[music] Falling forget [music] you. Nana [music] nah I'm not the girl. enough. Hey
in the night. In the night, over. Hey down. Nat. Thank you. Thank you. [music]
Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. birthday. like feel >> [music]
>> Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Please take your seats. The meeting is [music] 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
five. That did not make any sense at all. >> That was not a funny joke. Uh good afternoon everyone. Today is uh April 1st. Uh hope no April Fools jokes from Commissioner any any lame
commissioner jokes from uh Commissioner Magazine. I am um joined by Commissioner Magazine and Commissioner Bot at today's land use and sustainability committee. Um before we proceed, does the city attorney have any notices to make?
>> Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 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 at Miami Beach City Hall and uh applicant staff, members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate
virtually, the public can dial 1888-475-4499 and enter the webinar ID, which is 8505-99237 pound, or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID, which again is 850599237. Anyone wishing to speak on an item must
click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if you are participating by phone. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. City attorney Tom, Mr. Planning Director, are there any changes to the today's agenda? >> Uh, just three. Uh, Mr. Chair, first, uh, item number eight, which is the
North Beach water quality um, and Park View Canal report is being deferred to a future date. Item number nine, >> just curious, Tom, is that report ready? >> Um, that I don't know. Um, the, um,
departments that were handling it because the sponsor deferred it. um they didn't prepare anything for this meeting. So >> yeah, Commissioner Fernandez is not here, but as sooner I would like to hear that reportly at the next meeting.
>> Uh item number nine is monthly updates on historic hotel redevelopment on Collins Avenue between 14th and 20th Street. >> This is also being deferred to a future date. Then finally, um, the item regarding dedicated bus lanes on
Washington Avenue is being deferred to a future date. >> Thank you. Is there a motion to set the agenda? >> I'll make a motion >> as amended. >> Okay, I'll second that. >> Um, okay. Um, Tom, can you please write into the record item number two?
>> Okay. Item number two is review existing fencing requirements and the land development regulations for vacant and aband abandoned properties as well as construction sites and consider amendments to streamline the existing requirements for applicants and property owners. This was a dual referral to the
planning board. >> Commissioner Magazine, this is your item. >> Yeah, thank you for that, Commissioner Suarez. Uh Tom, and hopefully you can give me a little guidance here. My initial thought for this was in preparation for the World Cup of wanting this city to look as amazing as
possible. And I understand that there's some sites that just won't be uh fully activated, but I thought, wow, maybe we could at least aesthetically make them look better. Uh how to do so was around fencing. If I look at one prime example,
uh would be on Lincoln Road, uh one of our prime corridors that'll probably be one of the most traverse places in all of the United States. Uh there's two construction sites right now with uh this fencing uh with just green fencing and it's ripped. It looks awful. That is not the impression I want to give for
the city and uh extrapolate that towards any other site. As I understand it, Tom, um my vision was to have some of these more decorative uh higher quality fencings. Not a requirement, but as a possibility
if a uh project owner or land owner would be so willing to do so, particularly if they had an exciting new project that was coming up. It'd be a great way to uh show that forward during a highly traveled time. But right now, unless you have permits or designs in
place, our fencing requirement is just you need the chain link fence. Is that correct? >> There's actually, if I could just explain briefly, there's two types of fences for vacant lots. If you have a construction site, and in order to qualify for a construction site, you have to have some type of building
permit. Then those types of fences allow for either a solid wood fence, a chainlink fence. But if you're in a multif family or commercial district, you have to put decorative artistic types of wraps on it like we do with the
fence on our hotel site. So some of the >> that's exactly what I had in mind for this. >> Yeah. So that's actually required under the code. Now I think some of the sites that you're talking about on Lincoln Road, specifically Lincoln and Drexel, I don't know if they have a building permit, but if they do have a building permit, they're clearly in violation of
the code because the fence is not supposed to look like So, where I was going with this ordinance though is the sites that may not have a building permit yet. I know uh where I live on Alton Road, right? There's just surface lots that are of no use and they just have green fencing. Even if somebody
wanted to go above and beyond with the decorative fencing, uh the higher quality fencing because there's not an active building permit, they would not be permitted to do so. Correct. That gets me to the next point, which are vacant lots that don't have a building permit and are not a construction site.
Those sites technically are required to have an aluminum pickup fence with a minimal landscape buffer for aesthetic purposes. And so those sites also are supposed to have an upgraded type of fence and not just a cheap chain link
fence or something with with green mesh that that's ripping on it. And I guess I don't want to force this uh right now, right? Because there's the thought, okay, the these are higher costs. You're imposing that it'll actually slow down
progress. But for people that wanted to that own these and perhaps there's a project kind of years down the line, uh, and they wanted to go above and beyond, and I don't know if there's things we could do to encourage and sanitize that, provide this decorative fencing, at
least give them the optionality to do so. And I think that's where I was looking to land this ordinance. >> Yeah, we could definitely um modify the text that we have um the draft text that we came up with to
include a provision to allow vacant lots to have something other than just an aluminum picket fence. So, if a vacant lot in say a commercial or multifamily district instead of an aluminum picket fence wanted to utilize a fence with
those decorative graphics on it, which is I think what you're getting to, >> we could definitely write that into these regulations. That's not in the regulations now, but we could definitely write that. >> And apologies is it's been a little bit since we reviewed this uh together, but tell me what this ordinance as written
does. So what this ordinance does is it creates a uh provision for those sites that demolish a building and become a vacant lot >> to keep their construction fence for up
to a year. >> Um and that would allow somebody to have that type of fence that you're talking about. But it applies to demolition permits. I think what you're talking about >> expanding it >> expanding it to beyond just demolition permits
>> or just on demolition permits and vacant lots. >> Demolition permits and vacant lots. >> Yep. >> Colleagues, sound good. >> And again, this isn't imposing any cost that somebody wouldn't voluntarily want to bear. >> Okay. Because I know >> this just allows them to have a nicer
fence up for a longer period of time. >> Yeah. Why why would they want why would we want to have them to leave it up for a longer period of time? >> Well, it it's not leave it up for a longer period of time. It's just the fence is going to be up as long as the fences. But right now, let's say there
was a a demolition or a vacant lot. >> Like, let's use the old um um [clears throat] the hostel that's being demolished on West Avenue. Let's use that for an example. >> Yep. Uh, so let's say that's where 1250
was going to be built, right? Um, >> something's going to be built there, >> right? But let's say in the future that's where that uh condo was going to be built. Right now, after they demolish Bikini Hostel, it wouldn't allow them to have the
highass, highquality decorative sign until they actually had a building permit for their new project. they would just have the aluminum cast fence here. This would essentially while they're working to get a building permit, they have the higher quality fence.
>> I'm totally supportive of this, but Tom, why why was this is this just a a misthought when this originally when this ordinance was originally adopted? When this w when this ordinance was fine-tuned about three years ago, the thought process at
the time was that for vacant lots where there was no uh foreseeable construction project should consist of uh an aluminum picket type of barrier with landscaping. Um and that the um type of fence where
you would put those artistic graphics would be limited to construction sites. Um, so I think what the proposal here is is to expand the allowance for the artistic graphics to not just vacant, not just construction sites, but to
vacant lots. I think a great example is where the Medusa site is perhaps going to go. I I don't know uh the feasibility there, but right next to the church on Lincoln Road, there's a plan in place. It went to the planning board, but correct me if I'm wrong,
there's no building permit, right? >> Correct. And it looks like hell. It that is one of the most traveled sites in you know you can see in to these steel pillars that are in the ground and it's embarrassing that that's on Lincoln Road. At least here while you would have
a vacant site. Think about the fencing that the um convention center hotel had. That would look a heck of a lot better fronting Lincoln Road than what is currently there now. >> Yeah. [clears throat] my my it's not really a concern but just just something
to think about. You know, there is this particular lot south of Fifth. It's a it's a residential lot. It's on Second and Meridian um and >> across from the Courts like Caddy Corner, too. No, it's it's um it's
between Second No, it's on Second Street between Meridian and I believe um Jefferson and it's been empty for I think 15 years. Um and it's it is a
chainlink fence and it's it's actually nice because it's all green and you can see through it and it's you you see green space. I wonder if someone bought that property for whoever owns it now and then puts a really nice
fence there to be able to sell the property better. But by doing so, you kind of remove that sort of green uh aesthetic where you where you would walk by and just see green space instead of a very thick fence. I don't know. I
mean, it's just something to think about between now and the commission meeting. you're welcome to go by and check it out, but you know I don't want to have a situation where you know it's just used as a marketing I mean I don't know maybe that's good or bad but um you know that that is that is
something to just keep in mind that you know these chain link fences on one hand yeah you you do look through them and you see you know unsightly rebar but on on some situations you just see really nice greenery and landscaping
>> and Tom maybe you could give some guidance And maybe all of us could weigh in. Is what you're referring to the ruler of the exception, right? Uh like across the city. I'm just thinking where I live, right on Alton Road, Russell has
on uh what 7th in Alton, right? It's surface parking lots and you're looking through at god knows who's parking in there and >> Yeah. See, that's beautiful, right? And perhaps that's actually more common for
single family homes. This is more like commercial sites that I'm envisioning. >> This is RPS1, right? And I don't know if we can do it for we >> Yeah, I mean that's that's another thought is perhaps um what Commissioner Magazine is proposing would be limited to commercial districts where I think
that's the bigger issue. And something else that's important to point out to Commissioner Suarez's point is that one of the reasons that we went with the aluminum picket option, particularly in residential districts. True. >> Exactly. So police can see what's going on in there and so people wouldn't start
to um occupy the space and nobody can see what's going on. So >> yeah, like like you do with the Raleigh, I mean that's a it's a beautiful fence, but I mean you can't see beyond it. >> And if there's construction going on, >> right? I don't necessarily want to I don't want to put that in a residential
neighborhood where you can't see beyond it. Um, so I don't know >> because there's optionality here. I don't think somebody would choose to spend all this money for the higherend fence for a residential spot. You know, it'd be somebody that has a restaurant
coming or has a hotel or a condominium project coming and they would >> but they could put like marketing material on the fence if they, you know, and then it's it looks more marketable. I don't know. That's just >> But think about like the Grand Hyatt Hotel, right? What that looked like?
