Another baby. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey. >> [music] [music] >> Jack. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. Please [music] 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. >> All righty. Good morning everyone and
welcome to Cinco de Mayo planning board meeting. >> Um, >> what's that? >> Tacos for lunch. >> Tacos for lunch. Yes. Uh, no. But welcome everybody and um we're going to start with a motion hopefully from one of my board members to approve last
month's minutes. Motion to approve. >> Can I get a second? >> Second it. Okay. All in favor? I. >> Okay. Anyone opposed? All right. Um, and as people can see, we're missing one board member today, but we have a quorum, so we're good. All right. Turn it over to the city attorney.
>> Thank you. Good morning. Today's meeting of the planning board is being conducted in a hybrid format with a quorum of the board physically present in the commission chambers, Miami Beach City Hall, and applicants, staff, and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. Those wishing to
participate via Zoom may dial the toll-free number which is 877-853-5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 861-4342 6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is
861-4342 6327. Any individual wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if using the Zoom app or dial star9 if participating by phone. Before I swear in those who are testifying, I'm going to read into the record the city's
notice regarding lobbyist registration. If you are appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, including as an architect, attorney, or representative of an applicant or an objector, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office before speaking to the board. You do not have to register if
you are speaking only on behalf of yourself. You are testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized testimony or you are appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support for 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 principle on whose behalf they are communicating. These rules apply whether you are appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its
passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. I will now swear on everyone who is physically present in the commission chambers and intends to testify. Virtual speakers will need to be sworn in one by one before addressing the board. So, if you'll be giving testimony, please raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will be giving is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> Thanks so much. All right. The first thing on the agenda are requests for continuences. Uh the first is planning board file 2608381 Ocean Drive concession agreement.
Um thank you Mr. Chair. The city is recommending this be continued to the June 2nd meeting. There are still certain things that need uh commission review and further um refinement by the city attorney's office. >> Okay. Is anybody in chambers here to
speak on this motion for continuence? No. Anyone on Zoom? Okay. So >> to continue to the June second meeting. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? I. >> All opposed. Okay. So moved. Thank you. Next is progress reports. First is
planning board file 2110442 743 Washington Avenue uh due to recent violations. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um this is before you today due to um four recent violations. Um, a little bit of
background. This is the Vendome nightclub on Washington Avenue. Um, the the initial original conditional use uh permit was approved by the board uh in uh 2008. It was modified uh last in
2024. Um the modifications uh included a new uh queuing plan and security plan in 2024. um they remained relatively um
violationfree until um the end um of last year. Um all four violations um strangely enough were issued for the same um reason which is the requirement to notify the city's police department
of any uh promoted event at least 96 hours in advance of that event. So there were um multiple viol violations issued for that. Um, we also contacted the the
city's police department to see if there had been any calls for services since the last progress report and we did um the uh police department did provide a list um of calls for service um which we thought was relevant um to to the
discussion today. Um it does seem like this property is currently taking a good amount of city resources in terms of the code compliance department and our police department and um you know staff is recommending that we discuss this. I'm
not sure a certified cure letter was sent to the property owner or the the operator. Not sure if there's anyone here representing um the business, but I think it's uh important that we have a conversation and perhaps continue this
progress report to either the June or July meeting to see if they can uh come up with a response. As of today, I have not received a response from the operator. >> Those were violations that you referred to without the 96-hour uh notification.
Was that prior to our last uh meeting with them? >> Those those were all since the last question. So these are all for the same reason and they're all within a few days of each other. When you get a when you get a code violation like say number one on July on July 6th. When did they get
that violation? That day. >> Yes. >> So people become aware of it that day. >> Correct. >> So they knew on July 6th they had to do that and then you're telling me a week later they did it again and then a day later they did it again. >> Correct. So the violations don't come weeks later. They were at that time. >> Correct.
>> All right. That's a problem. Okay. And can I in 2025? >> Yes. >> Why are we now looking at this? >> Um it recently was just it came to the planning department's attention um
within the past month. >> When were they back? When were they here? Like we we dealt with them >> a few months ago. It was It wasn't a year. It wasn't a year ago. >> No, it was probably three months ago. >> So, I guess my qu right. So, were these
Did the planning department Did we not know about these the last time we discussed? >> The last time the the planning board heard it from my records was at the end of 2024. >> Oh, >> right. >> September of 2024.
>> In the previous year, >> something recent. No, we we >> No, it was it was much more recent than >> Yeah. What? Regardless, whatever it was, um they've always had representation. So, what what's >> Yes. And I I did contact the the last representative that we had on file and
that that person advised me that they are no longer representing the entity and they did not know if the entity has received >> um new representation or not. >> But the entity had no has notice of this meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, is anybody here to speak on
this item? >> Not represented. Okay. Anybody on Zoom? >> I guess it was 2024. >> There is no one on Zoom. >> What What is a watch order? What is What is a watch order
and an explosive threat? >> Not 100% sure what a watch order is. An explosive threat, I think, is is someone reporting a potential um safety issue with an explosive device. >> Wow. Okay.
>> You remind me how the request to um or notification that this item is on today was sent to them. >> So, the code requires the planning department to send via certified mail that needs a signature to to be received um at a minimum of 14 days prior to the
hearing. I think we um we well exceeded the 14 days. >> You have a signature receipt >> and we have a we got a receipt signature back. Yes. >> All right. Well, it's bizarre that they're not here to discuss it. So, we'll close the public hearing. Um >> just a question for for Debbie. I thought, you know, we we talked about
these type of issues before and I thought as soon as um code compliance issues a viol violation notice for a violation of the CP, they're supposed to notify the planning department. I thought >> that is typically how we have been um
operating where where code now has a list of all of the cups citywide and if there's a specific violation of the cup um they do notify um the planning department I don't think >> way like right after >> I mean within you know within a
reasonable several day time frame um often you know these violations are issued very late at night code compliance has you night shifts and so they're not it's not a real time notification but typically it's within within a week. >> Right. So all right so I have a question. I mean I don't think I've ever
uh since I've been on the planning board had a hearing like this where the party was not represented >> which I find pretty outrageous. Um >> so what do you want I mean what can we do? >> Can't can we make a motion? >> Let's make I'm going to I mean I'll make a motion. >> You're just delaying it. What does that do?
>> No but you could we move they don't need to be here. So >> you could you could you could set you could move to set a modification revocation hearing. You could move to continue the progress report. >> I mean the the um the the business did receive notice.
>> Okay. That's all I needed to verify. >> So and by the way I looked it was it was 2024. It feels like >> yesterday. So I would make a motion. >> Well they were also in the news for a bunch of things which probably made you think it was more recent. >> Uh I would make a motion to uh
set for >> modification, >> revocation. >> Okay, I agree. >> Second. Yeah. [laughter] >> What's the timing? >> That would be the July the July 7th meeting is the earliest we could bring that back with proper notice. >> So, uh Jonathan made the move. Who had a
second? Second. Yes. So, all in favor? >> I anyone opposed? All right. Make sure they get a certified notice again. Okay. U now we're on previously continued applications. Companion items planning board file 25812 and 0813 the
Alton City Center over the comprehensive plan and LDR amendment. Okay. Um thank you Mr. Chair. The planning board last heard this discussion at their April meeting. Uh since that time we have held a public
workshop. That public workshop was extremely well attended. um that happened on April 7th and in the staff analysis we have provided you a a summary of the input that we received from the public during that meeting. Um
just to give a a relatively brief recap on what the specific proposal is. Um the applicant uh which is a privately owned property between uh Lincoln Road and 17th Street from West Avenue to Alton
Road is proposing to um to construct a mixeduse uh project with a substantial amount of residential units. They are requesting an additional uh 1.5 F for a total maximum F of 3.5.
Um they are requesting a density increase. Um the current density is 50 dwelling units per acre and they are requesting a maximum density of 150 units per acre. They are also requesting a height increase from 65 ft to 150 ft.
Um they have included um provisions in their uh in their draft ordinance that would require that all of the new residential units have a restricted covenant that they not be allowed um short-term rentals. Um
staff um has pointed out that this is somewhat similar to another city sponsored ordinance that is currently making its way. That ordinance is the Lincoln Road West ordinance which um goes from it's more comprehensive. It's
a much larger area but it does include this property and it uh goes east to uh Drexal Avenue. So it's the entire Lincoln Road corridor plus uh 17th Street. Where this proposal diverges a
little bit from that is the requested percentage of residential. Um the the city's version is is you know primarily looking at this as a benefit
to enhance significantly enhance our missing middle or uh reasonably affordable rental housing stock. So we have much more um robust requirements in terms of the percentage of uh
residential that's required above the ground floor. Um here the applicant is requesting that they only be permitted or they only be required to introduce 50% of the floor of the gross floor area
um above the ground floor as residential. and and planning staff um would recommend um and does recommend that that that number be increased. Um they are also requesting to provide um
all the required parking. staff believes that this kind of new model in order for it to to increase housing and not increase um our significant traffic congestion, we would like that parking requirement to be substantially reduced
um to a maximum of say 50% of the currently um required parking in as as outlined in in district parking tier one. Um but in general we are supportive
um of the proposal. We do believe that um you know with perhaps some uh some modifications this could successfully increase um our housing stock which is a a substantial priority for the city
right now. And um we are asking at this point for the uh planning board to transmit a favorable recommendation to the mayor and city commission um with uh additional conditions that staff is recommending. But I'm happy to answer
any questions um if you have. But I also see that the applicant is here ready to give their presentation. >> Yeah. But before we start, so Nissan, you and I had a discussion procedurally about whose version of the ordinance do you have? Is this it that we have in our
Hold on. So Nick, um just want to confirm with you that because it's a private application and not sponsored by the city that we can vote on their proposed ordinance. >> You can make you can either recommend the staff version, you can recommend the applicant's version, you could recommend
a different version altogether. >> Okay. >> I'm assuming >> here's our uh one small tweak in response to the concerns of planning staff. we have put in a u maximum unit size. Other than that, the ordinance in
your package is the same as the one you received when we filed. >> Yeah. So, that's I just wanted to make sure that legally uh Nick that because it's a private applicant, we can work off of their proposal if we want to. >> Yeah. If that's the will of the board.
Yes. >> All right. So, so yeah. So, N I know you're going to do a whole presentation, but just um for our edification, just if we if we're going to look at yours, which is fine, just make sure you emphasize and point out the differences between your draft and the city draft since we're just getting it now. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Well, uh Mr. >> Is that what you just said? >> Yeah. No, I mean, you've had our our draft uh and so we've made changes from our initial draft on there to include the unit size cap. But in any event, if
you'd like, we Has this has staff seen their proposal or you just getting in now? >> No, we we reviewed this a day or two ago. >> Okay. All right. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Nissan Casden and Cecilia Torres Toledo Acreman
representing the applicant and here with me as well as the principal of the applicant, David Berg. Uh if we could put the presentation up on the screen to uh just review briefly the main reasons
for this and also uh focus on what might be the uh significant uh discussion points. You've seen this before that although Miami Beach population has decreased, traffic has increased.
There is a direct correlation between the fact that the people who work on the beach can't live on the beach and the people who live on the beach can't work on the beach. Pretty simple. There is a model that is in our own
backyard that is beginning to show how a mixeduse neighborhood can work. That's Sunset Harbor which was like that portion of Alton Road. sort of a tired some somewhat abandoned warehouse district which now has offices,
residential and retail. We discussed before the fact that given traffic conditions and the lack of transit, living is becoming localized. We pointed that out in Coconut Grove, parts of Carl Gables. It's the
three-legged stool. You have to have a place where you can live and work and play. you don't have one of those legs, you can't have a full community. Very significantly, the benefit to the city is fulfillment of the goals and objectives of the
city's comprehensive plan. And I want to take just a moment so that everyone understands this is the underpinning of this legislation, the three policies. policy uh 1.51 to encourage the establishment and continued development and enhancement of
unique neighborhoods. The land development regulations may utilize tools including but not limited to the establishment of new zoning districts, zoning overlay districts like this one, special off street parking requirement
districts, etc. Policy 2.11. Innovative land use development patterns, including mixed usage, shall continue to be permitted and encouraged through the provision of LDR incentives, such as additional floor area when at
least 25% of the total area of a building is residential or hotel as identified in specific future land use categories and or shared parking or mixed uses, commercial, office, residential. And finally, policy 2.14,
mixeduse developments will continue to be encouraged in all areas designated as commercial residential and MXE by creating districts in the land development regulations that are consistent with Florida statute which will permit combined hotel residential and commercial developments.
This is what the city after years of study community consensus has determined they want. So what we are doing here is fulfilling the policy and goals of the city and its comprehensive plans. And as we've laid out the case, it really only
works if you have the mix of uses. And therefore, we have proposed in our legislation that at least 50% of the area be residential. The other can be for instance ground floor will be retail or commercial and limited office. In
this way, you can have all the three components that you need to have a healthy city and a healthy neighborhood in one building. Uh if you look at the Alton Road, the overlay benefits, how they fulfill the city's uh comprehensive
plans, goals, and objectives add substantial residential units within the city's economic and transportation hub. Revitalizes a historically vacant and underutilized stretch of Alton Road. Everyone remembers Epicure. uh adds neighborhoods serving retail and
destination uses. Improves connectivity between Lincoln Road West, West Avenue, and Sunset Harbor. Provides missing middle housing supporting those who work in Miami Beach but cannot currently afford to live in Miami Beach. Expands year-round residency beyond its
traditional seasonal base. Reduces commuter traffic by enabling people to live near where they work. Encourages the use of public transit and micromobility. alleviates local traffic and parking pressure and strengthens the local economy through increased resident base.
This pro this overlay zoning is through is fulfilling the goals and objectives of the city in this way. This is broadly supported uh by many leading businesses and associations in the community. There
was the uh community meeting. I would say it's fair to say that I think at least half the people were very supportive and a number of the comments against it were actually directed towards the specific design of a proposed building on the site. We're not at that stage yet. This is not about
design. This is just about the zoning and the land development regulations in total. The site will come later. Will go before the DRB and we as a conditional use will have to come before the planning board. uh with respect to the the response to
the staff recommendations and I I do want to compliment Debbie and her staff. They've worked well with us and they're they're forward thinking and trying to move this initiative forward. But with respect to the percentage that must be residential. Our proposal is 50%
be for non no more than 50% be for non-transient u uh commercial uses. 50% at least for residential uses versus 75%. David Berg can explain to you how in re in real time in the real world how this would
work. But this really gets us what we want. We want residential. We want office on the beach. We want people to not have to commute. You need both. The minimum unit size. We did not have a minimum unit size rather maximum unit size. We did not have that in our ordinance. Staff has recommended 1,300
square ft. We're proposing 1,700 square ft as a maximum unit size. Uh there will be uh 1 2 3 units and so I think this would accommodate that. That's the one change in the ordinance that we passed
out. Finally, and this is sort of was like a unanimous sentiment that we saw from all public input. Uh staff has recommended that off- streetet parking if provided shall not exceed 50% of the number of off- streetet parking spaces
required under parking tier 1. We're saying that off- streetet parking is not required but can be provided under parking tier one. The the simple fact is and I think all of you know this from your professional business and personal experiences. It will be great if and
when the day comes that we have enough micromobility and transit where people don't use cars. We're not there yet and we probably won't be there for a while. So, we need to have the ability to have an adequate amount of parking for the commercial and residential uses that are
there. Uh, one thing, if I may, there was a a letter of support from Ken Copel uh from So, Be Safe. he could not make it today, but I'd like to take a moment to read it into the record and I think it
encapsulates the whole reason behind what we're doing here today. Dear planning board members, while I would like to have uh be live in person or via Zoom for your meeting, a medical appointment makes it impossible. But I do wish to weigh in on this application.
I speak both on my own behalf and as chair of So be safe, a group of volunteer residents primarily located in the northern portion of Ocean Drive. We support this application because it is a reasonable response to real needs. Specifically, the ratio of full-time
residents to visitors in multiple areas of our city is low by the standards of any domestic or international tourist destination. Overall, the city's residential population is actually lower than a decade ago. Although the effects are felt differently by neighborhood,
the consequences of this imbalance affect multiple areas, including the ability of businesses to attract and maintain valued employees, truly horrendous traffic problems, and challenges to businesses survival, particularly in the offse. The relationship between traffic and
resident population is easily seen. When I travel the Julia Tuttle at 8 a.m., it is bumper-to-bumper westbound and easy to speed going east and the reverse in the afternoon. These are employees at our major employers, Mount Sinai, our hotels, and more who cannot afford to
live in our city. The applicant's plan would help redress this imbalance, which is probably why major employers are supporting it. A number of the entities you saw with letters of endorsement. While I certainly defer to my respected West Avenue neighbors on local issues with which they may have concerns, as
someone who frequently walks the area and in particular Lincoln Road, I'm struck by the volume of vacancies and a frequent sense of emptiness during many parts of the day and evenings that both raise concerns about personal safety and the prospects of these area businesses
to striving to survive. In our city, developer has become an epithet, and it is true that caution is warranted. But without smart development, within reasonable F and height limits, our chances of restoring acceptable levels of street security and local business
success are limited. closer to my home on North Ocean Drive and observing the empty stores and relative prevalence of vape shots and tattoo parlors on Washington Avenue. I would wish for involvement by such as those who stand before you today talking about David
Berg and his company. Certainly plans need challenges, but we need to be careful that demands for the perfect aren't enemies of the good and badly needed. Thank you for your attention. I think that summarizes it. Mr. Berg is here. If you do have anything to add if
you have a minute or two, >> I'm going to add you. >> Okay. No. >> Okay. >> You do or don't want to say something at this point. >> I'm h I'm happy to answer any questions or address any conversation. >> All right. Well, then let's start with public comment. So, anybody in chambers
talk on this? >> Hi, Troy Wright, Washington Avenue Business Improvement District. >> Um, you know, to begin, we've seen what David has done in the past. his amazing work at the Esme Hotel and we believe that he is doing an incredible job and
the asset that he has provided for Washington Avenue can only be duplicated uh where he is now. U residential living is important. Obviously we see the experience that we have in Washington Avenue. Um and I I would say that the only issue that we would have with this
project if any is parking. Um parking is a must. Um, I think Saul Gross put it best in saying that unless you allow sufficient amount of parking, um, you will always have challenges. And so, we support what David Berg is doing. We believe in what he's doing. He and his
team, they're they do a great job. And not just investing in the real estate of it, but also what he does for the community and for his uh, employees. So, um, we will definitely sponsor and support whatever we can do for David and his team. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Good morning everyone. Claudia Jaget on behalf of the Lincoln Road Bid. I echo what Troy just said. Um the Lincoln Road bid is in full support of this project and we think it's going to be great for the revitalization of Lincoln Road. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else in chambers?
