Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. I feel like that. like that. about you there. I do. I do. I
Hey, hey, hey. One world fire. Black. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey. Hello. Down the ring. All right.
All right. All right. Heat. Heat. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record.
Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. >> Okay. Good morning everyone and welcome to this specially set July 28th planning board meeting. Um we have everybody but
Yel Cement today. So we're good on uh on a quorum. And uh I'll start if I could just the July meeting was um earlier meeting was canceled. So, we still need to approve the June 10 minutes from our prior meeting. If someone can move to approve those.
>> Okay. Can I get a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? >> All right. Mr. Nick. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Um today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a
hybrid format with the board physically present in the commission chambers at my beach city hall and applicant staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate virtually in today's meeting, the public may dial 1-877-853-5257
and enter the webinar ID which is 861-4342 6327 pound or log in to the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 861-4342 6327.
Anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if they're participating by phone. If you're appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office. If you haven't registered yet, you should register before you speak to the board. You don't
have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party, or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting. or if you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any
compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating. If you're an architect, attorney, or
employee representing an applicant or an objector, you must register as a lobbyist. These rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. Since we have no um quiz judicial item
applications on today's agenda, there's no need to swear anyone in. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, as Nick mentioned, everything is a new comprehensive planner code amendment today. So, we will start with planning board file 25768, floor area increase temporary moratorum.
And u board members may remember um we did email this to you separately from the packages um last Thursday. We did pass around u a printed copy for today's meeting just for your um reference. So as proposed this F mortorium would apply to the adoption of comprehensive plan or
land development regulation amendments by the city commission that include a floor area ratio increase above the maximum F currently allowed in any of the city's um zoning districts. if the application will result in an increase of more than 5,000 square feet per property or site. This ordinance does
not apply or this moratorum does not apply to the receipt or processing of applications by the plan department. So someone could still submit an application that increases that is proposing to increase the F um for a site or a district. However, the city commission if the ordinance is adopted
by them would be deciding to temporarily delay their review of the ordinance. um it would allow the process to continue until it got to them. However, this ordinance does allow um that requirement to be waved um by a six sevens vote of the city commission. They felt there was
an ordinance that that increases F that was beneficial to the city. So even with this mortorium in place, the city commission could vote by 67's vote to take action on such an ordinance. Part of the reason for this um proposed moratorum is to review the impacts of um
other pending F increases. You may remember we had um Washington Avenue um um was approved for a pending increase by the planning board that is still um at the city commission level. We have the Lincoln Road East and West which was reviewed by the planning board that is
still pending review by the city commission. This would not um suspend this would not stop those processes. It would just suspend the process for future future amendments. >> That's already ongoing is not effective. >> Correct. Um and part of part part of the purpose for this um suspension is that
the city commission has expressed a concern with impacts on um traffic, municipal services, public infrastructure such as storm water um and flood water management um portable water and sanitary sewer systems. So the idea is that with this in this time
frame the city commission would take a look in at more comprehensive review of what these impacts would have um on parts of the city or or citywide where they've been proposed. So with that we are recommend and this as well this this would um moratorum would last from today
with a um positive recommendation of the board until January 31st of of next year. Um it would not affect any application that um is for affordable workforce housing units. Um, and we are recommending that the planning board transmit this to the city commission
with a favorable recommendation. >> Okay. Um, I know you're here to speak on this. >> Just curious, there are people on Zoom. >> We do have we do have people on Zoom, but um, their hand raised. Yes, a few people. Yes, >> I always treat customers in the store
first. So, >> and m Mr. Chairman, before we before we open to the public, I just want to make a couple of of comments on this ordinance. Um there I've gotten some correspondence uh from from uh from board members and and interested
individuals in um as to how this ordinance has been impacted by recent changes in state law. Um the and there are two state laws in particular. One is the 2025 amendments to the live local
act um which which uh include restrictions on moratoria adopted at the at the local level. Um and I wanted to just >> in other words this would be preempted by that. >> Well it it wouldn't be preempted by that and and but I wanted to I wanted to
explain why for the record. Um the the restriction in the live local act applies to building moratoria on um on on essentially on live local projects on on uh on on workforce housing projects
that are submitted under the live local act. And the what the act allows is a local government to impose a moratorum on such projects for a very limited period of time. It's it's no more than 90 days in a three-year period. But um
this is not that this ordinance does not um prevent the development um of a project that is currently allowable under the land development regulations. It does not prevent the development of a live local project
submitted pursuant to state law. All it applies to is legislative changes to increase um allowable F in any of the city's zoning district. So it doesn't stop uh uh development that's that's
currently allowed under under our code. Um the other change >> Go ahead. I have let me >> have a question about that one. Yeah. Well, currently what would the process be without the mortorium
>> as far edification >> for an F increase? >> Yeah, >> a private application would need to be submitted >> uh to the planning board. The planning board has has uh very recently heard two such applications. One was for 1250 West
Avenue and the other was for the Doville, the North the uh North Beach overlay, >> right? Um, it requires now our code requires two readings before the planning board with a community workshop in between and two readings before the city commission with a second community workshop in between.