It's It's just more kemp looking. So, I'm fine in between this reading. You know, we we could think about ways to minimize it in residential districts. I think given it's optional and not forced, there's already going to be lack
of incentive for somebody to do this around a residential project. But, you know, if we want to firm that up a little bit, I'm fine with that. >> Okay. So, >> you can make all uh >> Do you want this to This was a dual referral. So, do you want this to come
back to you or do you want us to draft the ordinance and bring it to planning board so that the planning board? >> Yeah, draft the ordinance, bring to the planning board, then the commission. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll show that done by acclamation. Great. Now, we're while we're on the
topic of um [sighs] building permits, um let's do item number three. >> Okay. Item number three is um discuss and review planning and zoning restrictions that delay the
permit process and consider possible amendments. >> I believe that's my item. Tom, if you can >> Sure. >> Give us the public of what you have in mind. Yeah, this was uh the last time this was discussed by the um land use committee was um on May 8th was May 8th
of last year, 2025. Um and they had discussed >> it's been a year. >> So it's been a year. Yeah. >> Okay. I'll be honest. Good stuff. And so um at that time we had come up with some uh amendments to the LDRs that we felt
could help streamline and simplify the permit review process as well as the regulatory review process. Um and these include and the the text is in the um in the land use committee memo includes uh amending the required setbacks for the
second floor single family homes in order to further simplify the regulations. Um modifying the habitable projections um for architecturally significant single family homes. This would be helpful particularly for those projects where they're retaining a home
and wanted and want to do an addition. Um we had also come up with some concepts for um kind of more aggressive modifications which would involve things like the calculation of unit size, the calculation of lot coverage. At the time
the land use committee uh didn't recommend in favor of those and they limited their um direction to come up with these options here. >> Can you go over the more aggressive quote unquote options? >> Sure. Right now when uh for instance
with single family homes um when someone is designing either an addition to a single family home or a new single family home, they have to go through um a wide array of regulations that
involve things like the maximum unit size, which is the square footage, the maximum lot coverage, um the overall height of the building, the minimum elevation as measured from freeboard setbacks, uh, minimum open space
requirements in both a front yard and a rear yard. And then there are exceptions to those regulations to allow certain types of projections. And the regulations are designed to facilitate modern homes that are larger and taller
but have a lot of movement in them so that you don't get a big blocky type of building. One of the things that my staff has looked at is whether or not it would make sense to significantly simplify those regulations and basically
create a box for an architect to design a home. And we believe that that could potentially speed up the regulations because as long as >> basically by um incorporating minimum setback requirements and current height
limits, you would be providing the necessary space in between properties as well as the necessary open space that is needed for on-site water retention and drainage. but really leaving it up to the architect to design a home to their
their client's wishes. And by limiting the overall height and the volume of the home to specific setbacks, but not having minimum requirements for things like open space or additional setbacks
or you can project a certain way into certain setbacks that could significantly uh simplify the review process and speed up the permitting. by by how much of the time? >> It's hard to say. Um, we were looking at
it primarily from a planning standpoint. Um, single family homes is what typically takes the longest time for planning to review because of the complexity of the regulations. So, our thought process was if we could simplify those regulations, it would make it faster for the reviewer to be able to
get through a single family home review. And what was the concerns at the committee last? >> I think the primary concern is that um you'd be relying on good architects and
our land development regulations are designed unfortunately for bad architects. So we we can't tell a homeowner who to hire to design either their addition or their new home. and they could hire a really good architect that can come up with a really good
design and it doesn't really need to be overregulated. But someone else could hire a civil engineer who basically is going to design four walls with some window openings, basically a box. And if you start to get a lot of those, that
could have an impact on the scale, character, and context of an area. So, it's that balance that I think the committee had a concern with last time in terms of giving so much latitude to the architect or the engineer that the homeowner may choose to design the home.
>> So, the regulations that we have now are designed are in place to ensure that we have exactly what >> high quality design. >> Okay. Um and so that being said, you the
after a year you come back with with Can you repeat the >> So the regulations that we had the that we had come up with include modifications to the required setbacks for the second floor of single family homes in order to simplify those
requirements. Right now um uh 35% of the second floor is um required to be set back from the front elevation. Um a minimum of 5 ft. And to provide more flexibility, we suggested that 35% of
the enclosed second floor be set back a minimum of 35 ft from the front property line. That way if somebody wants to give additional setback to the entirety of the building without stepping back the second floor, they would be able to do that. >> Okay. >> Um and then that would also apply to the
streetside elevation. And then on the habitable projections for architecturally significant homes, um we suggested that one or twotory additions be allowed to follow the existing building line as long as there's a minimum of five feet. And so that would
make it easier for people with existing homes to do um additions whether they're a one-story linear edition or a two-story edition. >> Got it. Okay. So I guess what what you guys have come back to us is a very very watered down proposal of um
well I don't know if there's an appetite to redisuss some of the more you know aggressive um regulation restrictions or reductions that the planning director has um
issued. But I mean I look uh yeah I get it on one hand you know we kind of force people to have I guess a much better designed home. Um but on the other time and time again you know we hear building permit process is is really
cumbersome in Miami Beach and you know that that that is a people wonder why contractors don't want to work on Miami Beach or architects because it's you know it's very difficult and it end up costing the homeowners a lot of money to
to hire these contractors. But on one hand, yeah, you know, we we we basically force a design that we're okay with. I mean, so I don't know, my colleagues, what do you think about this, >> Tom? I'll say without getting into the granular details. If we don't improve this process, this will be the next
thing that the state takes out of our hands. Okay. And there's somebody I I know directly because he told me and it was littered with a lot of f-words in between, so I won't repeat it, but he goes, "This is somebody incredibly
influential, has three lots on Sunset that he's looking to build." He goes, again, I'm leaving out the F-words that I was the recipient of. I called the governor and I said, "You need to take this permitting process out of the hands of a lot of more f-words down in Miami
Beach, right? And I get the argument of, okay, we want to have these stringent standards. I don't know what are three lots on Sunset Island going for $100 million. This guy's making a pretty big investment." I think he has a pretty
aligned incentive to have pretty high architectural and design standards without us playing nanny and granny state. >> You you make up a good bring up a good point, Commissioner Magazine, that >> right now I guess when this regulation
Tom was adopted, it was many years ago, right? And the property values at the time were probably not where they are today. They're probably quadrupled. Correct. >> Or more than that. I I think if you're buying property in Miami Beach, you're not going to just
build a box, right? I mean, you're gonna it's going to cost you an arm and a leg to buy the lot or the the property and then um build it something that you you that that should be beautiful.
Commissioner Bot, what are your thoughts on this? Um, we see people building boxes all the time and um, I I agree with the sentiment of how do we simplify our regulations? How do we streamline the
process? I've had experiences hearing from people who are frustrated, but I've also had experiences with people who are builders, who are architects who say it's very simple. You just follow the rules and there are no issues. So my view would be to instead of tinkering
with what is take a step back, take a look at the current market conditions. I mean we didn't used to have people buying multiple um lots and aggregating them and significantly changing the scale and the
context of a community. Um, and if that is the direction that our city is going in, I would argue that the the laws that we have on the books don't really contemplate that properly. Um, it's, you know, tweaking things with a little bit
of bubble gum and bailing wire when really we should take a step back and look holistically at, you know, what do we want to incentivize here and how do we protect the character of our community? Um because it it is okay to not be a megaillionaire and still live
in Miami Beach. You shouldn't have to um you know live in the shadow of this hulking mega structure. You should also be allowed to build the home that you want if you're buying the property. So um that's that's my position. I would like to take a step back, look
holistically, reinvent from scratch as opposed to tweaking um and doing things by half measures so that we afford the communities, the neighbors the protection of character of place while also making it easier to ensure that we
get good design on larger scale homes. >> Well, um Tom, I mean, this is something that your office has worked on, right? And the instruction or the referral to you was to come up with ways to lower
the regulation process. Correct. Um and without having to go start from scratch, would you start here? Is this something that you would do to help with the regulation? And that's why I asked in the beginning, how much time and effort
will this save a homeowner who is in the process of building a home? Yeah, th this referral was um review options, come up with options that can address what is currently causing delays in the
permit process, restrictions that delay the permit process. And so in looking at single family homes, as all of you have correctly stated, it's a balance. I mean, going back to the late '9s, there was virtually no regulation on single
family homes. It was basically just there was no maximum height. It was setbacks. You could build three stories as long as you met the setbacks. And then there started to become a problem with what we commonly refer to as monster homes or McMansions. And then
that's when we had our first real set of substantive single family regulations and they've just sort of been built upon since then. Um, >> so but why so why would you recommend something that kind of goes back to that or does that do or does your
proposal do that? >> It does that but it also creates um boundaries. So somebody's not going to be able to just build whatever they want. you're going to be able to cap what the maximum height would be, cap
what the setbacks would be. So, you won't get anything that is more significant in terms of bulk and massing or height than you get now. But what you could end up with are homes that particularly a new home that's going
next to a much older home. We get this a lot. neighbors who have been there for 50 plus years complaining about a new home and new homes are just bigger and taller. They have to be built higher. >> But that's >> and that's just >> but that's going to happen anyways. >> Yeah. Changing that, right?
>> Right. >> No, but by further uh loosening the regulations and relying on the architect to basically come up with ways that are going to address the impact of a new home on a neighbor.
um we're sort of taking that out of our responsibility and relying on an architecture. >> So right now what could we address to reduce the impact of a neighbor that this led that this proposal might take away? >> What we were talking about in terms of
really making a significant impact on the length of time that it takes to review a single family home. It's a pretty radical change to the single family development regulations and it would basically be something along the
lines of creating a minimum setback, minimum open space requirement, maximum height, but giving the homeowner and the architect the ability to do what they want within that box. And >> how is that how is that any different now?
>> Well, right now there's a whole host of regulations when you have a multi-story home. There's minimum setback requirements if the home is longer than 60 feet in length. There's setback requirements for the second floor, which we're trying to simplify a little bit
here. There's restrictions on how far you can project certain things from the main home. There's minimum requirements for uh open space for pvious area. those could still be kept in some way. But
when you factor in the different limitations on say roof decks, uh allowable projections, um allowable height exceptions, all of those create a level of review that is somewhat
lengthy. And Tom, can I stop you there? Don't we have a pretty finite subset of architects in the city? Right. The things that you're describing there,
tell me they could be a pain in the rear having to navigate that, but I don't see how that prolongs the permit process. Right? If architect A, B, and C, who, you know, there's a small subset of them, they're fully aware of all these rules. So, they
have to design a home within the confines of all this. But once they do, then why does that lengthen the permit process? Um, in our experience, when you look at it from start to finish, whether
it's an architect who has a lot of experience designing homes on Miami Beach, and there are they are much better at that um, than somebody who might be new and is familiarizing themselves with the process. But because each home is a custom home essentially and every client wants something
different in terms of their floor plan or the volume of the home or how it relates to a backyard for instance, often times they're trying to stretch the boundaries of what they're permitted to do. And it typically leads to uh
meetings, conversations, comments, and that's not to say every single family application ends up like that, but just >> but if you want a vanilla home, like a bland home, then and you and you don't want to go through
a lengthy review process, that's what happens. >> Yeah. If as long as you can meet all the different setback requirements, uh, open space requirements, it's going to be a good-look home because our code is designed to ensure that. What I was
talking about was removing most of those regulations. And then within that box, the architect could basically design whatever they want within that volume. And a good architect's going to design a really good home. Somebody's combining three lots on Sunset Island or eight
lots on Star Island. It's going to be a a pretty fantastic home, but you might get a dry lot in Mid Beach where somebody says, "I'm just going to hire a civil engineer and build a box and it's a tall box and it ends up having a negative impact."