Okay. Anybody on Zoom? >> Um our first speaker is Valerie Navaret. Pal, are you there? >> Good morning everyone. >> Were you sworn were you sworn in? Did you participate in that?
>> No, I wasn't I wasn't on this >> legislative item. So So uh so public speakers don't need to be sworn. >> Go ahead. >> Oh, okay. But I swear in anyway. I swear that what is all the truth, nothing but the truth and and and truth to be said. Good morning everyone. Thank you for
doing all that you're doing for the city. I would like to express not only my personal uh opinion but also as a board member of Soie West. I live here on this area and as I mentioned in the previous meeting, we are bleeding for parking. We are bleeding for parking
right now. We are bleeding for parking months ago and once the project the West Avenue phase 2 project's done, we are going to lose about 140 to 150 parking spaces. So please do not take the parking spaces away. I'm begging you.
And that's my, you know, main position. This is a great project. We are all happy with the mix and all that, uh, uh, the residents that will bring here that work, live, and play here. Thank you. >> Thank you, Valerie. >> Our next speaker has a screen name of
WR. >> Okay. Just please introduce yourself and your address, please. Thanks. >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is Wayne Roberts, uh, south of Fifth. Um I I listened to Mr. Berg uh the
gentleman Mr. Berg um uh during his presentation to the community. I don't know it had to be about 10 days ago, two weeks ago. Um I am I am very concerned. Um I don't want to be Bickl. I don't want
to be uh I I live Miami Beach for a reason. It's it's a beach community. It's not an urban uh landscape like this downtown man uh Miami. And this project if you go back four or five years there
was a variance given merging properties and other variances um to create uh at that point a a plan four or five years ago and uh I kind of agreed with it. the height of I think four or five flights
uh versus 15 today uh or 150 ft. Um and it's going to change the landscape of Alton Road. It would be the first example and it's just going to continue. But that building is huge. It's it's
it's a the the width the the the length of that building along Alton Road is is humongous. You're going to create a giant wall. And that's my concern. My concern is that the that there's no way that Miami Beach should approve 150 foot
height along a long stretch. And the the comment about traffic is so ridiculous on its face because there's no way there's going to reduce traffic in Miami Beach. Um you're not going to be able to add uh business people coming from Miami
from from the islands. um and and coming this way and reducing traffic in Miami, you know, the the there's no gain. there's there's only a loss in terms of congestion and it's at a point in a place on on uh on Alton Road that is
highly congested already and it's almost impossible to to to make its way to up Alton Road to 41st Street or down to Fifth Street uh without major delays especially during rush hour which is when the action will happen most often
uh [snorts] with this project. Um, no. I think it should go back to the drawing board, give, you know, give us what we originally agreed to or some modification, slight modification, but this this project is not a gain for the
city of Miami Beach in any way. Thank you very much for your time. >> Okay, our next speaker is Ela Machado. >> Ela, >> hi. Good morning. Good. Yes, good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, from B hospitality group. Uh we are uh
completely uh in support of of the project stated in a letter uh January 22nd. V&E Hospitality Group is a restaurant operator with over 30 years. Our first restaurant on Mexico, which by the way, yes, happy Cinco de Mayo. We
have several restaurants. So tacos for lunch uh will be available at our locations. We operate restaurants actually on Espanola way where uh I cannot echo I echo both Claudia and Troy. Definitely
for a restaurant operator the housing component of this project. It's it's instrumental. It's very it will be uh something very important for us to be able to actually retain one of the issue that we have right now with young professionals. Uh it's the retention.
They don't want to live in Miami D. cannot afford to live in Miami Beach. So this uh project uh definitely adds to the link work and play which in restaurants of course we say eat, work and play. Definitely alleviating that
providing that connectivity and alleviating that micromobility component which is also as well so important for um for to alleviate traffic actually and for for them to be able to work in Miami Beach and live in Miami Beach in a
long-term um um phase. So thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is uh Tim C. Good morning everyone. This is Tim Carr, Shelby West Neighborhood Association, calling on behalf of of this project to
support it. And again, uh with Westab phase 2 renovation currently going on again, as Valerie had mentioned, we're going to lose over 140 uh surface street parking in the area with that renovation. So, we really do need additional parking options and David
Berg has offered that to us, especially at nighttime for residents to be able to park to help meet that need. Secondly, as you can see from the quality of work that he's done on Espanola Way with the Esme Hotel and how he's helped revitalize that area, I know that we can
do the same thing with his talents along the Elton Road corridor there to help spill over to Lincoln Road. And then lastly, again, you can see the quality of what he did at the Viceroy Hotel right around the corner at 17th and Alton as well.
So, we do appreciate uh you all working with them with the parking needs as well in this important development. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tim. >> Our next speaker is Nancy Duke. >> Good morning, everyone. I have to apologize for my voice. I lost it
somewhere along the way. Um, I really am calling in support of this project. I think it's it's a great project. I think David Bird did a great job on it. My only concern is again the parking which others have voiced as well. You know,
this in a lot of ways, this is uh personal for me because when I first came to Miami Beach, I didn't have a car and I needed a place to work. And then when I got a car, you know, I ended up actually moving off the beach. So, you
want people to be able to drive. And those who have a car and those who don't have a car, you need a place for both. But right now, at this point, we still need parking spaces there. In this area, I live at the end of Lincoln Road. We're desperately in need of parking spaces.
So, I support it, but I also would like to uh make sure that you don't reduce parking. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker is Stefan Guinness. >> Hey, good morning. Uh my name is Stefan
Janes, 1409 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach. Um, just want to echo what was said earlier and I just would like to add about to the um, this is kind of like a perfect match for what we're looking for in our closed neighborhood. Um, I'm like
about not even two blocks away from this property. Uh, parking is a huge issue. Um, I'm also excited about the fact that we're adding some residents who are going to be there year round. This is tremendously important for the businesses that are around us. uh we
can't afford for restaurants, bars, and and similar businesses to make it if the residents that we adding are not going to be around for the summertime. So, I strongly support this project and um I'm
looking forward to working with the developer about uh making this happen soon. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Tom Hawkins. Um, >> okay. He put his hand down. So, we'll
move on to uh Daniel Seraldo. >> Here we go. >> Yes. Hi. >> Should [clears throat] I be sworn in? >> No. No. >> Okay. Daniel Seraldo, 7:30 10th Street,
Miami Beach, Florida. I am a resident of the city and just like this item and any F increase, I am formally objecting on the record that this is a violation of the city charter that gives voters the
power, not the planning board, not every bid in the neighborhood or the neighborhood groups, but the voters the power to decide on F increase no matter the merits of this project, it must go to the voters. If not, it will be
challenged. If anyone wants to join me, please reach out to me and putting this on the record. Thank you. >> Thank you, Daniel. [clears throat] >> Our next speaker is Ces. >> I have a question for the city attorney. Is there any merit to that argument? >> No. State law uh preempts us from
enforcing that charter provision. >> Okay. So, we do have the power. >> Yes, you do. >> Next speaker is Cassie Velasco. Sorry, had to prepare myself. So, I own at 1331 Lincoln Road, which is right next door to this pro this project. And
um I think it's going to be a great addition to our little neighborhood. I echo what everybody said. We need full-time residents that will and and we have this these beautiful new restaurants that are going in. some of these mom and pop restaurants that are there walkable to Sunset Harbor that
Whole Foods is going to be opening pretty soon. We do need the parking even though it's very walkable. But from the tourism and hospitality aspect, so many of our hotels and restaurants can't find good management staff because it is so
hard to get here and it's so hard to live here. And this would give them an opportunity to bring in and curate some good management staff. We are the postcard, right, of South Florida. Tourism and hospitality is number one. And yet, we don't have places in that
middle level where these people can live. Those these midlevel professionals can live. So, for those reasons, I support the program. I really do also believe that we need to have that parking. There needs to people need a car. They want to go away for the
weekend. They don't I think it's a very walkable area, but I don't think they should be suffered to have to get rid of their car. So, uh, with that, I just wanted to voice my my support. I live my my condo is right next door. >> Thank you,
>> Okay. And our last speaker is Tom Hawkins. >> My apologies for uh lowering my hand earlier. First of all, I want to thank everybody on the uh committee here for the hard work they do uh for our city. It's much appreciated. Uh I am very much
in favor of this project. Uh this is sensible development uh that brings Miami Beach back. And what do I mean by that? Over the last decade, we've lost thousands of residents uh for a variety of reasons uh but many related to
Airbnbs. Over 5,000 properties are registered here in the city of Miami Beach as Airbnbs. Those are not permanent residents. Some people estimate there's another 5,000 units in the city that are illegal Airbnb. So,
we've lost 10,000 housing units over the last uh several years due to Airbnb. This is the exact kind of project we need to help bring people back that can afford to live in Miami Beach and work and and uh and and and live their lives
here. Lincoln Road. I've lived here for decades, and Lincoln Road is is down on its luck. It's starting to come back, but this would be another important element in returning Lincoln Road to the prominence that it once had. So, I'm in favor of this project. This is sensible
development and uh and is something that that we really need in our neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. Except for Zoom. All right. I'm going to one one last opportunity in chambers. Anybody that walked in want to speak our closes public hearing. Clearly the vast majority is in support of the project and obviously parking is the
primary issue of people that are in support. So with that um Scott start with you if you have any questions of the >> Yeah. Uh as I said last month my my main concern is is just with the with what
could be a wall along Alton Road. Um, and I I'm talked about maybe setting back the um portion above I think I said 30 or 35 ft um uh back uh from Alton Road. Again, you have a really long
facade there and you're talking about um I think you said it's over 300 feet long and and and it could be 75 ft high. Um that's my concern. I don't have an issue with the 50% residential. I don't have
an issue with the amount of parking. Um, you are, you know, you're asking for a maximum unit size of 1,700 square ft. You know, I may question if that's really going to, um, benefit people that are working in the city, but that's what
you want to do. Um my concern is is that you know walking down Alton Road um right up against a wall. So, you know, I intend to vote favorably for this, but
only if that um we recommend that there be I'm going to call it a substantial setback or or a um I I don't know what what other word to use, but above, let's say, 30 feet, 35 ft along road. And I
know we spoke we spoke the other day about height. I 150 ft. That's pretty high. Um I um look I mean I guess staff can ask that's that's comparable to the build the garage building across the
street. Um uh I guess I'm okay with that. Just my concern is you say 150 ft. But how that's measured and then when you add mechanicals on the roof it could be maybe 170 ft above grade. Um I would hope maybe the I'll leave that to to the
DRB to um decide on. But my concern is is that perception of a wall along Alton Road. So that's how I you know that that's my position on this. Um I do want to thank staff uh for
summarizing a lot of the comments that the that in the meetings that was very helpful for us um to have that um you know so in terms of the parking you guys had mentioned uh the ability for
residents to or you know the neighborhood residents to park there overnight when the spaces aren't being used. How how is that going to be guaranteed? You know, we've seen this property change hands a few times, you know, so how is is that in this
ordinance, you know, proposal, or is that just based on your word, which I I take you at your word, but if you sell this property that there's nothing binding, you know, the new owner. >> Well, we we have a couple lease
negotiations that are ongoing and we have language in our leases. It's not in the ordinance. We are receptive to doing so. Um, but that's how we're addressing it. Ultimately, it's uh determined by the, you know, the leases that allow for it. It >> it's also based on, you know, the functions of the building. Since it's a
true mixeduse building, there will be significant there will be times when parking won't be used for one use or the other and therefore available. I would also remind you that being in CD2 that this and the size of anything that would be built there, this will require
conditional use approval as well by the planning board. So, you'll have an ability to delve more deeply and specifically into that when our actual project comes forward. >> Yeah. But I I guess the problem is is that, you know, we're we're granting a the
potential for a future buyer of the whole property, you know, as of right to build, you know, 150 ft high and and there part of everybody's agreement and I in the neighborhood you heard we heard a lot of the comments is is the the
ability to park there because we're losing and something spots. And so I mean I just I want to make sure that that when if that were if the property changes hands, you know, that it's understood that part of the 150 ft as of right, there needs to be access to that
parking, you know, uh to to the neighborhood, not just the lease. I mean, if there's a big corporation that comes in from New York and and you know, takes up all the office space, they don't care about the extra money or
anything, you know, you know, about to get back from those parking spaces. So, they say they just want them wholesale. And so, I just it's a concern of mine. Um, so I guess, you know, for other board members to consider. Um, >> well, I mean, staff, I don't Is that
something that could be incorporated into an ordinance? the requirement that that parking be available to residents. >> I think so. >> I mean it's is so I think >> because they anyone who bought it would
inherently be subject to leases but once those leases are termed they would no longer be in effect. So >> I mean one option um one option is the board you you have before you an overlay that has all these conditions of eligibility
right to be eligible for the additional F. Um we could potentially incorporate a public parking component as a a condition of eligibility but I I think we would want to know if that's something the applicant will agree to
since this is a private application. >> Right. Well, I mean, Niss, you heard all I mean, every comment except for one that I heard was all supportive, but the common theme was parking um for even those in support to make sure that there's parking availability. So, that's what we're trying to work out here.
>> No, understood. But I also to give you context for the comment, remember the alternate recommendation from staff was basically much less parking. And I think that's what people were reacting to and we're saying, let's let us be able to park up to tier one, >> right? But to Jonathan's concern, just
to make sure it goes with the property, is any any thoughts you have about how to incorporate that, >> we're offering as a public benefit and we intend to honor it the overnight ability to park for residents at the Miami Beach parking rate. The question
of number of spaces that isn't determined at this point. So, I can't give you a definitive number, but as a like overriding um concept, we're willing to stand behind what we're promising. No, no, I know. But his concern is if you're no longer the owner, that's
>> No, no, but I'm saying even as a as a as a as a part of the approval recommendation, >> right, >> I'm willing to stand behind that. I just can't give you numbers at this point, but as a concept, we support that. >> Okay. So, I mean that
>> Yeah, I mean, look, I I mean, we're kind of, you know, I think it's a good, you know, concept. I think, you know, I'm supportive. >> You know, if a big, you know, venture capital firm from New York decides to buy the whole building, use as their
employee housing, and use all the office space for themselves, and have their flagship Florida location right on Alton Road, which is a a jewel. Um, and they say, "No, you know, we don't want to do parking for everybody." I mean that that
then we're then the residents are stuck with this big building that they gave they there was a give and a take and they gave the 150 ft and all this massing but >> first off um I just think inherently by
the fact that there's there office and retail users that are not going to be occupied at night there'll be available spaces and I can't imagine any company you know really digging their feet on a lease saying you can't park in my parking spaces at 9:00 p.m. It just doesn't it's not a practical thing.
