagues have as far as, you know, the the entire block, right? Because I think that's the
concern is like they don't want to just see an entire block of one thing. I mean, the residential component obviously above is fine, but on on the front facing side, like when I look at the Moxy, there's nothing there, right? It's just empty. It's just it's just it looks nice. It's it's visually
appealing, but there's really it doesn't really do anything for, you know, people walking by. And the same thing with the Good Time Hotel, unfortunately. Now, that did have individual >> sort of like lots, but they're all vacant mostly. >> No, my gym's there. That's my gym. Yeah.
And if I could 45 and if I could, part of the reason for that is because of the uncertainty and overhang that always existed with the building, right? Uh Michael, I I don't know if you're aware if that's your client, but there were tenants that were on the line to sign,
significant tenants. Uh Acabuko, that's over in Winwood now, was going to be a restaurant there. But because there had always been an operational uncertainty, um because we wanted to protect the neighbors Charles and not let that kind of anything goes nightclub atmosphere
fester, >> people saw what the eventual outcome or fate of the good time could be, and they weren't going to be a tenant in the bottom floor signing a 20-year restaurant release when the operations of the hotel were called into question. Yeah, I I think I mean I I've thought
about this a lot and uh again I think >> Put Charles put your mic on. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought about this a lot. I think the biggest thing is when you have a small individual property owner who is rent cannot afford to use an empty place as a uh tax write off. But when you have large buildings that
are that that that the first floor is a just a small component of the income for that building, it's it's more it's better to just keep the uh rent artificially high and therefore write the empty vacant places off as tax
write-offs on the on from the income of the business. And so the point that I was making is that when you bring in these kind of large big buildings, I'm not sure how to fix it. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to fix it. There is a little bit of a financial incentive to leave these places open because it's only a fraction of their income coming
from rental incomes on the commercial space. And if you have the smaller like just you own one building and that's it and you're renting it out to Cafe Bastile that that cost incentive is different. So is I don't know what you can do to try to mitigate that. But if these larger buildings are coming in,
that is something to keep an eye on. And just the other point I wanted to make and then I'll sit down and thank you guys all for allowing giving me the the uh opportunity to speak is um it's just a little bit of this general all over kind of the Flamingo Park neighborhood. You know, we've got 1600 Washington.
We've got the Lincoln Road upzoning. We have uh upzoning that happens on the west side of the island and and this moderate upzoning on Washington Avenue. I, you know, I wouldn't call it tremendous upzoning because we took out those extra height bonuses. Um,
talking to a lot of my neighbors, I know that like we talk a lot about what can be done for Miami Beach better and how do we live in a nicer town. I know no one is asking for like more like I don't think anyone's saying that there's not enough people who live here. Uh, I get that we're trying to use people that
live here to fix other problems that we see around town, like get more full-time residents, could potentially remedy some of these issues that y'all bring up. But no one is saying we need more people because already certain times a day you can't move around, you can't drive places. You know, it's we're
at a we're at a stopped uh we're we're at a stop. And so I uh I just want to like bring that back is that we're we're already the eighth most densely populated city in Miami Day County full-time residents al you know by the just county full-time residents when you
bring in tourists. We are by far the most densely populated place in Miami Day County. So I don't know that like more people necessarily is going to fix all of these issues. I've lived here for a long time. Lincoln Road was fabulous when I moved here. So the buildings didn't change between now and then.
something else changed and so I don't know that always trying to raise density and raise height is going to solve all the problems. So those are the two points I wanted to make. Thank you. >> Yeah, Charles, I mean just to that point. >> Yeah. >> And um
you can sit down after, but we have a housing crisis and Miami Beach is the only city that lost residents. We lost 10,000 residents. We're the only city that lost residents in in in Florida. Um, and that's a problem and that's because, you know, people like
Commissioner Magazine said can't afford to live here because of the basic economics. And so, you know, we can we can sit back and say, you know what, we we're at capacity. And then let Tallahassee come by and say, "Nope, you're not at capacity. You know, look
at Bickl. Look at look at uh downtown Corio. They they make it work. And now we're going to make sure you guys make it work." And so we want to we want to we we want to move forward in a responsible manner without having
someone else to tell us how to move forward uh as far as housing stock. And but before we get we got any more on the soap box, Commissioner Fernandez wants to come on. Uh >> could I just just follow up for five
seconds would also >> and Charles what you've seen here is a commitment when we're going to grow growing through residential as opposed to hotels and transient usages. So the past 10 or 15 years >> we've seen growth but it's been all
through transient hotels. We don't want to do both, right? We've put through measures where we said enough with the infill hotels. We have enough. So, we're not going to try and double dip where it's like, okay, we're going to keep growing through tourism and then also residential. We know that this is
actually less impactful way to grow. So, we don't have to keep doing it through the transit usages. But, you know, I agree. >> I hear that. I but we are at the same time making a lot of changes to our code like with 1250 West Avenue where we're allowing larger buildings to come in
with less density, right? So, we talk a lot about increasing housing density on the island, but then our actions actually aren't really doing that in all of the neighborhoods. There's lots of neighborhoods that are I think you guys were just talking about reducing density in some other places. So, you know, it's like, okay, we need more housing and
then but if a developer wants to build luxury housing, well, then how do we do that? You know what I mean? So there's a little bit of >> and this is why we're doing it as a as a as an overlay, right? We're not saying, >> you know, we're we're sight specific. We want to master plan this for the next 20
30 years so that a developer doesn't have to come to us. I don't want to have to speak to developers anymore. I would rather I I would rather just say, "Hey, this is your sandbox." >> Yeah. This is you can build you can build your castles here anything you want but these are our rules and you
have to play within the rules instead of having a developer come to me and saying hey I'm going to sell you this sandbox that you know that me and my friends are going to play in. >> Very good. >> So commissioner bud. >> Yeah and just to build on that you know Charles I hear you loud and clear that
the problem also is compounded about u by the fact that Tallahassee now has live local. So they say, you know, give us what we want or we're going to put in this monstrosity. And so we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. So it there's no single solution to all this. So we're trying to figure out how how
how to work within the confines of what we're given. I mean, there's a a Senate Bill 180, which precludes us from making any changes to our code, which, you know, in in decades past, you know, commissions have been able to downzone when when um development got too out of
hand in a in certain ways. So, we're all doing the best we can with really un un um un unpleasant and unforeseen circumstances. So, it's it's imperfect, but we're trying. Um but what I would say, and those photographs you sent me, I don't know, like a month ago or
whenever it was, were incredible. And Tom, I know you said that um there's something we could put in potentially to require buildouts of retail space. Obviously, anybody who's coming in to rent space or lease space long term is going to want to do their own thing, but
the with the photographs, I should have thought to bring them to this meeting. Um, it was it looked like a a an unfinished construction site. And so if they're at least finished so that there's flooring and electrical and ceilings and walls that are finished um
to some basic level standard, then we could take advantage of those spaces and use the other things that we already have on our books like the popup retail or the pop-up art space that that Joe and Alex had brought and you know that I've been talking about with staff and we can activate those spaces while they
find longerterm tenants because sure they can carry the carrying costs of of losing the rent because it's sort of tax write off. But the more of those spaces that get activated on a day-to-day basis, the better it is for the community and then who knows what will come in and be a full-time thing. So, as
we, you know, in this intervening sort of interstitial between where we are today and where we go forward, if we can look at amending that language a little bit too, that would be great. >> Okay. Then Commissioner Fernandez would like to >> Commissioner Fernandez has his hand up and then we also have a few more members
of the public on >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and so I'm I'm out of town otherwise I would be >> uh I am in Japan about >> 13 hours ahead of you guys. It's literally 1:45 in the morning.