>> Okay. In light of that, I'm just I want to make sure I understand what the reason is for the positive recommend or the suggestion from staff that it be sent positively. >> I just want to make sure I because it seems like you're just taking >> I think this is more like a a public
notice. the city's commit the city commission is concerned with the F increases and let people know that there's going to be a pause in the review before the city commission >> in realistic right right now legislative we do have an application that's that's on the agenda for um September for a
specific site to increase F this doesn't affect that because already in process >> right but ultimately the commission we have to approve and the commission has to approve it al >> no the the planning board the planning board doesn't have to approve it we can recommend >> I agree we give a recommendation then the commission's got to approve it. >> Correct.
>> So it's kind of taken the the power away from I don't Okay. All right. >> But wait right now the time so the time frame so this just in terms of the time frame we have an application for September that'll be the first reading by the planning board. Then it'll be a a public workshop if it's if it's um looked at in September and October.
There'll be the second planning board in November. So that item won't get to city commission anyway till January. So in the end this doesn't really affect anything that's already in process and anything that's submitted after that will go to the city commission after the moratorum has ended. >> Right. Okay Nick sorry go ahead to your
second point. >> You got to put your um but how is the time used uh during this moratorum like so so if we're pausing this what are you guys doing with that time that we're going to be uh feeling like there's progress into you know a reason to be doing this. So we
just need to make sure that this is well used time. So my understanding is that the city commission would engage in a consultant to review the capacity for the areas that have been mentioned to make sure that they we do have um capacity for I think the problem has been most recently for um um sanitary
system, storm water, um things of that nature, traffic >> and and this city feels that within the six months mortorium you guys could be getting uh the the uh information and the facts and we'll be able to have a good analysis of that >> I believe. So >> yeah. Okay. Sorry, Nick.
>> Nick, go ahead. >> The other change in state law um that that that that this one did impact the ordinance before you and we revised the ordinance for today's meeting uh to to uh to conform
with the recent change. But um the the second law I wanted to cover is Senate Bill 180, which was adopted during this year's legislative session and is is for the most part um related to uh disaster
preparation and recovery. Um there are provisions in in Senate Bill 180, however, that are that are extremely broad and that impact the city's ability to uh to to regulate growth. Um and and
one particular provision which prohibits local governments from adopting uh any more restrictive or burdensome amendment to uh to our comprehensive plans or land development regulations um than what was
previously in place. And the the bill is retroactive to August 1st of 2024 um and essentially imposes a a three-year um uh prohibition through
October 1 of 2027 on any more restrictive or burdensome land development regulation amendment or comprehensive plan amendment. So we are, you know, we're we are looking at this closely. We are evaluating each uh each
you know proposed amendment that is is you know wherever it may be in the process. Um, this particular ordinance a as it was originally drafted would have also prohibited the the acceptance or review of an application to amend the
LDRs to provide for additional F. Um, because a a property owner would, you know, would have a right, let's say before, you know, before this is adopted, a right to submit an application for a private application
for an F increase. um that you know in effect would be a more restrictive uh land development regulation. So we've revised the ordinance to comply with Senate Bill 180 so that you know applications could still be submitted but that the city commission is not
going to consider any legislative changes that increase F during this during the the moratorum period. Um, we're confident that as revised that that that this that this ordinance is consistent with Senate Bill 180, but I
wanted the the, you know, the record to be clear as to why. >> Okay. All right, Matthew. >> Okay. Good morning, members of the planning board. My name is Matthew Ganoff. My address is 125 Jefferson Avenue, and I'm speaking this morning as
a private resident of this city. First, it's great to be back here. Uh I was sitting in I think Jonathan's seat where he is now just a few months ago before my term concluded and I very much enjoyed the service and was honored to serve on this board. So thank you for
allowing me to come today and to speak on this topic. Uh this one is extremely important. The city commission spent many hours many special commission meetings discussing F increases for certain projects in this city and last
month they approved two projects. one project which you all in your advisory role actually voted down. Uh I would urge you all to vote down this one as well because it is theatrics theatrics only. It has no bearing on
anything. They can as was described they can wave these uh at any rate if they wish to. uh all the projects that were approved were required to submit infrastructure analysis which showed that they would not impact it and any future F increases also would be
required to submit such increases. So again just to to wrap it up uh this is bad policy I think and I don't think that you all need to be involved in it. just take your role uh your role in advising the commission. Vote it down
and let's try to find ways to to truly help the housing situation in the city. Over 60% of South Beach and North Beach residents are renters. There have been Well, actually, can I ask a question? Have there been any F increases for multifamily rental properties in the
last or rental projects in the last 5 10 years? >> Um, not that I'm aware of. >> So, there you go. I mean the crux of the issue is that this is a renting town, renting city and nothing has been done and here we are uh here you are
considering a a piece of theatric. So vote it down. Thank you so much. It's great to be here again. >> Thank you. All right, Zoom. >> We have a Cecilia Torres Toledo. >> Miss Toledo. >> Good morning everyone. Cecilia Toto
Acresman LLP offices at 98 Southeast 7 Street here on behalf of Ambassador Paul Seahas. As um Michael Valuch noted, we're going to be on the agenda for September and we are one of the applications that would be grandfathered in. Mr. Seahas is
proposing the urban core legislation which proposes minimum F increases which are intended uh so that the project can realize density. CD3 has a density of 150 dwelling units per acre, which is the highest in Miami Beach. But the
current F and height allowances for this property don't allow you to realize those units because you run out of F before you're able to reach density. As you know, this code has minimum and average unit size requirements that need to be complied with. So we are
requesting a 0.5 F increase so that we can better realize the density that's already afforded to CD3 and we're very excited to present this project to you next month. I think here my goal and my purpose in speaking today is to
encourage you to recommend against this legislation because it shuts the door to proposals such as Mr. has proposed those which are reasonable, contextual, and will help the housing inventory in the city. Right now, the only projects that
are penciling out are ultra luxury projects, right? Because they have a low unit counts. And if we want to have housing that is accessible for different uh percentages of the population in Miami Beach that are accessible for young families and professionals, then
we need to allow developers to realize the density that is allowed under the code. And this moratorum shuts the door on creative proposals that are in the best interest of residents as well as developers. and it's going to force
people into considering live local projects because that's the only other avenue that is available to them if you shut the door on legislation that proposes F increases. So again, this application that we would be presenting is grandfathered. You would still be
able to hear it in September even if you recommend in favor of this, but we encourage you to recommend against it because it just it's not helpful to anyone. Uh thank you very much. >> Thank you. And that concludes our public comment.