>> What do you mean tall box? It's the same height that they would have to adhere to if this if this proposal goes forward or not. >> Correct. But you wouldn't have the same requirements with regard to the setback of a second floor or the minimum open
space indentations that you currently have if the home is more than 60 ft in length. There's a lot of nuances in the development regulations that require architects to think about movement in the home. >> Let me ask this, Tom. You you observe
every commission meeting. We're just we're just putting stuff on. I'm putting stuff on. Ah, you know what? It's It's Tuesday night and I don't have any agenda items. What can I think of? I'm just going to throw in another regulation.
I feel like that's how we got to our building code, right? Oh, if this is 65 ft in length, then you can't have a leprechaun gnome within three feet of it. Oh, [laughter] that that's that's
great. It do. Do I have unanimous consent? Put it on. All of a sudden, now [laughter] we have restrictions on where leprechaun gnomes can be. Only >> after 65. Yeah, they're fine. The gnome is fine. >> I think you have an item for this Wednesday. [laughter]
>> Um, but it's like, are these truly making I don't know, right? I'm >> Are these truly making our city better or is it just like, you know what, here here's one. We're just death by a thousand cuts. after if I if I might. That's
>> struck a chord with the gnome. I get [laughter] >> I'm here to fight for the gnomes. Um that's precisely my point of let's take a look at this and say if we were doing this from scratch, Tom, if we were going to plan this community and say we want
to make an a a frictionfree as best as possible um permitting process, but we want to have some control over the outcome because it it may not even be the architect. It might be a a client who's like, "Ah, screw the neighbors. They're not going to know if it's six
feet or 16 feet, and now all of a sudden you have an overhang that's overhanging somebody's pool deck." Um, you know, >> but that wouldn't happen. But but I'm saying if we if we start reducing the safeguards that have been put in place often in response to situations where
people have had issues. Let's say let's go with a tabula rasa and say if we were designing our city code to incentivize the best most um you know frictionfree permitting process to get the best possible outcome for the maximum number
of homes different styles of homes that could be built while preserving our character of place. What would that look like? Because, you know, I I I take umbrage, if I might, I take umbrage at the notion that somebody is coming in and buying multiple lots and threatening
to call the governor because he or she doesn't care for the way the process works. Well, you know, if you're buying in Coral Gables, Tom, correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's where where you live, right? If you if you're buying and aggregating lots in Coral Gables, do they have they have pretty tight zoning
laws and and and building codes and um design requirements and I don't see people buying lots and aggregating them in Coral Gables and threatening, you know, state preeemption of Coral Gables
process. And I don't think we should um I I don't think >> Let me hear Let's hear from Tom. Is the gables just as strict as here or like >> it's a different type of strict? It's their their process is a lot different. >> Um,
>> but their outcome is a lot different as well. >> And um their their process is fixated on a very limited style of building. Very limited style.
>> Yeah. And that's all they want. and it has created a very homogeneous type of architectural form that's um up for debate, but their process I mean I've >> it's geared toward a specific type genre
of of of >> but their regulations are not that much different than ours in terms of all the things that go into a single family home. I know because I'm designing a detached garage for my own house and it's there's a host of regulations. I speak the language so it's a little
easier for me but for somebody who doesn't speak the language as well they really rely on their architects and so >> right and and I I commissioner but I understand we're coming from maybe I I just I don't think we should start from ground zero to get to where we want to
be. I'm I'm more concerned about fixing what we have and and really easing up on the the the many concerns that we all had. I mean, all of us got elected the same time and we all knocked on doors
and many people said that the the permitting process is a nightmare. I mean, especially in the single family home districts. Um, look, how about we how about we bring this back? Um,
and maybe instead of maybe we find a middle ground. Um because you do bring up some good points that you know the second floor setback it's five feet. You know, maybe maybe you can bring back to us a suite of options
that in order of let's just say um effort that would reduce the the the the delay or the pain as as far as giving a
um getting a a permit. Um, and maybe we start there and we can say, "All right, well," and then you can also tell us why that is the way it is. Um, but like what Commissioner Magazine said, you know, there are people out there who just have
have had so much fed up. And it's not just the multi-, you know, millionaires or billionaires. These are just people who want to just get a like a dry lot. I don't know, Normandy. Normandy Island or Mid Beach. And you know, it's not super uber
expensive, but you know, I would venture to say that almost every plot of land on Miami Beach is a million dollars. >> Um, and so I think those people, anyone who's buying land here to build a house is going to
probably hire a good architect at this point. And we hear from residents all the time that we need to remove or really deregulate this permit process. And do you think Tom that this would help? I mean, and I'm trying to I'm trying to ask you again on a based on a
percentage, how much would this help the the the the permitting process? All park figure of a percent. Maria. Yeah. Mike's not on. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Um I've been dying to jump into this conversation um
because uh you know we've been spearheading this effort to you know really deep get deep into the weeds as to what is really causing delays um to the permit process. When I did the
presentation um on on February 19th and I know you were out of town so you weren't um in the chamber. Uh based on the data that we have, we figured out that it takes on average about 5 1/2 months to get a permit for a regular
single family home. It takes about 3 and 1/2 months to do the same for commercial. So we have those two-month differences. >> When you mean a commercial, could that be a condo? >> Um no. Um condos are actually a lot easier. and condos today through our
walkthrough process. If you don't have a lot to do, you can just do it as a walkthrough and it's done. This is a regular single family home and then this is um let's say a restaurant or a shop that's really going to go into a commercial space and do a lot of construction. The difference between the
two is about 2 months and that's you know that's a lot. But we have this multi-prong approach now that we want to start carving away and chipping away at all of these little things. We did a big
swoop over the last year and a half, but now >> as it relates to single family homes, >> single family homes and commercial spaces both. >> Got it. Um but one of the things that we have painfully come to find is that
whenever whenever some of these design firms do not respond to our um to our comments and let's say they have three comments but they only respond to two out of three. That is killing us. That's
killing us. And we have to figure out a way and we're in the process of doing that to try to keep that from happening because every single time that happens it throws plans into another cycle. Every time plans go into another cycle
then it's another couple of weeks. So we have to figure that out and because that's that's hurting the process a lot. But you're saying you're saying that it's the owner's fault or the design's fault why the permit process is slowing down or delayed.
>> No, I mean we we we if you look at our data, we review plans very quickly, but when you look at the difference between how long they are with an owner and how long they are with us, it's two or three times longer.
>> Well, that's probably because they're responding to the comments. No, I mean if there if there are certain comments that >> you know they have to wrap their head around and it may take some time, >> right? I mean >> yeah I mean but if you remember I'm a registered architect in the state of
Florida. So this was my world before I came into the public se uh the public sector when I was in the private sector and our mission when I was an architect was to get these comments and understand them completely and respond to them one time but that doesn't happen here a lot
of that doesn't happen it's over and over and over and that's a problem and we have to try to fix that and that that means that we have to um have meetings face to base which we're trying to have now bring the design firms in with our
once a week design day all these things that we're trying to do um then that's what we have to do but we were able I had the data in my presentation um which was based on uh fiscal year data um
where we have 84% of all of our plans all of our permits issued within three cycles, 84%. But that last, you know, percentage, 15% where we have four, five, 6, 7, 10, up
to 20 review cycles is about um 2,000 permits. And out of those, about a thousand were four times. Then 900 were 5, six, seven, all the way to 20. We have to figure out why that is
because that's unacceptable as far as I think unless people really don't understand what it is that they're responding to and we have you know a great architect right here >> I think respond but >> I think that's a direct result of how
many regulations we put on and they have to respond to you know um and that's why I'm asking Tom again Tom this the the the approach that was listen that was heard last year. How and
I'm trying to get a percentage. How much of a percentage in of of the permit process will it will it take up or not take up but save >> that's in your professional opinion
>> that that's hard to quantify from a planning review standpoint. Um, I believe it could probably, and this would be a conservative estimate, potentially cut the review time in half, but that's for planning. >> For planning only.
>> Yeah, for planning only. >> And how much of planning is the part of the review pro process? >> It's one part. You you have all the building disciplines that have to review it. Mechanical, plumbing, electrical, structural, you have fire, >> urban forestry, >> urban forestry, public works. Um, so
we're one part of it. Now um the planning regulations are easily probably the most complex because of that >> and so it's a balance >> and you think conservatively this might reduce that process by 50%.
>> The planning review >> the planning review >> yeah and that's >> which is the most complex part of the >> correct >> and that's assuming that they design it correctly with the more minimal regulations. So look, I I think
again colleagues time and time again, we get we get calls, we get emails, we get talked to at at the at Publix. Hey, we have, you know, it it's it took me forever to get this permit. We have an opportunity
now to really change it and and fundamentally cut it, at least the most complex part, by 50% conservatively speaking. Let's bring this to commission. Let let's see, you know, let's see what the rest of the colleagues have have to
think about because I know, you know, Mayor Miner campaign on this. I campaigned on this. We all campaigned on this on on really deregulating the the permit process. Um, and you know, we have an opportunity now to do that. So
>> yeah, I mean I I will say I can't remember the last time where there was some sort of time period where me and my office were not working on prolonged permits whether that be building permits, planning or things like that.
It is just a process that uh we are aligned that it needs to be addressed but we sort of have to put our money where our mouth is while also not throwing the baby out with the bath water. >> And it's about striking that balance. >> So maybe we maybe look we should bring
this to commission. I can't move the item. I would like to move it with all of the um recommendations and and see where it lands. >> How long would it take to go through them? So I think if this is something that you
wanted to refer, what might make more sense at the commission level is to have a discussion to see whether all of your colleagues want to move forward in a more radical direction or if you want us to come up with some options to bring to the full
commission, we could do that as well. It would be more general, but if that's the direction, we could certainly It wouldn't be for April 22nd, probably for May 20th. But >> yeah, I think I think you at least I think you have the majority on this
committee that really want to see radical changes to the permitting process as as as as it relates to planning, which is the most complex. >> Tom, give a summary of some of these changes at high high level. If I typed
in AI, give a 30 second summary. What's it spit out? >> He's the AI. [laughter] >> It it would basically be significantly modifying the regulations. Um, >> you already have me one. >> Yeah. So that the we would be relying on
the architects to design a building that is contextually compatible. We would have safeguards in place so that they couldn't have overhangs into other people's property, that they didn't have a 20ft wall 5 foot from another person's property. There would have to be enough
room for drainage and on-site water retention. But the regulations that we have in place now that are the most complex that ensure >> on the inside. >> Yeah. Well, no, that it's for the outside, but it's basically with the inside of what the box that we would
create those regulations, we would be relying on the architect to come up with that. And that's that's the biggest difference. It's something where the planning review would be cut substantially because we wouldn't have to have premeings with architects.