>> I just want the members of the public to see that Commissioner Fernandez is literally in Japan and he's still dialed in for our city. And that really shows like commitment to public service. >> Did you have any good sushi yet? >> Yeah. Yeah. Some some some pretty good
uh sushi and also some pretty good lessons in urban planning. Seeing seeing how people live very close to where they work and where they shop and how how how short uh their commutes are because they
live very close uh to to their needs. Uh, and that's one, you know, that's one of the things I wanted to to bring up because, you know, there are two two truths here. Washington Avenue needs improvement. We can't continue
with with the quality of of retail or lack of retail that we've seen there over over the years. And you know, we all know the uh smoke shops at the two parlors, the t-shirt shops, the liquor stores, the uh convenience stores that
proliferate and go block after block. And so we need to see that improved. We also see block after block uh blocks of just seemingly abandoned retail spaces that that we know uh from the terms of
public safety. When when retail is not activated, it creates opportunity for not just negligence and property ownership, but it also creates the opportunity for criminality to move in. So, we clearly need to see Washington
Avenue improve while also the other truth being that we want to preserve the uh character of of South Beach and the character of the Arctic District uh which which is important. that is a priority and we cannot move forward on
something on Washington Avenue that takes away from the character of of the corridor. I want I want to be mindful of that. I want us to be mindful also of the potential of land speculation. You know, I don't want us to create this
blanket zoning that is automatic on every property owner along the entirety of the overlay. And that then creates the unintended consequence of land speculation because nothing could be worse towards affordability if now the
land is artificially raised in value through legislation. Not necessarily because the land or the property has been improved itself, but because we have approved certain zoning regulations as of right for all properties along the
corridor. Have we been able We had a sunshine meeting a few weeks ago and in that sunshine meeting we chatted about some guard rails and one of the guard rails that that that was discussed in that in that sunshine meeting was that
if legislation like this were to move forward, how do we do it in in a way that we set a cap on the maximum amount of units that could be built along the entire corridor using this legislation
so that we don't all of the sudden give this as zoning and then yields you know that domino effect of of land speculation. Has that been baked into the legislation? >> Tom, I know we spoke about that at the
um sunshine meeting. Um, how do you feel about putting a how does staff feel about putting a sort of stop gap? >> I think a a stop gap as long as the SC stop gap is high enough where it won't
result in just one or two projects being able to come forward, but it would still allow for a meaningful number of projects. >> And the commission would always have the ability to increase that cap if they saw fit. if um there was a cap that was
introduced and then lo and behold the incentives end up being successful and there's some good projects introduced, we get close to the cap and then some more want to come forward that the commission thinks is good. They would always have the latitude of increasing
that cap. Um and it would be like the mandatory date to get a building permit of 2032. This would be another measure to ensure that uh the incentives don't result in outofc control development. >> Is that something we can work on between
now and possibly the first reading of um sure commissioning >> we could come up with some recommendations >> and commissioner Fernandez does bring up an excellent point about land speculation. Um and then we discussed this you and I really the the way we try
are trying to prevent land speculation is by putting a sunset period. Correct. correct >> um where if you don't take advantage of this by 2032 these incentives it sunsets and it goes back to where it is today.
