[Music] [Music] every [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] [Music]
[Music] Hey everyone. [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Hello. Okay. Okay. [Music] [Music] I love you. [Music] [Music]
Please. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1.
Okay. Good morning everybody. And as uh yield is my favorite line, welcome to the May 6 planning board meeting. pretty short agenda, so it should be a quick day today. But we'll start with um a motion from one of my board members to approve the minutes from the last
meeting. Motion to approve. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Turn it over to city attorney. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a
hybrid format with the board physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicant staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate virtually, the public may dial 1-877-853-5257 and enter the webinar ID
which is 61 342 6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 861-4342 6327. If you're wishing to speak on an
item, you can click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if you're participating by phone. If you're appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office. If you haven't registered yet, you should register before you speak to the board. You don't
have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting or if you're appearing as a representative of
a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they are communicating.
If you're an architect, attorney, or employee representing an applicant or an objector, you must register as a lobbyist. These rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage to be modification or continuence. Uh, and lastly, I'd like
to swear in any members of the public or staff who will be testifying today. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. Start with request for continuous. Michael, do we need to do each Lincoln Road separately?
We can do the Lincoln Road East and West separately. So, we'll need two um one motion for each the east and one motion for the west. All right. So, the first is planning board file 25737 Lincoln Road West residential use incentives. And we'll take that as well with um
PB24-0731 the LDR amendments. Um the request here is to continue this to the December 9th meeting. And we should ask if there's any public comment on the request for continuance. Okay. Is anyone here to speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? There's nobody on Zoom with their hand
raised. Okay. So, we'll close the uh You want to just share real quick why they're moving to continue it? The commission sponsors requested that these be continued um till December. Okay. Motion to approve. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? Anyone
opposed? Okay. That's to December, correct? That's correct. The December 9th meeting. Okay. So, that's items two and three. December 9th. Okay. And that was uh 0737 and 0731. Correct. Correct. Okay. Okay. The next one is planning board file
0738, Lincoln Road East residential uses. And I'm assuming that's companion row 0739. That's correct. And these are for Lincoln Road East, the comprehensive plan amendments and the LDR amendments. Again, the request is continue this to the December 9th meeting.
Okay. Anyone here to speak on that item? Anyone on Zoom? There's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised. Okay. Any questions? Want a motion? Motion to approve. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. The next one is planning board
file 2550747 vendor appointments to land use boards. I'm requesting that this be continued to the June 10th meeting. We're still working on the ordinance. So, um we're asking the board to continue this item. Was that again vendor appointments? I mean it's
so this this ordinance relates to the appointment of a vendor or an employee of a city vendor to our land use boards. Oh like is it possible conflicts or something? Correct. It would be to
address possible conflicts. Up to now that wasn't allowed. Right. So you guys are trying to add that into or um there are rules at the at the county and state level that apply to appointments of vendors to boards and this would adopt a a tighter standard
for the city. So tighter. Okay. Okay. Anyone to speak on this item? Anyone on Zoom? There's nobody on Zoom. Okay. Someone want to move it? Motion to approve. I'll second that. Okay. Anyone? All in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And
the last motion to continue is planning for call 220539 660 Washington Avenue, the Anglers Hotel. And actually this is just an announcement. Um again this is for PB22-0539 for 600 to 660 Washington Avenue the Anglr's Hotel. The applicant
has withdrawn this application. So um there's no action needed by the board. Okay. Before we get before we start the progress reports, I'd like to note that we've removed um 400 Collins Avenue, the parking lot, which is PB file number 2046. We've removed that from the
agenda. Board may remember last month it was continued till today's date. However, if the applicant satisfied the conditions were in the landscaping and the maintenance agreement, we could take it off the agenda. Um they've just they just complied with the condition um yesterday. So, we're moving the item up
item 10. Yeah. Okay. All right, then we're on to the first progress report is for planning board file 220553455 Lincoln Road. So, just for some history on this um application, the
board approved a conditional lease permit for a neighborhood impact establishment at this location on November 22nd of 2022. On October 28th of last year, a BTR was issued for the restaurant with entertainment. As a condition of the operation, the applicant had to come before the board
for a progress report. after the BTR was issued. They did that on February 4th of this year. As noted when this application was heard by the board in February, there um were violations issued regarding um performers outside on property as well as for um benches
and tables in the rightway. And at the last meeting, the board continued the progress report to today's date. Since the um the meeting in February, there's been additional violations issued. This was for having entertainment in the form of a DJ at the rooftop. Now the board
may remember as indicated on page um 18 of the board packages which is page four of the st of the final order there are clear conditions regarding operations of the rooftop. The conditions saying that that in terms of the um entertainment entertainment is prohibited in all
outdoor areas and only background music is allowed on the rooftop level. It also says that a DJ or live performance is only allowed in the interior of the restaurant only and that sound from the interior shall not be audible at any time from the exterior. In this case, they had a DJ that was even that was
louder than ambient level on the rooftop and that's why the violation was issued. And because of this, as well as the violation that was issued in February, we are recommending that the board set a revocation um modification hearing for the July 1st planning board meeting.