>> And let me ask you, if this happens, does this free up your staff's time for other projects? >> Yes, absolutely. for such for projects such as what >> commercial projects, multif family projects, um certificates of use >> and you said at the I believe at the beginning of this item you said that
this significantly the single family homes is the most complex >> correct >> and it would you say it takes up the bulk of your staff's time >> in terms of permit review it it takes up I would it's fair to say the bulk of our time our review time
>> and perhaps the example that I used was was not the best way to frame it because I I take to heart my friend and colleague Commissioner Bots's comments. So, just that anecdotal example I used, to my knowledge, this person isn't doing anything outside of the code. It's not
like he's aggregating lots where it's not allowed. Uh he's not building taller or with more mass or density than is allowed. So whether that's three homes on Sunset Isle or if he was building one home on Alton Road, he'd still be going through the same painful prolonged
process. So this isn't ditching any of those safeguards or things that kind of keep our character. It's just making this process a lot more uh facilitating. >> And and correct me if I'm wrong, Tom. You
I'm under the impression that you can't aggregate three lots and build a home on three lots, right? two maximum. >> He actually may be actually building three separate homes. I I I don't know. >> You You can do up to three lots. The third lot either has to be open space for things like court games or there's
very strict setback requirements if you put the home in the middle, but the maximum is three. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. Would you like to make a motion? >> Maybe I'll make a motion. It would be basically I think to move these
recommendations as well as additional recommendations that the planning department comes up with to address the permitting issues. Bring that to the commission as an R9 discussion item. >> But at what point would the additional uh recommendations from the planning
department be discussed at directly at the commission meeting? >> Correct. >> So we'll go down like one by one, not just high level and theoretical. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. because I I'm not comfortable like I don't want to just give carp launch. Yeah, go ahead. I want to get into the meat and potatoes >> and then the commission could decide
what they want to refer to the planning board as an LDR amendment at that meeting. >> Yeah. I mean look guys, this is a big item, right? I mean, if we're if if we're telling our voters that we can fundamentally cut down a lot of the time, money, headaches
as far as a building permit is concerned. I mean, you know, it's a win-win for for everyone. It's even a win for staff apparently because a bulk of their time is really spent reviewing these these these plans. >> I mean, imagine the person that's not a
billionaire doing this. Just a normal person and you're telling them, you know what, you actually have to carry two homes and fund an entire staff that's going through all this >> for five months, for eight months, for a year, right? What normal person can do
that? Can I ask um through the chair um since we happen to have some architects um in the audience, can would you guys mind giving your thoughts on what you've heard? >> Yes, please. >> Well, come come here. I'm the land well.
I'm the landscape architect. We're not prepared for this. She's the architect. Um, one thing we see a lot is uh from the architect side, the consultant side, we send in comments to the planning departments and to the building
departments etc. and we send it in and it gets sent back and we said we answered this asked and answered and it keeps on coming back at us four or five or six times. Wait a minute. Is anybody reading this? >> This happens not only in the city of
Miami Beach. It happens in the city of Miami. Every municipality you see part of this is the process we think from what's changed in in how you move plans through thinking people. >> Okay.
>> But imagine if you didn't have to have comments on the most >> No, we want I I I careful when you unleash deregulatory powers onto the the neighborhoods of Miami Beach. You you may not know what you're you're getting. And that's that's scary. That's a little
scary. >> What the old days and you I'm not sure if you have time for this that I think it would cut down the back and forth and back and forth at least through the back is you sat down, you brought in your roll of drawings. You sat down, you rolled them out, you had one guy who
knows what you know on on their side knows exactly what they're talking about and you would just sign off. Yep. Yep. Signed off in yellow. Remember that? >> Why doesn't that happen? Very simple. >> It was simple. It was easy and was and you could have a rapport with the person
and you could see the people you're dealing with. >> It's it helped I imag. >> So why doesn't that >> Yeah, sometimes it's a it's a a matter of interpretation. you know, you you have a lot of regulations and and I think it's important sometimes to talk to the the person that is reviewing the
drawings to understand exactly what what it meant, you know, because sometimes you read the regulation and you don't know exactly what they are asking. And the other thing that has changed, >> so what did you say? You made a good point. What did you say? you read.
>> Sometimes it's important when you get for example your second comment and you want to talk to a reviewer because it's important to have that report and to understand exactly what because you might have a different interpretation and sometimes we as architect we are a
little more creative than the reviewer and we see things in a little different way and and it's perfectly allowable but you want that interpretation to get through the reviewer because that might happen to that reviewer in a in a in a
different situation and he might see it in a different way. So I think that report sometimes is very important. >> Absolutely. >> The other thing that is I think that has changed and I think maybe through the pandemic was the review process. You know you have to send the whole set of
drawing. You have one little comment but you have to pile the whole set of drawings etc etc. That's that's a that's a greater that's a larger >> problem as far as a review permitting process. >> At least what this item is doing is just the planning part of the of the building
permit which our planning director says is the most complex. And so >> you're saying you're saying that happens during the planning process as well. That happens throughout the whole process design process is that you have to every every time you change you do a change you have to send the whole set of
drawings even if it's a minor uh MEP change you have to compile all the drawings you have to ask everybody all the consultants to sign and seal all the drawings and and so it takes time also from the side of a consultant >> and that adds costs as well
>> and that has cost Tom all these little things that you know >> just two questions for you. So you know as we've talked about during the permitting process from the building department there's a desire to have a single point of contact all the way through so that you don't have you know
inspector X second guessing inspector's wise original comments. So and I think that's a goal that we're moving towards. Is that an achievable goal in planning plan review as well to have one person look at the plans from start to finish anytime there are followup? >> We already have that.
>> Okay. you already have that. And then why does the plan need to come back? Not just the one thing that's been adjusted, but the entirety of the plans resigned, resealed, reertified, sent over again. >> The electronic plan review uh in order
to um maintain the uh custody of control, it has to be reprocessed to make sure that uh every page has the same stamp. Um it is something we're working on. We're we're trying to address that. Um we all recognize that
it's an issue, but it is something that that we're working um through. It's not unique to planning. It's all disciplines um go through this. >> But if this electronic planning review process adds time and cost burden to the process, what is the benefit of having
this electronic process? Why don't we go back to sitting in a room with one set of plans and working through the issues on the spot and being done with it? In in my experience, most architects and design professionals much prefer the electronic plan review. It's faster. It's more efficient. Um they can meet
with us if there's an issue. My staff is available and my staff frequently meets with people to go over outstanding comments or remaining comments. And you said you're working on um addressing this glitch in the system or feature
depending on how you look at it that um anytime a change is made that then requires the entirety of the plan to be reertified and resubmitted. >> Is that imminent? Is that on the horizon in our lifetime? >> I didn't get a I didn't I didn't get a
clear answer on that, Tom. Why why is that? Why does it have to go Why does it have to be resubmitted through all disciplines? Um, commissioners, the chain of custody is something that's very important, especially when you have a lot of revisions, uh, which happens a lot,
right? Um, because at the end when you have to get a CU or you have to occupy, all of this has to sort of come together. Um, so you know, electronic plans, it's the good news and the bad news, right? The good news is you can look at plans from anywhere in the world. You know, you you know, log on
and you can have multiple consultants. We're talking about specifically resubmitting and having to go through every single discipline again. Why does it have to go if it's just a minor tweak >> to let's say >> where the outlets [clears throat] are? >> Yeah. Like like you're moving an air Yeah, exactly. You're moving an outlet
from this wall to that wall. >> Why does it have to go to plumbing? >> Well, we are working on refining that. Uh we're trying to figure out what permit types only have to go to certain people rather than everybody and we're
working on refining that at this next level. We're actually going to bring back Bob Moran to be able to do that so that doesn't happen anymore. Um we're also putting in the reviewers. >> Is this a technical issue or is this >> it's a it's a combination? >> Is it a legal issue?
>> Yeah, definitely >> legal issue. That's a good question. I've never heard of it being a legal issue. >> Mean legal meaning like in order for us to not be liable for any issues at the end of this process
where it's our fault that something wasn't supposed to be there. Is is that why we have this where every discipline has to sign off on any sort of minor tweak? >> That's the way our system is set up right now. We're working on changing that.
>> It's not easy. [laughter] It's not easy. It's going to require going through every permit type in order to start weeding out what really doesn't >> apply. Where you see a lot of this especially is with like condominiums because so many things come into
condominiums and yet condominiums are like four things. Uh so we have that's going to be the next level that we're already working on to fix and undo. We also have brought in the professional um professionals day which is once a week
where professionals can come and have a one-on-one with every discipline just like a walkthrough but it's only for architects and >> this is and this is something that is all disciplines right this isn't just >> planning correct >> I think and and I want to kind of bring
us back to where we are with this item >> this item is specifically addressing >> planning >> planning right and we have the planning director that thinks that some of the if if we can adopt many of these alleart dere regulations
and if we did all of them we could conservatively reduce it by 50%. I don't think we're going to get I don't think we're going to deregulate all of them. Mhm. >> Um but we want to deregulate as much as we can. Uh because what Commissioner Magazine mentioned, you know, there
might have been a commissioner, you know, many years ago that said, "Oh, well, I don't like this, so let's just put this law." And that law exists on the books forever. And and [snorts] it just never goes away, unfortunately. So, um let's let's let's bring this back to
or let's refer this to commission and and see what you guys can bring. What do you want to bring in? May. >> Yeah. There's no way I could get something to you in April. We can try. >> Are you still going to be with us in May, Tom? >> I will still be with you in May. Yes. >> Okay, good. >> So, >> I think I think May is a is is is a good time for that. Okay.
>> Tom, I I did notice just the timing where you know >> getting up there in your career and you said you're building a detached garage. [laughter] Is that like you know what might be spending a lot more time with the family? Let's uh get the permits for my
man cave in place now. [laughter] >> Okay. So, uh Commissioner Magazine made a motion. Second it. I think we can adopt this by activation. >> Great. Okay. Um, on the on the topic of
um, well, let's let's get to let's get to some why some of the residents are here to discuss. So, let's do items uh, four and five. Okay, I'll read these into the record.