So this is it's not like you can just you know speculate uh because automatically something has been availed it you have a sunset period and you have to get a building permit and then explain for members of the public I
mean we're pretty educated on this but to get a building permit of let's say the size of the cosmopolitan I mean how much how much money are you are you talking about to for these developments to invest in >> the building permit level is a
significant financial investment. You're well into the millions. Uh anybody can spend 50 a few $100,000 even to get a land use board approval that is otherwise good, particularly with state
extensions. However, if somebody is required to obtain a full building permit, they now have to invest in their design professionals time to prepare and submit working construction drawings. They have to pay sizable impact fees and
they have to obtain the building permit. And all of that is goes well above and beyond just a land use board order. Um, in our experience, you're the real deal. If you come in for a building permit, pay your fees and get your building
permit. That's somebody who's really going to move forward with it as opposed to somebody who just spend some money with pretty pictures to get a land use. Okay. And I and I like I like I I'm certainly open to exploring sort of stop
gap of where, you know, again, I don't want to stop one the first two projects. I want to I want to make it I I want to incentivize this to to really start uh because you only have six or seven years, right? Um to to get that building
permit, but um between now and first reading, I I would I'd like to see what the administration comes up with and thoughtful >> we can come up with some recommendations. >> Um I don't know, Commissioner Fernandez, if you had anything else to add, but we have other members of the public. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and and I just want to
add and build and build on that just a little bit because you know and I want the public to to understand by putting a cap any concern about overdevelopment we are able to control any concern on overdevelopment by saying okay we're
creating this legislation but by putting a cap it is not as of right to every property. It's only to the properties who build up to a certain amount of units and one once along this corridor we have hid that amount of units it kind
of forces the legislation to sunset at that at that point. So it ensures that this legislation yields some housing for Washington Avenue to help Washington Avenue but it doesn't yield overdevelopment. Uh and you know one of
the numbers that we had thrown out there uh during during the sunshine meeting was exploring a cap of 250 units. Um I think we would be very fortunate if if we would if we would have 250 units come
into our city along any corridor uh spread out along any corridor uh to meet the housing needs of of our residents. But I think something like that is modest and it just ensures that all of Washington Avenue doesn't get redeveloped. No, we're just uh you know
creating an opportunity to create uh limited amount of of units and I think that's part of the way that we help preserve the the uh the the character of the area. One of the other things uh Mr. chair that I wanted to put out there uh
is you know another way that that affordability is addressed and I'm not sure if I missed it earlier in in the conversation is also limiting the amount of amenities and that's something I want to be mindful of uh because the more amenities uh that are allowed to be had
in each one of these projects and I don't know how many projects uh could be built within that cap I would imagine probably only a handful of projects could be built wi with within that cap, but making sure that that they don't have so many amenities that then the
market rate for the for for that project inflates, that the cost of the rents inflate to a point that that people are no longer able to afford it uh the way that we would want them to. So, that's something that I would like to see
worked into the legislation, uh, if it hasn't already, limiting the amount of amenities as a way to control what the market rate is. So, that really does serve that missing middle market in our city. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Okay, we could
we could certainly work on a few of these between now and and first reading and and even between first reading and second reading. Um, do we have any other members of the public? >> Yes. And actually, Commissioner Dominguez has her hand up, too. And then we have three members of the public. >> Okay, let's hear from Commissioner
Dominguez. >> Hi, everybody. >> Hi, Commissioner. >> I've been listening to the discussion and I figured since uh I think every colleague has commented, I'd like to jump in as well. Um, a lot of good things have been discussed here and the
things that stood out to me the most were the sunset period increasing the unit size, um, the cap on the number of units. Also, I want to make sure that the city administration can um, for sure tell us
that our infrastructure, our storm water and sewer drains allow for this intensity in on that street. and um looking forward to seeing this conversation continue to evolve cuz it's definitely changed a lot since the
sunshine meeting a few weeks ago there and um looking forward to seeing some of the other changes. And also just as a side note, we are not the only city that has had declines. Cities as far as St. Pete and Tampa have also experienced declines um uh throughout the last
couple years. But um we all are in agreement. Washington Avenue needs help and uh looking to do something to make it better. >> Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Mingus, for staying engaged. Really appreciate the input. It's important that we all sort of, you know, buy in
because we want to bake this cake and make it tasty for everyone. >> Repeat that, but okay. >> Not touching that. >> All right. Would you uh let's go to the public comment on Zoom. >> Sure. Our first caller is Mitch Novik.
Mitch, you have two minutes. >> Hey folks, uh good afternoon. Mitch Novat, I've been a landlord for uh coming on 40 years. Uh I like this plan and I would urge you to embrace it. I
did not like the Washington Avenue plan from around a decade ago, which sought to incentivize hotel use. Uh, and on a side note, uh, nor do I like the boondoggle hundred
million dollar LS Park plan, which proposes to pick up Ocean Drive and move it onto the vestigages of the original Lum Plantation as part of a $20 million money grab to move that money into
private hands. Uh when I arrived here, Washington Avenue, Collins, and Ocean were thriving with residents. I think hindsight uh and
reality is very clear. It's the incompatible MXC zoning which turned this neighborhood into what has become a tax draining void and an embarrassment.
uh as far as uh affordability, you need to look within. It's the policy makers of yourselves and your predecessors which have brought us here. Uh the endless utility water billing rate
hikes, the fact that our budget has doubled to a billion dollars, it's uh it's ugly. And I would uh again I like this plan and it's this plan would bring about uh necessary and substantive
change. Thank you. >> Thank you Mitch. >> Thanks. >> Our next caller is Johan Moore. Yan, you have two minutes. >> Uh good afternoon. Uh I'm very heartened
by the the tone that the conversation has taken in recent weeks uh as proven by by today. I very much appreciated uh the commissioner's reference to needing to address the issue of affordability in some fashion. But I'm taken by uh
Charlie's comment um about the increased traffic and not only his. I remember Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez was very agitated about the traffic. It's not just the number of residents we have, but the type of residents we have. Um, there were uh possibly overcrowded but
often multigenerational large workingclass households uh especially concentrated in some of the more affordable neighborhoods such as Flamingo Park and they had very few cars per capita. uh newer residents tend to have more cars. And this brings me to
the need to do more about public transportation. And I want to put in a plug for the commission to consider uh Commissioner Mateo Sadena's uh uh cable car aerial cable car idea. Uh it would enable people who live in affordable
housing on the mainland easier access to the beach and it would relieve those pressures uh as a companion to the Washington Avenue residential project as it has developed. So, I will express uh
my cautious uh support for this and I hope that other community uh concerns uh that may be outstanding will be heard uh as you also very wisely engage with developers to make sure that this pencils out for them. Thank you very
much. >> Our last caller is Andres Assion. Andres, you have two minutes. >> Thank you and uh congrats uh to all of you. I think that this is a great initiative. Um, I just wanted to give a few stats just from the real estate uh
perspective. Uh, the average number of active units that are onebedrooms that are between 500 and 900 ft² right now actively on the market, there's over 400 of them in in Miami Beach and the average rental asking price is 2,575
at an average of 660 ft² and that's a range between 500 and 900 ft² units. and rented in the past 365 days under 3500. There's over close to 2,000 units. Um, average 685 square feet. Also, average
price $2,356 for the rented units. And I'm happy to give you guys those stats. I just don't want people to think that there's only $5,000 square foot. I mean, $5,000 apartments that are one bedrooms in Miami Beach. There is also attainable um
units currently on the market and they rent out every single day. Um, but I think that the initiative is fantastic and it's going to help out Washington Avenue overall greatly. >> Thank you, Andreas. And Kevin, last person is Was there anyone else on Zoom?