I'll turn it over to the applicant for their response. All right. Yeah, because I remember the last violations weren't so bad and there was corrective action and disappointing to hear there was a DJ outside, but let's hear it. So, good morning, Michael Yiannopoulos, uh 200 South Kane
Boulevard, joined today by my colleagues, uh Michael Larkin and Emily Balter. We're also joined by uh Jose Ake. He's the vice president, general manager of the restaurant and uh Alan Khadari, the owner. Um we were before you on March 4th to discuss this and as
you guys mentioned there were minor incidents which had since been resolved. Uh I'm going to go through a quick presentation. Not going to go through uh the history or anything. I just want to um show you what the rooftop looks like. Uh this is the rooftop terrace.
Um, as you can see on the screen, the bar strategically located against and positioned near the entrance of the rooftop to keep noise down. Uh, the remainder of the rooftop is dedicated to uh seating offering guests unobstructed panoramic views of the wonderful city and Lincoln
Road. Here on the screen is what the rooftop looks like today. Again, it's very festive. Um, these are actual photos showing a showcasing a lively atmosphere. Um, and an ideal setting to enjoy lunch, dinner with a family and
friends. Here on the screen is the operations plan. Um the restaurant is closed Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, but the schedule changes. Um they are during the week they're uh occupying about 40 to 50% and on the
weekends they're a 100% occupied which brings in a lot of visitors into into uh Lincoln Road and the city of Miami Beach. Now, we'll go back to the violation. Um, they did have a live music DJ, which is the reason why they
received a violation. Um, this notably was on March 27th, which is the same week as uh Miami Music Week, which we know is an is a time of increased activity um and outdoor music across the area. Uh the violation stemmed from an
honest misunderstanding because of other venues in the area were hosting events and doing things with that music. They mistakenly believed that they didn't need a special permit for this. Um as soon as the inspector came in and notified them that this was a violation
of the cup, they immediately stopped all music. Um so they, you know, they took immediate corrective action. They the fine was promptly paid. Uh so indicating a good faith effort to comply and no further violations have been issued uh
since um as I mentioned previously the incident was isolated and unintentional. Uh the restaurant has shown a a uh clear commitment to compliance. they have with Jose here. He's um we've created a sheet. So, he's gone and given one to every single
employee of the restaurant so everybody's very aware of all the conditions in the cup, when music can be played, when music can't be played, uh where it can be played and where it can't be played beyond ambient levels. So, we're working together with staff uh to make sure that nothing else and no
further instances arise from this. Okay. Um, Michael, this is me speaking for one person, but um, you recommend a revocate. Can we do is it possible to set up another progress report? Well, we're an option. I know you're recommending I'm asking if the board decides they still want another
progress. Yeah, the board could just um continue it and have another progress report. Sorry. All right. I just had a qu Okay. Anybody here to speak on this in the chamber? Anyone on Zoom? So, if I may, I can introduce Jose. Sure. She come one second. There's nobody on Zoom with her hand raised. Go ahead, sir.
situation. Hi, how are you? I'm just here to confirm that the team and the restaurant is now in full compliance on the cup and we are working on getting everything cleared and it was a honest
mistake on our part. Okay, it's not going to happen again. All right, I'm just going to give you my thought. Listen, I I know this restaurant well. I've been to it in Columbia many times. I think it's a great addition to Lincoln Road. We want you to survive, okay? We want I don't want to close you down. I don't want to take away your entertainment. Just this
is just me speaking. We'll let everyone else speak. I don't want a revocation hearing. I want another progress report. But you really got to make sure that there's no more violations. That's just my view. Okay? Because again, I know how tough it is in this environment to make
it. There's a million restaurants opening all over the city. This is a great addition to Lincoln Road. I think I've been there and I think it's a great venue. Okay? and I really want you to succeed, but you really got to behave and and I I believe you're sincere in in fixing it, but I just want that's my
viewpoint, okay? Because I I want to give you every opportunity. Um, but obviously the conditional use permit says only inside I understand if it was music week, but I I think you anything where you deviate from your conditional use permit, you've got to either get permission from the city or somebody,
but you can't just assume that you can violate it for a ver a given event. Okay? Just my thoughts. Anyway, we'll start with Keith at the end. Well, as a uh resident who lives across from a rooftop at catch it, you know,
it's it's very important. I I assume we can assume it was a mistake. Uh I do agree that we shouldn't revoke immediately, but um I think this is a case not of three strikes, but one strike. It it should never happen again.