Uh item four is discuss developing all of the west lots lying along Collins Avenue between 79th Street and 87th Street into a plan city park. And item number five is discuss future programming of the west lots. And I want to thank Commissioner uh Bot for co-primeing this with me. I think you
know we want to see the best uh possible use of of the West lots. Um I I I had to leave yesterday for the discussion of the log cabin. Um possibly going back to the west lot. So that
might be a thing now. So we might we want to keep that in mind. Um and I'll um Commissioner Bot, did you want to also say anything? >> Feel free. >> Okay. So
John, you want to take it away? >> Sure. John Reebar um director of parks facilities fleet beaches um and we were here just last week and we were asked to to um reach out to um Sabino Miller who um designed Beayore Park among their
parks to just get their take on you know the west lots and maybe looking at a park master plan scenario rather than peacemealing it. So they are here if we like to just start with with them. >> Sure. Well, thank you so much. >> Thanks for giving your thoughts on the building permit process.
>> Anybody got into trouble earlier [laughter] anyway when John called us last week to to take a look at this and we just wanted to first of all understand what's going on there before we make any recommendations. So, we kind of went and
did kind of an inventory analysis of what's uh what's happening. I don't know if you can see the >> the screen is it is there. Yeah. Um, and so we kind of went in each one of the we kind of it's is eight lots goes from
79th Street all the way to 87th uh street and um and it's across the street from Northshore Park North Beach Oceanside Park and it's between Collings and uh Harding actually an alley before
going to Harding. So it's these eight lots are um interesting. Each one has a different use and uh for example the first ones from 79 to
80 street is is a Miami date fire rescue and parking lot. Then we have uh the next one is a parking lot. The next one is car. >> Yeah >> the cat rescue. Right now we it has some haphazard use right now.
>> Yeah, it seems like it's adock you know as the city needed to to find a home for these uses. It seems like well these lots were available and that's what happened. It's that's our impression. It does have a skate park. There is a a
a couple of open green spaces and um okay >> that's generally what we saw there. How do I go here? Next, I guess here. >> So, we we took a look at different
character of each one of the lots. Some of them have beautiful trees. Some of them are just not that pretty. Some fences around the the skate park seems a little um how do you call that? Um
>> it can be improved. >> Exactly. It could be improved. >> Expanded and improved. Um, we are not sure if these uses respond to the community next to it and that's another thing that we wonder. Um, we we
have a beautiful park across the street that is very pastoral, super green, has some playgrounds, etc., etc., and the dog park. And these lots could be uh for the way we see it support maybe to the
to the park across the street. You have some um community garden there as well. Um so >> compost pile. >> Yeah, compost compost actually not community garden. It's a compost compost
collection. >> Then we saw also the the the how do you call that? The traffic patterns. You have 79th street that goes all the way connecting to to connects the actually the city from one end to the other from
that park and beyond 81st street also and I think hold on one second um 8 and 85th street those are the ones that go through and connect the rest of the city and so that that's important to
understand and also those have also the main entries to the the the park across the street and crosswalks and and street lights. So those are important to understand in principle what's what's happening there.
What in general >> go back up to that for a second. >> Yeah. >> It's the the street types the east west street types. It's important to realize there I think there's three two ways. Those are going to be wider and there's parallel parking and there's three I
think three oneways. All the oneways are westbound. So, uh, this is easier to look through. There's one street in particular that doesn't go through at all. The stops a block in. So, we think that might be a potential opportunity to
create a gathering spot. >> It's 82nd Street, which is an is where the the skate park is. That's an interesting street because it dead ends on some residential and it just that little street just serves a couple of buildings in each side. So that was kind
of an interesting discovery that that could be an opportunity for for a a future, you know, tying the lots together. Then um what what we see here in general is the idea of creating well this is the
zoning around it. You mostly is um multifamily low intensity to the west side. We have some multifamily high intensity to the south and single family residential
close by. Uh this is the um paving and tree canopy coverage. You can see there is of course across the street a lot of tree canopy and in those lots very sparse some of them and some of them there is actually
some beautiful specimen trees there that is will be good to take advantage of. This is like a street section uh from the alley all the way to the to the the park.
>> And also we noticed that there is an overhead electric across the alley. There is some parking there informal parking that serves the buildings to the west. And then there is this 175 ft
pretty much each lot. And then you have Collings Avenue which is pretty pretty wide. You have um two lanes of parking and then three lanes of traffic >> northbound >> northbound on Collins Avenue.
>> The other on the alley the interest this might be ad hoc too. The on the along the alley it's one way southbound. Uh the the section shows that everyone's just parks. They pull in there. It's 90 degree parking along that alley. It's we
think it's more for the residential places along there than anybody else. Uh maybe for some of the fire lifeguard station folks, but people use that. You see the car parked there? People use that often. So >> yeah, it's not technically a parking spot.
>> Not technically at all. Um so u it's not paved, >> but it's useful. Yeah, it it is definitely being used and uh so it could be considered in any kind of future kind of parking calculation. >> Okay. >> If you will. So what we see here is almost like a gap between the the
community and the park. There is like this blank gap that um that doesn't tie the whole thing together. So what we would like to envision here is to to create a park district. So it's
something that ties the two sides together like pretty much like you you have Central Park in New York. has streets that cross and everything, but the perception is that one thing. And I think this should be the same perception. Even though you have Collins
Avenue, if you add canopy on on on the west side starts tying the whole thing together. So, we think that that's an important element. And also east west, you you use some of those corridors as uh as as tying it to the community and
the whole thing starts working together. What we see is kind of like this gap this very uh um detached area and then the the qu the big question is what type of uses do we
need? what type what uses can stay that we we have the assumptions okay these are going to remain and what uses are desirable and we don't want to say exactly what before process process and that's >> that would just be one person's opinion
>> understanding but what does John want >> yeah what does the city need >> yeah but what we see like we see like there is two eastments connecting to the ocean directly one is on 79 and one is on 87 that has those two straight
connections to the to the ocean. Then we see the potential of 82nd Street as as a little pedestrian element that can tie together. We don't know if other streets can be closed. Maybe they can. >> They can. >> And uh and and then using the main
entrances to the park as maybe the the places where those corridors can happen connecting to the community. So and then there is a all sorts of activities that can happen. You know, we maybe some passive, some more active, some uh,
you know, maybe an event space, maybe a a concession or >> conc pickle ball. >> What's that? Maybe pickle ball. I don't know. [laughter] I don't know what what the uses, what the, you know, we have also, you know, with the skate park. Maybe that can be
expanded and and maybe add something for for teenagers. It seems like the the park across the street has something for for um children, you know, like playground. Maybe that can be expanded. That other lot for
>> older kids. There's also programming things you could do to activate the park food and drinks. Uh a cafe, a little small doughut place or or little uh cafeta, a little what's the the
ventanita ventanita along along that that uh kind of kind of desolate alley there. >> So you >> that's important. >> So you got Are there any more slides? >> That's it. Okay. >> I think there is that's it. That's it. >> Yeah. Well, thank you. I mean, that's
that's a great analysis of of what we have there. >> Very very fast. This is from like Friday till >> and I don't last night. And I don't want to put the cart before the horse, Commissioner Bod, but I think it's important to really get, I don't know, do some community feedback on
perhaps we we we send out a survey uh to North Beach and we say, you know, what do you want to see happen on the West lot and maybe give a menu of options and then have the survey come back with the top,
you know, in order of preference. >> So, I believe John, is John still here? John Rear. >> Oh, sorry. You're so short. I couldn't see you, John. Um, we've done that and I think it was included in in a prior uh iteration of of a memo. We we have feedback on what people want to see. um
and it's been ranked and I always want to have community input, but I would rather um instead of once again going back to the community with the same question, say, "Okay, we've heard your input and we'd like to propose um this is a vision to incorporate the
things that you have said you wanted to see and actually have instead of a survey, have a community meeting with um a presentation and a cheret and say, do you want more of this? Do you now that you see it, do you not want this at all?" I, you know, have a conversation, have it be interactive, and but go not
with just another survey, go with a proposal. Um, and I think the things that, you know, I love the idea of having a little food, beverage, ventana, cafe, something where it won't affect people because that's kind of a desert up there. Um, you know, I we have
desired to have courts of various kinds. Expand the skate park to what' you call it, John? >> A pump track or an all wheels track. on track. That's right. Um an all-wheel track um to make it be more um >> presentable.