>> No one else on Zoom. >> Okay, so we'll conclude Zoom and then we'll end off with Kevin. >> Thank you, Commissioner. I think I I feel remiss if I didn't speak up, but I came here today to mostly listen and learn. Um, I am serving clientele. Uh Kevin Krueger, a nine-year resident and
commercial real estate agent. And I actually spoke with Tom and Commissioner Suarez at your town hall in Washington A on the 13th in Washington block at question. Um where my developer client had actually uh had an open market offer
that was nearly accepted before that property went out for auction. So unfort he didn't participate in that, but he was ready to do I think they were micro units with urban originally. Um, so I feel like that's a swing and a miss that I wish it would have happened because as
a commercial real estate agent, I see the value in mixed use. So I applaud you guys for doing that. Um, pedestrians shop retail, right? So if we uh, you know, you scoot to work, uh, Joe walks to work, I city bike today. You know,
this is a walkable city. It's kind of living up to Commissioner Bot's uh, blue zones, right? And I think we can do it. And I really like the holistic perspective you guys are looking at. I'll be available. Again, listening to learning. I think a lot of us are and appreciate Commissioner Fernandez
jumping in from across the uh the way as well. That was insightful perspective. >> Thank you, Kevin. >> Just just for anybody listening to be clear, none of this is microunits. We are not talking about microunits or co-l livingiving spaces. That's not what
we're what we're all about. We've got 500 of those units plus in North Beach. Um and um >> in fact, we're we're incentivizing the micro units that was approved at the old Rishiapore site to not be micro. >> Exactly. So I just don't want anyone to misunderstand that that this is all
about microunits and co-l livingiving spaces because it's not. >> Okay. So what's >> Mr. Chair? >> Oh, Commissioner Fernandez. >> Yes. And thank you and thank you for this uh for this discussion and for for the public comments. You know, one of
the things uh that I wanted to to bring up is I think there is a lot of opportunity with people who do own smaller lots along Washington Avenue that have owned property for generations, people that might own
property free and clear. uh but but and and so and so they won't have the carrying cost of land acquisition and as we discussed in that Sunshine meeting there is a I believe the bulk of the parcels on Washington Avenue when you
look at them the bulk of the parcels on Washington Avenue there are lots that range in size from 6500 square ft to 7500 square ft to 10,000 square ft and I think that allowing this legislation uh
and I would like to put it out there for for the committee's consideration. Allowing this legislation to allow smaller lots to be a part of it I think could help incentivize the development of the type of boutique style building.
not the buildings that cover the span of entire block, but allow opportunity for smaller lots, smaller property owners to get their existing property and add residential on it. Um, and hopefully that can encourage the type of smaller
boutique buildings that we saw built in in the city, you know, back in the 80s and early 90s that contains a lot of our of our rental housing in Miami Beach, especially when you look at another important corridor like West Avenue.
West Avenue has a lot of those types of buildings on those smaller parcels. I don't know if the legislation already is expanded to include that. I don't know if the minimum lot uh requirement was amended for that. Uh if if Tom could
chime in on it. >> Yeah, Tom, if you can. >> We didn't make any adjustments to the minimum lot size requirement. Currently, the minimum lot size is 13,000, but if it's the will of the committee, we could certainly make an adjustment to the minimum lot size before first reading. I
>> I would like that. And I think also what Commissioner F and I don't mean to put words in his mouth. He's certainly on online to speak, but if if it's at a certain size uh minimum size and well it's it's a smaller
uh footprint, maybe there is different regulations for parking for example, which makes it more uh palpable for for that type of development that Commissioner Finn and I'm fully supportive of that. So maybe between now and first reading staff can work on this
and perhaps Commissioner Fernandez and I and all of us have a quick sunshine meeting to discuss the minimum lot size requirements for what those regulations pertain. >> Yeah. And Mr. Chair, if if you look at Flamingo Park, Flamingo Park, you know, you have small lots. You have small lots
with boutique buildings. Obviously in Flamingo Park, especially more towards the heart of Flamingo Park, the heights are lower. You know, you usually see two, maybe threestory buildings towards the center of Flamingo Park. As you go towards the edge towards Washington
Avenue, you see those heights, they start to go up. You might see three and fourstory uh buildings on on smaller lots, but they usually don't have parking. I don't mind for for for the units not to have parking because that will drive
affordability and it also addresses the need of housing for the workers who live in Miami Beach. Uh if you if you don't provide parking, you ensure that that the parking becomes available I mean that the housing becomes available to whom? To the people who work in our
city. Uh so so thank you for for for considering that because I do believe that there is opportunity there. Not everything have to be has to be the massive uh projects that aggregate lots and that increase land value that in
turn makes rent more expensive. If we look at the people who already own the lot uh and allow them to to develop on it, you'll be able to do it without the cost of land aggregation and you'll end up with more boutique style buildings on
those smaller lots. So, thank you for your consideration on that. Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> Um, the ordinance, as you're probably aware, includes a provision where there is no minimum off- streetet parking requirement. So, regardless of the size
of the lot of development, you're not required to provide off- streetet parking. It has another provision that allows for parking to be provided not to exceed 20% of the number of off- streetet parking spaces required under the requirements of parking tier one. So
I think that um with regard to these smaller lots because the parking requirement would be much lower that that allowance for 20%. suffice unless you want to just prohibit parking. >> No, I think I think it's good to have
the option. I also one one other protection I'd like to have is any development that is that that does move forward potentially would be excluded from zone 2 parking. so that it doesn't incur additional
pressure on um anyone who has who is in Flamingo Park. >> And I know these are all kind of fluid and they will evolve over the next month with our talks, but to Commissioner Fernandez's point, maybe that could actually be bifurcated
uh in lot size, right? We may not have an issue if a small boutique building on a 6,000 square foot lot that had two or three units could availed themselves of district two parking or uh zone 2 parking, but we wouldn't want a larger
lot that may have 40 units to be able to park in district 2, right? We we could handle two or three boutique building uh units, but maybe not the larger units. >> Well, through the chair, Will, would you mind coming up and talking about that? I mean, I know it's one of the most congested areas in the city. Um, and I
don't want this to be exactly what Flamingo Park residents are worried about with not having parking. So, I have no idea about this. I think it's a good idea in principle, but you probably are the best place to advise. >> So, what was the amendment if you don't mind? >> And it's not even an amendment, just