I mean, we put controls on rooftops. Normally, it should be if you're going to allow any music, it's got to be background, ambient, and uh and definitely try to control the inside, too, because I noticed you had a violation on 222 where even on the
inside it was too loud. Um, I don't know the exact location, but I assume there are neighbors. And you just have to be respectful of the fact that there are you're not out in a in a field. You know, it's not a industrial area. There's there's residents around there.
And just be respectful, but have fun. And uh we have lots of restaurants with rooftops that that operate fine. So, just know your cup and don't do it again. Yeah. Um, you know, we did hear when you
were here in March that any what you just said is basically what you said in March. You weren't you knew and weren't totally um up on all the the requirements of the COP and and we're just hearing that again today. So, um Keith, you mentioned strike one. This is
actually strike two. Um so, but I'm not in favor of of a um setting a revocation here. and you're still a new a new operator. Um so, um I do think we should keep it on our radar. Um you'll be back for another progress report, but you
know, if there's more other violations, that's I think at that point, this board's going to take uh more severe action than we're probably going to take today. So, just be careful going forward. Um I just real quick, I I echo what
Brian said. uh you took my idea which was to come up with a sheet and give it all out to all your staff. So I think that's a great idea. I'm glad you guys did it. The only thing I'll caution you on is because we've seen this in the past which is when there's a change in management. So if you were to, you know, move to a different post with the
restaurant group and somebody else came in for the summer, for example, if there's another violation in the summer, it's not an excuse that the new manager wasn't here earlier. And and so just keep in mind, you know, keep continuously update your staff because
this record of this these violations, they they stay on the record. And so we're we're looking at it based on the number of strikes, not based on the particular manager or the staff that they had at the time. So just keep in mind moving forward when there is a transition and stuff because I know you guys are new in Miami Beach, but very
experienced elsewhere. Uh just just make sure to educate the future staff coming in. No additional comments. I'm in favor of uh a progress report, not a revocation. Uh just one more thing, the ignorance excuse can only be used so many times.
So just please let's make sure that this has not become a pattern. Alissa, um just like my colleagues, I think the revocation is too much. I think you guys should be getting um some clarity here on how we need to behave. Last time was a little different. You guys had someone standing outside. And I
think with some promotional stuff, I can see that being an honest mistake. Having a DJ on a rooftop is a little bit or raised my eyebrows a little bit that you guys did not know. But um just like my colleagues want to see you succeed and uh we'll hopefully see you guys in a
couple months with no other issues. I concur with them. Um, I just see that there's a couple of violations prior to this one in March and they were there was immediate compliance, but I just
like to not see continuous violations at all. Um, because these are conditional permits, but I love the restaurant. So, thank you. All right. So, I think you hear the message. We want you to do well. We want you to have fun. Just
please, we don't you're going to come. We're going to bring you back just to see if there's any more violations. Um, go ahead. That's why uh actually I'm I'm one of the VPs of the company. Yeah. That's why I got transferred to Miami just to make sure
that we are in compliance and we are doing the things right just to assure that and if you have questions about you ask your attorneys about the I call him all the time. Okay. All right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Someone want to move what I I think the motion if I'm hearing properly is that we'll move it for a progress report and it's question about
whether you want a month or two months out. Two months. Two months. Okay. So, we're going to give you two months and hopefully you'll come back and the lawyer will say we have no problems. Okay. All right. So, Jonathan, you want to move it? Uh, yeah. Move motion to
continue the progress report for 60 days or for the for two planning board meetings from now. So it would be April second. It would be a continuence of the July 1st July planning board. Sure. Second. Okay. We have a second from Shield. So all in favor I. Anyone
opposed? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Next uh status report, progress report. Um planning board file 2846400 Collins Avenue. Oh, I'm sorry. 20 240680 2201 Collins Avenue, the W Hotel.
And this progress report begins on page 31 of the board packages. Um the board may remember that on July 30th of last year, the planning board approved a modification to the CUP to allow any future change of owners or operations to to submit an affidavit. That affidavit
was submitted for a change of ownership on November 25th of last year. And that requires that the applicant come before the board, the new owner, for a progress report within a certain time frame. That's why the um applicants on the agenda today for a progress report based upon this um change of um ownership.