We're going through this real time with some tenants now and that's not an issue. Um but if it makes you if it if it gives you a little more certainty, we do have I can't remember the exact space. We have a bunch of spaces on the West Avenue lot and they're not in the garage and so you could you could
literally, you know, covenant that or something like that, but you know, that's not even in the garage if that makes you that that helps. Um, and then the other thing was the, you know, so I mean I'm I'm okay. I mean I'm curious if staff, you know, the response
regarding the maximum unit size. Um, you know, I'm okay with 1,700. I mean, I think that does keep the units, you know, the kind of price controls some of the the units. Um and uh you know so but I I guess one question I have is in
terms of the office space. I think we had talked about this previously about the size of the office space and that it wouldn't be just one big family office with five employees taking up the whole space that it you know the idea is to have smaller office spaces to bring in
more employees to bring in more residents who can work there and all that. >> Correct. We're we've designed the bu the office space to have uh we've actually moved to a center core and the current demising program is four spaces or three spaces. So depending on the scale they
can range from like 1,800 ft² to 3,000 or 4,000 ft². Um but the idea is that and I think the demand is this anyway. So it'll it lends itself to this but um we intend to have basically an average 2,000 3,000 foot user. Um, and that I
think will help not drive, you know, one big 8,000, 9,000 or 20,000 foot user that, uh, is bringing a ton of people, but also isn't uh, just a three or four person, you know, family office operation. >> Are So, are you open to adding that like
a maximum square footage for the office space in addition to the >> I think that if someone wants a full floor, I don't want to limit that that company. >> How much would that be? How much? >> 9,000 square feet. So it's it's uh you know that would be a full floor occupant, but that again you know
there's there's plenty of uh you know Peravita occupies a full floor um that's local uh Wayne's company occupies a full floor in his office building. So I think that there's plenty of good local businesses that have local residents working at them with you know 15 20
people in the office or more that are local that occupy that size square footage. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to think to maximize the impact of this. I mean, again, you know, at at the very least putting a cap on the full floor, you
know, so that we don't you don't have, you know, a family office come in and it ends up being an art collection for that one family. You know what I We've seen it happen in other spaces where, >> you know, supposed to be residential and, you know, office space and one
company buys up the residential and the office space and they get the F benefits of it. So, I'm just just throwing it out there for the planning board, but um I think, you know, obviously that there's a lot of support for the project and um so I'm supportive. I just I think I want
to make sure there's safeguards. I mean, I think, you know, you and I have spoken. I I you know, you got you've done great projects here, but properties change hands and you we heard some of the comments and so I just want to protect the residents and the city in terms of if the property were to change
hands that there are the the railings on on things. >> Uh I'll be brief. Most of my comments are going to be directed towards staff to see what we can and cannot include in a cup. Uh I'm in favor of it. I think very similar
>> you see a piece not today come with the ordinance >> correct but [clears throat] I just want to make sure that's something that we can ultimately bind them to um similar to the the project that you brought with ambassador seas I wish this could be taller to get some additional density to truly solve the issues that we're having
in the city for the missing middle but I think this is at least a step in the right direction so for city staff um the applicant didn't bring up last uh meeting that they would be in favor of I think uh you know promising that this
would not be a for sale product at least as it relates to the residential units. Um how can we include that or make sure that that's something that's there in perpetuity? So that could be a condition um for the
additional height or F that they submit a covenant running with the land requiring this >> that would be done now that would be done once they come back with their specific project. I >> mean it could be part of the ordinance as well >> I think um as you know to to avail
themselves of their their bonuses that they're requesting. It could be part of the ordinance that >> and I assume that that condition along with the short-term rental exclusions along with I believe we spoke about having rates for parking that are
consistent with city rates. You're still okay with all of that? >> Yes. >> Okay, that's it. Well, then we need we would need to add that now. >> Well, I guess we can >> separate motion. Okay, so mark your
notes, Melissa. done. [laughter] >> I think [clears throat] like most of the projects, it's not a perfect project and I I I hear the concerns of the resident. Height's a big one always when we have these developments, but um I I feel like this is addressing a lot of the issues
we have that or some of the big ones that we have for the city. Any any person you speak with who's a resident here or a visitor always talks about Lincoln Road being in a different state than it than than it used to be 15 20 years ago. And so we've been looking for ways of making Lincoln Road vibrant
again for resident for the residents, not just for tourists. And we've approved recently a project uh on the east side, I think in Washington and SE 17th where we have a big residential building coming up. And I think this kind of this kind of has like both ends
covered now on Lincoln Road if we we go along with this project where we have some extra residents and and that is going to be um um certainly boosting you know Lincoln Road and affecting it um in a positive way. We have uh the other big concern is parking and I've from the
start have not been very um supportive of of being too restrictive on the parking for all the reasons we we've talked about before. Um, something to keep in mind as well is as we go through this reszoning of Lincoln Road, uh, where there will be some possibilities
of residential units being built there, those are buildings that cannot have parking lots. So, we will have a whole district of housing that won't have necessarily parking lots built in to these uh, buildings. So, um, I think that might be more applicable and and and and suited for for that. But when we
have this project here on on Elton Road, I think we really need to be open-minded to uh making it a success um um by um by being by by by adjusting the parking spaces that we we we we let them have on
for this project. Um, as far as uh to concern, I had a couple notes here as far as when Jonathan brought Jonathan and Scott have both brought up some of the design issues, setbacks and um um my big thing is when
you guys do the design is that you do have a lot of congestion both on West Avenue and Alton Road in that area. So, I think it's really important that we are thoughtful in the design of how cars enter and leave that the the parking lot because it's a really tricky corner
already just even when we had just epic here and the hardware store. So, I would really like that there'd be a lot of thought in the design process to make sure that that's flowing well, but overall approving for the project. I'm excited to see it happen. Thank you. >> Hi, >> Elizabeth.
>> Hi. Excuse me. Good morning. Um, I'm assuming we're working off of the this document. >> Um, I'm supportive. >> Um, I would like to know a couple of things. Do you have any retailers or commitments now for any of the spaces?
>> We're working with a um, Epicure type of new age replacement. It's a it's a a fresh food/boutique groceryer concept. Um, by grocery I mean you can get packaged meals, hot bar, coffee bar, bakery, almost like a like a mini
version of like a Cinderella, but again similar to Epicure is the best way to describe it. Um, and then we have a few uh wellness fitness and uh like we're trying to really uh embody this blue zone initiative for for the building. So, we're trying to program the second
floor to have a blue zone hub and have fitness and wellness and uh and health oriented concepts that that drive for community a lot of outdoor space uh in our building for that community engagement. So, those are the convers conversations we're having with those tenants and and the answer is yes. We
have ongoing conversations for the ground floor and the second floor uh retail spaces right now. We're not uh yet there on the office because we're still demising the spaces. >> Sure. Um, and of course the residential too early. >> And uh, regarding setbacks, I hear a lot of that. I think the sidewalk is about
10 feet. Um, I'd like to suggest that we set back 20 ft so that we have a little bit more room. I'd also like to remind everybody that um, the city sponsored plans for Lincoln and Washington are at the same height. So, I don't have an
issue with that. I just have an issue if it's going to just be a complete wall. if it's but we haven't seen a plan and that's not what we're voting on. Um and the 150 ft if that could include the mechanicals and have those hidden as well. Um
>> well that uh the mechanicals are allowed to be up to 25 ft over and if that was the case you'd probably have to eliminate two two residential floors. >> Could we how could we make that more >> you can't you won't be able to see it from the street. Remember, they also
>> No, I'm just wanting something to to kind of hide it and make it more >> they they can't occupy the entirety of the uh the the area above the roof. They're a smaller area and it have to be screened. >> Okay. >> You won't see them from the street. >> Okay.
>> I think there's a limit in the code area. >> So, the currently the maximum height is 65 ft and there is no required setback. >> Okay. >> Yep. That's why I'd like to see something incorporated just so just for protection buffer. >> I think 68% of our uh ground floor is
set back 10 ft or more. >> Okay. >> Um currently in our design. >> Okay. I'm supportive. I think it's a great project. I think it's exactly what tie in Sunset Harbor with tie in Lincoln Road. I think it's exactly what the neighborhood needs. Thank you. Is it is
the setback on Alton or is that on other parts >> on Alton? >> On Alton. So the 68% >> 68% of the Alton frontage is set back. >> Got it. >> All right. Anybody other comments or someone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to move it >> Elizabeth >> favorably with the amendments
>> or suggestions rather. >> Just to be clear, hold on. Hold on. Just to be clear, we're operating on the applicants uh version. So go ahead, Elizabeth. Sorry. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to um approve favorably and request that the commission consider our
amendments. >> Will you add in the conditions that we spoke about? >> Yeah. >> Well, do you want us to do that in a separate motion or do you want to >> Yeah, it can be the same motion or a separate motion, but I just would like maybe a a summary of the recommendations. I have from my notes um
a requirement that this be a rental product um and a covenant be submitted um requiring rentals running with the land and uh exploring setbacks um for portions of the property. I don't know if you wanted to be more specific about
that >> front back from Alton. >> I would I would stick with what I said and a substantial setback above >> 35 ft. A set back from Alton Road. Anything above 35 ft has a substantial setback.
>> You know that goes that just means it goes higher, right? >> I'm going to stick with with that. It's similar to what they did on Washington Avenue years ago with the resident with the hotel. >> Okay. But that's that's >> honestly without that I wouldn't be in favor.
>> That's not a recommendation. >> If I may, Mr. I mean the pedestal in through the city is 50 ft or 55 ft. I believe the the the 1212 Lincoln building is uh which is is 60 >> I think 75
>> I think the developers here like 65 ft. Uh and that's not set back. uh and you know I think it's very it's attractive that gives you an idea of how it really would work and then above that you're setting back. So >> are there setbacks required for
Washington and Lincoln or Washington rather that that new I can't remember what we did. We do have required setbacks uh uh for the Washington residential plan um and up to you know we're we're also deferring to the historic preservation board in terms of
they can wave up to a certain amount of that setback just to allow for a little bit of flexibility. Um but we did in include uh setbacks. >> These considerations, if I may, can also be uh dealt with at part of the design review board process.
>> I'm I'm in favor of that. >> And by the way, just procedurally, um we need to do one at a time, correct? >> Like we're starting with the comprehensive plan or we can do them both together. I think um you should yeah you should
you should take one vote on the comp plan amendment and then the next vote on the LDR. >> Right. All right. So Liz's motion is with respect to the comp plan for now in >> including Debbie's comments and then the last comment I had was on the the rates being con I guess consistent with
neighboring city lots. the um the the rental condition, the parking rate condition, uh the setbacks, all of those should be addressed, I think, in the LDR. >> Parking rates >> that would be in the LDR. >> And I just like the record to reflect
that the applicant is voluntarily agreeing to these conditions. Uh >> we need to specify >> we need to word smith it a little bit when we get to the LDR. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. So, that's for the LDR comments. All right. So, let's uh we have a motion to send the the comprehensive plan overlay amendment
favorably. So, we have a second. Uh all in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. So, it's unanimous. All right. Now, Elizabeth, if you can make a motion on the LDR amendment. >> Um I'd like to listen, I mean, I have no issues with
this with your person. Um, I think that's if you can just kind of word smith a little bit also the somehow to to do something with you know what it's all DRB stuff really. So I appreciate it. >> I don't I don't think it's all DRB. I
mean we're right now >> we're going to vote to to increase the F. >> So that's us. We can do the same thing with setbacks. We can do the same thing with green space. We can do any any of the zoning the criteria that that's part
of the the LDR we can do. >> So I don't I I don't feel comfortable leaving setbacks to the DRV. >> Scott, I want to just say one thing >> and that's >> to remind everybody and that and everybody that's listening also they
could do a live local here and that's as high as they want to go with zero anything. So, I'm not going to I'm not going to put too many constraints on something that is a really good project that I think is good for the neighborhood that clearly the neighbors
want and need. Um, so, >> well, you have the right to make your motion. So, make your motion and then we'll vote on it. >> I'll make a motion to uh approve favorably. Excuse me. [clears throat] >> With with >> with just the caveats that they
discussed, the setback. Just want to make sure that's clear. >> And the setbacks and the parking rates are included with whatever's consistent with >> I just want to check Deborah has it all. >> Y >> Okay. >> And we >> and the rental the rental. >> So it doesn't incl You're not including
what I was recommending in that. I just want to be clear. You're not including a a sub a recommendation for a substantial setback above 35 ft along Alton Road. No. >> Is it 35 or 50 feet? I I'm recommending
I'm I'm saying that two the first two floors whatever that >> is. >> Mr. Chair, can we I know don't mean to interrupt go through these specifically because so we understand exactly the language we're dealing with. >> Absolutely.
>> Number one, let me let me deal with the issue of parking and publicly accessible parking >> in our subsection 4 which talks about micromobility. uh we could add a clause at the end
uh that says and shall be accessible for public parking. Now understood, we don't know exactly as we sit here today how many spaces and at what hours, but we can put something in the ordinance which says it shall be accessible for public
parking and that was >> what >> I think one of the things we spoke about last meeting was that the rates were going you weren't going to charge >> whatever is consistent with the city whatever I think he had agreed with whatever is consistent with the city rates. where where we're at right now because
we're still on on zoning is that we have we have spaces on the West Avenue lot that are not structured and are outside and they're basically neighboring the the Miami Beach parking uh spaces. You know, then we have spaces in the garage that are going to be commercial spaces
that won't be used overnight. So what we're speaking about as a public benefit is that for the hours that the commercial spaces are not using the commercial spaces, those spaces may be offered at Miami Beach public Miami Beach parking rates. >> Correct. >> At those times. >> That's correct.
>> That's that's all we can commit to at this point. But >> consistent with my understanding. I just meaning what Nissan mentioned was the availability. So that's part one. And then part two is at the pricing with with city pricing >> shall be accessible for public parking
>> at uh the rates >> mine beach parking rates but there has to be condition on specific timing and >> yeah what we can do is we can um put that it's the underutilized parking that only would be available to commercial
well that's what underutilized underutilized parking shall be accessible for for public parking at Miami Beach rates. >> Right. I thought also one more thing if you if you would entertain. Um I had seen something in the last meeting where
you had put four spaces per office. One per three I think it was one space for for what was it? 300 ft of retail. >> Yeah. >> And then four I'm in one for four seats of of office
>> restaurant. We have a problem in May Beach that we need to somehow um uniformly apply standards. So, we've got all of these tier one, tier two, tier three. Maybe we can at some point, you
know, streamline this a little bit so that we're not having to deal with this every time. But I like like what you're doing. Thank you. >> Anything else, Nissan? >> That's the parking topic. >> That's the parking topic. We talked about rental uh covenant.
>> Yeah, we're okay being a rental product. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, do you want to change any of the language? >> So, the language would be where we say covenant of limiting STRs. We would say also a covenant
uh uh [snorts] requiring that the residential units be rental. >> I think we have language that says no leases less than six. Oh, that's the associate possition. >> Yeah. Okay. >> It's short-term rental. >> But essentially, this would prevent you from converting the units to condos, >> right?
>> And and all of these voluntary profers are are going to be memorialized in that in that section on the what the covenant will require. And then there would be if all of these ordinances are adopted, there would be a separate covenant um recorded against the property. >> Yes.
And that addition I just spoke about would be in subsection two would specify that it would be rental. >> It would be a covenant limiting into rental units. >> Okay. >> I'm happily seconding.
>> Okay. Uh I think you may want to do roll call on this one. >> Okay. And just just to clarify, the motion contains currently a general recommendation about setbacks that there be some type of setback introduced, but not with the specificity of Mr.
Needleman. >> Correct. >> I think it should say above uh 35 ft on Alton Road. >> That's a huge >> I'd be okay with that if it says I incorporate a setback above 35 ft along
Alton Road. So, procedurally, what we can do is is if Miss Leon's motion is seconded, then Scott, you could bring a motion to amend um to to uh to include the 35 ft. >> But then are we voting on if we don't
approve with the amendment that he's putting on? So, >> it would stay >> if the amendment fails, then you would vote on Elizabeth's version. >> Correct. And first is just to consider setbacks without a defined amount. Okay. >> Is there a second? >> We have a second. So, do a roll call, please. Oh >> yes, you'll second it.
>> Well, the question is, is Scott going to move to amend the motion? Because a motion to amend takes precedence. >> I would make is it a motion to amend? >> Yes. >> Then I would make a motion to amend that we clarify the setback requirement to to say that above along Alton Road above 35
ft there is a a setback incorporated. We need to incorporate a setback above 35 ft along Alton Road. >> That would be problematic. >> Before Yeah. Before you vote, I just want to explain what that is. Hold wait. Just hold on. Okay, we have a motion to amend it. Is there a second on his motion?
>> A second. All right. So, that fails. So, now we're going to vote on >> on Elizabeth's motion. We have a second. So, if you can do a roll call. >> Um, Miss [clears throat] Bey, >> yes. >> Mr. Frerieden, >> yes. >> Mr. Natleman, >> no. >> Mr. Cement, >> yes. >> Miss Laton, >> yes. >> And Mr. Elias,
>> yes. >> Okay. Thank you all very much for coming and consideration. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Thanks for the presentation. Okay, we're on to new applications. The first one is planning board file 25801826
Collins Avenue mechanical parking. Thank you, Mr. Chair. An application has been filed requesting conditional use approval for mechanical parking. Uh this is an application for mechanical parking as part of a live local project which is being reviewed administratively by the city. The Live Local Act is state law
that provides incentives for projects that have at least 40% workforce housing. Under the act, the proposed development must be administratively approved. However, the act does notempt conditional use regulations. As a result, the applicant is requesting conditional use approval for the
introduction of car elevators within the project. Um, the car elevators are located at the rear of the building and access 35 parking spaces on floors 2 to 5. Building users will drop off their cars within the enclosed driveway at the ground level and a valet attendant will
drive the car into the elevators and up to a designated parking space. The parking will be serviced 24 hours a day by a valet attendant. Uh the applicant has submitted an operational plan outlining the mechanical parking operations as well as loading and deliveries. Staff has included several
conditions in the draft order to minimize any potential adverse impacts to neighbors regarding these aspects of the project. We are also recommending that the proposed 22 foot wide curb cut along Collins Avenue be reduced to the greatest extent possible. Due to the substantially enclosed
driveway and parking elevators, staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts from the mechanical parking on the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval of the application. >> Morning everybody. Graham Penn [snorts] 200 South Biscane Boulevard on behalf of the property owner. We have two
housekeeping matters. Uh first I heard the voice of Henry Stler calling to me uh reminding me that we needed to correct our disclosure of of interest related to the property. So my lovely assistant Carlos Marovich is going to be handing you a updated
disclosure of interest just to make sure that it's proper in the file. Second, uh I don't know if Russell wants to testify. Russell, you going to want to speak at all today? >> Yeah, he [snorts] needs to be sworn if he's going to testify. I apologize. He was Sure.
Uh, anybody who was not present this morning and intends to testify, would you raise your right hand? >> You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. >> Okay. And is there any disclosures that any of the board members need to make? >> No.