putting it out there for discussion because I think all of these are fluid things that we want to see uh do a sanity check, if you will, over the course of the next couple of weeks. But if we had some of the smaller lots like Commissioner Fernandez um mentioned, let's say up to 6,000 square feet or
whatever that maybe they would be able to park in zone 2. Uh however, if you had the larger lots that are going to have significantly more units, we wouldn't want uh them to avail of the on street parking and it would actually be a way to in further incentize the types
of smaller boutique uh developments that commission commissioner Fernandez um is passionate about, wants to see included, which I think is a good idea as well, >> like what we do in zone 26 where we've got some bigger buildings who depending on where they fell, it's not quite as
cut and dry as that, but yeah. So, it it's always Will McDonald, director of parking, city of Miami Beach. Um, >> bless you. >> It's always an incredibly delicate balancing act. Um, you know, I I I probably talk about zone 2 more than any others just because, uh, if we had an
intern, zone 2 is more than 5,000 permits issued, only 3,000 parking spaces in the entire zone. And those individuals also do get visitor permits. So, on, you know, we just came out of a very high impact weekend. And so even if half of those zone members invite one
single friend over with a car, we now have 5,000 people with permits, an additional 2500 legal legally parked visitors in a place that doesn't have enough on a normal night. So it it it it can get challenging especially when we do have larger events. Um if there is
anything, you know, I'm going to take off my parking hat and put on kind of the transportation side that I've been in. uh not to step on our current director of transportations. Um if we could if there's any incentives to be built or if it's possible to build buildings that focus on individuals that
are very comfortable not having a car and we can focus on those micromobility solutions. I'm not saying scooters because I know that they have their own I I'm they have their own level of problems within the city, but individuals that do want to utilize uh the the increasingly um uh available
bike infrastructure that we're bringing to the city. Um um hopefully we can continue to grow our public transportation in the city. Uh just because you know I I believe it uh Commissioner Fernandez and I think several other individuals here on the may have already said it. Uh parking is
an asset that is incredibly expensive to to build and maintain. Um when in reality it's, you know, people it's either used to store a car that never moves or it stays completely empty 16 out of 24 hours. And so that eats up extremely valuable square footage that
can be used for apartments and things of that nature. So it's pretty challenging with the current infrastructure that we have right now to be able to to say, "Hey, we can absorb this here or there." Sorry. I know that didn't really solve anything and I'm really sorry about that.
>> Thanks for that. Will sit down >> discussions that we'll have over the next few minutes. >> Yeah. Okay. So, >> I'm not dogmatic about anything. >> Would someone like to move the >> I'll move it. >> Second. Can I summarize um what you're uh doing? So, this is going to move it
back to first reading before the full commission with the following changes and please correct me if if any of these are misstated. one the maximum unit size would be increased to 1500 square f feet. Um number two um there would be a
cap set on the total number of units um that would be permitted. Um >> and we can work on that between now and >> yeah make a number now. >> Yeah. Staff will work on a number and and bring that to the commission with with a recommendation. Um, number three
would be allowing the smaller lots to be able to take advantage of the incentive. So, the minimum lot size would be reduced from 13,000 to 6,500 ft². And then the last one would be um in uh excluding new development from zone 2 on
street parking permits that may be further evolved as the commission discusses at first reading. >> Yeah. And Tom, you don't have to put this in, but if I could ask uh you and Debbie and others to put your thinking cap on. And I I really like where uh
commissioner Fernandez is going with that with the smaller boutique stuff. If there are even further things that we can do to incentize that, knowing that we'll maybe the goal is to get both and the smaller lots are probably harder to
give a catalyst to. So if we have to have a bifurcation of incentives, if you will, and the incentives perhaps are greater to the smaller boutique lots, that's something that we could at least weigh and entertain. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And Mr. Chair, if I just want to
make sure, did we put in in the amended ordinance the cap uh on the amount of units for the corridor? Yes, we're uh Commissioner Fernandez, um what we're going to do is the administration's going to come up with some
recommendations on the cap on the total number of units and bring that to the commission for first reading. >> And I'm just going to be, you know, clear. I want to make sure that that people understand we're trying to address a problem, not create a a
problem. And I think overdevelopment is a problem. Uh, and so I just want to make sure that that is conveyed a cap that I feel that is good for for Washington Avenue have having spoken to many property owners and to many
developers is a cap of 250 units for for the corridor. Um, and I think and and I think as you mentioned, Tom, if we need to revisit that in the future because we've had such success with this program, then we can go ahead and and
revisit that in in the future, but I don't want to create the unintended consequence of land speculation. So, I do want to see a modest cap so that we do not end up creating this perception that that that we're coming in and getting Washington Avenue and doing to
it what happened in town center uh because that that is farthest from from from the goal. So I want to make sure that we see a modest cap and I want to make sure that that that is conveyed well as to what is my intent regarding that
>> and through the chair if I may Tom that point to Alex's point um um is there anything in here about time from approval to permit requirements? >> Yes. um the
developments that are um seeking um to take advantage of these incentives um must obtain a full building permit no later than September 1 of 2032. >> So we started this a year and a half
ago, right? So if it's okay with the commit with the committee, we should probably extend to 2033 because it's >> when >> Yeah. The intent was six years. Yeah. So >> because when we started this it was a
year and a half ago or a year ago. >> No, I understand. I'm just Why did Why five years not why six years not five years or seven? The reason that we had suggested six is because people if they're going the earliest that this will be able to be adopted at this point
assuming that it's approved by the commission of first reading say in July would be September or October which means that at that point someone can begin to go into things like lot acquisition, acquiring property, making land use board applications, getting
land use board approval and then coming in for building permit. that is probably a good 2year process. So getting a full building permit is even in the best of circumstances a minimum of about two years from start to finish. And so this
would enable people to see who's moving forward with it and would give people some time. So 6 years I think is is a better thing for >> with Commissioner Fernandez proposal of a of a stop gap cap.