However, we did note that there was a noise complaint regard related to a special event permit regarding loud noise that was in violation of the um special event permit on um on December 8th of last year. Because of that, we are recommending that the board hear testimony from the applicant,
the public, and continue this as a progress report to the June 10th meeting. Morning Mr. Chair, distinguished board members, James Ralph with Greenwood Mart offices at 600 Brooklyn Avenue here with my co-consel Alfredo Gonzalez
Green. We are here on behalf of 2201 Collins Propco LLC as the staff indicated. Um, our client recently purchased the property. Uh we submitted the required transfer affidavit uh following the closing of that
transaction and we're here to comply with condition two of the cup to present a progress report. You may have read about the transaction in the media, a substantial transaction and we're very happy that um our client made that
investment in Miami Beach. Um, as the staff report indicates, um, they've identified that there was, uh, a noise warning, um, in conjunction with a special event, um, was issued to the hotel management
company. Um, there have been no violations issued to this owner. And so that predated the acquisition? It did not predate the acquisition. and it just happened to be issued to the hotel management
company. Um so in this case uh we don't believe there's been a violation of the cup at this point and um we're happy to of course happy to come back if there were a violation issued um going forward. Um but at this point we just
ask that uh that they only be required to return for a progress report if there's another violation issued and um right. So, this is the required change of ownership come for a first progress report. Yes, sir. Right. Yes, sir. We're we're just meeting the uh requirement
condition too to have a progress report following the uh real estate transaction. Um and as Alfredo will will explain, I'm trying to understand since the acquisition, there's been no violations issued to the owner, the new owners. Is that just to the to the hotel
management company? Okay. But that that was after the trans after the transaction, there was a violation issued to the hotel management company for a special event permit violation. Um but and there was a noise warning. Um
also issued to the hotel management company. Um and as Alfredo can explain to you, um depending on how much you'd like to get into it, this Well, just a little bit because I hate to bring you back. We don't have to. I just want to understand, you know, like what exactly? Go ahead, Alfredo. And good morning,
Alfredo Gonzalez for the record. Um, and I could talk about these the noise warnings that were issued and the special event violation as a result of having noise warning that was issued on December, beginning of December. The property had changed hands. The city
cited the operator, the Marriott, who has been operating the property for the last 14 years, still operating it today. uh and issued it to the old owner. So, I'm assuming that when they looked at property appraiser, they they looked at the they didn't have the updated
information. Um, but to be clear, that that and that noise warning was issued as part of a special event permit, not having to do with the the rights privileges that this board is given as part of the CUP. Um the special event
violation has is under appeal. Um I represent the owners as well and we filed an appeal because we cannot appeal today the noise warning and have a full discussion on the merits of that if it if it was justified or not. Because the
only way you could appeal the noise warning is if our client gets a noise violation. And that gives me then the the standing to appeal. The special magistrate deferred a ruling on the um special event violation till next
December to see if between now and next December. My the hotels issued a violation and then there's an ability to appeal. Um but all that occurred as part of a special event permit and it was actually early in the evening. not their
normal golf, not their nor not not part of the hotel activity or C. They had a issued uh special event permit that could operate till 11:30. They actually finished the event at 10:45, I guess, as code was that was December. Now we're 5 months later.
Nothing's happening. No problems. Um the property is actually in the midst of we're meeting with Michael and other planning staff for renovations. there's probably going to be a modification to the CUP coming with enhancements um later to come before us before you
before this board and before HPB. So, and quite frankly, I think that the Doubly Hotel in the 14 years they've had the CUP, they've been they're your model case. We've never had to I I've represented since the original CUP,
right? Just that one issue. And they've never had a revocation hearing in over 14 years. So they've been following and diligent in following all the rules. So we're we're asking that we were we were had coming for the progress report because the change of owners that we shouldn't have another
progress report unless god forbid there was some kind of violation then yes but then you'll be back with a modified tup request late. Yes. At a later all got it. So you'll see it either way. All right. Anybody else in here to speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? There's nobody on Zoom. I'd like to make one correction
just in terms of the violation. Sure. Just reading plainly from the language of the of the cup. It says um a where are you reading from Michael? This is under condition number 10. I think a violation of chapter 46 article 4 noise of the city code of Miami Beach may be
amended from time to time inclusive of vi inclusive of violations which occur during either city approved special events or private events/functions shall be deemed a violation of this conditional use permit. So, I just want to be clear that a violation of the of the special event permit is a violation
of the C. I understand that. I I just was correcting something that Alfredo said. Okay. We have no objection if if the board wants to they've done in the past say that provided that no violation is issued between now and say July that we take this off the agenda as well. That's what I want to recommend we do.