>> Okay. All right. Uh Keith, I think you have some >> I don't often agree with Matthew Gutenol, but when I do, uh I'm going to use a term of uh of language that I've never used before
because I never understood it. Uh I'm of a different generation, but I think it applies here. And that's called fake hustle. Uh this is cover for those six commissioners who
who did not listen to the planning board nor staff. And if you'd give me a second, I'd like to read something. On March 4th, my very first uh planning board uh session, we had in front of us
uh 1250 West in the review criteria. Um, one, whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with a comprehensive plan in any applicable neighborhood or redevelopment plans. Not consistent. As currently proposed, the amendments far exceed the maximum F in
the comprehensive plan. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent neighborhoods. Not consistent. proposed amendment creates an isolated overlay district that bears no relationship or consistency with surrounding context.
Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood, not consistent. And I again over and over and over again, we voted no. I watched uh Mr. Rooney who is in charge of the
planning department articulate very carefully and they did all the analysis the massing the traffic studies and said that F should not exceed 4.75 which was uber generous and I did not see one of
the six commissioners explain why while the height went down nominally from 380 to 330 they left the F alone. What needs to happen? What we need is an ordinance to fix the commissioners. Uh
I'm I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You know, uh you want to ignore your planning department, one point F. I mean, we give 0.25.5
as bonuses for a lot of things. Th this is an unjustified F that went against everything that the planning is there for and you voted for it and now after you vote for it, you want a moratorum uh
that as many say uh is not helpful and is political cover and I vote no. >> Okay, Scott. Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out exactly with the change that you made to to sort
of not be contrary to to Senate Bill 180. Um, I'm still trying to figure out how how this is going to make a a difference. In other words, with with that amendment where basically private
application can still move forward. Um obviously now the process still is going to be a multi-month project or or or process. So it's probably going to take at least 6 months to go through. So those projects can still move through and then when the moratorum ends you
know the commission would hear it. So I mean I just maybe you can explain it but I don't see whether or not we pass this or not. I don't see how it would change anything. I just don't see am I missing something? Yeah.
>> Um what it would what it would change is that during the during the period of the moratorum that the city commission would not consider um any any new legislation that increases F. But at this at this
point right now, um, with any projects already in the in the process, >> I mean, what what do you foresee as the earliest that one of those would get through the in, you know, the current process for an F increase and make it to the commission >> right now? January,
>> which is >> when it ends. >> When this ends anyway, >> it may cost >> anybody else coming in would be probably looking at February or afterwards. >> Yeah. So basically this is not really going to I mean to me the only thing this would prevent is the commission itself from from sponsoring an F
increase. Well but actually it would still go through the process. So, um, yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, yeah, I guess I just, yeah, I just don't see a, um, >> anything that this is really going to do
other than more of a, um, >> you used fake hustle, more of a I could come up with other terms, but, um, >> Got it. >> Hover. Yeah. Hey, Jonathan. >> I guess I I have a question of I I understand what it's been said that the
purpose of this is, but what is the downside to this? Is there a a negative to passing this and and putting this on the books? I mean, I think at a minimum, you know, I've gotten, you know, an onslaught of emails from residents who
are in support of this. you know, maybe they don't know the full impact of it or or whatnot, but >> there clearly there's an intent, you know, or a sentiment by residents that they want something like this. There's obviously that sentiment by some
commissioners since this is put on the books. And so I think, you know, I I I guess if there is a downside to this, I'd like to hear it. If not, >> or the vice versa, is there a downside not to? >> That's what I meant. Is there a downside
not or is there a downside to not to passing this or not passing this? But for right now, I think it's, you know, one of the things that it does it, if this were to pass through us, is to explain to the to
developers and to the community how we feel that we all, you know, uh, you know, residents don't necessarily want more um, F increases and development. And this at least sends a message that, you know, this is
what Miami Beach wants in terms of a a pause. Now, I understand it's not as big of a pause that most people would like or any pause for that matter, but at least it sends a message, but I'm curious, is there any downside to having this legislation passed?