you know, we we protect ourselves from any sort of um abuse of this and it's just, you know, I I don't want to say a cap. I want to say more of like a stop gap like saying once we hit this, we can evaluate what has been approved
um as as far as building permits and then and then see what happens uh or or see what what is the the current condition and then we can either extend or or sunset. So, but I'm going to let staff come up with uh, you know, a
thoughtful whatever that value is. Okay. So, um, Commissioner Fernandez, you have anything else before I end the item? >> No. No. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to participate. I'm sorry I'm not there in person, but, uh,
grateful for for the discussion. >> Thank you. Okay. So, we have a motion to second as amended. >> Yeah. Based upon what I just read into the record. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so we're good. >> Yep. >> Acclamation. So, now that we're still talking about
affordability and um kind of deincentivizing transient use and more residential use, let's call number four. >> Okay. Item number four is discuss the creation of a financial incentive program for landlords for conversion of short-term rental property to long-term
leases. >> Thank you. Commissioner Bot, would you like to speak? >> Yeah. Um, so I'm actually I think we just lost the subject matter expert um for a a bio break. Um, this the you
know, we are procluded from changing legislation to limit short-term rentals from where they currently are. But there are ways that other communities have been able to incentivize converting short-term rentals into um long-term
rentals for tenants. Um and I gosh, this is going back quite some time, but there are um all kinds of examples from other cities that I shared with our staff. Um, some of them worked, some of them didn't work, but I was thought that it would be
a really interesting um, concept for us to explore with Tom and Nick and everybody else's input on how um, this might work and what we might be able to do. And so I would like to um, talk about it and have Tom and Nick weigh in
since they can talk about it much better than I can. >> Sure. We actually I discussed this at length with uh Albatari who's our um housing and community development director and the um the lease to locals program um that was identified in the
backup that that you provided did have some success in some of the cities um that were um that were analyzed as part of that backup. Um when Alba talked to our consultant regarding um whether or
not this would be a good fit for Miami Beach, the general consensus is that it likely would not for a couple of reasons. One, um we have certain budget constraints um with regard to being able
to manage um a program like this. Uh number two, there's also the competition that we have with the number of properties that are permitted by state law to have transient uses and our inability to regulate that outside of of
some limited zoning districts. Um in terms of a a longer term strategic um outlook, the administration believes that finding programs to increase long-term housing in the city is very worthwhile.
worthwhile and desirable. Um, and that perhaps we could look at a dedicated funding stream to achieve this um through programs um that would increase the the stock of um of um uh long-term
non-transient housing either as part of new construction or through these types of conversions that were contemplated under the lease to locals. So, a question for you is that we have the CRA in North Beach where there is um a fair
amount of transient STRs, not counting the new fancy developer ones. Um, and we have a CRA that mandates by by law that 10% of the revenues that come in have to be used for affordable housing. Could that, and I don't see anybody here from
Econ Development, but um could that revenue source be used in part to underwrite a program like this legally because it would kind of hit on all cylinders? >> I I'd want to discuss that with Stephen Anthony and perhaps that is an option
and there might be other options with regard to uh utilizing the CRA for that purpose. Um, we could certainly come back to you with more information on that. >> Yeah, let's if through the chair let's um let's bring it back next. Will next month be enough or do you want to come
back in July? >> I think in July we should be able to reach out to >> You're just saying July because you're like I am out of here. >> Well, no, it's it's because it's the next meeting >> because Yeah, >> there's a meeting next Wednesday, but we would not have enough time between now and next Wednesday. Okay. So the next meeting after that would be July
>> and we'll call you just so you can feel like you're part >> and actually I I still technically will be an adviser so I will be here so I'm not out of the woods just yet. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Happy for us. Sorry for you. All right. So is that okay David? >> Yeah sure. All right. So we'll show this
as continue to July 15th and we'll reach out to economic development and get some more information as to what uh can be accomplished. >> Yeah. I'm just I I um I mean that's one thing that popped to mind and I I want to keep working on this because just because some cities had success with it
and some cities didn't and it might be expensive but we haven't really explored it fully. you know, what other funding sources, what other federal grants might be able to or maybe not even federal grants, you know, private philanthropy grants might be able to to help underwrite this if we don't have the funding source because it is a huge need
and I would would much rather um incentivize existing buildings to sort of spruce up their buildings and become full-time residential again than demolish and build new. It's better for the environment, it's better for the neighborhood, it's better for everybody. So, um, you know, besides the the CRA
monies, let's see what kind of, you know, who does what out there. I don't know, maybe they're private, um, like the Ford Foundation or who knows what foundations are doing, right? What about, um, housing issues because it is not just a local discussion anymore. It's national and I
have to believe that people are are doing things. So, if we could even on a pilot scale and limit it to, you know, two neighborhoods in our city or whatever we want to do to to prove the concept and then roll it out wider, I think that'd be amazing. >> Please and thank you. >> All right. So, we'll note this by