But I'll make sure everyone else in is any is there any discussion? Does anybody agree with that that we can move it to July and if there's no violation? my preference. Okay. If there's any violation, you know, they they were be back in front of us anyways, right? Can I ask I mean I have a question. What was the difference? I mean, you've had
plenty of parties there. You special events there in the past. Like what was the difference between with this one why there was a you know the loud music quite frankly in working with the the operators it was uh one of the Art Basle Bonvoy uh AMX event that was happening.
uh they were monitoring because they they actually we've worked with them on other events where they went off site and they made sure if they thought the music was too loud they kept lowering it. So we don't understand um as the event was shutting down cuz that if you
look at the timing the officer showed up at 10:26 it wasn't until 10:45 that he came in to say yeah I I I think your your music is too loud. The event was over. So he actually asked the operator, "Could you restart the party so I could,
you know, show you and evaluate, but but the party was over. So could in in the process of shutting down, it spiked or something?" I I I don't know. We haven't had the opportunity to fully go back and forth on that issue, right? So you're appealing that. Bottom line is we're going to I I guess it'll be on the
agenda, but if you have no violations by July, then they'll remove it from the agenda. Can I can I just ask though the is there any issue? I'm I'm cool with that. I just wanted to ask about the the issue the fact that the special event was issued to the operator, right? Not
the the cup holder, right? That's a technicality. I mean, that's that's something that that's something that the applicant has used at the special magistrate to um void a and what and we've heard that argument before. And I guess my question is is moving forward,
how do we fix that in cups so that there's no issue there. I think what happened here is because the affidavit was issued like a week or so before the violation occurred. So there was that, right? They would have given it to the the the cup holder. They just gave it to the wrong entity because they didn't
know it had been sold. Correct. Right. And the reason it was but it was on code could have given it to the cup. Absolutely. Yeah. So that was like a code mistake I guess. I mean I don't want don't don't answer. And just so you know that's not the basis for the
appeal, right? That's okay. But I I can clarify for you what happened was Marriott who is the operator of the hotel the entire party for the W has been for over 14 years. They're the ones that apply for the special event. So all the special if you order I have a copy
of the special event from that night. It was applied for by the Right. To Jonathan's point, we don't care if it's a violation a violation. But I'm just going way back to like my first year on the planning board when we had like the MA or ESM the Oh, was it was rooftop
actually your other client where you had the operator and the owner. Don't remind me about that one. No, I know what you're saying. I just I just want to make sure like you know moving forward we've fixed that the issue, but it sounds like there is an understanding of the issue and and we're we're good. Okay. All right. Any other questions?
Someone want to move it and the motion would be to keep it on the agenda but if there's no violations through July they'll remove it from the agenda. So moved. Okay. Jonathan second second. You see all in favor? Anyone opposed? Sorry. So July or June because July July 1st
July. Right. And if there's no violations like the other they'll remove it from the agenda, but we're going to keep it on the agenda in case there's a violation. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. All right. onto new comprehensive planning code amendments file planning board file
2550752 land use incentives for school and educational facilities and we're going to take this um in companionship with PB25-0761 which is comprehensive plan floor air ratio incentives and the staff report begins on page um 47 of the board
packages and by just some way of history um the land use and sustainability committee reviewed the ordinances on general January 16th of this year and recommended that they be referred to the planning board. And on March 19th, the city commission referred these
ordinances to the planning board. So currently um education uses are permitted as a conditional use in multifamily and commercial districts throughout the city. Um in response to recommendations of the land use and state sustainability committee, these attached ordinance provide some
incentives to remove the barriers for expansion or for the creation of new schools. This includes um new construction of educational facilities subject to staff review provided the following um thresholds are met. First would be um new constructions not
exceeding 25,000 square ft could be approved at staff level provided it does not exceed the underlying um F for the zoning district. Second, the maximum building height could not exceed 50 ft or the underlying height for the zoning district. Um it also would still require
that when any demolition is involved would require review by the short preservation board for any demolition. It also allows um for such facilities to request through a commission warrant process an additional F that's the comprehensive plan amendment that's
attached is to allow the city commission to grant a F um bonus of up to 5,000 square feet not to exceed 10% to that commission warrant process. Um it also allows through that commission warrant process a reduction in the um required
um setbacks open space and lot coverage requirements. It also allows um um educational facilities that may be a commercial district not to require planning board approval if they um are less than 50,000 square feet. That also
will allow would um remove the the off- streetet parking requirement for educational facilities. would also allow them to provide um parking without um penalizing them in the F. We are recommending that you know this this legislation has been developed with an
intention to um um foster um educational facilities expansion and new educational facilities in the beach. So I recommended that city commission that the planning board transmit both these ordinances to the city commission with a favorable recommendation. Now just to be clear the um the LDR text amendments