>> Well, I can respond to to part of your question. I I worked with the sponsor on this legislation and and the purpose of the ordinance is the stated purpose is to preserve the status quo while we review the impacts of of these recently
adopted F increases on traffic, municipal services and public infrastructure including storm water, the supply of potable water and sanitary sewer systems. So the the intent here is that during the pause uh that the that
the city will engage in a study of our of our infrastructure and that that will inform the you know city's analysis and recommendation and ultimately the city commission's vote on on F increases uh
after the pause. So um so that so that's really the intent of of the ordinance. The other thing I wanted to advise uh the board is that the sponsor has requested that the that the ordinance be amended to remove the 67s uh waiver
provision. So if the if the board ultimately transmits this ordinance, we'll include that we'll include that change. >> Can I ask a question on unintended consequences? I didn't I meant to bring that up. uh and I'm posing this um
unintended consequence is that developers say okay I have this path it's blocked for a little while of course they could wait but the other is that it will shine a bright light on live local and they will start applying
more aggressively for live local uh permission because it doesn't require this review. It does. You cannot put a moratorum on any live local act. Um, and it may drive some developers to explore
it when they wouldn't have. >> I don't understand why we have to go through a moratorum to be doing a comprehensive analysis or study of of what the city can handle in development. So, I just don't understand why we're putting this fake pause when we should be doing that anyways, right? Whether there's mortoriums in place or not. And
so and so the the I yeah I just I think we're responding right now. This is responding to the backlash we've had from uh a lot of residents who want to see some sensible development which is completely fair that the city has to take those steps but I don't think that we need to go through a moratorum to be
doing that study. >> Right. Those are my sentiments and I just think what's in place the safeguards that are in place to me are sufficient and this really doesn't change it in my opinion. So >> and Mr. chair. Um, also I feel like >> um this sort of says the city doesn't
have the ability to control itself. >> Um, I mean maybe that's a little intense, but uh I I I feel like these are things that we should be doing all along. Um I >> these boards are in place for you. >> Exactly. And I also think that um that
we have we don't have a very active market right now. Uh we have a very quiet market and I think that if we don't give some sort of something and these are that that will stop all development. That's just
my thoughts. >> Let me jump in because I you know I mentioned that it really doesn't do anything. The only way I would actually consider it, and I don't know if it runs a foul of state law, but if the moratorium was a year, that would that would actually give the city a good
amount of time to to um do some kind of analysis on on infrastructure and things like that. And it would be a little bit more it would it it would actually do something then. But I don't know if I don't know if there's a will to do that. I don't know if that runs a foul of
state law. But that's one way I would consider this. Scott, let me ask you also, do don't you feel like that these are things that we should be considering all along that that these are, you know, we you know, every development has to to submit a a traffic study, an
infrastructure impact uh study, all of these things. I mean, what what are we what I mean? I I you know, I think I listened to the commission meeting last week and and it said they said something, you know, why are we having all these studies? Why are we having these consultants? Why are we doing all these things? It's you know these are
the city's jobs and I just I just I don't you know has has a consultant been engaged? Has someone been engaged? I mean how long does that take? I mean these are these are legitimate questions that I think that you know I mean >> that's those are just thoughts.
>> So kicking it back to Nick is that I guess that everybody's sort of wondering those stated purposes of it. I think everybody's in favor of doing those things, but why do we need the moratorum to do those? Like what was the intent of this legislation? You know, what was the
what was the need for the pause for that? >> It seems very reactive to again to the last couple of projects that we that were went through. >> Yeah. Um I think the the the the idea behind the moratorum is to is you know really a
legislative position to say the city commission is not going to consider or adopt anything during that period right because absent um absent this piece of legislation I mean there's it's it's not really formalized. Um, the other thing I would add just in response to a question
or comment Scott had is that the ordinance um is as as drafted would go through through January. Um, it could be extended. It's been drafted to allow the city
commission to to extend it. Um, but certainly if that's something that the board is inclined to recommend, it's you know, you could include that as part of your recommendation. We would need to understand the consequence of extending. I think there's a different layer of issues that >> I'd like to ask Alex who's not on the
line. Why don't we go to the root cause? We have a planning department. We have a planning board. We have staff that makes recommendations based on all the criteria that you just talked about. Massing, traffic, sewer, does it fit the
community? And yet they still voted 65 67s against what you recommended. How about an arnance that justifies why they do that? Uh you know we're not fixing the core
problem. If if developers get whatever they want, which is what's upsetting people, then this is nothing more than some kind of uh save the the residents from the commission act. But why can't we have rules and ordinances that make
it more difficult than just a vote for someone to override the planning director and the planning board on F? Is it is that not something that could be crafted? >> I mean I think ultimately you know the
planning board is our local planning agency right? So your review is is required by law of any amendment to the comprehensive plan or land development regulations. Ultimately the city commission is the governing body of the city. Right. So so the city commission
has legislative authority to adopt legislation or not. >> Can't we impose upon them written justification their analysis of overriding massing studies and traffic studies? at least have them put it in writing instead of
just voting. >> I think that you know this discussion um is a is this is a policy discussion, right? What you have before you >> policy um and and you you know the the planning board is well within its authority to make recommendations.