acclamation, then we'll continue it to the July meeting. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Is um Commissioner Magazine is in the bio brief? >> Nope. He he bailed. >> Oh, okay. Um >> but we're still at quum. >> All right. So, just real quick, uh, I wanted to see how some of my colleagues
felt about this, and I don't know if Commissioner Fernandez is still on, but let's do number two real quick. Number two is, uh, discuss amending the procedure for appeals of decisions of the design review board on design review applications to provide that appeals
shall be heard by a designated special magistrate consistent with the procedure for appeals from the historic preservation board. So, um, Nick, why don't you tee this up for us because this was also something suggested from legal, um, to kind of
avoid what we've been seeing in the last couple commission meetings. >> Sure. So, um, this is an amendment to the LDRs that specifically relates to appeals from decisions of the design review board. The standard of review on
for any appeal of a decision of a land use board is a is a legal standard. It's whether the board's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence, whether procedural due process was provided and whether the board followed the essential requirements of
law. This is the same standard that the circuit court would apply um if if uh if if if somebody appealed a decision of a local government land use board anywhere in Florida. Uh it's a standard that's been that's been shaped by the by
decades of of case law and and and but it is essentially a legal standard. Um currently the DRB is the only one of our four boards whose decisions are appealed to the city commission. Um, so what this ordinance does is it would make appeals
from the DRB consistent with the HPB in that the first level of of review is to go to a uh a special magistrate. Our code has certain professional requirements for that special magistrate and the and currently our his special
magistrate for the HPB is the uh is the former chief land use attorney for Miami date county. Um, so we have somebody with with a lot of experience in doing this. Um, as drafted, this would not apply to decisions of the DRB for
applications on city property. So those if if somebody were to appeal a decision of the DRB for a city project, uh, those would still uh, be reviewable by the city commission. >> Okay. Commissioner, but um you know,
we've had we've had a couple we've had a couple of appeals that have come through and it it kind of puts us in a little uncomfortable position cuz you know, we're we're sort of in a quasi judicial setting and I don't know if it was
moving forward if it's appropriate for us to to be sort of the >> uh I don't know how you would call it, but the >> arbiters right, of of an appeal. Um, you know, two appeals
we've had in the last couple months, one we've we've allowed to go through, I think that was in the Venetian, and then we recently um remanded an approval back to the DRB for uh reconsideration.
And I mean look th those I felt comfortable doing those but I think moving forward I think a special magistrate process is the way to go and then perhaps with a circuit court and it it kind of removes
politics from from these not not that politics had anything to do with the last couple items but moving forward it it moves it out. So, I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say. And and again, I'm not married to this. I think this was
it's a I think it's a good idea moving forward, especially since all our other land use boards have a similar process. >> Yeah. I So, I I'm not sure why this one is the one that doesn't have the same process. I don't know if there was a reason for it or just never got kind of
captured in that. So, um I in principle am very okay with things being consistent as a rule of thumb. And I like the fact that Nick, as you mentioned, that if it's a government site, then it comes to us because we're government and I think we should weigh in on that. So, um, as stated, I'm fine
with this. I think it's a good idea. >> Okay. And I don't know if Commissioner Fernandez is still online or is it now eating sushi? >> It's like 3:00 in the morning now. Probably not. >> Do you want to move it to the commission? Sure. We could discuss more of there. >> Yeah.
>> And I'll second. Okay. So we'll do you want to move this to commission as a referral to the planning board? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We can't just move it straight from here to planning board and then come to commission. >> It was not a dual referral. So it has to go back to the commission to refer to
the planning board. >> Okay. And then after the planning board, it comes back to commission >> first reading. Okay. Y >> All right. Commissioner But I don't know. It's up to you if you want to do number seven. Uh just to get it out of the way. >> And also, Mr. chair. Um on number five,
John Reebar is here. He indicated to me that the only update he had was the um Savinho and Miller. Um >> yeah, it needed to be heard at the last commission meeting, but it hasn't >> Yeah, that was the only update he had for number five. So, I didn't know if you wanted to um discuss that real quick
as well. >> We can we can just close it out, right? I mean, >> yeah, >> if there's no update, I mean, >> there's going to be plenty of discussion at commission. So, right. So we'll show number five discussed and concluded. >> Sure. Okay. >> And then number seven, Commissioner Bod
is um >> discussed holding companies doing business within city limits responsible for educating their drivers about the prohibition of blocking and double parking and the rights of women. >> Yeah. Um so Will will uh take us through the ins and outs, but um tangentially
um we've been doing exactly that. we will who's been doing exactly this and I think he's deputized um Jane Crup in the Ocean District because um he's and I don't want to steal all your thunder but you have been actually successfully reaching out to companies and loading
zones who are doing things incorrectly and advising them and they're like oh yeah okay let we can do it differently and better. So this is the same kind of notion um but not specifically only to uh loading zones. No. So, uh, will McDonald direct parking say my beach.