which is PB24-0752 this is this is specifically for schools the ordin the comprehensive plan amendment for the increase of F that would allow not only schools but through whatever whatever um the commission felt was um um appropriate
would allow the commission to to allow um increase F up to 10% not to exceed 5,000 square feet for other projects as well for any For what? For any use for whatever whatever process the commission deemed was appropriate would allow the them the
city commission to expand the F up to 10% not to exceed 5,000 ft. would apply to anything education education funds or or or any type any use that the commission um was determined right that was developed with the with the um
school incentives in mind but it was developed as a more broader um incentive for other uses as well just to be clear the more restrictive requirements in the land development regulations would always control I think the idea is to amend the comp plan once
and correct. Right. Anyone in chambers speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? There's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised. Okay. Board questions, comments. Um just one concern. Um, no, I I'm
generally in favor of the idea and and the sort of the the um requirements um or the um the way it's worded. But my concern is it because it applies everywhere it all or anywhere in
commercial or multif family districts. I'm thinking of the RM1 district, which and I'm thinking specifically Flamingo Park, but there's also another large RM1 district up in North Beach. And I'm just envisioning this um let's just something on maybe a property on Meridian or Uklid
right in the middle of the of the neighborhood. Um there's an old building and somebody wants to buy that and they want to put a school there. Um they can add to the building. Um they could take away a lot of green space. they can put a much more intense use there. They
don't have to have parking. Um, and I'm just thinking how that might affect um neighbors. Um, it just seems like it's putting a uh it's in incentivizing a rather intense use in the middle of a um residential neighborhood. Um, I'm
wondering if we can exempt RM1 from from um this. I I would go with all residential RM2 as three. It's I mean I I looked at the zoning map. You are I mean again I was focusing more on Flamingo Park. I think there's only a
tiny two or three block section of RM2. But I mean we can we can look at that as well. But I I do think you know because I like the idea. I like how they're incentivizing um schools. But when you look at you know decreasing
setbacks, decreasing open space um no parking requirements. But again, just to be clear, those those um reduction be through the commission warrant process. Correct. It still would be a a public hearing before the city commission. Correct. But it's I mean I it still could happen is what I'm getting at. I'm
just envisioning worst case scenario in the middle of a of an RM1 district or possibly an RM2 district and three which is almost the whole would would they have to get approval I mean from either
planning board to to put open up a school. No. So, any sort of approval? I mean, because I guess this I'm I'm wondering whether there's going to be an opportunity for neighbors to object. It would only be if they go through the commission warrant process and are
asking for reduction in setbacks, open space requirements. But if they complied with with the code and didn't ask for additional relaxation in the setbacks, then potentially an expansion or a new construction could be approved
administratively. And remember, we can send it favorably with a separate motion suggesting or recommending, you know, that it exclude I'd like at the very minimum to take out the RM1 district. And what are your thoughts about that, Michael? I think that's reasonable.
That's where we have the the biggest impact is in the um RM1 low inensity multif family district. Okay, we'll take in any other comments. Uh is there a certain project that's pushing for this or I don't think there's a particular project. I think
this was thought of as um comprehensive. It's not focused on one particular district. So purely just to incentivize, I guess, additional education build out. Correct. So then what's the reason for I guess also including in here as part of you know
the companion that they would have the ability to increase F elsewhere right that's one of though I think just because for amending the comprehensive plan then it's doing it one time versus having to come back to amend it for then you know another use. No, whereas if if
we specified that this was just for education use, then it would apply. That could be a recommendation, right? Got it. I mean, I I I don't understand why it's any use in all areas. I I mean, as far as I know,
in RM3 and in a lot of RM2, there's there's where do we have schools? kind of just you know the these recommendations came from the land use committee so that's why we're bringing them you know to you that's what the committee recommended in terms of the um
removing the barriers and that was one of them I'm all for education I'm just not sure about why it's encompassing basically the entire city right so I I I think we should I mean from what I'm hearing we should make a motion favorably but then make a separate
motion strongly encouraging that they eliminate certain Is that okay with you guys I think that can be made as part of your recommendation. You It sounds like you want to recommend in favor of the ordinance. You want to limit the incentives to not include at least the RM1 district. If you want to expand it
to RM2 and RM3, you can let me know. And then you want to make the um the um the additional F through the comprehensive plan warrant process um amendment only applicable to um education. Education, right? Sounds like a good motion,
Michael. But the the The first sentence of the analysis says like schools and education uses are permitted as a conditional use in all multif family and commercial currently. We're currently right currently. So we're taking out that CUP. Correct. And then adding other
benefits. Yeah. So, I mean, I guess I'm I'm wondering whether a way to protect the neighborhoods is to leave in the CUP element of it, uh, but while also giving them these other benefits, you know, the, you know, increase height and space
and setbacks, whatever. I think that to me to me I don't like carving out individual zones because there could be there could be a school within there could be a leave it with existing schools because I think it's just it's