>> All right. So that's a yeah it's for discussion item. So maybe we'll put that as discussion item but let's go ahead and if you guys are ready can we vote on this one? >> Yes, I vote. >> Your point is well taken. It's kind of giving you know more deference to the planning board but I don't know if we can do that but >> well not planning board actually the planning commission the staff
>> well it's both right because we obviously make recommendations >> gets up there not even going to that extent I just think that there's you know getting some studies done that we can that to educate all of us us and the commission and better understanding some of the impact because we we we try to make the best decision with the
knowledge we have but I think an updated study would help us understand some of the impact of the decisions we're making and that's the same thing for the commission And we've talked about that with um what's the our ex mayor who's a lobbyist here um you know and he he he referred you know he he referenced that
a few months ago saying there's a lack of education that we're not getting that they used to get in the planning board and you know and so there there there was a regular updating for us to understand some of these the these issues and I think that would be a good starting point that doesn't require you know
>> I had even said earlier that to uh Nick that I just didn't think that we had enough information. >> Right. All right. You want to call the vote, Michael? >> Yeah. >> Um, is there a motion then to transmit this with a negative recommendation? >> Yeah. I would like to propose a negative. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Okay. >> I'll do a roll call. Um, Mr. Frerieden, this would be for a negative recommendation. >> Yes. >> So, a yes vote is a negative recommendation. >> Yes. >> Um, Miss Leone. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Mr. Needleman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Li, >> yes. >> And Mr. Marks, >> yes. >> Unanimous. >> And Miss Bey, >> I'm sorry, Miss >> Although I
um >> so it's it's um the board has transmitted this with a negative recommendation to the city commission. >> Yeah. And and what's important is the public needs to understand this wasn't a vote against your your sensitivities to increase F. Um I hope everyone follow
the discussion understands that. Okay, the next one is planning board file 25747 vendor appointments and land use boards. Seems like a pretty no-brainer >> and I do have some questions on this though. >> This is on page 11 of the board packages. I'll just go through it quickly and then Nick is here to answer
any questions. Um so this what this ordinance would do is amend the terms of office for the city's land boards beginning um September 1st of this year and individuals who are vendors to the city principles or employees of such vendors could not be appointed to the city's land use board. This would
include the planning board, designer view board, historic preservation board and board of adjustment. They could not be appointed um during the term that a vendor contract is in place and for one year um after its termination. Applicants to the langis boards would be required to verify that they have not
been a vendor or associated one in the past year and if they or their entity becomes a vendor during their term they would automat would automatically trigger trigger res a resignation from the board. Um, this does allow the city commission to wave this requirement by
57 vote. And for purpose of the section of vendors defined as anyone doing business directly with the city or receiving city funds, excluding those with total business or grant dealings with the city are $10,000 or less per fiscal year. Do not require city
commission approval. We are recommending that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation. Dick, if you want to add anything. No, I think you covered it. >> I just had a couple questions. >> Is there anyone on Zoom for for Sorry.
Sorry. >> There's no one on Zoom with their hand raised. >> All right. Sorry. >> Um, are there any vendors? Are there any people on any of the land use boards right now that do business with the city? >> Um, are there any relatives? Are there
any of those types of situations where there could be a potential conflict? I am not aware of anyone on any of the land use boards right now that who is a vendor of the city. Qu >> I have a question on that. Um during the
pandemic um you know when the city was um tenants can apply for aid to help with rent. Um, one of my tenants came to me. She wanted to do that. And for me to ex to get that rent, I had to become a
vendor for the city. Obviously, that's way below the $10,000 um um number on here, but you know, moving forward, um you know, how would how would that go if there's some other kind of program the city has? Maybe they're helping with
rent, tenants with rent, and maybe a landlord has a number of tenants that are collecting and it does get to that or or meet that that level, that $10,000 level. How would would that preclude that person from sitting on a land use board?