>> No. Not. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. Let me introduce >> I had a mis call from Russell, but I didn't I didn't answer it. >> Same. >> We never take it personally. Uh just want [laughter] to let you every time. Uh also from ownership we have Mark Olade. Uh we also have our architect Bob
Bistry here for questions. Walken Vargas and the aforementioned Carlos Marovich. So um as Jake explained, we're here asking for approval of a valley operated car elevators for redevelopment of this site under the terms of the Florida's live local act. We talked a lot about
missing middle housing already today and this kind of project is designed through the state statute to address that issue. Uh and again this is a very small project a very minor project but it will provide that housing under the terms of the act. As Jake has explained this
application is consistent uh in all respects with your relevant criteria. We have no objections to the conditions except we're going to discuss one the uh we need to clarify related to the FOT jurisdiction over the driveway. So with that prelude, >> sorry, just to stop you there. The only
thing that's within our purview right now is the mechanical parking. >> That's correct. All right. And and I will unfortunately bore you with that uh as we go. >> Just to make it clear. Okay. So here we are. You can see we're on the west side of Collins. Uh it's a 9,500 square foot lot. Uh we are to the south of us is
tower 1800 existing 1800 uh story condominium Dorchester Hotel to our north Pistana Hotel complex to our west James Central to our southwest across the street of course we've got the the triumphant of the Shark Club the Naros and the Shelbourne uh north to south.
This property as I noted before is very small. It's 50 feet wide at its narrowest and historically it was a parking lot for a lot of years. It most recently came before the city um in 2009 for a robotic garage and a restaurant
use. They have an approved cup for that uh 240 seat restaurant plus a robotic car garage. Um so that pro that project which was built contemplated the use of car elevators to serve this robotic structure which unfortunately the
parking system never properly functioned. Um, so this is the existing structure got built. The robotic system never really worked. You can see the the habitable space in the front and then and you this is our southern property line against tower 1800 and then you go
you would go straight in there and you would enter elevator and go up and the entire thing was essentially a robot that took you up never properly function. So as we've already discussed this is a project on the terms of the live local act and what does that mean?
live local act is intended by the state to address the lack of affordable rental housing units in Florida. And we know it uh we already discussed it today. Dade County is a poster child for unaffordability for rental units. We have the highest percentage of cost
burden renters in the entire state 59% and of course the city is certainly no better than that. What what Live Look does for property owners, it allows you to have increased density on your site. allows you to increase floor area and increased height in exchange for 40% of
your units on your property to be rental affordable units. Uh and and in the city that is mostly mean workforce units which is 100 up to 120% of AMI. They have to be rental units to to work under the terms of the statute. And most importantly for the scope of your
review, the site plan review, the design approval, the building itself is an administrative approval. So right now we have a pending application from the planning department for this project. So the building itself is outside of the purview of any design board and this
board. This is the proposed development. Uh 15 stories, 29 units. 12 of those units are workforce housing units and we also have a little bit of office space. That's the proposal. So, as I've already belabored, this board generally doesn't have design
authority, but especially in a live local context. Design setbacks, size, density, not on the table. And and you're limited to the operation of the car elevators. The reason I'm blabbering this is that I'm sure you have received a lot of emails from our neighbors to
our south uh suggesting that I set the building back 10 ft. Number one, that won't function. uh where that were too narrow and number two that is outside the purview of this board to uh to opine upon at all in this process. So let's talk about the elevators briefly. This
is our ground floor. As you can as Jake explained, it's a very simple building. You you enter off of Collins. You're immediately inside the structure. Then the cars would pull in to the I can kind of show you pull in around here. Valet would take the vehicle. person would go
in the lobby, go up to their unit or the [clears throat] office. Valet operator brings it to one of two elevators in the rear. They're fully enclosed within the structure. Those elevators go up. Second floor, we are we start our parking. You can see the we have the bicycle parking
here. A lot of bicycles, scooters, and then you [snorts] have tandem and standard spaces. Third floor, you start the the workforce housing, which are the yellow units there. And then again, another parking level that's very similar. That's third through fifth. I apologize. So, third, fourth, fifth are
all the same layout. This is how the building kind of breaks down from a cross-section point of view. You can see again the ground floor entry to the elevator. Elevators 1 2 3 4 and then the three levels of workforce housing units. Again, fully enclosed elevators uh and
deep inside the building from well from Collins. Characteristics of the elevators and this is laid out in our operational plan as well. They can they can all they can both handle 8,000 pounds which is far heavier than a Suburban or or one of those large type of vehicles
74 feet per minute and there will be 24/7 valley operated which is required by the code. Uh and that is again uh we believe there will be no operational issue with it in our operational plan. We have a details of how the maintenance etc work. So standards in my last four
minutes uh as staff notes in the in their recommendation the live local act pre prohibits the city from restricting the heighted floor area of qualifying development. That means there are a couple of criteria in your code that talk generally about the scale of the
building that uses mechanical robotic parking uh or lifts. that's not relevant to this kind of application because state law pre prohibits the city from reviewing them in this context. So what does apply first? Are the is the is the
are the is the mechanism is the elevators fully enclosed? The answer is of course yes. It's deep inside a building surrounded by solid walls. Is there going is there a covenant that requires valet operation 24/7? We will be providing that prior to building
permit. Is has there been a traffic study provided that's been uh analyzes the operation of the project? Yes, we both have a traffic study prepared by Mr. for Vargas that was reviewed by transportation and we've provided a detailed operational plan that's in your packages about the the operation and the
maintenance etc. Speaking of operations plan uh do we have an operations plan regarding maintenance noise etc. Yes, that's in your set as well and and staff has found it consistent. The two the other criteria about will this will will this have a adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Again, the the use of these elevators are going to be fully enclosed, quiet. You're no one's going to see a vehicle on this property once it exits Collins Avenue. Will there be a negative cumulative imbank? We believe no. Right.
This is again a very minor small project. Just to give you kind of an insight, as the traffic study indicates, the the maximum number of trips generated by this uh by this building in the in the PM peak is 19. That's less
than one car per three minutes. 16 cars in the AM peak. So again, it's a very minor uh traffic impact coming in and out of the [snorts] structure. So I promised this at the beginning. We do have our proposed modified condition. 2G
as Mr. Sebrling uh read to you uh suggests that we narrow the width of the curb cut on Collins Avenue. The issue we have with that is that we don't have the city doesn't have ultimate authority about how that curb cut has to be designed. That's FDOT.
We designed this curb cut based on FDOT's uh our preapp with them etc. So I don't know if they're going to agree to anything uh but we're willing to try but we're going to make we have to make that subject to their approval because that is their bailey wick. It's not the
city's decision. Uh it's it's FDOT. So we would ask for any motion in support of the application to include that modified condition so we can just claim that up. So in summary, this is a very low impact
uh use of this building completely. These [snorts] elevators are going to be fully enclosed and have no negative impacts on our surrounding neighborhood. this project which again I know you're not reviewing the overall project but it will be part of the solution for
providing the missing middle housing in the city uh and we're excited to be bringing this as well as other live local developments to the city because we think it really will help um help fill that gap as we go forward. So our whole team is here um we would ask for
your approval subject to staff's conditions as modified uh and I'd like to reserve time for rebuttal. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Anybody in chambers to speak on this? >> No. Oh, >> good. Good afternoon. Tom Marini,
property manager, Tower 1800. Uh, I was sworn in already. Our attorney has been in communication with their attorneys. Um, the property is already approved for mechanical garage, robotic garage, which we worked
with the developer years ago to build. I've stood in front of the planning board to close the so-called restaurant uh that turned into a nightclub when the parking garage didn't work and luckily there were conditional use things that
were able to stop that club. We have not come to any agreement. We share the south wall currently which is on the property line and uh I would ask for a continuence of this mechanical use
elevator until tower 1800s its attorney and board have come to some type of agreement with the developer. >> What are some of the concerns that you >> agree? Currently we have cars parked within 6 in of the property. Um, as he
stated, your board does not have permission to deal with the setbacks, the heights, the requirements, but you do have the right to give us a continuence to continue negotiations with them and specific use mechanical
elevator or mechanical parking, which the property already currently is allowed mechanical property. um mechanical parking for robotic garage so they can continue and that would be a different meeting I'll need to attend in
reference to setbacks heights and so >> sorry I'm just not clear can you be more specific of what you are asking them that you want to see happen with this with specific to the park >> to protect tower 1800 um I know there's an application in to knock down and
rebuild the wall um once Again, this is a very specific application for a mechanical garage, >> right? I think that would be for another time though, for another >> This is just one step towards
uh the problem that needs to be resolved before anything gets approved on this project. >> Are you currently in negotiations with them? >> Yes. >> And how far along are you in that process? >> Three weeks, but what's been offered or said has
nothing. So, um, once again, I have vehicles, I have owners, there's a lot that needs to be discussed before the anything is approved for this project. >> And is that something that that >> it's up to up to him and and our
attorney at this point to so I would ask for a 30 or 60 day continuance. >> Is that something they >> to give them time to negotiate? So the board could continue the application. Um staff is not not
recommending the continuence. Um there there is a shared sitewall. >> Um that's part of the administrative review in terms of the the overall live local project um that we are you know
that we are looking at. This application is just very narrow >> in accordance with the with the mechanical parking and we do believe there's sufficient information submitted um for the board to take action. >> We're only we're only hearing the parking part. We we're not hearing the
building itself. >> The parking part is part of the snowball effect that's going to happen here on this property. and the tower that shares the wall and the property is asking the planning board
for a 60-day continuance at this point. >> Are there are there going to be any noise issues from this or is it a are you anticipating any noise from the parking? We've with the property next door, we've had problems with noise, the
mechanicals, so forth ever since the old property was put up, >> right? Well, I guess this is going to be a brand new property. I mean, it's going to be a new >> Well, that's the issue that needs to be negotiated. First, we share a wall. Our parking spots and bumpers literally go
up to that wall, and the mechanical approval of the elevator is the first step of the snowball effect. Um, so we we need time to negotiate some protocols before approving anything on this project. >> But I guess we're we're not totally
understanding what sort of protocols are you asking. Is it does it relate to the elevator or does it relate to just that shared wall which we may not have any control over? >> Well, the elevator is part of the project >> to build this property.
>> But you already share a wall, correct? It's the same wall. It's just being reconstructed. It's not a wall. It's actually a whole building that needs to be knocked down. And when they first built it, it was supposed to be four stories, which would match our parking garage. It's up to our
9inth floor residential living units. So once again, I'm asking for some time for our attorneys as well as our board members and owners to have some clarification both on the mechanical elevator that's going to be operating as well as the rest.
>> I guess just for for you all, you know, obviously you can understand putting up this huge building next to them. Do you have any opposition for a little extra time? >> Couldn't help himself. >> I [laughter] couldn't help myself. I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. Actually,
we we we love our neighbors and uh they're very nice people and uh but I'll tell you, we do believe in live local. We do believe in affordability. We're a sixth generation family that many of our family members have moved to Hollywood and Bokeh predominantly
because there's no affordability in Miami Beach. This is not our only project. We have many live local projects that we're very proud of, but this is the only one that comes before you. And it comes before you on one issue and one issue only, and that is the elevators. Now, I will tell you that
what existed in this property before were was a robotic system, highest intelligence, that did not work. We just weren't ready for it then. Things take time. These elevators, they're old school elevators. They work.
There's never any noise from them. They're not on the south side. They're on the north side. They're very functional. They've been on operation for over a hundred years in many cities across America. They do not produce any noise at all. What a developer gets from
Live Local is not only affordability, not only dealing with traffic, but it also deals with speed to permit. Speed to permit is the most important issue in the city of Miami Beach because I can tell you my first condominium here
in Miami Beach was 50 years ago in 1976. I walked into Jack Fiddler's office on a Monday with seven pages to build a six a five-story building, 16 units at 1612 Jefferson Avenue. I got that permit on a
Thursday. In an effort to expedite the process, the city of Miami Beach, in their wisdom, today would require 700 pages and over a year to get a permit. Live local, one of the basic and most important things it gives you is speed
to permit. No delays. Everything professionally managed, professionally run. That is what we get. We don't have to negotiate with the neighbor and pay fees to neighbors. Unfortunately, that has happened over time because of the
amount of process we have created in Miami Beach. Process upon process upon process. We are a quality builder that builds the best across the nation and gateway cities and we do it consistently. We do it respectfully to
our neighbors and we have told our neighbors and we are happy to put it on record that when we build, we build professionally. We will do everything to reduce noise, to reduce wind conditions. We will do everything in our power and we will build a quality
project which is what we want to do here. We will not agree to any extension. There is no basis for any extension. But I will assure you one thing, we will work in good faith with our neighbor always to make it the the most comfortable way possible to build
this building with the least amount of noise humanly possible. as well. >> So, >> and and I just like to last one thing. We're not sure that we have to take down the south wall yet. We are working with our engineers as an alternative to that. And if we can accomplish that, we would
intend to do that to benefit our neighbors as well. So, what would be the next item on this particular property to come before the planning board? Um currently we don't anticipate any additional um requirements to to appear
at any of the boards. Um we have reviewed the live local application uh on multiple occasions. It is we still have some outstanding comments to be satisfied. Um remember we're also working with the city's transportation department as well as the public works
department on the level of service requirements. Um but we don't anticipate any future uh land use board applications or public hearings on the matter. That could change if their plans change. Um certainly if they were going
to request any variances that would require a historic preservation board application, but at this time that has not been presented to us. >> Okay. M Mr. Chair, we do not Russell, hold on. Is there any other is there anybody else in chambers to speak on this? I believe there's some people on.
>> I know. I'll get there. Anybody else in chair? Right. Have a seat, please, for a minute. Anybody on Zoom? Let's Let's continue. >> Yes. Our our first speaker is Brian Powell. >> Okay. >> Brian, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. You have two minutes. >> Great. Um, I am a resident at 1800 Collins and, you know, just hearing about this project, it it gives me pause because, you know, you're building a a huge complex right next door to us and,
you know, it just it baffles me that this board doesn't have any say over setbacks or anything like that. It sounds like the the building part's already been approved and there was no public discourse on on the whole matter of that issue. So,
it would be nice, as I agree with Tom, to have a continuence on this so that we as residents could really understand the whole scope of the project. And when it comes specifically to the elevators, you know, there has to be noise with that. And you're saying that something's going to be operating 24 hours a day. I that's
going to create noise for those elevators going up and down taking cars. So, I don't understand like how that's not going to be an issue. And I think that's something that also should be looked at. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, >> Debbie. Before we call the next person,
are there any disclosures on this item? >> Yeah, I already asked everybody. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Thank you. No, that's okay. >> Our next speaker is Daniel Seraldo. >> Daniel, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. Thank you. Daniel Saldo, resident,
7:30 10th Street. Um, this project is part of live local, but it is very concerning. This is a state law that tries to put a one-sizefits-all on the entire state to encourage affordable housing. But here we see a
great example that one size does not fit all. If you look at the floor plans, what's really happening is not 40% of the building being affordable. It's 40% of the units. And I believe that each each of the 12 units in the 28story
building are um about 400 square ft and they're on the same level as a parking garage. Uh so this is the first example to come before the citizens here at a public meeting. Everybody should be really alarmed about this and also for
the next door neighbors. It is really scary to think with all the shaking that goes on with new construction, those of us who are at Champlne after the collapse can see how this preeemption is really putting our residents in a real
safety risk. So, I'm formally objecting to this project and it also violates F and height in the zone. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is a screen name of Josh. [snorts] Josh, do you swear to
tell the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Josh, >> Josh, if you can unmute yourself or Okay, I I see him put his hand down so I don't Oh, Josh, are you here?
>> Josh, we're having a technical difficulty hearing you. Okay. He hung up. I believe >> that's it. Okay. Close the public hearing. I did want to perhaps give a slight bit
of clarification on the the document that we're discussing with Tower 18's council, 1800's council. Uh we we're working on an agreement for managing the construction process as in
discussing necessary easements or any and that kind of agreement. That's what it's intended to do. We're not discussing well should the project be changed in any substantial way. It really is just the implementation of of the project including as uh as as our
neighboring reminded us the the wall and whether and Russell said whether we're keeping or not. So that's the scope of the the discussions that are going on now. And again, in our opinion, that has nothing to do with whether or not this should have car elevators. We have a road to go with the entitlement process
still. Uh and we're recommitting to continue those discussions with Tower 1800 about the construction process agreement. So with that obviously >> well that's what I'm trying to I was grappling with because I'm not sure you know based on the narrow issue before us
whether that has any relevance to what you're negotiating >> and I don't know what obligation you have to negotiate but I'm assuming you want to be good neighbors and you know negotiate in good faith but um you're 100% correct we are good neighbors and we are talking with our
neighbor about the conditions of the construction and I assure you and I give you my word we will continue to do so. Uh we are relatively close to uh getting administrative approval and the only other thing I'd like to address is uh
Miami Beach when it comes to live local projects is a little bit behind time. I think we've approved one uh that I'm aware of which was all workforce housing. Uh and you look at cities like Miami that uh Eileen Higgins has become mayor of. She's completely reinventing
the process of permits whether they be for live local or any other type of permit. They're using AI. I think the city of Miami Beach needs to figure out how to do that as well. It's not about not giving public input. We want public input. Always want public input. It's
about providing for affordability. It's about dealing with traffic in a serious way. And it's about speed to permit and reinventing our systems. Uh process upon process doesn't work. Uh we need to move forward. We are >> that's a whole another issue,
>> right? It's a whole another issue. But we are really going through all of the criteria. The difference is we're doing it with professionals and in a very professional manner. And this project may be one of the first to actually be built on Miami Beach as a live local
project. Miami has already approved 70. Miami Beach is still dealing with their first. >> Yeah. You know, Russell, the only issue I mean, they're obviously your border neighbor, and we just want to make sure that they're, you know, >> they're happy. And I want >> We want it to be a win-win for everybody, >> for everybody.