Um, so I'll say that what we have really focused on and now that for example, uh, the recent ordinance change that now freight loading zones will be 7 to three. We now have a little bit more teeth with inside our freight loading and alley loading zone permits. We've
added a terms and conditions of use which clearly outline what their responsibilities are. We've added a driver at a station acknowledgement form that we said that part of your conditions of use is you will have every driver watch this video uh the video that our communications team was able to
uh produce for us that is up on YouTube and it's available in French creole it's available in Spanish it's available in English and so this is just and and the unofficial deputization of of of members of our community who have sent us photos and continue to send us photos and I
actually look at it as a phenomenal uh partnership because what I have done is I've reached out to several of these and talked to the transportation managers and a lot of them are like hey great we didn't know who to contact you guys are the hardest place to deliver to
i.e. in Miami Beach. And so, um, every one of them, we've sent these new updates, we've sent them a link to the video. And now that the ordinance changes come out, um, now that we have, uh, automotives coming online, uh, very shortly in the next few days that will
actually show o uh, occupancy, live occupancy of our freight loading zones or or violations taking place. Um but for this if their drivers can we once we get that public facing then their drivers can just look on their tablet and go oh this one here on the 100 block
of 10th is available and they can make a beline right toward it. So this is just kind of another I'll just say another tool in the toolbox that we are going to be able to deploy to be able to hold these companies accountable. Um, one thing I do want to say is change takes
time. Just like a culture change in any organization, whether it's here in Miami Beach or the these companies have delivery drivers that have been driving to this beach for 15 years and doing whatever they want. Um, it's kind of a game of cat and mouse between some of our parking enforcement specialists and
these drivers. Um, you know, I hear from the drivers, oh, they're following us. And it's like, well, because they know that you're just going to stop in a lane of traffic somewhere. that's how why they're following you. Um, but ironically, they don't stop in a lane of traffic when we're following you. So, maybe that's what we need to do. Um, but
I have gotten the commitment from everyone we've reached out to, and you know, I'm going to take it on face that they're being true that, hey, we want to be better. You know, these fines cut into their profit, which then causes them to raise the cost of their goods, which then they pass that on to the
local businesses who then raise the cost of goods that are sold here. So, it's just a vicious cycle and hopefully if we can somehow reduce this, it not only maybe makes them not, you know, we don't want to be the cause of them raising their prices, but it also reduces
traffic congestion, it reduces um um I'll say conflicts and interactions with these drivers and members of the public, these drivers and our parking enforcement specialist. So, it's just another tool in the toolbox that um I think we're gonna be able to start seeing incremental um change in the
habits of the drivers because now I'm talking to their bosses. >> Um do you have a way of I'm sure you're data driven. So, are you well not you personally but your department is data driven. I don't know maybe you are too. I don't know. But um do you have a way of tracking this the metrics of where we were before versus each by each company?
like this guy was a repeat offender all the time and now never and you know like so that we have some comparison and analysis going forward. >> Absolutely. So uh there's we have two different ways of doing this. One super happy we have a data scientist that I stole out of the intern pile um and I
fought tooth and nail to get him to come to parking. Um so we have a data scientist that started last week and he's going to be he's actually going to be focusing on a few other projects. We keep the name of every company um that when we write a right-of-way citation.
So that is extremely easy uh to say hey we started at this date let's give it you know 90 days now we have 90 days of data on who we've given right of way site um right of way uh violations to versus the previous 90 days. We can also
look at matching license plates um with our citations. It's a little bit more difficult because when we look at some of the big players like uh I know we speak with FedEx, FedEx has permitted uh I think 55 of their trucks to come to Miami Beach because they never know which truck is going to be on which
route. Um it does get a little bit trickier when we go for the citations. Uh but the right ofways we collect the DOT number, the driver's name as long as they don't drive off. Um we collect uh as much information as you can about that. So, we'll be able to say, "Hey, for 90 days we've done this, we made
contact on this day and they've dropped 20% or 50% or you know, or they've gone up 20% because they don't care." Um, so we'll be able to track that and uh, you know, we can then change the conversation with the company depending
on on what that data looks like. >> So, to that point, I mean, this is the carrot basically, education. um if there are flagrant violators, what are the sticks and do we need to do anything on that side to increase fines? >> So the yes, this is the carrot and the
the carrot is is several things. The carrot is, hey, we're actually reaching out to you now. The carrot is, hey, we're trying to, you know, the color-coded curbs and and shutting off the payments for the the the freight loading zones. And now that we have automotives, we are going to be having proactive enforcement in these areas.
that's going to be much quicker than the previous structure of just driving around. So, we were doing all of these things to try to keep these zones open. Now, it's up to them to start communicating that if we have companies that don't act in good faith
or that, you know, maybe are, I'll say, a little bit less responsive than others, um, I'll just say while there are there are guard rails, we can't just go out and do whatever we want. Um, we can work, for example, with our towing
partners on individuals that have maybe a ton of outstanding um, violations or obstruction of traffic is always a towable offense. So, if we have somebody that's uh, uh, not acting in the best of faith and continues to do these violations, then I'll be very I can say
that it's very easy to know when they're going to be in the city of Miami Beach doing deliveries and the next time they obstruct. But is that realistic because they might see you coming with a tow truck and hight tail it out of there and come back or is it I mean I don't know maybe it's not a problem.
>> It's it would it would pose a challenge but I again um if there is truly a company that is just blatantly um you know flipping their nose at the city um you know there's always an answer >> and um I'm sure
>> I'm I'm I'm you know hopefully we're not going to have that. But I feel that all of these want to be good players and good neighbors. >> And are the fines that we impose sufficient to hit them where it hurts? >> So we actually So we actually have to adjust the fines. Um >> I I think the ordinance that the
commission adopted last week is the maximum under state law. >> Yeah. >> So So uh you know, we I'd love to sit here and say we can we can you know, hit them harder. um you know the but the just of the matter is is that the fines
will only go so far. Um there are other things that we can do um if somebody is truly flipping their nose at us. But I again I I have faith in in the overall good of people that they're going to work with us. >> Sucker, you're such an optimist. Um
okay, >> someone has to be. >> Yeah. >> Where would you like to take this, Commissioner Ms? um you know, can we keep it here and have you come back in like six months or whatever you think is a good time frame just to give us an update of how effective it's been? I think I'm really excited about uh what
this is going to do and I want you to be able to come back and brag a little bit. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, we can um open and continue this to >> Yeah, we'll continue to a future date for additional updates. >> Sounds good. Okay, Commissioner B, I
think I think we're good here. We've covered pretty much everything except um >> item six we can move to June 3rd if you want to do that. >> Right. And commission I would have called it but Commissioner Magazine stepped out. So >> Okay. So we'll move item six to June 3rd. >> Oh yeah, that's right. Um so we don't
have So you're going to be out of town. >> Y >> and I believe Commissioner Fernandez is also going to be out of town. So we're going to move we'll just Well, >> maybe we postpone it to another date in June. >> Yeah. Um because I don't know if we want
to just frontload everything to July. So >> let's just move it. >> Yeah. And then I'll have Tom or Nick reach out for dates. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. Meeting adjourned. Thank you very much everyone.