encompassing everything isn't it it's basically giving them cart blanch to do it it's giving them a lot of of new new abilities I guess and I think there's I don't think that requiring them to still get a CUP would
disincentivize them, you know, schools or whatever educational facilities from taking advantage of all these benefits. I think just leaving it to schools, keep in mind right now um um you know uh e even if if
if this passes passes with an RM1 exemption, um a school still could go into the RM1 district. I'm just saying we want to not sort of incentivize that by giving them these these incentives. Um, so it could still happen. Well, there there might be
an area in an RM1 district that you want a school, but the key to me is making sure that there's the oversight of the location, the planning, the traffic patterns, you know, the traffic the that's how we're going to reduce the impact on the neighborhood is by having
the cup process in place. I you know I don't I don't I'm not against carving out the RM1. I I'm just saying that there could be equal applicability to applicability to
another area. Um that's equally a problem. I still I just think that they the way to fix the whole thing is to leave the CUP element. But I agree, you know, let's incentivize these P if that's what the commission wants and the and the community wants. Great. But
within reason, because what if there's a huge traffic impact? I agree. You know, what if they're gonna have a school, you know, outdoor field that that has whistles blowing. You know, there's got to be time frames, time restrictions, tweaked, needs to be tweaked. Again, it also could recommend that um you keep
the cup process along with the incentives. As long as we have the CP process, then it's open to the public hearings and and you're more and I think that's an I think the schools the way the city's going, we have a lack of schools right now. So, we do need to do anything to see some expansion on this the education system in the city, but um
and most neighborhoods are probably welcoming, but there has to be some sort of input from the neighborhood because it does have an impact. And so, I think your recommendation is strong, Jonathan. I think if we, you know, we keep the cup as a re part of the recommendation, I think that could be uh prevention. You don't have to limit their I want to
limit to education since that's what this is supposed to be about, right? No, I I agree. In in our uh south of Fifth area, we have a private school and he's building another one and he went through intensive uh processes, including here. I
understand the incentives, but I do agree that you don't have to shortcut the processes. The processes make sure that the community is comfortable with the location. were in a high use commercial multimix reg residential zone but they put a school that everyone
likes but it had to go through all the processes so and hard to think that the having keeping the cup would desensitize and he would appreciate that he may want to put a a 50-foot facility and and get extra far right next to one of the two
schools that he's building but he should have to go through some normal process so so I guess the the question. It sounds like everybody's sort of generally in agreement with that. The question is is are we comfortable sending it with a favorable recommendation and then hoping that the commission will accept our secondary
recommendation which is to leave in the uh cup element of it or do we send it with an unfavorable for these reasons and make a recommendation to re-implement this ordinance with the you know redo with the It's a funny question
because it's kind of the same thing. It's just whether other words if we send it favorably with recommendation they don't eliminate the cup process versus an unfavorable unless they include the cup pro does that really make a difference in your opinion? I think you could make if since the your recommendations are the basis for the
favorable recommendation then I would recommend do it as one do it as one motion. I know but the question is is it does it matter whether we say favorable but we want the cup process or unfavorable what you're asking for does not really require major surgery. So, I think it could be favorable with these
changes. Favorable with these changes. Favorable provided that the CP I never know when we're allowed to do that or not. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, go ahead and make a motion, Jonathan. Uh to pass this with a favorable recommendation except on the condition
that we uh they keep the CUP uh process for all districts, right? And that it's limited to only educational facilities. Yeah, that that'll I would make that um motion regarding limitation for the um education facilities for the
comprehensive plan and ordinance that we'll take a separate motion on next. Okay. Okay. Second Jonathan's. Okay. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. And that's for both of the amendments. That'll be for No, that'll be just be for the um
PB25 752, right? And on the um second one which is PB25-0761 the comprehensive plan for air ratio incentives. The recommendation will be positive provided that the incentives are only for educational facilities. Correct. Yes. So we can make another another motion on that. I'll
make that motion that it's limited to education only. Okay. Second. So do we do we leave in the CP thing or? Yeah. That's that separate separate motion. Okay. Elizabeth second. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Unanimously
passes. Okay. Planning board file 25760, minimum landscape requirements for single family home renovations exceeding the 50% rule. And this staff report begins on page um 69 of the board packages. And this ordinance was
referred to the city to the planning board on March 19th. and the land use and sustainability committee reviewed the ordinance on February 20th of this year. What this so currently the city the city ordinance regarding landscaping is more intensive or more has more
stricter than the the county code in terms of landscape requirements when you're exceeding um renovations that exceed the 50% value of your house. What this ordinance does is is roll back the requirements to the to meet the county requirements. So, if you're doing a renovation exceeding 50%, you don't have