>> I I just want to address one last thing. The elevators are in a completely closed building. Completely closed. There will be no noise from those elevators. Everybody should know that I live on First Street. My parking garage on First Street is two elevators as well. No one
has ever complained about those elevators. Even when this building was robotic, nobody ever complained about the robotic function of those elevators. So ju just so I the board understands what's the next like logistically what happens next on this project if
>> so one of the outstanding comments on the live local application that's been reviewed by staff is this component that prior to I mean we have s several other outstanding comments but um one of the major uh conditions is that the
applicant obtain conditional use approval for the elevators once the order has been rendered um and the appeal period of that order passes that condition would be satisfied as part of our administrative review. We will um
you know review all of the other outstanding comments you know work with the applicants to to ensure that those comments have been addressed >> and will you have any engagement with the neighbors? Um what will happen is once the application has been approved
for the live local, we do send out a public notice. That notice will go to all property owners within 375 ft of the site. So that would include um 1,800 >> which would enable them to do what? Um
it would enable them to give us feedback, give us comments, but there would be no um >> public hearing. Um that that would be binding. >> All right. But I'm assuming you would listen to them and >> of course. >> Okay. All right.
>> If I can for a second. >> All right. Last thing then we got to move on. >> I understand. But this project was halted last year at the historic department level and then the live local act came out. If if they could, this would be a luxury condominium
development. The live local act is something that can go over the city's head. This is the one step where the planning board is here to protect the city as well as the neighbors and the neighborhood. And I ask for this continuence >> for more information to get gathered and
to protect >> not only 1800 24518th Street, the hotel behind as well as Lloyd and the Doorchester. um some more time for clarity and to maybe slow down cuz as Russell said it's
from permit to build the first one in Miami Beach very fast and once you agree to this today or in 60 days we have no rights and no protections in place
>> other than the fact that you have to trust that there'll be neighbors and the city the city will I worked last time. I rented space. >> I'm just saying it's not that you don't have you may not have legal rights, but but you have the the hopefully the comfort of knowing that they want
>> the confirmation of the south wall whether because once again that's a foundational issue that you're going from a fourstory building to a 15story building >> that's going to be over the current 18story building that's next to it. >> Graham is a um this is just a question.
If there was a continuence, does that delay this whole project or can you move forward with other issues? Russ, just relax. Russell, >> I I know what he's going to say. The answer is of course this would delay it because as Debbie said, >> we cannot get the issuance of the
administrative site plan approval >> until this order is. >> So you can't move forward until this is resolved >> and we have to wait out the entire appeal period. So it's order. >> That's all I needed to know. Okay. I just wanted to make sure because if there was if there was no harm then >> right and you should know that we've
been at it for over a year already on this particular project. >> Okay. All right. We're closing the public hearing. Um Scott questions. >> Um yeah I don't I mean as far as the mechanical parking is concerned I I mean I have faith that this won't you know I
it's a totally inside so I don't think it's going to have any effect. Um, and obviously if it's a, you know, the majority of the units in there are going to be high-end, so I don't think they will put up with the squeaky elevator. Um, but my my question is is for staff.
I'm just curious on on Live Local. Um, Live Local addresses F height. It does it address setbacks as well? [snorts] Does it say that? Uh, in other words, how how does it address that? The reason I bring that up is I'm just curious um
you know because some areas in the city you know we have certain existing setbacks you know to protect maybe the building next door and um if you know if it says you don't have to have a setback then yeah every building could be built right up to the property
line. So I'm just curious on on how it how it addresses setbacks. So the the live local act as amended by the legislature this year um restricts local governments from using
setbacks to reduce the otherwise reduce the height of a building. Um that's how it's worded. So it it's not like the preeemptions as to height and F where it's you know the the preeemption on height is that a live local act project
can be uh at the tallest height within a mile of the property um or that the F is 150% of the maximum F allowed anywhere in the city. The language on setbacks is a little uh vagger but it says that we cannot use setbacks to otherwise reduce
the height I see >> of the building. >> Okay. Um, so on this particular property, if assuming it wasn't a live local project and a developer came in and said, "I'm building a building there to whatever the current zoning is, are
what is that setback uh on the on the side set? What are the side setbacks on that property? >> This is located within the CD2 zoning district, so there are no setback requirements. >> So they're not they're not basically asking for sort of a variance for a
setback. They're they're doing what would normally would normally be. >> Correct. >> And one thing um you know as part of our administrative review even though this doesn't require going to one of the design boards um you know staff is
reviewing all of these applications in accordance with our you know with our design related criteria and we do you know we're preempted in terms of requiring certain things. Um but we do issue recommendations as part of our review that maybe aren't you know that have more of a design component to them
and um you know the the architects uh um Mr. Galbet and his team have been open to a lot of our design type recommendations and we really appreciate that. So I think you know we we're doing as much as we can as a city. Nobody
likes this um preeemption. Um we we you know feel very strongly that the best process includes as much public input as as possible and unfortunately you know that has been severely restricted in
terms of the public's ability um to impact directly a lot of these of these projects. But we will continue to work um on the goal of increasing our our housing stock. Um that is something that's very important and live local is
at least currently we see likely to you know achieve some of the goal of of increasing our our affordable housing stock. >> Um I'm in I'm in favor of a a brief
continuence of this and I would make that motion. I don't, you know, I I think given the property's history of non-compliance with the mechanical uh elevators as well as other problems with the properties, um I think it's, you
know, the the neighbors have fair concerns and want need more time and if we're asking for more input from Miami Beach residents on these things, this is an opportunity for that is just to give a short delay. I mean, I think hearing that this has been going on for a year,
the project, I mean, for a project of this man magnitude, that's, you know, that's not that that, you know, that's record speed. And so, um, I just I don't think it's a, you know, in the interest of being good neighbors. I think we always up here encourage neighbors to
work together and reach agreements. And if there's areas that they can work together, um, that's what we like to encourage. And so I I think if there's a full building of residents next to this development that's going to be majorly
impact impacted u potentially by the uh the garage uh or the the lift, then I think it's it makes sense to continue it, you know, an extra 60 days. I think I'm sure there's other things that can be going on. It sounds
like there's things pending, you know, review by the city that are going to be going on concurrently. And so I don't see a problem, you know, moving it, you know, 60 days and coming back and, you know, hopefully the neighbors can work together a little bit more.
>> What what I would suggest if the board is inclined to continue it since the only thing before you is the request for mechanical parking that you give the applicant specific comments about what you would like them to work on and bring back. Well, first of all, we have to decide if the board's inclined to do that. So,
right, >> Jonathan can make that motion and let's see if it passes. >> There's more comments. >> Motion. >> Well, >> I think some people have comments. >> Well, we can determine if it's going to be moved first, but um is there a second
to Are you making formal motion to continue it? >> Yeah. >> All right. Is there a second on that? Nope. All right. So, that fails. All right. Any more com? Let's go forward with comments. >> Uh, no. No comments. Again, just what's within our purview is just the mechanical garage. Not really sure what
else we can do. I understand generally the larger concerns from from the I guess neighbors, but I think that's mostly going to be tied to the larger building that's going up and that's just not within our purview. So, I don't really know what additional progress is going to happen from any type of continuence. But again, unfortunately,
it's out of our hands. Um, but as it relates just to the mechanical garage in favor, I do appreciate you because you were responsible for I'd say really shutting down a club that definitely had a very negative effect on on the area and you're a great advocate for the uh
for your building and neighbors. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> I echo those comments, Melissa. >> Yeah, same thing. Echo, you know, it's not about the whole project. We have to deal with what is being presented today with us and what we need to approve. So, I I hear your concerns, but I didn't hear a direct concern with this
specific. So, um therefore, I'm inclined to keep it moving. >> I I also second second those comments um from Melissa and everyone else. I I really do feel for you. Um but I can say this, you're getting a a a beautiful
building. It looks to be um and 100 ft smaller than it could be. Um so, I mean, I I understand. I understand. I do. Thank you. I just don't have this the purview for that. >> Okay. Someone want to move it?
>> Motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. You want to do roll call? >> Sure. Uh Mr. Needleman. [clears throat] >> Yes. >> Miss Leone. >> Yes. >> Mr. Frerieden? >> Yes. >> Miss Cement? >> Yes. >> Miss Bey? >> Yes.
>> And Mr. Elias? >> Yes. >> I appreciate that. Sorry, the there it is. Uh, is that with my slightly modified condition to clarify it on the driveway? >> Yes, with the
>> Yes. F and I just one thing, please work with them to to >> Oh, yeah. I'm going to recommit again. >> It's a it's a it's a conundrum for sure. >> We know we're we are going we're going to be we've been neighbors for a long time. We're going to continue to be
neighbors for a long time. So, it's a it's good for us to keep working and we will. >> Thank you. >> Thank you everyone. >> All right, guys. Thank you. Next uh new application is plane board filed 260829691
Michigan Avenue lease agreement. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um this is a a lease agreement for the existing property located at 1691. It's currently an a parking uh garage and office uh
structure. The uh we have provided the extensive background of this property as part of our analysis. Um the initial ground lease of this property goes back to 1998. Um that lease has been uh modified and
transferred uh many times between 1998 and today. Most recently, um, in 2024, the mayor and city commission approved the sale of the lease hold, um, for a total purchase price of 62.5 million to
RK Ravani LLC. Um, the new um, lease holder has gone through the design review board process. they are um in addition to to purchasing the lease, they have committed to make a significant investment um to the
interior and exterior of the property. Um we do believe that that that you know the revived project will be a a significant improvement in terms of um upgrading the existing office facilities. They also um are maintaining
a a ample degree of public parking. Um so we are supportive of this. They are currently requesting an extension um which is primarily why this is before the planning board today. Um that would extend the lease um two additional
20-year terms and that would be the 2132 expiration date. Um this will also require authorization by the mayor and city commission as well as a public referendum. Um, so today we're asking for a recommendation from the planning
board um to transmit to the to the city commission. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know um we do have representatives from our facilities management department um available to to answer any questions as well. Elizabeth
Miro and Frank Garcia um from the department are with us today. >> Good morning. Uh, thanks Debbie and staff. Morning M, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Nicholas Rodriguez, 200 South Bisgame Boulevard here representing RK Rivani LLC. I'm joined by my colleague
Mitch Toian and my partner Michael Larkin as well as Patrick Corey uh from ownership from the Rivani Group. Uh, as Debbie summarized, this is one stop on our way to a referendum uh for this lease extension. And I think we're kind of running the gambit of different types of applications. We had legislative
applications this morning, a zoning item, and now we've got a lease recommendation. So, the full scope of what the planning board does before them today. U, so just getting right into the building. This is 1691 Michigan Avenue. It's located on the south side of 17th Street between Jefferson and Michigan
Avenue. Uh, this was a redevelopment of a surface parking lot in the late 90s. Uh, and then it was a public private partnership with the city. The highlighted provision there shows that a minimum of a 100 spaces are designated for public parking
within this garage. But in addition to those 100 spaces, the lease provides that during non-off hours, the entirety of the garage is open to the extent that the spaces are not being used by subtenants. Uh so essentially we have a 700 space garage. Uh sometimes it's used
by the tenants, sometimes it's used by the public. Uh and there is a minimum of 100 spaces and then a minimum of 50 uh monthly parking passes that we can provide. Uh so just a preview of the building itself on the left side and this is how it will look after the
renovations are completed. You may have seen on your way in today that the building is covered in scaffolding. It's currently under construction as what we call the phase one improvements which is a complete recladding of the facade. This is how it's supposed to look when it's done. Uh it's six levels of retail, office, and general commercial at 2.13
F, just leaving a little bit of F on the table for a potential addition. And then on the right side is an over 700 space parking garage that is currently very underutilized. So I will turn it over to Patrick uh to describe how the phase one changes have
really improved the revenues of the building and have brought record rent payments to the city over the last couple of years. >> Good morning, board. Patrick Corey, chief operating officer for Ravani. Pleasure to be in front of you guys today. Uh, as Nicholas mentioned, just kind of want to go into a little bit of
what we've been able to accomplish since we purchased it two years ago. Uh, since we purchased, actually when we purchased the building, as you'll note above, about 76% of the tenants in place were rolling within the next 5 years. One of the biggest tenants of the building was Wix, publicly traded company, formerly had their name on the building. They had
gone dark on over 25,000 square feet. So, we bought this as a depreciating asset, knowing that we had the opportunity to really reposition it. Over the last two years, we've invested $50 million of our own money. That includes the facade that Nicholas just mentioned. It includes renovation of the
lobby, the valet, adding thirdf flooror amenities to the space and all corridors. Um, within some of the tenants that we signed um you know, we we brought in Maple Lane Capital uh from Chicago, their first Miami outpost. Divi Sedarero Capital also moved their
headquarters from Coconut Grove to Miami Beach as the principal had recently bought a home here. Dr. Agasson, longtime um resident and tenant of Miami Beach, signed a 7-year extension. We signed two supplementary medical offices that are moving their headquarters to
Miami Beach. One is a stem cell transplant. The other is a longevity doctor. We signed Monarch Athletic Club, first location from Beverly Hills, California to Miami. Hwood is going to be running our speak easy. Um we Damon John from Shark Tank is moving his headquarters here. So we've got a
tremendous amount of traction of folks who want to be in Miami Beach. Our office alone has our headquarters in there. We built about 500, excuse me, 5,000 square feet. 25% of our employees are now Miami residents who walk here. So we really feel that this is an overall uh great project for Miami Beach
and for the residences. uh some of the the phase one improvement um items that we've brought to you all before. Uh DRB had a modification to the facade. DRB also had uh addition of the valet and then of course for the speak easy went to BOA. So a number of these projects as
I mentioned are in uh construction right now. All of them expected to be completed within the next 60 to 90 days. >> I want to make sure I have the right building. Was there a Mr. Owen pizza there at one point? No, that's across. That's 1680 directly in front of us just west. Yes.
>> Um, so what we're here to discuss is the parking garage. So we have this as as Nick noted 712 parking space garage that over the last 2 years that we've operated plus the prior 3 years of uh reporting have noted that this is incredibly underutilized. We're only
getting about 5% average of transient occupancy. That's really a result of on both the west and east side there is covered floor public parking that makes it easier for folks who are coming in and out of Lincoln Road. They can park on the ground level. They can park on street level. We really aren't getting
much traction here. So we we currently have as as noted on there 630 parking spaces available to the public but again only 5% of them is being used with the demand that we are seeing from the office space on the true office side component. we see an opportunity to
continue to bring these caliber of companies to Miami Beach to betterment the overall so the floor area on top of the parking garage which was the area that Nicholas had showed there's approximately 47,000 square ft of floor available area uh maximum height of 100
ft and approximately 387 parking spaces in excess requirement for the existing uses. Our phase two improvement is basically proposing to spend an additional $50 million to add 36,000 square feet of a leasable floor area for
for additional office and then 6,000 square ft of rooftop restaurant and finally three pedel courts uh to continue with our health and wellness that's at the forefront of our of our building. We've got um some before and kind of after. This is the existing
rooftop as we mentioned. Here are the renderings that we've put together. You can see on the east the southeast side of the building is where the office and and restaurant would go and then on the south and west side is where the pedel
courts would be. Turn it back over to Nick. Thank you. Thanks Patrick. So I was reminded in preparation for this meeting that you are the planning board and although there hasn't been a lot of concern about the parking uh you all might be
concerned and want to understand how this building is going to be parked. We're reducing parking while adding square footage. But the reality is that this building has so much surplus parking that even reducing 250 spaces uh from the garage mostly on the rooftop
adding an additional 42,000 ft of area we'd still have enough parking with 37 spaces left over. And this would be and including the 100 minimum parking spaces. This is kind of a worst case scenario. We're estimating about 250 spaces would be impacted. That would be the roof plus whatever else would need
to be impacted on other levels of the building. So that would be a maximum impact per the terms of our proposed lease amendment. And we just wanted to drive home the point that this building has plenty of parking to serve the uses, serve the public. Uh right now it's just an inefficient use of the the square footage of the building. Um, so getting
into the finances, which is really what's driving this, uh, we've done projections. The way the lease works is it's a base rent term plus a percentage of the gross income and every 5 years it escalates. So as purchased, uh, the Rani entity would if they would have just
kept everything the same, the bu the city would have enjoyed about $28 million of income over the current life of the lease before the first extension kicks in. Once Rivani came in and did the phase one improvements, leased up the the building, uh, and the proposed phase two improvements would be about 54
million, nearly doubling the amount of income, uh, that's coming in from this building. So, it's a net increase of about 25 to$26 million over the 30-year period of the lease, and we'll see kind of how we get to those numbers shortly. So, these are the proposed amendments. I know it's a very wordy slide, uh, but
just trying to get through everything so we can be thorough and clear as to what we're requesting. Uh, as Debbie mentioned, it's an extension to 20-year options. Uh, at each option period in the lease, uh, there is a readjustment of the rent that's based on appraisal of
the land value. We're asking to place a cap on how much that rent can increase. Uh, right now, it's basically just an open-ended question mark as to how far the the city may increase the rent at those option periods, and it's something that makes the the project financially infeasible to finance. Uh then once the
phase 2 improvements would be completed and the tenants have a chance to build out their spaces, the base rent would increase to $500,000. Uh right now the base rent is somewhere around $390,000. So it's a significant increase in base rent. Uh in addition, we would be
bumping the percentage rent from 2.5% to 3% of the building's gross revenues. So that's what how we're really uh increasing the amount of revenue and and funds that are going to the city. the better that we do, the better that the city does, but there is a guaranteed minimum of $500,000 a month that they
would get from this project. Uh the remaining three amendments at the bottom are really all addressing the ability to impact the garage. This the lease was done originally in a manner as to not allow the master tenant to reconfigure the building to reduce parking spaces.
So, we are asking for this amendment to be able to reduce from a a minimum of 700 spaces to a minimum of 425 spaces, maintaining the 100 spaces for the public and the 15 monthly parking passes. Uh, this would still have to go to the design review board. The city manager would still have to sign off on
that application as the owner of the property, but the city manager would have the authority to allow us to apply to the DRB uh to to seek a reduction in parking spaces. Uh, and last but not least, there was a a bit of a scrier's error in the lease that incorrectly identified the height of the building.