>> Well, if the grant were, as you pointed out, if the grant were uh in the amount of $10,000 or less, there would be no issue. If the in in a fiscal year, if the grant were over $10,000, then the
the the the board member or applicant for appointment to a city board could request a waiver from the city commission on a 57s vote. >> Okay. So there no again there are no say on on
um design review board there are no employees or anything like that of any city vendors or any I'm just I feel like there might >> the only one that could be is um there is a member of the designer review board
who applied for a private property adaptation grant from the city's environment and sustainability department. Um, I don't know that that on its own makes the it probably does make the board member a vendor depending on the the dollar amount. >> Okay. How do we how do you
how how does that get determined? I mean, do you just I mean I mean how do you how would we know >> something like that? >> Really on a on a on a case- by case basis. So, as part of the um the application process, an a a resident
would need to uh would need to state whether they are currently a vendor of the city or have been a vendor within the one-year period preceding their application. Um so, we would have to like like anything else in our in our ethics regulations, we would have to
look at this on a on a case- by case basis. >> Okay. >> So, I get one question in terms of the definition of vendor. Um, you know, there's people who serve on nonprofit boards and nonprofits regularly are grantees from the city. I
can think of, you know, I was on a board previously and we received a grant. I think it was in excess of $10,000 to put up a website, provide LGBT services. Um, and would that then preclude that person who's sitting on a nonprofit board had
nothing to do with this really this, you know, in the in the typical sense of a vendor, but they received a grant from the city. Uh, what what's the impact of that? >> This this would likely apply to a a
grantee or an employee. You said you were a board member. >> Um, we would have to look at on a case- by case basis. Is it, you know, is it a is it a is it a director or an officer? Is it a, you know, a CEO? Um, but but it would it would likely apply to um a
grantee again depending on the dollar threshold. And then you know and I guess that's a question you know putting mine my situation aside because I'm not no longer on the board so it doesn't really matter but you know I imagine many people on land use boards are involved with you know
the beach concerts or involved in the band shell or or whatever it may be who you know the the air sea show that may receive grants from the city to be put on. They may be a member of that board. I mean, I think that can be problematic because we're all very involved in the
community and you want to encourage people to be involved in the community, but then you don't want just because they're a board member of say, you know, Miami Beach Pride. Miami Beach Pride probably I I don't know, but I assume they receive grants from the city and I and I don't know whether they exceed
$10,000, but that to automatically have that person resign from land use board, I think, is a little uh harsh. So, >> yeah, I guess I guess I guess I'm curious. I think there should be some sort of carve out for if
somebody's on a nonprofit board, you know, of some sort. I just don't think that they should be kicked off of a land use board. >> Didn't he say it was Oh, sorry. >> No, no, go ahead. Didn't he say that it was if you're whatever your position is, like if you're the CEO or the executive
director or something like that. I mean, if you're just a volunteer, I mean, does that does that necessarily >> the I can answer that. So, the ordinance that's drafted would apply to a vendor or a principal or employee of a vendor city. >> What What brought this on, Nick? Like,
what were we having any concerns or issues that that got got our commissioners to to decide that this was a priority? Um, I think the the intent behind this regulation is to um to further
strengthen the city's uh uh standards of conduct for for board members. Um there was a discussion when this first came up at the city commission about which you know should it apply to all city boards. Ultimately
um the the city commission referred an ordinance to the planning board to focus uh only on the on the four land use boards which are the board of adjustment, the design review board, the historic preservation board uh and the planning board. Um I mean I think it's
it's wise to make sure that we don't have people that compete in conflicts uh making the decisions, right? So, I just as as the the rest of the group here, we're just trying to make sure that there's no unintended consequences for some of the the um um some board members who may not have a truly financial
conflict, but more just where they're volunteering and putting their time. >> Exactly. >> And one last question. Um >> in terms of time frames, um if you've been a um vendor, I I guess you're using a one-year time frame. So if somebody receives a grant whether it's an
organization or someone directly if if a year is it one year after that money's received that they are considered no longer a vendor. >> It's one year after the contract's termination or expiration.
>> But if there's no contract, I'm guessing somebody received a grant. Let's say somebody has a building that received a grant to um um fix up the facade of the building. Okay. >> Those grant agreements uh have have a term. >> Those have a term. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. >> So, you want someone want to move it? >> I'll move it >> favorably. >> I'll second it. Okay. >> I like it. >> Can we do this all in favor? >> Anyone opposed to that? >> No. No. But I'm in favor of it. I just think that there should be clarifying
language about uh board members of a you know nonprofit organization, >> non-paid board members. >> The the intent is is that if you're getting money, >> right, >> you may direct your vote in a
>> Well, I think there might still be a conflict of interest that, you know, we would learn of and they would be procluded from voting if there's an issue of there. What I the the issue I guess defining a principle of a city vendor is a board member or even a board
chair, a principle of an organization. I think they I mean >> I think that's >> I think if you if you would like um to include a recommendation along those lines that's within the board's authority. So >> that's fine. >> Yeah. So, so is the idea that uh that
that a principle for purposes of this ordinance would not include uh volunteers or volunteer board members. Is that what you're >> correct? >> Okay. Well, let me uh there is a and I'm going to use a real example. We we had a uh guy that was a head of a nonprofit
board of the MDPL and he made over well over a h 100,000 a year. Well, we can say >> wouldn't he be? And you're saying that he could then serve on a land use board. >> Well, he wouldn't be. He's he's a paid employee and on the board.
>> I think the intent of this is to say if you're >> uncompensated, >> uncompensated, >> assuming that they're event that they receive grants in excess of $10,000. I'm I'm for it. I just want to make sure it out correctly when people aren't individually being compensated. That's
that's the clarification. Okay, we good with that? Okay, >> Brian, before we continue with the next item, I'd like to bring up voted unanimously. I'd like to um um have two items move to continued items or request
for continuances just in case anybody's in case anybody's watching online orers in chambers. And this is regarding um PB25-0776, the liquor store prohibition on Lincoln Road due to the um we're looking at the the Senate Bill 180 that Nick mentioned earlier. We're asking this item be
continued to the September 9th meeting. >> Both of them, right? >> We can take we can we can take votes on each one separately. >> Just the last two. So right the first one is planning board file 25776 liquor store protection on Lincoln because of pending state legislation or or in place
state legislation. So, so want to move to >> you want to move it to what? September >> to September 9th. >> Okay. >> Who made the motion on that? >> No one yet. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion. >> Wait, wait. I just want to clarify. So, the the distance separation requirements
for tobacco and vape would also be deferred. >> Yes. >> There's legal reasons, right? >> There's a second on >> Keith. Move. Can we get a second on the motion to continue? >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> Okay. Anyone opposed? Okay. And the
second one is planning board file 2550777 uh increased dice separation of for tobacco and vape stores. >> We're asking for a motion on this one to again continue it to the September 9th meeting >> for the same reasons. >> For the same reasons. >> All right. I'll I'll move it >> and just Michael in light of the agenda
in September. You want to move to September? >> Yeah, because we also can move things around in September. At least gives it more flexibility in case we have to bring in. >> All right. So Melissa seconded. All in favor? >> I Melissa made the motion. I'm sorry. We need a second. >> We need a second. Yeah, >> I'll second. >> Okay, Scott. Second. All in favor?