>> Not just presentable, but more thoughtful in how the things that have to stay stay, right? Because right now what's happened with the West lots is, as you pointed out, it's the dumping ground. Um, and nobody's touched anything that hasn't already been utilized because nobody wants to propose
anything that would potentially risk the sanctity of pre preserving green space. So, you know, we do we've talked to Jose in transportation there's the opportunity to close off a number of those streets and I love the idea of making the thoroughares, you know, the bottom and topmost and one through the
middle where it makes sense and then close the rest off. It's not like we're making people go 10 blocks. They're going an extra block. But the benefit is you have a much more cohesive, robust park. Um, you know, maybe we even take a look at some point at at building a a
walk over a pedestrian bridge to connect this part of the park to the other part. Um, you know, I think there's a lot of stuff that we can propose. The CRA can fund a fair amount of this. I know there's about $5 million already in GEO bond funding. Um, so we have some some
funds to work with. Um, and and we move forward in that in that manner. Um, I also want to make sure um that while we're not going to give up the functionality of the things that are already there unless we're able to, is there a way to reposition them or
shrink a footprint if it's no longer necessary? or maybe expand it in a different way so that you know maybe the Kitty campus is not just like a bunch of trailers but now it's actually a campus and people can wander in and out and look at the cats and you know healing up from their their medical procedures or
whatever. like is there a way to be more thoughtful and intentional about all of that space? Because it is a gift to have that many unencumbered blocks of mostly green space in the middle of a city. And the fact that it happens to be across the street from a park, great, doesn't
mean it's less valuable. Um, so that's how I think we should proceed. I think we very clear direction from the community about what they'd like to see there. Yeah. >> And so John for the public what was the top you know fiveyear request for >> sure the um the survey is about it
closed a year ago so it's fairly current what the top the survey closed a year ago. This is fairly recent data for surveys. Green space number one. Parking number two. Parking number two. Sorry, I'll slow on. Parking number two. Social space number
three. Fitness or fitness gym. I think they're talking like a muscle beach and outdoor fitness thing. Um food trucks, farmers market. Um one, two, three. Number five. And for the record, we have an item separate from this completely um of a
farmers market going into the open space park that's coming at the next commission meeting or next land use meeting, I think. >> I I don't remember where it is, but anyhow, it's coming. And that's so we don't need to put a farmers market into this portion. In fact, that's where we started off with a farmers market and
decided it would actually be better in um the open space park because it's it's more inviting space with fewer logistics obstacles. Yeah, you know, when you when you look when you look at the the answers to the surveys, that's literally what we have there now, except maybe
like the fitness component, right? Which you could technically say is a skate park, >> right? Because we have green space, we have parking. >> Uh maybe not the social aspect, obviously. Um but yeah, I mean, look, I I'm I'm okay with
having staff. Maybe maybe instead of giving one proposal, maybe give two or three uh to go to the to community with it. I don't want to just go to the community and say, "Hey, look, this is our plan. What do you think?" How about we give two to three options
that we can work collaboratively on and and say, "Hey, what do you guys think about options A, B, or C?" you know, when when we were looking at um the QEC, I think was working with school board on the park space for the field at um
>> Miscane Beach, >> Miscane Beach, and they had two options that they came with. They they effectually did the same sort of thing, but showed different kinds of layouts. I think maybe like something like that. We have an you know, option A, option B,
but then we can sort of move elements around a little bit. We'd start with the program and a survey obviously that's been the popular choice and we go ride with that and then figure out a way how we can facilitate creating a a cohesive
park experience within that framework uh just to make it a more pleasant experience essentially. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm okay also with vacating some of those those streets because I think it makes sense and we get more value out of potentially more green space. Um, one of the things I
think I said at the last meeting is I think it would be great to have like a soccer field there. >> Um, and you you're accomplishing more than one of those goals, right? Which is green space. >> It is fool's guy over here. You know, green space, social activity, fitness,
you know, you're literally, you know, capturing all three sort of of those of those priorities from the residents. And you know, I I would certainly hope that that's one of the options on that we can present to the community. >> Yes. I stopped at five, but then it gets into racket sports, soccer fields. Those
those active activities come in next. >> I mean, the results are very aligned with what we've discussed. There's nothing surprising. Nobody wants an outdoor bowling alley or, you know, you know, >> and and we're having and we're bu and we're hopefully we're going to have a a paid for muscle beach uh on the sand. So, we don't necessarily have to put it
in the west lots. we can use it, you know, we can have something else that we wouldn't necessarily have to have on the sand as far as muscle, >> right? And that's the beauty of a master plan. You could look at your supporting um amenities nearby. >> Well, we you were going to say something. >> Let me see your list. This is the first
one I've seen the list. The um the municipal 50 meter pool, that's Olympic size pool. That's out. >> That's out. That's going on street. >> There's room for it. [laughter] >> Well, that's make that clear, [clears throat] >> Commissioner. I mean that I don't know
that you know what who knows because >> it's big and require a lot of parking and it would take a lot of stuff to make it work on a thin lot. >> It's I would rather see soccer fields there than and also the 72nd Street complex is ready to break ground next
year I think. >> Also I I missed the discussion. >> Oh good. >> I believe it was yesterday for the log cabin. I don't know if the lock cabin I don't know where the commission is going to go on this, but the lock cabin may want to go back to the west lots. >> Yeah. >> So, uh you know that that's also that's
another curveball. Maybe we use that as the cafe that you know we've been talking about and then you know I understand it's going to cost extra money to to do that. Perhaps we get, you know, um, a vendor to come in to cover those costs and and operate it so that
we don't, you know, we don't have to cover the added expenses of of bringing it back to the West lots and we kill two birds with one stone. >> Well, John just told me that there's one in design right now over at 72nd Street. The pool. >> So, what is the pool? The pool. >> That's that's a separate
>> Make sure we're talking. >> We're talking about the log cabin. The 72nd Street complex is going to have an Olympic competition caliber pool on the roof, 600 plus parking spots, a gym, a running track around it. Um, community space. The library will be moved from
where it is on the ocean to into a state-of-the-art facility at 72nd Street. Um, it's going to be a whole contained multiverse of family activities. So anyways, what I was saying is with the log cabin, that is another curve
ball that we may want to consider to to put back on on on the west lots. So um >> are they still an entity the log cabin? >> No. >> Um >> in Miami. >> Yeah, the group that used to be there as you're talking about. >> They're not there anymore.
>> Okay. So where do we take it? Where where do you suggest we take it from here? >> Um I guess I'm going to look over here for a little guidance. I think we need a recommendation to commission directing staff to engage in a mass a conceptual
plan as a first step of a master plan to be presented in a community cheret with two to three options. >> So do you need com you need to this needs to be referred to commission for you >> referral. So >> we can't we can't do that from our committee to instruct staff to to put
this together. >> Normally um >> how long >> committees do not instruct staff. It has to go to the commission, >> right? I think if the if the administration is going to formally engage Sabino and Miller to do the master plan, I think um the commission would need to vote to do that.
>> Is that going to consider is that are we going to need a waiver for that? >> No, because well, I don't think so because they are on the they're pre-qualified for landscape architecture services. >> So, I think that could include a master plan for the park. >> I believe so, but I can check.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh so this has to go to commission for commission to vote to have a sort of master plan for a conceptual design for the west lots and then staff would go to
uh Mr. Miller and you'd come back to the committee or you come back to the commission. Um well, what you could do is if you wanted to keep um this item in committee, >> it should probably go to to um neighborhoods though because that's where technically park stuff is supposed
to go. >> So then go with commissioner bot. Would you like to place an item on the next commission agenda to refer it to neighborhoods >> once it comes back? Yeah. >> Okay. >> But wouldn't it wouldn't you want to do it in land use because it's on the land?
>> No. Well, I mean, if we >> Well, there are two aspects of this, I think. The um any changes to >> we're going to be vacating streets. We may have to may have to >> So, we can keep it here to talk about the land use and the regulation stuff, but in terms of the um programming,
that's a that's a neighborhood's decision. >> Well, because parks and wreck is you're right, Commissioner. Parks and Wreck is one of the um is typically before neighborhoods. Any of the land use issues would could be addressed here. So, it would have to be both committees.
Okay. Sure. I I'd like to speed up as much as possible, but um Sure. >> So, again, we're going to refer it to commission. Commission's going to approve it. >> Mhm. >> And after we get after they have a product, they go back to both land use
and neighborhoods. >> Well, I would recommend keeping the keeping the discussion in land use anyway. Don't don't send the whole item back to the commission. I think the recommendation to the city commission would be to engage Savino and Miller for purposes of the conceptual master plan, but keep the item in committee and then
um Commissioner Bot's going to sponsor a separate item to refer to neighborhoods >> so that you have Yeah, you can discuss the programming in neighborhoods. >> John, from a size perspective, how many acres is this? Maybe give that in
context. The beayshore, >> I did not measure the acres. >> About 15 acres. Beayshore is 20. I mean, there's few opportunities in the world that are this unique, >> and I'd be remiss if we didn't shoot for
the stars. >> 100%. >> Literally, we're sending people to Mars now. We can do something special. [laughter] >> We can do something world class. One of the things that I often have [snorts]
caveats with with Miami Beach is besides our natural resources, right? What do we have that's world class? Where do you go? Wow. Right. South Point Park, Bayshore Park. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for both. >> Yeah. [laughter]
I want at least an option on the table that when you Google what are some of the most unique man-made things in the world, >> it's right here in Miami Beach. And this is the best opportunity for that. When I think about things, I don't have
anything >> specific in mind, but Singapore Gardens by the Bay, right? Something where doesn't matter where you're from. That that is wow. We're we're Miami Beach, right? At the end of the we are Miami
Beach and we deserve that. So, I'd love to see some sort of hybrid mix of these passive usages, these active usages, but then also from an aesthetic standpoint where it is just, oh my gosh, we can do
things like this here. I have renewed faith in humanity. >> [laughter] >> Well, so to that to that point, I I I literally tell people about Beayshore Park, and as you guys know, I was on the HOA with you guys 20some years ago or 15
years ago to try to get that project moving. And it was a labor of love for 30 plus years. And it was a lot of heartbreak and a lot of effort and a lot of time and resources. And I literally get emotional when I get into that park.
And I tell people who have not yet visited, if you haven't gone to Beayshore Park, you really must [snorts] treat yourself because it will restore your faith in government. It shows what can be done. >> It's not finished. >> We just don't want it to take 30 years.
And and so that's why when I saw what you did with that under cherished plot of green space that had been kicked around and used it as a toxic dumping ground after hurricanes and construction staging and all the things
and how you have transformed it. That is what I want for the west lots. North Beach deserves >> North Beach deserves an equally thoughtout, meaningful, intentional green space. And yes, the Northshore
Open Space Park is stunning and is its own thing and nobody takes away anything from that, but this is different. And this is going to be built for and by the community for generations to come. And as Joe said, it is a once ina-lifetime
opportunity to do something like this. >> I just want to close by saying one of my hero landscape architects, one of my um Lawrence Halpern uh said, uh you're only as good as your client. That was a thing
to be cautious of. You can talk about all your great design skills, but the client, okay, and I got to say the the Miami Beach Parks Department has done like almost unbeknownst to like over the last 20, 30 years has done amazing
parks. Uh you know, South Point Park that we were involved with for a long time, >> Park, >> Soundsscape Park, uh >> Park, >> Oceanside Park, this new the preservation of that hammock is amazing. Not a lot of cities wouldn't have done that. So I think they're world class and
what they they set the table already. So uh it's been a pleasure working with with the parks department and >> who've given us a lot of latitude to to >> so all right so stretch things. >> Um you guys want to make a motion. >> So I want to move this to the full
commission to initiate a master plan and I would like to refer to neighborhoods. You want to keep these items at land use for additional updates and so continue both to a future date. >> Correct.
>> And you know just the elephant in the room. Previous commissions have had legacy projects, right? I I don't know what what ours is. I'm glad we got rid of the lawn gnome setbacks. Uh whether that's
my legacy or not, I don't know. But, uh, these are big ticket items. You know, I don't know where, uh, November will land with the property tax exemptions and things like that, but, uh, we did have in 2017 a large geobond for parks
across the city. Perhaps this could be more honed in or there's projects that aren't moving forward, Maria, that could be reallocated to here. Um, but if we're going to do something that is legacy and world class, like we need to do it right.
>> Well, as I mentioned in the beginning, I I think we have about $5 million from the geo bond fund. >> That's correct. >> And also CRA funds can be are permitted to be used for this kind of permanent uh collective neighborhood improvement. So
um again, this is not not the expensive part. This is the planning stage. So, we don't need to have all the money in the account tomorrow. Um, but we will have a pretty significant chunk of change to play with >> um between the geo bond and the CRA >> commissioners
>> and we'll see what we need if we need anything beyond that. >> Um, if I may, um, the commissioner is right. It we have $5 million in the geo bond specifically for West lots and it was always considered seed money. So that always implied that there it was
just, you know, going to start and then it would grow from that. We also have a geo bond for the skate park, >> which um has there's money that has not been used. Uh so we have that. >> How much? >> Um we had $750,000.