The maximum permitted height is 80 feet. We're allowed to go to 100 ft here. So, we just want to clarify that in the new lease. Uh, so there is also a public benefit package going along with this and I will tell you that this is constantly evolving. uh up to last night and this
morning is continuing to change. But the the general thrust of this is it's a million dollars plus an annual recurring benefits allocated in different ways uh that that is being driven uh mostly, you know, by between the administration and the elected officials. So Mr. Ravani's
primary purpose here is to contribute something to Lincoln Road, not just with his building and the additional foot traffic that's going to generate, but also a cash contribution in association with this lease amendment. That's the first item on the list and that is will not change. There will be a substantial
contribution to Lincoln Road. Uh what we really want is some type of children's activation, but we are working with the administration as to how to achieve that in context with the current James Corner plan for Lincoln Road. Um some of the other items have been worked on with the elected officials. So a 17th Street
master plan. Uh something that just came up recently was potentially contributions towards funding uh improvements to buildings that are uh showing their age a little bit in the Palm View neighborhood in the 17th Street corridor. Uh so that's something that we're working with uh the administration and the elected officials
on how to we can route money uh to certain buildings. I think the Cuban Hebrew Synagogue is right across the street from our building. They need some funds uh to help maintain and improve their building. Uh then there's uh contributions to the sister cities program. We're trying to tailor these to Lincoln Road. So the potentially would
be a sister cities event on Lincoln Road. There's a contribution to senior programs and then a contribution for Lincoln Road businesses to satisfy blue zone criteria. As we all know, the city is really invested in wellness initiatives. Uh a big public benefit in
addition to the monetary contributions is that we'll be offering the city's parking department passes within the garage for free. And then the city's going to sell those passes at a discounted rate to low-income employees. So the the parking director, Will McDonald, asked us for 110 passes and we
are giving those to him for free and he's going to allocate that program so that employees in South Beach and Lincoln Road can park in this garage. Um and with that, I believe one last slide, Mr. Chair, is just the impact to Lincoln Road, the additional foot traffic that this bu this building, this office
building generates. Uh we've done an entire economic analysis. Uh but this one is really what this project is about is about improving and giving life to Lincoln Road. Not just in the evenings when the restaurants and people are off work, but during the day when people are coming uh to activate this building. So
thank you very much and we're asking for your favorable recommendation today. >> Okay. Anybody in chambers to speak on this? Anybody on Zoom? >> Any disclosures? >> All right. We'll close the public hearing. Any questions from the board? Someone want to move it?
>> I have a couple of questions. >> Okay. >> Um, hi, good afternoon or morning or whatever it is right now. >> Um, I'd like to know about the restaurant. Is it open to the public? >> Yes. Okay. >> I mean, it's not there's not a restaurant, but I guess the unit
>> would it be open to the public? >> Uh, yes. >> And the rooftop also, are are those public amenities as well? >> Hi. >> Hi. How are you? Uh just ultimately honestly depends on you number one we can't really get into any kind of lease
negotiations with anybody until we have this approved but our theory is that it would be some kind of a you know think of a members club or it could be an office space similar to at at 18 sunset how AP has the has the rooftop and they can utilize the pool. So there's a
number of variations that we can do but the office building the restaurant would certainly be open to the public or highest biders. So it just kind of depends on how it goes. >> Okay. And um um in regards to the public benefits, um I actually feel like maybe
we could recommend that those public benefits act some of them actually benefit the public. Um, some look to be a little um I just feel like they should actually all benefit the public. And I don't know
if that's a recommendation that we could make, but um >> what do you mean what what are the benefits that you >> I'm I'm actually referring to >> these were the commissioners that made these requests. >> That's correct. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Anything else? >> Nope. >> Someone want to move it? >> I'll move it. I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? All right.
>> Thank you so much. >> Thank you all very much. >> Looks like a nice project. Thank you. >> All right. Going on to comprehensive plan and code amendments. First is planning board file 260824 GU zoning district LDR amendment.
>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um this is a a very limited uh land development regulations amendment specific to the GU district which is a government use district. These are areas um that are owned by either the city or another government
entity. Um, [snorts] in particular, what this amendment would do is that for again for government-owned properties specific to the performance standard districts, the performance standard districts are the only zoning districts in the city. They're all located south
of Sixth Street that include both a minimum required front setback as well as a maximum required front setback. So they're basically mandating a very strict build two line um for properties.
Um, one thing that I I've had experience with throughout um, my my history here is that this is something for private properties even um, you going through historic preservation board review. The the board has consistently over the
years actually um, approved variances for that maximum setback just to allow for additional flexibility in terms of urban design and design. Um, in particular with this instance, however, um, when we started looking at the GU
districts south of Sixth Street, it became very clear that this inflexible nature of a very strict build to line would actually prohibit things like, you know, small bathroom structures being built in a park. Uh, Smith and Winsky
couldn't, you know, their buildings do not comply with this regulation. um the existing uh you know properties um at um Hunt one Ocean Drive would not comply with this. Um you know for for it
to comply we would basically have to eliminate all of the public parking spaces and other public amenities that we want um you know within that that front yard area. So with that, um, we are recommending that the, uh, planning
board transmit this amendment with a favorable recommendation to the mayor and city commission to allow that that level of flexibility with, um, public properties and introducing uh, you know, much needed public amenities within the within the district.
And I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you so much Debbie. Uh I don't think I can improve upon that very much so I'm just going to go very quickly. Good morning everyone. My name is Paul Savage with
law offices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I'm here u representing uh Boucher Brothers Pier Park LLC which is the uh concessionire the uh concession air that's going to be redeveloping and operating the formerly
Nikki Beach site. Uh I'm joined today uh with by Benjamin Cherry of my firm, Michael Larkin, and also Aaron Tandy, who serves as the general counsel for the Boucher Brothers entities. Um as Debbie says, this is really a code
cleanup uh that is here to really uh clean the underbrush of an unintended consequence and actually allow for some flexibility. I think a couple things to just point out quickly is that this is the city's application to clean up the
code. Um, and also this will only apply to GU properties which by definition are owned by the city. And for example, in our applications, the city is an applicant or a co-licant and actually signs the application. So, um, in terms
of a regulatory body, there's no one that's going to take any sort of advantage here. This is only going to, uh, be in on properties over which the city has a tremendous amount of control. Um, so, if I could just pull up the, uh,
the, um, the PowerPoint presentation and I'm just going to quickly provide some visuals that will be bolted on, if you will, or illustrate some of the things that Debbie was explaining to us. Uh this is the property here that as you all well know on one ocean drive the uh
decades uh long location of the Nikki beach um facility and this is the GU um zoning district here which uh will be relevant to this particular code amendment. Um, as uh Debbie was explaining, uh,
this is a a an interesting part of our code whereby the GU does not have its own development regulations, but rather borrows from the adjacent zoning district. And then you do an average of those two zoning districts, which uh,
makes for an interesting application on on behalf of uh, applicant attorneys and also staff as we work through to average them. And um here we have the RPS4 residential high density and the CPS1 commercial performance standard. And we
have a chart here coming up uh showing we put our noodle on this. We just we saw that one is a 5T minimum and maximum again minimum and maximum means a build to line that you shall build to that. Um most all other setbacks we work on as uh
zoning council is a minimum. You know, if you want to set your house back a little more and give your neighbors some more room and some more, you know, insulation in that regard, that's great. That's your business. But this is actually a minimum and maximum really
imposing a build to line. So, we put the 5T from one zoning district, the zero from the other, and come down at 2 and 1/2 ft as the applicable average. And on this site, um, it makes really no sense. Um this is an unintended consequence uh
where we would actually you know destroy a public parking facility that's required in the front and the unusual configuration of this site has the um public sidewalk actually interior to the
lot line. So a compliance here would actually invade the existing sidewalk and do violence to many other policies about a broad thorough affair going to the beach etc. So no one involved in this wants this. Uh again it's just an
unintended consequence. Our office did do the research and we found out that the is was really aimed at um private condominiums to bring first floor amenities up to uh the uh the uh the pedestrian experience etc. and avoid a
condo that's got for example a guard shack with only a car can get in. That would be that would be under undermine our our urban fabric. So it was never really intended to apply to these GU properties which are special and are
different and we need a lot of flexibility. This is the text um there and the the last underlined part is really the relevant one where it says there shall be no maximum setback. So we're just imposing a standard minimum setback and it won't be this build
two-line business. Um this is the application on our site. We've got a large setback in the front mandated by the 72 parking spaces that we have to maintain and then uh smaller setbacks on the north and south to allow for the uh not to interfere with the existing
sidewalks. Um again, here's our parking area. Uh if we can just keep clicking through here, this illustrates how we would come into the uh sidewalk. No one wants that. Um and uh this is the uh the
condition in the real world now. Um and and and it shows uh what what would happen to the sidewalk. Now lastly, um this is a citywide code amendment uh applicable to all GU properties. We collected some other ones. I think Debbie identified some of these in her
presentation. And again, uh, there's no, if the city were [snorts] to ever redevelop these city-owned properties, we would not want to, uh, constrain them to some sort of a, you know, 2 and 1/2t or other, uh, really intense build to
line. Um, so, uh, with that, we really, um, are asking for your, uh, favorable support. This was um unanimously referred initially by the city commissioners. Um and uh we would just like your favorable support to go ahead
and clean up the code and take it to the commission. >> Thank you. Anybody in chambers speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? Okay. Questions from the board? No, >> I do.
Um, >> so even though this is presented as a minor setback clarification, um, it allows government-owned properties to ignore the same urban design standards required of private properties. Um, particularly in performance standard
areas where buildings must maintain a consistent street edge. This weakens pedestrianoriented design and alters neighborhood character. Um, so together with all of these, it allows one one of
these ordinances um expands allowable uses citywide and the other one um loosens how those uses are built. This isn't this is just a shift in how public land can be developed citywide, including parks, beachfront land, all of
it. It sets a very broad precedent and without fully addressing impacts to public use, open space or existing protections. I'd like to hear from the board on those comments if you have anything. No.
>> What were your concerns with this? >> That it allows development of every single parkland. All of them. All of our parking lots, all of our parks, all over the entire this to a small zone or >> No, no, it's citywide. >> So, no. So, so I just I'm sorry. I just
have to respond. The um the the text amendment does not do that. Um what the text amendment does, if anything, is correct a little bit of a glitch in um in the regulations which impose a maximum setback. It's this is not about minimum. It's about maximum setback
thereby limiting thereby limiting development from providing on GU property, right? >> Thereby limiting development on GU property from providing larger setbacks. >> You can't build on citywide parks right now, but this would allow it.
>> No, that's not that's not what this does. >> This is this says this says it's modify. Okay. >> So the so the text amendment addresses the the the maximum setback requirement, which is I I mean I think Debbie can
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's a little bit of a glitch. Normally the code sets minimum setbacks for development but a larger setback could be provided right. Um and then the second part of this is the the change to the future uh land use map designation.
>> This is this applies to all GU properties including parks and beachfront land. So, so just to clarify, the only GU properties located within the city of Miami Beach that currently
have a maximum setback are the GU properties located south of Sixth Street. So, none of the other currently none of the other GU properties have that. the the the other GU properties are going to to include a minimum
required setback, but maximum is is unique to the performance standard districts which are only south of Sixth Street. Um I think the challenging aspect of this and when we look at when we look at those specific properties
south of of Sixth Street that are GU um is that the vast majority of them do not comply currently. Um, South Point Park, for example, if if we wanted to put a bathroom in South Point Park, we would have to put it five feet from the property line, it wouldn't be allowed to be set into the park and and hidden or
in a in a proper location where it would benefit the public the most. >> Why do we want things set closer into the park? Why wouldn't we want it set closer to the street? I'm trying to understand all of this >> and and I think there there may be instances especially giving these large
public facilities where we want public parking lots or where we want because of of park programming in terms of um you know active and passive required uses or desired uses by the community. There may
be um a desire to you know locate the park pavilion not fronting on the street. we want to locate it where it's going to have the most public use and the most public benefit. Um so I think just allowing for that flexibility
um it wouldn't preclude um you know us someone um proposing to be at that built setback line um but it also wouldn't mandate it which would alleviate the need for a variance. currently the
design review board or his historic preservation board could grant a variance um from this and they they often do um at least in my experience with the historic preservation board. So this would you know in in my opinion and in my experience this would just create
a more um flexible set of regulations for our you know public amenities but any project here and I think this is very important still requires going through design review board. So the the concerns you brought up about the urban,
you know, design and pedestrian compatibility and and why that built tool line was put in place. It was put in place as an urban design mechanism. Um and those all of those aspects of the project are still going to be reviewed
by the city's design review board because that is part of their review criteria. It just eliminates the the technical setback uh requirement. >> So if somebody wanted to build something in say Northshore Open Space Park, they
could do it. >> No, >> this this current regulation does not affect that whatsoever because that those do not have maximum setbacks. >> Didn't you show >> small structures are permitted within city parks?
um they have to be comp consistent with the city's comprehensive plan in terms of the use. But yes, in all of our parks, I think or the vast majority we have bathroom structures. Um South Point Park also has a concession structure. Um >> but those are normally set back towards
the street so that you protect your dune system and you protect protect the beach and all of those things. Correct. >> I mean, not always. You know, if you look at Flamingo Park, for example, there there's there's dozens of structures >> that's not on the beach. >> So, the this particular property does
have uh requirements in terms of a dune preservation overlay as well as an oceanfront overlay. Um there are required setbacks from the rear of the property and you know we have very sensitive regulations for the eastern most portions of these properties um to you know for resiliency and
sustainability but also there are state requirements um that are very strict in terms of what can be done in in you know once you get close to the ocean because I think that almost this entire property is probably seawword of the coastal construction control act. This is not
just applicable to this property, correct? To to to >> it is not it would be I mean this change and it's specific to the maximum setback would be applicable >> to not mandate that set that 5 foot setback for GU property south of Sixth
Street. But that's the only applicability for this particular ordinance. So it would not be say Allison Park or 53rd Street or any of those. >> It would not change any of the current regulations for those areas >> current right now.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> So >> I have to ask these questions and I also that it's important that the public knows something too. So >> I love it. >> Go ahead. >> All right. So I'll make a move motion to move it uh favorably.
>> Second. Okay. All in favor? Uh, anyone opposed? All [snorts] righty. Unanimous. All right. Next is uh plan board file 2608251 Ocean Drive comprehensive plan future land use map amended assuming the same
representation. Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. [snorts] >> Mr. Chair, if staff can just give a very brief summary. So, this is specific to the One Ocean Drive property and um the
request is to change the uh future land use map to what is currently um recreation open space to um public facilities. So currently um the property
again it has a recreation open space um which allows for only very extremely limited park related and open space related um structures and uses. um this current property has been functioning
for decades um as a as non-conforming to the current um comprehensive plan uh future future land use. So all of this is doing is is reconciling the uses that have been occurring on this site for you
know three decades to what is currently um which would be the public facilities. And let me just read for for the benefit of everyone for public facilities um designation that would expand the allowable uses to government uses to
parking facilities, affordable or workforce housing, various types of commercial uses including businesses and offices, retail sales, service establishments, and eating and drinking establishments. It also includes um marina public private marina
developments. Now, this would also be consistent with the terms that have already been approved by the mayor and city commission for this site. Um, I think uh we don't have the concession agreement before you today. Um, but that is going back to the mayor and city
commission. Will likely come uh before you in the next month or two. Um, and then ultimately will also require voter approval. But currently the direction from the mayor and commission is to have uses that are not only um consistent
with what has been on the property, but also to expand options for more familyfriendly um beach club type uses. So staff has no objection to this. We are recommending that the planning board transmit this with a favorable recommendation to the
mayor and city commission. Again, this is, you know, in in my view, uh just reconciling what the uses have been for decades on the site with um our future land use map. >> Okay. >> Proceeds.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And uh I'm sorry, my training will make me say it again real fast. Paul Savage with offices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Here representing the um concessionire Bush Brothers Pier Park LLC. Uh this is a companion item uh as
Debbie explained to us that goes to the future land use map uh which is currently ROS which is recreation and open space including waterways. It's been that way for decades. Um if we can show the uh PowerPoint presentation.
I'll show you that uh the um there's the site again. Uh here's the future land use map of the city. You can see the ROS where we are there on on uh the Atlantic Ocean. And uh I'll point out that this site at Nikki Beach been there for
decades under ROS with no problem as well as the Smith and Winsky site uh is also ROS. But as Debbie was explaining, uh this application we have a we have an opportunity here to update things that have been going on for 30 years. Um and
this was an opportunity to have a have a more refined and accurate uh comprehensive plan policy future land use map designation for the site. This is the ROS which is the recreation and open space. It does have some uh some of
the uses that we're going to have but um not all the commercial uses. Uh, also there was a um a uh a sort of uh buyer a sort of um warning if you will in the RFP uh document that was published that
whoever is the concessionire which we are may have to amend uh the use on the site under the future land use map. So, uh, just to make, uh, perfectly clear and in an abundance of caution, as Debbie explained, we're going to go
ahead and tighten this up in this round. Uh, so, uh, what we thought and what city staff believes to be a more accurate future land use map designation is the government use permitted uses or public facility. And this has a a a more
um wholesome list, if you will, of the permitted uses, including expressly um retail sales and eating and drinking establishments, which we thought was important to enumerate. [snorts] Um and
lastly, uh we worked well staff actually educated us on this requirement. When you do a uh smallcale future land use map amendment like this, uh there are certain uh consistency standards and level of service standards that have to
be met and uh the city as a whole has to keep so many acres of ROS and the staff evaluated this and we would still you know be have ample ROS across the city and this would not be a violation. So
with that, um, again, to have a, uh, as Debbie says, a more accurate recitation, uh, we go ahead and update this, and we respectfully request that you support the city's application with a favorable favorable recommendation to the city
commission. Thank you. >> Anyone in chambers on this? Anyone on Zoom? Okay. Close the public hearing. >> Motion. >> I have a question. This allows for
residential uses in all of the the GU properties changing to PF. >> Uh, no. Now, this one, um, Elizabeth, I can make perfectly clear, is only this site. >> Okay. >> And, um, as Debbie mentioned,
unlike a more typical applicant, Hi, I'm here. I have a condo or something. We are highly regulated under the concession agreement. So the scope of activity is actually mandated on us by the city's contract. So for example, if
we wanted to do town houses one day because that would be really lucrative or something not allowed um the city manager would would get us in huge trouble. So, we have to have I mean it's down to you shall have these restaurants, you shall have this kids
club, you shall have various things and so we that's all we can have here. >> We're not going to build a pair or anything like that off. >> Uh no, no, I would I would like that personally, but uh but no, we're not allowed to have that. No, >> I'm I'm trying to be transparent for
anybody listening. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Order questions. Yeah. Like you want to go ahead and make the motion? >> Yeah. Motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? All right. Pass
unanimously. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. >> Lunch was delivered. >> Behave. >> I don't know. >> Um, okay. Next is planning board file 26. >> Can we Can we take a recessed?