Anyone opposed? Okay, both moved. All right, next one is planning board file 25771, land use board consent agenda procedures. >> This begins on page 19, the board packages. Um, we've done this a few times, not before planning board, but for other boards. This codifies a
procedure where we have an overloaded agenda and um, we have may want to have a consent item. In order for an item to qualify as a consent item on the agenda. This would apply to the planning board um design review board, historic preservation board or board of adjustment. This would be for um
applications where the applicant is agreed to all the conditions of approval in a draft final order in the staff report. Um all voting members present at the meeting must agree to forego a presentation or questions to the applicant and would also um
>> hold on. What does that mean? that all so unanimously the board has to agree to bypass the >> Yes. This would be for a project where there's been no no opposition from the board member >> would still come before us and we would have to all agree to we can we can move on. >> Right. So it's basically the applicant agrees to all the conditions of staff.
The board members agree with staff conditions and there's no substant substantive public comment and would allow that application to be basically voted on without having a presentation. >> Right. All right. So >> wait, lawyers always deal with vagaries. And you say not substantial public comment. What does that mean?
>> Well, it could be supporting application supporting public comment or if it didn't didn't require um opening up or questions from the board. >> If you didn't get a lot of opposition public, but if you did if there was a lot of >> opposite, we would we wouldn't we wouldn't put it on the consent agenda if we have opposition >> and that would be in the form of emails
by from the public >> or or public testimony at the meeting, >> right? But hold on. >> Yeah. So if there's >> if you're at the meeting, the whole point is to bypass it. So you're saying >> No, this Sorry, Brian. This says there is limited public comment on the proposal after the chairperson of the
applicable lub opens the application and requests public comment. So you would open it up, >> right? So basically if someone were if a member of the public were were at the hearing and wish to speak on the application or if you' received correspondence um you know then that
project would not be eligible that application would not be eligible for consent approval. >> Would this still be classified under residents right to know? because I don't want I feel like that it could impact people who would otherwise not be able
to hear something that may impact them >> their neighborhood or them as a resident or you know I just want to make sure that >> well all the notice requirements still in place right >> that's what I was going to say is that is that the notice requirements would would still apply and if it is a
resident's right to know application then the resident's right to know would apply >> all right so if we had a bunch of people on Zoom we'd have to take the public comment. Okay. It's really no one shows up. No one's here to oppose it. Okay. >> This when this has done been done before, there's been no public comment.
The board members have agreed with all the conditions. The applicant has agreed. This was all done like during the during the meeting. It wasn't something that this was done in advance. It was like the day of the meeting. We had a long agenda. This was this was done like behind the scenes and made made public. >> Was there a number of those cases happened? Did we do I mean that happened?
>> No, it's it's happened like on a less than a handful of cases when we have extreme overloading agenda. But it would come to the meeting and then we could at that point when we decide >> this formalizes the process that we basically make people aware >> it allows us to pass something without hearing their presentation
>> because everything else is >> it's just funny to me because if there's no public people if there's no one here to speak on it we usually just do it anyway >> it's more for so if we have an overloaded agenda and we don't want to delay more >> basically you're eliminating our comment
really if the public's not here to oppose it because if you're here to oppose ose it, then it doesn't qualify. So, >> we're eliminating the presentation by the applicant, >> right? >> Cuz if everyone agrees to staff and nobody's here, they don't have to go through their 10-minute presentation. We could just say, >> "Crect, but we wouldn't do this if it was a short agenda. We would do this if
it's a really long agenda." >> I get it. Okay. I don't see any downside to it. So, all right. Anyone here to speak? Anyone on Zoom? >> There's nobody here to speak on the item. >> Anyone want you want to move it or anyone have any comment? >> I'll move it. >> Okay. Second it. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> I. Anyone oppose? Okay. And last but not least, planning board file 2550772, suspension of exterior color review requirements. >> So, what this ordinance would do is suspend would suspend the color
requirements for for paint permits for a year. Um, right now, so we did provide in our staff report how the process works. Currently, there's a approved um paint colors on the city's website. you can go in with a number as long as you um are proposing a a color that complies
with the pre-approved colors. It's a pretty quick process. Um for non-p preapproved paint colors, there's a process for approval. There's a fee. There's a planning inspection afterward to make sure that the the color that was painted was what was approved. Um
what this ordinance would do is suspend that requirement for a period of year which allow anybody to basically paint whatever color they wanted for that time frame. Um we're not supportive of this ordinance. We believe that it could result in a lot of negative consequences
by somebody painting an outlandish color which would attract a lot of attention other businesses trying to compete as well. Um so we do believe that the the current requirements are um you know protect the character of neighborhoods and we don't believe by that suspending the requirements would be a benefit to