I think we've used uh John about a couple of hundred,000. I know that we needed more because we had to build the bathroom, >> right, >> for the skate park. So, that became a sort of budget killer for us when we
wanted to do the expansion. But, we have a design done and everything. It's really beautiful and it keeps the trees um it was really nice uh back then. So, we have that. Um and we also had a grant from the skateboarder foundation or whatever they're called. We had about
$250,000 for that. And then of course we have a million dollars for the log cabin. Um I know that we need more funding for that. But those are the three things that we have in the geo bond that take all this into consideration. >> We could even think the types of people
that move to our city. I [snorts] think we'd be more ambitious. We we could do private fundraising and this could be instead of people that live on Sunset and they're donating $10 million to the Pres Art Museum because there's nowhere
in Miami Beach to donate, you should set a goal of a $50 million park here to go out and privately fund raise where people that care about their legacy being remembered for generations to come can make a once in a-lifetime impact on Miami Beach. and we truly shoot for the
stars on this. >> That's that's exactly what Commissioner Matteo Selenus was was talking about. You know, naming rights and you know, it doesn't always have to come from taxpayers. If there's going to be um if there's going to be a desire for private funding um that's a great step and you know, I commend Commissioner Matio
Selenus for for thinking about that and really thinking outside of the box. Okay. So, uh I don't think we I second the motion. >> Uh so, we're going to keep it in committee in and l use. It's there's going to be a separate referral to neighborhoods to discuss the programming
um commissioner >> and uh that's after we get back some reports from uh from the team from the design team and it would be nice before we do go to neighborhoods perhaps commissionerbot since we're going to be
you know championing this together maybe we just have a sunshine meeting just you and I and the and the design team to just quickly go over that so that we're all on the same page. Sure, >> commissioner. >> Okay, great. Um, all right. So, thank you very much, guys. I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for your input earlier.
>> Thanks, Maria. >> Um, and then I want to just do a couple more. Um, >> Commissioner Bot, the number six. >> Sure. Uh item number six is consider amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to
incentivize the abandonment of retail or package sales of alcoholic beverages uh by businesses located along Lincoln Road. >> Okay, Commissioner. >> So this is um you know in our current environment of being preempted by the
state uh we have to proceed carefully. Um, but this is in response to a cluster of stores along Washington and 17th and Lincoln that sell alcohol. Single use
what >> I'm thinking of these stores. Disgusting. >> Yeah. Um, single use, you know, single serve alcohol. Um, and it sort of creates a um a landing spot for people to buy a a single serve um drink and
hang out at the bus stop and drink and make it gross and unpleasant for residents and unwelcoming for for businesses. And so Tom, if you would go through it. Um, it the the goal is to incentivize different better use. And it's a it's a long shot. I understand
that. But I would rather have something that aims to change this behavior in a way that we can rather than just wish and hope that it would get better on its own. >> I think it ties in well with priority item number one, >> which is what >> Tom, where commissioner, where where do
they sell where is there package liquor stores along Lincoln Road? >> There are there's no package liquor stores on Lincoln Road um east of uh or west of Washington Avenue. There are a couple of package stores that are closer
to Collins. Um, some are just south of Lincoln Road. One is actually >> They're not on Lincoln Road. >> The only one on Lincoln Road is next to Walgreens. >> But these aren't even Are you referring to even the package stores or these are also like >> I mean we we have to look ourselves in
the mirror here, right? We're doing all this work. We're making so much progress. But I mean, imagine being the guys that built Espanola Way, which is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen. I was there the third weekend in March, and it was packed packed with families. And then right across the
street, they open up uh basically a new equivalent of Fat Tuesdays, right? Where they're selling uh slushy alcohol drinks out of a smoothie machine. It's disgusting. Disgusting. Taco Bell, right? Taco Bell just opened
up on Washington Avenue right there. And what is their main feature? They're selling takeaway slushy tequila drinks, right? It's I That's also what you're talking about, right? Yeah. That's why I did the um
>> would the package liquor store that's on technically on Lincoln Road, is that the Five Below? >> No. No. the package liquor store. There's a package liquor store that's just south of Lincoln Road on the west side of Collins. Another one just north of Lincoln Road on the west side,
>> right? >> That's the third one. That's the Walgreens liquor store. So, within that area, those are all non-conforming in terms of current distance separation requirements. So, basically, no new package stores could open up. But this
referral was about looking at ways to incentivize the discontinuence of those existing package stores. And so some of the things that we suggested was perhaps tying future increases in development intensity along Lincoln Road to uh the
removal of those stores if those stores happen to exist within a property or a building where some type of um zoning incentive is approved by the commission. Another thing would be to perhaps look at other incentives such as reductions or waiverss of impact fees for future
development of the property if they are willing to forego um a package liquor store and even reduced off- streetet parking requirements if they were willing to forego that. >> Okay. I mean that seems fine. >> Is is any do any of those possibilities
exist for the Ritz project that's under >> progress? Um, you could you could include that within the larger area. For the Ritz properties specifically, we're probably too late because they've already gotten all their development.
>> I there. I hope capitalism takes care of itself where they're trying to sell $20 million condos and it's not proven to do so with uh package liquor store beneath [laughter] their site. I just
>> Okay. Not the brightest guy in the book, but I I know how that works. >> So, how many how many how many loc there's three? >> I believe there's three. >> Yeah. >> Are they Are they the owners? >> One of them. No, I don't think so. I
think they're all tenants. >> So, even if they even if the owners wanted to to to take advantage of it, but if they're in a lease, what >> that could present an issue. Even if an owner wanted to take an advantage of an incentive, if the lease has tied their hands, that might complicate it.
>> Commissioner Bot, maybe just thinking outside of a box as far as like an increased incentives like like you said, if if it's leased and, you know, they have maybe a 10-year lease and the owner can't do anything about it
uh because financially they can't buy them out. And I'm just shooting from the hip here, but you know, you do have like the Ritz Carlton who has a vested interest in having the immediate area become better. Maybe give
an incentive for someone to buy out that property and maybe transfer that sort of right to something else. I don't know. This is your item. I'm just thinking outside the box. I'm I'm hoping it it works, but I'm
thinking along the lines of have someone with the with the capital to actually buy out the whole lease and that store in and and get something of benefit to to another project where let's say the Ritz wants to buy them out, but let's give them some let's give them an
incentive to not necessarily build something, but >> Yeah. >> Would you would your staff be willing to take a look at what that could look like? Some ideas? Yeah, we can explore um some ideas like that. Um it would be something that you don't necessarily
need to modify the code for. I mean, if a one private property owner wanted to enter into an agreement with another private property owner to buy a certain tenant out for whatever reason, that would be a private transaction.
>> And I think I think the part that might need to be codified or maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's just, you know, meeting with economic development. But, you know, if if you large well-funded buyer wants to buy out this lease and repurpose this business for something more beneficial,
then in addition to getting a more beneficial business use close to your property, you would also get X. And what does X look like? So, I and it may not need to go into our code, but you know, let's see what other cities are doing about this, how to how to incentivize better retail operations. And maybe
it's, you know, a rebate on a BTR for a year. I don't know what what is legal or whatever it is, but let can we look into that? >> Or maybe even like seating capacity for certain restaurants if they want to build a restaurant and they have certain constraints. I there's a whole menu of options that you can think. But again,
this is your item. I'm just saying I love the idea of just trying to get rid of these package later stores because they're gross. But let's make let's let's do our best to see if we can make it happen. and you have a large capital investor, you happen to be in the area who who might take note of this and
commissioner, maybe you want to reach out to the Brits and say, "Hey, you know, I'm I'm willing to give you a a an opportunity here to really improve the neighborhood. How can we work together? >> Do you want to bring this back in a
couple of months with uh after we've had a chance to flush out some ideas with the city attorney and with economic development?" Yeah, I'd like to um maybe even before it comes back have a sense of what what can be done. >> We can meet with you separately. Yeah. Okay.
>> And then you know maybe Stephen and I make some phone calls or have some meetings with >> Okay. >> Why don't we start with a meeting? Um I can organize a meeting with Stephen and Nick and the next couple weeks and then we can plan something and then in the
meantime we'll just um continue this to a future date. Yep. For updates. >> Yep. >> Great. Okay. You want to make a motion to I don't know if we formally moved it >> or we just it's just going coming back. Okay. The last item. Let's do number
seven. >> Okay. Item number seven is >> actually let's do number one. >> Okay. >> Just just kidding. That's April Fools. [laughter] >> Oh my god, David, you're so funny. >> I am. >> April Fools. >> April Fools. [laughter] >> So, are we doing one or seven?
>> Seven. Okay. Uh item number seven is discussion on possible inclusion of a charter or private school within the 72nd Street community complex project. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair,
commissioners, David Gomez, director. >> Yeah, and I just wanted to let me let me let me let me bring it up. Um, you know, I I um one of the residents actually Andreas Sassion brought this to my attention and um wanted to explore the idea of for
this 72nd Street complex to maybe have a small school there um at at the at the complex. And I I I generally like the idea and cuz you know one of our biggest pain points of uh in I think in South
Florida in general is just the lack of schools. Um and I wanted to see what staff can come up with to possibly having more schools. I mean, I know we have a school that's expanding south of Fifth, but you know, they're getting
they're they're they're hitting a roadblock unfortunately with some of our uh processes and it's a real shame and I would like to see what we could do to bring in more schools into the area and if we have an opportunity to do that at the 72nd Street complex, that's it's
worth exploring. >> And if I could piggyback, I am a thousand% conceptually supportive of this. schools are Achilles heel. We're presented with this generational opportunity of new businesses moving into South Florida, especially Miami
Beach. But we have residents that are leaving the city because of lack of schools, right? You get to a certain age, you move to Coca, it's a tale as old as time. You move to Coconut Grove, you move away. I don't want that anymore. So whether it's here or other
places, we provided some general land development regulation incentives for this, but it was very open-ended. We need to really put on our thinking caps and have this as one of our highest highest priorities about where we can
put in schools, whether it be public, private, charter. It's just the more supply that we have, the better. So the the biggest challenge for this project is that the consideration of adding a school at this point in the program throws a major delay into the
project itself. There some very simple questions that need to be answered first. How big a school? What type of space do they need? Do they need access to outdoor space? What is the program of the school itself? How would the city enter into that agreement? What type of
agreement is it? All of those items require commission action at multiple levels. So that time to figure out who would be uh involved or who would take the space and what their requirements would be individually is something that
would push the completion of the 72nd Street project considerably. The and that's the the main reason why um the administration is not supportive of doing it at this time. There's always ways to figure out how to accommodate some space in the future. Um, and we're
happy to do that. We're just asking to finish the project so that we can move on from there. >> I get that this has been planned. Um, so maybe I'm just venting here. I'm not given direction to change, but I'm just
like, where are our priorities? We're going to have more competition size or near competition size swimming pools in the area for swimming teams than actually schools, right? That that's crazy. This swimming pool in the roof. And again, this is me just venting. I'm
not throwing a change order in because at one point I wanted to because I I just think it's a silly bang for the buck. Then you had people come in say they were planning this for years and years. I said, "Who am I to come in at the last minute and change?" But
th this swimming pool is going to cost so much money, take up so much space for such a small specialized group of individuals, right? Where we could essentially spread
that wealth and I say wealth in terms of resources, spread that around to provide educational opportunities. I I just I >> it's frustrating. I I you know look I mean just because the administration's not approving this I mean doesn't mean
that we have to go along with what they say. I mean I mean at least two commissioners up here three um you know value education and I want to see I want to I I want to explore this a little further. I mean
you know like Commissioner Magazine said we're spending How much is the pool component of this costing? >> I don't have those numbers with me. It's not a cheap component. >> Yeah. I mean, the fact that we're it's it's a how how much is the whole project? >> The construction budget is between 70
and 80 million. >> 7080 million. And a lot of that is because we're having we're putting a pool uh you know, above ground Olympic size pool. I mean, it is it is almost >> What do you think, Mr. Mayor? >> It is almost comical
>> before you leave. >> Yeah. >> You're not off the hook. You're not out of the hot seat >> as a citizen. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Sure, why not? >> Well, just quiet and uh >> should have left the other way. I wouldn't have seen >> I know, but you know, I'm not shy about voicing my opinion of things in my city.