Just wanted to let you know that. >> Take a break. Take a break. >> Sure. We'll take a 10-minute break. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this [music] meeting is being recorded for public record.
Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. >> Okay, welcome back everybody. [snorts] Thanks for the uh deference for the quick lunch break. We are on to item 10 on the agenda. Planning board file
260827 North Beach Residential Incentives LDR amendment and a companion item. Planning board file 260828 North Beach Residential Incentives comprehensive plan amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This um this
residential incentives uh text amendment and comp plan amendment are part of a broader initiative by the city um in strategic areas throughout uh the city limits to provide for uh incentives
zoning incentives for um permanent non-transient residential uses. Um many of our residential districts uh allow for um either residential and or hotel. Anywhere hotel is allowed is also um
were preempted from restricting short-term rentals. So what we're seeing throughout a lot of these residential districts is while we have a lot of residential units, many of those units are are being used as short-term rentals. Uh, in order to take advantage
of these incentives, a property owner would need to restrict the property through a a covenant um that would not permit uh short-term rentals of these properties that take advantage. So currently um the the um property owner
uh located at 6747 and 6757 Collins Avenue um approached the city and uh is requesting that basically the existing incentives which are in Mid Beach between 47th Street and 63rd Street be
extended northward um from 63rd Street to the 6800 block of Collins Avenue. Um the uh height and the F would be consistent with what has already been approved as an incentive for the mid
beach area. It would include an F of 3.5 and a maximum height of 220 uh ft. That is limited to properties that are a minimum of 40,000 square ft. Um these are not substantial increases
for the RM3. The RM3 currently allows up to a 3.0 F and currently allows for a 200 foot height limit. So the the requested increases are again they're consistent with what we have um included
as incentives just south of these properties. Um and they are not substantially uh increasing what is currently allowed. Um we are supportive. We are recommending that the uh planning board transmit this with a favorable recommendation. However, we do have some
recommendations. Um, primarily we are um recommending that um the reduced setbacks for the subterranean areas of the property not be uh recommended in favor for um staff does
not believe that um you know these subterranean areas that are proposed to be a two feet setback on all sides are um are benefiting um the neighborhood or the city's resiliency. initiatives. Uh
the further east you go, you have very sensitive environmental um conditions and we would not be supportive of reducing any of the currently allowed subterranean setbacks. We also are are not supportive of substantially reducing the allowable
density um as we had previously discussed and as is is part of the um part of the reasoning to provide these incentives is to increase our housing stock by limiting severely the allowable
density. All that's doing is is removing some flexibility to provide not only the ultra luxury units but also more attainable um units which you know may or may not be practical or or financially viable um for oceanfront
properties but we certainly wouldn't want to take away someone's ability to add smaller units that would be more obtainable than than ultra luxury large units. Um, so we would recommend that those two provisions not be um,
favorably recommended. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Um, this is a process, right? Because the F increase, even though it's not a significant F increase, does require this board to have an initial review,
which is what's happening today. after today. Um well, so we are, you know, while we're supportive of the ordinance, we're asking the board today to continue this so that staff can hold a public workshop. Um the public workshop will hopefully
occur um sometime in May and we could bring this back to you at the June meeting. Um if if we are not able to schedule the public workshop in May, this will likely come back to you at the July meeting. But at this point, we're hopeful that we will be able to find a date um and have the public workshop.
After the public workshop, we will transmit any, you know, the comments that we hear back to this board. We will issue um the same recommendation. Then it will be transmitted to the mayor and city commission, which will have first reading. We will schedule an additional public workshop and then we
will schedule a second reading in front of commission. When do you think this if you can't get this since it is May already and can't get a public workshop done in May when in June do you think >> well we were hopeful we can get
something scheduled for May um we work with you know the city's communications department to >> pretty tight coming up with Memorial Day >> and it correct it may not be possible but we're hopeful um then we would bring this back to you in July >> um
and then you know commission would be September October the the second reading of the commission currently for F increases would not be able to occur until October anyways so there's a little bit of flexibility built in um depending on when we're able to schedule
these these public meetings >> okay >> so um good afternoon Mr. Chairman, former staff, Michael Larkin, 200 South Biscane Boulevard, here today representing the owner of a property that is positively impacted by this
legislation. So, we of course are here in support of the legislation. We representing BTL Investments LLC, owners of the property at 6747 Collins Avenue. Uh Diego Colinro and Charlie Porchetto are the principles behind that entity.
Uh longtime fixtures in our city. They have cobbled together a great group of hotels along Fifth Street when no one wanted to go to Fifth Street, but they did and they were successful down there. So, they should earn all sorts of recognition for that effort. I'm also here with my colleagues Nick Rodriguez
and Michelvesian. Uh, can we pull up the presentation? Next slide. So, here are the properties that Diego and Charlie owns. Vacant lot uh platted two lots. Um it is just north of the Doville Assemblies which you all are familiar with and just south of the
Sterling Common Association. Next slide. This is a project that has been approved by the Historic Preservation Board. And this board is a hotel project. 200 feet in height, 160 hotel units, three restaurant venues. Um an intense use, a
good use, but an intense use. And as we went through the process, the Sterling residents could not have been more uh kind and accommodating, but they also expressed concerns about the intensity of the use. So after we obtained our approvals, uh Charlie Diego started
thinking, is there a better way forward, a less intense use that's more in keeping with the city sentiment now to reduce dependence upon hospitality and increase the long-term residential unit supply. Um, so this effort that you are seeing today is a result of that thought
process. Next slide. So as Debbie mentioned to you, this is we're not reinventing the wheel here. In 2024, the city came forward with this residential use incentive legislation not only for Mid Beach, which we used as a model, but also in the West Avenue
corridor and in the uh Ocean Drive uh south of Fifth Neighborhood Corridor. Next slide. Here is the Mid Beach corridor. It's from 47 to 63rd. It allows a 3.5 F uh
height 220 ft and for lots greater than 45,000 ft in size. Next slide. So, we're proposing an extension really and we're relabeling it. The North Beach Residential Use Incentive District is from 63rd Street uh to the northern
boundary of the Sterling condominium parcel. It applies to R3 zoned oceanfront properties greater than 40,000 square feet in size. So just a 5,000 square foot reduction from what the mid beach looks at as the minimum lot size. Next slide.
This is more the particulars of the legislation. Again 3.5 F 220 ft in height. We are looking for a density reduction. We feel the density reduction is important because not only does it reduce traffic, it reduces calls to the
police, calls to the ambulances and reduces the school population on what is an overburdened school system. And then we're looking for setback relief for the subterranean parking levels. We can clarify that we're looking for a setback relief on the interior sideyards, which is the north and south side of the
property at the two feet, but we can observe the regular setbacks along the east next to the dune. And the front setback would be about 10 feet. That's based upon an early site plan I saw, but we don't want two feet all around. That would be too much. Uh, next slide.
So, give you an idea, our lot size is just under 42,000. Current maximum F is 2.25. 25 that gives you just over 90,000 under the incentive F it increases to 3.5 145,000 and change current maximum
height is 200 the incentive maximum height is 220 if this incentive legislation is adopted this will give us an additional 50,000 square ft of floor area for these residential units next slide with regard to the density analysis you
see what's up to 150 units acre now it could be 143 units The incentive maximum density is 75. That will give us 71 units. But in truth, we are really looking to construct no more than about between 30 to 40 residential units is going to be
really high-end luxury product. Next slide. And of course with a reduction in potential density, you have reductions in traffic. Um the traffic the new external trips you see is negative - 42 exiting trips 18 reduction of entering
trips negative. So, it's all in the negative category. You're going have trip reduction in any category you look at from this property. Next slide. This is what it could look like. Note that the boxy pedestal, as nice as it was, uh designed by Archetonica,
it does create uh some hindrance to air and light and it and does not help with view corridors. with a subterranean parking underground. You can see that it really opens up the view corridors not only south toward the Doville, but of course to our residential neighbor to
the north of Sterling. Next slide. This is a height diagram comparison. You see 6747 right there in the middle. The Doval as approved with an overlay that you all participated in is 300 ft and the
Sterling is about 200 feet. Next slide. This is a massing study. Ours is the most white right in the middle. Of course, the Doville is to the south. Sterling to the north. Kenya Ranch a little bit further north. Next slide.
And that's it. Um, as Debbie mentioned to you all, your role here is anformational role to toss ideas, suggestions at us. We'll look at all of them, consider them. This is a long process. This is the first of six hearings that we have to go through. >> Right. See, you're in agreement to
continue for the public outreach. Okay. >> Yeah, we'll do that. And >> the only problem is your clients are kind of bad guys. [laughter] >> They're very tough on me, Brian. Very tough. Um so but you look we we'll come back to you all in May or June depending upon when we get that uh virtual
neighbor workshop together and we'll take consideration any suggestions you all have today and come back to you all with some legislation that probably been tinkered with and provide more clarity particularly when it comes to the subterranean setbacks. [snorts] >> Okay you guys don't want to speak do you
anybody in here want to speak on this item? All right. Anybody on Zoom? >> Neither. Sure. >> You're so articulate and handsome and you know, anybody on Zoom? >> That's that's a disclosure. Brian, [laughter]
>> I will disclose. He's a good friend. >> We have Rick Topchi. That's >> Hi, good afternoon. >> How are you, >> Ricky? Good. Good. Good afternoon. Uh,
this is Rick Topshi. I'm uh president of the board of directors of the Sterling uh just uh north of this uh property and I want to say I'm excited to see this uh finally coming to a sense of direction. Uh generally I personally am in favor of
the development. So I hope uh you know to learn more about it during the public workshop and uh get some more support and momentum behind them. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Rick. Anybody else? That's it. Elizabeth. >> Hi.
[laughter] >> Um, thanks Rick. I know you're listening. Um, so I have a couple of questions. Why is Why did you go all the way to to 63rd Street? >> We, you know, there's always a claim
about spot zoning. >> Yeah. But >> so we figure that if we started down there, it it encompasses nine properties. And of those nine properties, we look at the Casablanca, which I think could take advantage of it, less so the Monte Carlo, the Sherry Frontac, of course. Um, but we felt that
was I wanted to go 63rd all the way up to 72nd. I thought that would even be a more impressive expansion of this residential use incentive legislation to have actually people take advantage of it. Um, staff has said, well, let's be cautious. Let's just let's have a smaller district to start with and
obviously it can be expanded in the future once this starts taking off. >> Okay. Um so I'm I'm obviously I'm supportive of of that seeing that property change from a hotel to nice
condos um especially on the beach. Um, so I'm I'm my main concern really, and I think this applies to all of the people in the neighborhood as the reduction to 2 feet subterranean
uh setback. I don't think that's going to work for anyone. My first thought when I saw it was you just I mean this is 2 feet. >> That's literally two feet. Um, I think that should be a recommendation that we
should go back to the original setbacks. Um, we need to have some pvious areas um and some storm water drainage. Um, it conflicts also with our dune protection and we've got to have that. We don't have any right now. We don't have any
beachfront. We don't have much of anything especially right. Well, you know, it's your property. Um, I think that it's important to note that the staff explicitly found that particularly egregious. >> Um,
I like that you're reducing to fewer units. Um, I like that it's less bulky. Um, but the below grade [snorts] expansion is is it it allows you to public to to
actually develop all the way all the way around. So, I'd be interested to hear how you would make changes to that. Um, but I'd support overall, but I do think our neighbors need to to hear everything
that's going on because I don't think that they know. >> Okay. >> So, but I know that you got a public workshop coming. So, >> yeah. Um, Mr. Sh, can I respond briefly? >> Sure. You know, I I agree that it seems like it's a small on its surface, but to be clear and the legislation that we are
going to clarify is that we can respect a far greater rear setback to the dune overlay. That's very important that that area remain [snorts] pvious. It's the most natural state. The beachwalk is gorgeous and we want to make sure that that maintains its natural state. Uh the front setback I think can be 10 ft. It's
less important next to Collins. um the side door setbacks. I I'm we're going to work on our site plan, but it's just I think if you employ best practices for construction, especially in the in in light of the terrible incident at Champlain, >> that um if you use hill piles, for
instance, the screwing into the ground versus vibration, [clears throat] >> tremendous help. Um, and there's also best practices when you do excavate to make sure the soil maintains its compactness for the adjacent properties. And we're going to look at that a lot, but we um, we'll see if we can expand the sideyard separate.
>> Two feet is just like >> we'll see. Uh, but there's only so much room to maneuver. And there's always a balance. You know, it's far better not to have a boxy pedestal parking garage above ground. So, when you submerge it, it's an incredible cost. So, you want to try to get as many parking space as you
can down there. But I do hear what you're saying and we will look at that and come back. >> Okay. >> Okay, Scott. >> Yeah. Um, and this is a relatively m modest F increase and height increase. Um, but another question, sort of a
general question. You know, when we started F increases, um, they were basically for trying to incentivize workforce attainable housing and the like. Um I go back to the Washington
Avenue ones. There were all sorts of restrictions to try to keep it as that. Um just today we heard the live local which was I mean we're preempted with that but that has a certain um percentage. Um we also heard um the
other project on Alton Road which was an F increase and that was only 50% residential and not you know it's debatable how how affordable those might be. This one is basically just an F increase for luxury housing. And I just
wonder I I mean I don't Is that the direction we're going to go in now with F increases? >> I think that that I don't think that I can live in a 20story building myself and tell someone else they can't have a 20story building. I think that would be >> No, no, I'm I don't look they they could
build up to 200 feet now and whatever the F increase and they can do a hotel, they can do a luxury building. My thinking is an F increase. That's what we're recommending. And you know, if that's the direction we're going to go in, I mean, it's
>> so that makes the beachfront property that makes the units that would be above it even more expensive. And I I just don't I don't see any of that. We've got naturally occurring. Well, to that let me let me I mean I'm just it's I'm just
putting it out there to that speaking to that this the existing ordinance for south of the art Collins Avenue. Are there any requirements restrictions in that ordinance to in other words how does this one compare to that one?
>> So this one um is substantially similar. Uh the the only real difference is the the allowable lot size to take advantage of this which is just a 5,000 square foot difference. And their profered kind
of conditions about a reduction in density and the the reduced subterranean setback. So that's not part of the other one. Um, you know, I think you're right, Scott, and I think there's there's kind of two different things going on here, um, with our, you know, which
practically a crisis, right? A housing crisis. Um, on the beach, I think we're unique because we we not only have an affordability issue, but we have this very even for the the luxury market, we have this very intense
um desire and and we see this happening all the time for these short-term rentals. So even oceanfront properties, what we're seeing because of the preeemptions that the state has handed down to us is that even these oceanfront properties, a
lot of the residential units are being used as short-term rentals. So while we're likely not to get the level of affordability for middle inome individuals on the oceanfront properties, um what this would do is
this would prohibit short-term rental. So, it would create more of a residential neighborhood. This is an RM3 residential district, but because it allows hotels, what we're seeing is a proliferation of some new hotel buildings, which is, you know, the the
previously approved project for this particular site, but also existing properties, you know, where you have people living there and they may be middle income currently, but then their neighbors are all renting their properties as short-term rentals. And it creates a lot of tension and a lot of
kind of undesirable impacts to long-term residents that now have to contend with, you know, all of their neighbors basically renting, you know, nightly. And so this particular set that it's really focusing on the oceanfront
properties is not necessarily going far to address affordability, but it is going further to address the transient nature of some of these neighborhoods. our intent with not restricting the density. So, we're not going to mandate
that they have 150 units per acre, but allowing other people in this area to maybe do higher density because maybe someone will have a a business model that does include more moderately priced high-end waterfront units. I mean, maybe these units would only be facing Collins
and not have views of the water, but I think we should build that flexibility in in case, you know, there's another property owner that has a different business model and isn't going to do 100% ultra luxury. >> And we have three we have 13 buildings that have been thrust upon us in North
Beach that are nothing but STR. And I have absolutely no problem with having some nice luxury buildings where we are cuz we really don't >> I just bring it up because that just seems to be the direction we're going in and look I'm going to recommend in favor
of it um because it's it's basically just an extension of what's what was done a while ago and it's a relatively modest >> increase. We just don't have any nice we need something really nice >> but I just think we need to you know be mindful of that. It just seems like that's the direction we're going.