um the city as a whole. So we are recommending the planning board transmit this with a negative recommendation. >> So if you did wanted a special color that was not on you have to go through there's a fee and and and but then it may or may not get approved. Correct. And would you guys say in general do you
guys get a lot of those? >> No. It's very very rare. And when they are requested, do you guys generally are in favor? Like what's the criteria in deciding on these offbeat colors? >> We look at the architecture of the building um the the relationship with the neighborhood. You know, a color for some neighborhood may not be appropriate
for another neighborhood depending on you know what's what's around it. And generally when applications have been made typically to the designer viewport, they have been approved. But it does it does then there's this public hearing process. So if neighbors are concerned about the color, they can come to the board. know the few times that we do
have people who want to be uh you know stepping out of the uh pre-approved colors there's what like a 3 to six months delay into the whole process >> three months typically a paint permit or paint application is not going to be very substantial in terms of the requirements for the DRB or
>> below like $112 or something like that >> well that's for that's for the um the administrative approval if they have to go to a public hearing then it would be several thousand dollar >> yes I mean I I deser anyone in public to speak on >> there's no public comment on supplication online. >> I just think a city like Miami that has,
you know, this is a big important part of the architecture. I think it's a little crazy that we're giving a wild card for everyone to go through a different color. So, I I'm on on your side. >> I have a I I do have a question. These there are pre-approved colors already, >> right? And so what I'm reading is that
um you know commonly used terms neon, fluorescent, daylow, iridescent and similar terms not are not permitted to the exterior. And also I mean if you've got I remember when we were first looking at buying
here there were I think it was the original color palette that uh and you were only allowed to choose from those colors. Is that not still in existence? >> An expanded color chart. >> So if if what what I don't see anything
in here that says that you can that it's saying that you cannot change you cannot have things like you know your house painted you know >> this doesn't affect single family homes. >> Okay. Okay. >> What's the purpose behind it? Is it to
encourage people to maintain their buildings and keep them >> right >> newly painted? >> The purpose would be allow to allow somebody who maybe want to paint their building in a color that we couldn't approve paint it without going through a review process. >> That's great.
>> But but it would also encourage um property owners to repaint and and maintain which was which was I think >> Yeah, that's what I thought. And I mean to that end I would I mean I'm not in favor of this. What I'd like to see is that regardless if it's a pre-approved
color or a non-p preapproved color, um, the city, you know, follows the process where that you have for preapproved colors where there's basically no permit, no fees or I'm sorry, no um
um fees for inspections or or if I read permit fee on there. In other words, we want to encourage someone to paint their building. If it's a pre-approved color, fine. If not, as long as it's not any darker. I mean, that's however you phrase it in here. As long as it's less intense than some the
say here, go ahead and paint it. As >> that requires a review, though. That's that's why it does require the extra level review for us to verify. >> I'm that's fine. I'm still good with that. But, I mean, for the purpose of encouraging people to paint their buildings, it probably there shouldn't be fees for that. It should be a a quick
thing, a quick review. And >> I mean, I might be wrong, but I don't think you need to ask for a permit if you're repainting your building the same color. If you're just doing a you would not have to go through a permit if I'm keeping the same color and I'm just repainting my building. >> If you are doing like stuckle work and repair work, then you wouldn't need to get a permit.
>> You would need a permit even though you're staying with the same color. >> But it's a fast forward process if you're you're a part of the pre-approved. >> It's only if you want to do something that's outlandish, >> right? So, I I think we're pretty much covered on that. >> Permit's fine. It's just I'm I'm trying to make it, you know, no fees. Someone should go in and say, "Here's the color.
The city looks Oh, it's lighter than this pre-approved color. Fine. Here you go. Here's your permit. You're out. Go paint your building." >> That's there there is staff involved. So with with a pre-approved, there's not but you have to there is there is a cost. There's a lot of buildings. So there is a cost. So if the applicant's
not paying it, somebody else is paying it. The residents are paying it. So >> it's But it's not fee. It's nothing. It's hundred some dollars. So, it's not like it's an extensive, you know, expensive use. >> I just I'm just trying to look >> I get it. But if you're repainting your house, putting in an extra $100 for the permit is not going to
>> I'm just trying to make it as easy as possible. >> Well, the process I think the main thing is the time, you know, >> you're right. You're right. If it's a nominal fee, >> it's a nominal fee, but but I think it's >> So, I spoke earlier. So, we do enforce the pallet for single family homes, just not the permit. >> Oh, there you go. >> All right.
>> All right. Any other comment? >> So, want to move it? I'll move it um >> with a negative >> with a Yeah. Um so yeah. So I'm >> on favor recommendation on this one. >> Okay. Can I get a second?
>> I'll second negative recommendation. >> All in favor? >> I. Anyone opposed? >> Okay, that was quick and easy. >> You said you did it. >> Now just prepare next in September.
We're going to be here a long long time. >> So, >> bring the sweaters. >> Yeah, we do have a long agenda for September 9th, which is the next meeting. I I'd like to earn my money. >> Um, >> so if anybody cannot make the September 9th meeting, please let me know because we do anticipate having a very long
agenda. >> Anyone not going to be here? >> As of right now, I have a trial, but you'll settle. >> All right, we're adjourned. Everyone, have a great August.