And I actually happen to agree with you. It seems that that's a very Don't don't kill me for this, but it seems it's a very large project, very uh expensive project. You have a very nice pool at Normandy on Normandy Isle as well. You
have a really nice pool at the youth center and nice one at Flamingo Park. It does seem very expensive. You know, if you I have a few other issues I'd be happy to address as well when you're ready. But >> what uh it's festivist, Mr. Mayor. Just
air your grievances. This is like [laughter] this is like free free time to you know I I I also have to think you have to take a good look at what you're going to do about the Byron and Carlile and the expense of that and what you're what's going to result from that. >> Uh and you know you bring up a good
point. We don't the Byron Carile this pull all this hold on the Byron Carile has not been noticed. We are not no I'm just commissioner please let me let me finish it's coming onto the commission meeting agenda. What I was going to say is that we are what I was going to say
is that we are expanding programs for children in the Byron Carile at the pool and we're making more parks, but we're not incentivizing more schools, right? You know, so we're doing all of
this stuff for children, but at the same time, we're not we're not incentivizing more children to be to be raised here because of our lack of schools. And I'm look, I'm fully supportive of the Byron Car. I I don't know where that came from, but >> what's the next one? [laughter]
>> You were just giving me the giving me free shots >> from the fact that you still have an item trying to kill the Byron Carell on the agenda for April. >> I am. Okay. I don't there's no item to kill anything. It's there's there's discussion. >> Commissioner, that was my and and you're right. It's not on the agenda. It
shouldn't be discussed. But that was my own it's you know it's almost 5:00. It's almost 5:00 in the afternoon and it's almost uh you know almost pass over and I just felt like [laughter] let letting it want to get into the Bayink. Who knows? But I'm I'm ready. [laughter]
I think what what what we're what we're getting at is we're doing all of these programs for children yet. We're not we're not really incentivizing more children to want to be here in Miami Beach to begin with, you know, and that all starts with schools, right? Um we
can have all the programs in the world for children, but you know, if there's no schools here, then these programs are, you know, they're going to other kids from other cities are going to come here to take advantage of. And I don't I don't want that. I want I want there to
be a healthy, you know, influx and I want families to come here, raise children here and have generations of Miami Beachians for for for years to come. So, look, um
I I mean I I state this on the record. I I have reservations about an Olympic size swimming pool at the 72nd Street garage. Would I rather have a school there? Yeah, absolutely. Um, and I don't know, maybe we need to maybe we need to
discuss this at the at the commission meeting. Um, because we have an opportunity now to actually have possibly another school in Miami Beach. And I think that I think that's a
a golden opportunity. So, I don't know, Commissioner Magazine, I know you're very passionate about this. Let me ask you just if if I was a charter school or private school operator and it doesn't have to be restricted to cityland and I'm asking you questions I I've actually
been personally asked right you know what we would love to bring XYZ school in to Miami Beach what where's the right location for it I I'll I'll tell you where I've thought I thought the story nightclub site could be good uh the
Miami Beach Women's Club and that kind of adjoining uh hotel uh that's right there. Um this could be a good opportunity, but you're the urban planner. Where where do you think would be good opportunities whether they be public or private? >> Most of our zoning districts allow
schools in some form. >> But for forget that, right? We we could change that zoning. >> But in terms of my understanding in talking to people who have built these is that they're looking for space. um they're looking for either the ability to build new buildings um as well as
have space and having uh these types of schools in urban settings actually can be a good thing. So I think the the sky's is the limit in terms of the availability of a building with adjacent space. >> Perfect. But where would you direct
somebody? They said, "You know what? I'm this uh private school operator from London, New York, and we want to provide this uh great educational opportunity whether it be the charter school route, private school route. Tom, Mr. Planning
Director, directs me to focus here. And when we when that question has been posed to us in the past, what I've told people is a lot really depends upon how much money they want to spend, what their budget is, but if you're just looking for the availability of
appropriate size buildings. Um, our commercial districts are very good places to look up in North Beach along Collins Avenue. There's a host of large properties with buildings that have a lot of space in them. the area between
65th and 69th for instance, the area north of 71st Street along 71st Street along Normandy, and that's just North Beach. And then if you get down to um Mid Beach, South Beach, um Alton Road, Fifth Street, there's a lot of areas
that have that available type of building. It really comes down to what somebody is willing to pay and how much somebody is offering the property for, at least in terms of a lease or in terms of um a purchase, >> right? But we but we wouldn't have an
opportunity like this where you'd have that much space where the government can say, "Hey, look, you know, here's an opportunity to have a school." I mean, I can't think of a a place
that's on government land to do that that of that size. >> No, no, I can't think of one either. >> And we're not talking in place of the recreational facility, right? We're talking >> incorporated incorporated into it.
>> And by the way, and by the way, you know, it wouldn't be like an act an added cost. I mean, we would want to explore some sort of partnership. uh with w with with a possible school. Commissioner, but >> David, how much have we put into this
project already? >> I don't have that number off the top. >> 5 million. >> It's several million. >> Okay. And then it's about 70 to $80 million to build it. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what are the legalities of um city using taxpayer money to pay for a
private school or a charter school? It's one thing if we were building a a public school, but that's not what this would be. You're proposing a p private school or charter school potentially. >> We lease city land everywhere. >> We're not talking about leasing. We're from what I'm taking away, we want to
re-imagine the design of what has already been planned. I was a longtime opponent of putting a pool on a roof. and I was convinced that it was okay because we're going to get so much business from these um you know professional level swim meets that it was going to be worthwhile. So I I'm
open to the idea of reimagining things, but I'm not open to the idea of the city spending let's say $35 million to subsidize the purchase and build out of a school. I'm very happy to find space for a school to come in. I mean the more schools the marrier. I moved here
because the schools were great. Um the more schools the marrier but I am not okay with spending geo bond money taxpayer money to subsidize a private enterprise. If they want to come in and they want to say hey we want to we will pay you to reimagine 50% of the
structure for the school that we want to bring here and we will split the the the the cost of building the facility. Let's have that conversation. But I'm not I'm not okay with >> theoretically one what I was thinking of was and again this is just on the fly,
right? You you lease it to the school, but how's that different than subsidizing an arts organization? >> So you're not leasing it to the school because you can't lease something that isn't built to a school specification. It has to be designed for a school. Right now we're building a community
sports complex. >> That's not true. you know, the the Center Academy was was they they purchased a building and that building wasn't designed for a school. It was actually designed, I think, for like a club or I believe. >> But I'm not just to be clear, I'm not
saying we need to redesign the whole thing. I'm saying a space in the already designed aspect. I mean, it's more of like interior than than exterior of what I'm what I'm discussing. And I'm not also saying we would subsidize it at
all. I'm saying let's explore the possibility of a of of a top ranked school coming and saying, "Hey, we want to invest with you uh city of Miami Beach to open up a flagship school in North Beach and you know, we're we're
we're we want to be partners in it. I'm not saying we're going to spend $35 million to to redesign this to to accommodate it. If we have this um these corridors of underutilized um in building inventory that could use a
makeover and a repurposing of usage up in North Beach, which we do, why would we not have that same exact conversation with private and charter schools and say you can have front row seating, you can have the pick of the litter at these
great spots throughout North Beach and let us work with you to >> That's private, isn't that? Are you Are you talking about private land? >> It's underutilized private land. Yes. >> Right. I mean, right. If that was the case, then there'd be a bunch of schools
open up, right? And but there's not. It the the the lowest hanging fruit for some of these property owners isn't to build schools. It's to build ultra luxury condos. And especially with live local, it's it's even it's even lower hanging fruit. And so, look, I again,
I'm not saying we need to rec completely change the design. I'm saying incorporate in there instead of I don't know what what were some of the things that we're going to have in there, but maybe we we dedicate, you know, half of one of these floors to
to a a school. Maybe it's just a school for small children. I think that's worth I I think if we have that opportunity, you know, as a city, let's do that. Look, we have we like Commissioner Magazine said, we give all sorts of
opportunities for arts and culture, right? And um a host of nonprofits, but >> we have Live Nation operating the Fillmore. I I don't understand why we wouldn't use similar opportunities for education. We're going to have a private
entity operating the Byron Coro, right? We're going to have a private entity. Do we own the Colony Theater? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Commissioner But I mean, you know, Mr. Commissioner Magazine brings up a good point. We're going to literally redevelop and spend
up to $40 million redeveloping the Baron Carlile for an arts >> organization >> for Live Nation. It's a publicly traded company. >> They have a market cap of billions of dollars. >> Yeah. And so, you know, I don't I don't see the issue with incentivizing or
putting on public land a partnership with a real flagship school to, you know, really attract, you know, more families to Miami Beach. Commissioner Bot.
Okay. Well, look, I I think this is good discussion. I think we should bring this to the commission. um and and and really and hear it out because look and I'm not saying we need to get rid of the pool for those of watching. I'm saying let's let's bring it in. You know, I think when we first
got elected and we realized, Commissioner Bot, that there was only going to be like an added 50 spaces extra, right? We said, "Well, why don't we just build another floor and we'll get another hundred because, you know, parking is is in high demand."
Maybe we add another floor. I don't know. We did that for parking. If we if we can do that for parking one floor, maybe we could do that for a a school- which would be paid by the the school. >> School. Yeah. And we saw it at FK this morning. Somebody's going to uh make a
proposal to come and build an office project on an existing rooftop. Right. So if it's at the onset, why couldn't we build a school on the rooftop of this? Right? And again, not
it will be capitalized by our money but then leased out. I'm not talking about giving this away, right? Just like how we own the anchor shops and we lease that to a private restaurant operator. We would lease this to a school.
>> Would you like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. What? Just for consideration? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'll second. want to conclude the item and move it to the full commission for discussion. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> I think that's it for the day. Thank you
everyone. >> Thank you. Thanks for having me.