>> But I want to address Scott's point because it's it's valid. He's talking about the the hollowing out of our residential population. Like we're decreasing in overall resident and affordability is an issue. But I will tell you if it makes you feel any better. Multiple times a week I'm approached by developers looking at
properties on 17th Street, Lincoln Road, Washington Avenue, Alton Road, Fifth Street, wanting some type of upzoning, not for luxury product for just to put in units, you know, residential units to start increasing our population again. So, it is happening. I don't think the
oceanfront is the way for it to happen, >> right? >> But I think there are other corridors that are built to withstand greater capacity. I think it's just going to be interesting to see what the neighborhood has to say and and and what all of the the residents have to say. I mean,
there's in this particular area alone, there's 4,900 and some some changed people. I mean, so I think that's I just look forward to the next level. >> Okay. Any other comments before we move
it? I just wish they would extend the boundaries, but >> um that that's that's I think we need to that needs to be something that we need to address. >> I mean, if we're talking about the North Beach district and let's have this apply to the North Beach district instead of going half and half. But
>> why can't you take it up? Honestly, I mean, you've got two other buildings that are that are right there. I think it's 70 69 something. There's two buildings, Crystal Suites and whatever it is that
are but maybe they could. >> Have you ever got into an argument with Debbie Tacket? You don't want to do that. It is she is very tough. She's [laughter] very very tough. >> What is law come out of the >> You you all as per your recommendation
you can recommend to the commission northern a northern expansion of this district. >> I I I would support that but you know again I'd like to see what the neighborhood has to say too. I mean I I I can't speak for everybody. I'm just one vote, you know. Yeah.
>> But I mean, we're trying to elevate >> by putting it as a recommendation and it I mean, does it open it up to discussion with the public at that point? So, just it just kind of helps into maybe, you know, directing them to open up to possibly expending that. >> Yeah, certainly. And this this particular application does have a
commission sponsor, right? So, you know, we can also approach the sponsor and and see if she's interested in, you know, if the funding board makes that recommendation. >> Um, you know, I think right now we're we're going to recommend move forward with the way it is. Um, but certainly, I
mean, the way this has been um evolving, we have been looking at, you know, other neighborhoods to to do this. So, I think it's not unreasonable to to explore expansion further. I think um I
think I do want to include the recommendation that the setbacks from 2 ft be reverted especially subterranean. Um well that is subterranean that is subterranean but can we recommend
>> well that recommendation will be when we pass on the ordinance so we're not doing that today. >> Right. Right. I'm just saying [clears throat] it's something that we need to talk about. >> Yeah. We'll look at it see what we can do to address your concern. All right. So, so we want to defer this to what? July. >> I think we can we can try for June, June
2nd, which would um and if we if we're not able to hold the public meeting before June, >> so that'll be the motion. It'll be to June contingent on the ability to have a public meeting prior to >> I feel like Miss North Beach should make the motion. >> Go ahead, Elizabeth.
>> I'm I'm just I'm thinking of calendar days and things like that. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to >> it' be moved to June contingent on them having >> contingent on on if not July. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> Second. >> All in favor of that.
>> Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you guys. >> Thank you also amigo. >> All right. >> Um and that was for both 10 and 11. >> And I'd also like to say it's been 40 years since anything has been built on that site. There's been four different projects that have been approved. So
we're ready. [laughter] >> All right. Next is item 12, planning board file 260830, DRB administrative review procedures. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this um this is an expansion of uh staff's
administrative review authority for certain improvements uh on properties that are not located within any local historic district or individual historic site. Um we went through a similar exercise for properties uh within the
historic districts um approximately 2 years ago. Um and and that has already been expanded not to the degree that this is proposing but again those are often more sensitive and at least in terms of architectural quality uh more sensitive uh parts of the city. So what
this particular ordinance would do is it would um expand um staff's authority beyond uh design review board. So it would also clarify certain things um that are basically cleanup. Um if I could just run through
um really try as briefly as possible um the things that staff if this ordinance was adopted would be able to approve administratively. Um it would be it would include ground level additions. Currently staff can review and approve >> can you
>> ground level additions >> but there is a cap on the the height of what we could approve which is 30 ft. This draft would expand that to up to 50 feet in height so that staff could review and approve these additions up to
50 feet in height um even if they are visible from the right of way. Um, additionally, uh, lots that are greater than 10,000 square feet, we would expand the amount of square footage that we could approve from 10,000 ft² up to
30,000 square ft. Um, this is all contingent upon any new addition meeting the required setbacks because that's not changing. Um, and the required F and the height, the maximum height within the underlying zoning district. Um, this
draft would expand our ability to approve rooftop additions uh up to 35 feet in height above the existing roof uh including stairwell and elevator bulkheads that wouldn't exceed 25 ft above the roof.
Um this would also provide a bit more flexibility in terms of railing replacement um portico shares the um slight modifications to window design and window openings as well as some modifications to the storefront uh
regulations. So generally speaking um this would streamline a lot of renovation projects. Um, this would not be for brand new groundup construction within our our
neighborhoods. Um, and it would, you know, any project would also be required to meet all of the underlying zoning requirements. So, it's not, this would not be really staff granting any, you know, administrative variances or height increases or square footage increases.
It just would shift the review authority from the design review board to an administrative uh process. >> Sorry, Debbie. Is this strictly residential or res residential and commercial? >> It would be residential and commercial.
>> That's it. Yeah. Yes. Apologies. We are supportive u of this and we are recommending that we the planning board transmit a favorable recommendation. >> Looks good to me. Anyone on Zoom? >> No one on Zoom. >> Okay. Question.
>> So I'm supportive of this. Is there anything that can be done to I guess further lessen uh the regulations that someone have to go to the DRB4 if they are working on their personal residence
or single family home? Like can we take this a little bit further >> based on I guess what you've seen coming in front of the DRB with someone trying to redo their house, something like that.
Um you know so a few years ago the the required uh single family properties um that were the single family home properties that were required to go through design review was was significant. All you know home all
properties that contained a pre-1942 home um so we were seeing you know dozens every month of properties going through the design review board. The state of Florida has preempted a lot of that. So currently you still see surprisingly enough you still see a lot
of single family homes being reviewed by the design review board and that's because we have our our set of development regulations which can be waved certain provisions uh can be waved or varied from subject to the design
review board and you know what I thought was initially going to happen basically what what the state legislation did is said you don't have to go to DRB be if you're going to abide by everything in your land development regulations, setbacks, height, lot coverage. Um but if you want if you want to waiver from
those regulations or you want a variance from those regulations, you still have to go to DRB. So that's what we're seeing a lot of. Um people just going and requesting waiverss, which is obviously not a mandate. Um they're choosing to do that because they want more, you know, flexibility for
whatever, you know, development they're they're proposing. Um, you know, that that was actually somewhat surprising to me that that people are willing to go, you know, because you hear that, you know, people complain about the process. It takes so long, it's expensive. Um, but people are, you know, voluntarily
going to ask for additional development regulations. >> Three items that people are consistently coming back or or requesting to go to the DRB4. >> Um, I think we see a lot of well, and we we used to see a lot of the understory, but then we removed that requirement.
So, I think we're seeing um the lot coverage more than anything. Um you know, I can we can circle back and maybe maybe >> yeah, talk about and I think that's what we're looking at now. We have been given that direction
>> um from the the elected officials to take a look at a lot of these to streamline not only the the design review board process but also the permitting process, right? because we have very complex single family home regulations that um are challenging to
interpret. So, I think we're looking at that now, but we could certainly bring, you know, some additional suggestions or a discussion item back to you specific to that. I guess would that be a discussion item or is that just an you know other comprehensive plan code amendment or
>> Yeah, I mean we're working on we're working on bringing uh more specific amendments um right now for the single family section, but you could certainly also have a discussion item um you know if this board wanted to >> to talk about it.
>> If there's no other comments I'd make a motion to approve second >> seconded by Elizabeth. All in favor? I >> opposed. Good. >> And then staff will bring some other I guess discussion points whatever it is. >> If you Yes, we can bring back at the
next available agenda from discussion about the single family regulation. >> He's looking to do a rental on his house. No, I already did it so I get the pain points. [laughter] I'm trying to save everyone else what I had to go through. >> All right. Planning board file 260831 extended to extend temporary conditional
use regulations in commercial districts. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair, in February, the city commission adopted an ordinance allowing for the administrative review of neighborhood impact establishments within five commercially zoned areas of the city. Uh, this proposed amendment expands the program to include
additional commercially zoned areas, including the 71st Street Normandy Drive area has been expanded to Verdun Court. of the side streets of Washington Avenue between Collins Court and Drexel Avenue. The side streets of Lincoln Road between
Lincoln Lane South and 17th Street. The Collins Park area bounded by Collins Canal. 17th Street, Collins Avenue and Washington Avenue. Fifth Street between West Avenue and Collins Avenue. Alton Road between 14th Street and Dade
Boulevard. And 17th Street between Collins Avenue and the east side of Alton Road. As a reminder, administrative review of an NIE includes the following criteria. No outdoor entertainment or adult entertainment. No outdoor areas above the ground level.
Indoor entertainment limited to restaurants. The establishment must be within an existing building that does not currently have a cup and the maximum patron occupancy shall not exceed 750 persons. These temporary NIE regulations
sunset on December 31st unless extended by the city commission and staff is recommending that the planning board transmit this ordinance to the commission with a favorable recommendation. >> Great. Thank you. Anyone on Zoom? Okay. Public hearing. Any questions, comments?
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Such a good presentation and needed no commentary. Yeah, look at that. >> Okay. And before we get to uh Yil's big discussion item,
>> planning board 26083 website advertising for LDL amendments and GU waiverss. >> Okay, Mr. Chair, last year the city commission in accordance with Florida statutes adopted regulations allowing land use board applications and commission review of LDR amendments to
be published on a county hosted website instead of newspaper publication. Um, the currently proposed ordinance would allow for the planning board review of LDR amendments and other actions as well as city commission review of GU wavers to be published on the same website.
Publication on the county website is less costly to the city and allows for quicker noticing and we are recommending that the planning board transmit this ordinance to the commission with a favorable recommendation. >> Seems like another no-brainer. Anyone on Zoom? >> Motion to approve.
>> I have I have one question. Can we can we um amend this to include um notices on some of public um I guess social media or something like that? >> What do you mean? put put these notices
um instead of it just being on a government website, can we also can we put it on >> put it on social media or something like that because I feel like >> nobody reads anymore. Do you even have an official like
>> right >> social media? >> We do. You know, our communications department has a we have a X account. We have a Facebook account and there I I believe you know our policy which is not a a legal requirement is to advertise
you know all of the calendars throughout and on Miami Beach TV and we're on YouTube and >> I mean you can make a recommendation that they consider including social media posts. I I feel like people don't really look at websites anymore, which says you probably need to redo your
website, but but >> I don't know if that would be as precise in terms of the legal notice um requirement um because I know that's regulated also by the state of Florida in terms of how we have to notice public hearings. But I
think certainly um we can make that recommendation or have you know every encouragement for the city to utilize all of its social media >> for planning board we get notices for all of the you know meetings that are taking place. So just I think you know just >> yeah the city does um in addition to
notices that are legally required which is what this addresses um the city does publish meeting notices on you know on our website on our constant contact newsletters um and on our various social media platforms. So, if you would like to make a recommendation that the city
explore including uh these types of land development applications in and I wouldn't you know I think there's an important distinction between notices that are legally required and all the additional notice that the city provides as a as a courtesy but if you like to uh
move that the city look at expanding land development notices on social media then that's something >> I just think more transparency is a good thing and just limiting it to just one or two places that people may not even look at anymore. Um, social media is
becoming more and more popular and and well, not that it's not already, but [laughter] but more is always better when it comes to notices, I would think. >> All right. So, we have a motion from Miss Shield, seconded by Elizabeth with a recommendation that social media be explored as well.
>> Is that good? >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Okay, that's it for the agenda. Now, we have a discussion item on single family driveway regulations. I still has a big presentation. >> Well, we're going to pass out Jake right
now is passing out the current regulations. I'm going to kind of briefly explain what I think the issue is and then the board can can discuss and ask any questions or make any
recommendations. So when you look at the section that governs driveways within single family zoning districts, if you look at G3, it says the maximum width of all driveways at the front or side facing
the street property line including access driveways from the right ofway shall not exceed exceed 30% of the lot width. And >> in no instance shall a the driveway be
less than 9 ft in width. >> So what's happening um and this was a a good observation. What's happening is if you have a lot that is less than 60 ft wide which we have many you know we have
a lot of 50 foot wide single family lots because of the 30% and the minimum 9 ft width. Okay nine. So, if you wanted a circular driveway or two access points, that would equal 18 ft would be the
minimum that exceeds if your lot is less than 60 ft wide, that 18 ft would exceed 30%. Right? >> So, it pro basically that what this does is it prohibits any single family lot that's less than 60 ft wide from having
that kind of two-way driveway access. Um, yeah, it is very limiting. Um and it you know it is something that may not it may not be necessary because we also have in addition to this requirement we
also have a maximum excuse me a minimum pvious area for your front yard >> the poorest surfaces that >> for the poorest surfaces. So we already have those percentages for the required front yard. So maybe this is is reducing
flexibility for people um and and not entirely necessary to achieve you know this this permeable front yard area and landscaped area because another section of the code is already governing that. >> Yeah. And I think and and this is
definitely the specific language in the code that I think we'd have to work with. So hats off to you all for actually I just brought up an issue and you found exactly what the problem was. Um, but I think especially on on some of the less traffic, you know, side
streets, let's say where I live, it's Adams, Meridian, Michigan, Jefferson, Nautilus, uh, and then you have the Royal Palm Post, all that. With a lot of these new construction homes, you have essentially just, you know, that you can only park one or two cars pulling right
in. There is no circular driveway. And then on top of that, they also put the no parking on grass. they're they're blocking these swailes with the rocks, so they don't have any room to park in their driveway. And then if, god forbid, they have one person come over to visit
them at their house, they're now parking in the street. So I've had people, especially around, you know, the mid beach area, have come to me and say, "Hey, we're driving up and down our blocks. What was supposed to fit two cars going two different directions is now essentially one lane. And this is
actually if god forbid there's an emergency vehicle they can't get around. Uh and I think that that's something that we have to take a look at. I think removing this language and increasing is going to help. Uh but I think that and maybe this is discussion item part two but we have to look at who is ultimately
responsible for the swale and how can we ensure that people are not blocking that swale which is ultimately preventing people that could park there from parking there which otherwise creates congestion. um and major blockages on on the actual
roadway. So, I mean, yeah, I don't know where we take it from there or what we can do. >> Well, you certainly as as the planning board, you can make recommendations to the mayor and city commission that they explore amending um you know, the the land development regulations. Okay.
>> Um we could certainly request more information. We could invite public works to the discussion about the swale areas >> um for a future meeting. It's it's really >> I'd like to make a recommendation at the very least that the language in three um
I don't know if it's removed or it's increased >> let's remove it. Um with the goal of ideally promoting circular driveways which can accommodate more cars and ideally otherwise moving cars that are blocking
the roadway. And then second of all, I don't know if it's a discussion item or having the city commission look at it. Who is ultimately responsible uh for maintaining the swale and how can we prevent property owners from blocking
use of the swale which is again creating additional congestion in those you know public >> right now too with all the shading that they they've sort of because I know true I see in the Venetian right now they're you're right right now they're requesting that you you plant trees for
shading and so we're losing all their swell so we end up with the cars in the street >> right so so you have the trees is there, which I understand. I get that. >> Well, I understand trees when you're walking around like Lincoln Road and all those places, but you're in a neighborhood where there's where you can control the vegetation on the property. Not only that, if if the city is going to plant a tree, you can put you can
plant a tree on the two sides of the swale instead of, you know, right in the middle. >> Correct. >> U, but ultimately, it's definitely removing a lot of the parking space. >> It's been messing us up. >> My neighbors have have come to me saying, "Hey, is there anything that can be done?" Um it's definitely an issue
for you know in case there's a life emergency whatever it is emergency vehicles and ideally it's something that can be worked on. >> Sounds like don't plant trees. >> Yeah. And and what we can do as as your staff members is I can reach out to
it'll be green space and public works to to get additional information. We can also invite them um you know to a discussion at this at the planning board. We can, but at the very least, I'd love if we can send something to the, you know, the commission for removing three. Yes.
>> And ideally also whether it's an additional discussion item or an action item, >> clarifying who's responsible for the swale, making sure that it's open use um and and moving cars off the street. >> It's so many layers between the control
of the driveways, between the planting on the swale, between no parking. >> Unfortunately, it's just gone to where it is now over years. So, >> okay. >> So, follow up with this. Is that >> Yeah. I mean, if you're if you're going to make a formal recommendation to the commission, a motion and a second would
be >> There's my motion. >> Okay. I'll second it. >> All right. All in favor of this recommendation. >> I >> All right. We will transmit that uh to the mayor and city commission as your recommendation and I'll bring you back more information about the swailes and we can go from there.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. All right, we're adjourned. Quick question. You know how um these private parking lots that they're opening up to residents, um a lot of people go there thinking it's a city lot
>> and they put in their app and then [snorts] they get a $70 ticket. It's it's a city looking >> like a big sign that says not a city lot. I it happened to me the other day cuz >> they are they are required to post signs
under under um code and if any look like city >> yeah they look like city signs >> if there is a parking lot that you think is not complying with the requirement you you can call >> No they have signs but they look like city >> but they may not be complying with the strict letter of the requirements if you
you know >> what is that what what's the strict letter what do they have to do >> I And I can get you that. I don't know off the top of my head. I can get you that information. >> There's one um you know where >> asking for a friend. >> No, it was me. I went to >> There you go. [laughter]
>> Supply and there's a lot right there. The city lot $75. >> Yeah.