to meet the stricter incentives, the stricter requirements of the city code, but you have to comply with the minimum standards of the county requirements. Um, we are recommending that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation. Now, this wouldn't apply to new construction. New construction would still have to meet the the
stricter landscape requirements. This would be somebody who's doing a renovation that does exceed 50% value because especially with uh the value of construction cost doing I've seen cases where someone's just renovating their house or removing you know old additions that see that they exceed that 50% value
and then are subject to the um the same requirements as if they're doing a brand new house. So if they don't exceed the 50% then do they have to do anything to landscaping? It's a much me it's it's not it's not the same um strict requirements. Okay. I think this is
great. Anyone here in chamber? Anyone in chamber to speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? There's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised. Okay. Questions, comments from the board. I think that's a posit positive one. Yeah, I think there's ultimately good things for having living in an area with so much construction,
anything to kind of minimize some of the impact on the neighborhood. So, motion to approve. Second. Okay. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Unanimous. Michael, thank you. Jesus, record time here. And
the last item planning board file 2550762 historic preservation at uh committee recommendations and uh Deborah Tacket, our historic preservation officer may be coming up to answer any questions on this, but I'm going to go through the history and what
the what the summary of this ordinance is. So um see just give me a second. And the staff report begins on page 77 of the board packages. So last year, an ad hoc committee was um tasked with a comprehensive review of
the city's historic preservation regulations, including possible expansion of the certificate appropriateness review criteria, as well as recommendations regarding improving and streamlining the review process. The ad hoc committee held um five public meetings between June 27th of last year
and October 20 or 50th of last year and considered extensive um comment and public from um city staff. All meetings were noticed on the city's website and occurred after 5:00 p.m. to allow expanded um participation. Now, this ordinance is comprehensive and does many things. I'm
going to go through just a quick summary. So currently the city has some of the most extensive um certificate of appropriate review criteria of any city you know in the country with over 50 review criteria. Um what this ordinance does as based upon the recommendations it streamlines and revise the criteria
removing or um um removing or um consolidating redundant criteria and um and clarifying the role of the secretary of interior standards and guidelines. It um allows staff to review additional minor improvements such as um
sustainable roofs um fences and railings. A lot of these were done sort of um without expressly being indicated in the code. This sort of um does establish that as um being explicitly allowed for staff review. It does um clarify and define requirements for
preliminary concept and detail approvals. It does raise the threshold for a transportation analysis from 5,000 square feet to 50,000 gross square feet to ease the burdens on burdens on smaller projects. It does allow administrative approval for larger
additions for single family homes and historic districts that are not visible from a runaway with neighbor with neighbor notification. It does allow for um when um applications for the short preservation board are continued. It no
longer requires a redundant newspaper notice for continued um HPB items. This is consistent with other language sport applications. For example, if application comes to the planning board and the board continues it for a month or two. It doesn't then require another newspaper notice. This would apply the
same process to historic preservation board review. Um it does allow a formal process for removing historic status per the county standards regarding um incentives for historic preservation. It expands the advorum tax exemption
eligibility from single family homes to also include historic multif family and commercial buildings and um it does extend the zoning incentives that are afforded for architecturally significant homes that allows them to be extended to um um single family homes and historic
districts. This, for example, is if somebody wants to add on to their historic home or architecturally certificate home, they can get a relaxation in terms of the setbacks and um things like lot coverage and unit size. With that, I'm happy to answer any question. Again, we have I'm Deborah Tacket, our preservation officer, who
was part of that committee in terms of staff and can answer any any detailed questions. Okay. Anyone in here to speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? And there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised. Okay. you want to speak?
Um, I haven't been sworn in. Do I have to be sworn in? You're This is legislative, so you're good. Excellent. Um, uh, good morning, members of the board. Um, Michael summarized the ordinance, uh, very well. Uh, the committee did meet, um, for many months,
and I just wanted to reiterate um that all of our their recommendations were unanimous. So it was um broadly supported at the committee. Um all of the changes uh the most significant changes are really the advalorum tax
exemption program expansion and um some of the administrative review although there are not significant scope of work that we could approve administratively. I think those
two are probably the most um significant in terms of the changes. A lot of this is also just cleanup um removing redundancies, removing erroneous criteria. I don't know if Michael said that we we also are including a provision to remove historic
designations that is required by Miami County. So, uh, we are required to follow their minimum standards for our, excuse me, historic preservation ordinance and we had been notified by the county that that was one area
although we are in very good standing. Um, that was one area that we were not compliant with. I' I've noticed that and I was going to ask that question. So, thank you. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions, Keith?
So in summary, it's to streamline what can be quite arduous to get rid of buildings that are falling apart that really aren't that are borderline historic and cleaning up so that people don't have to go through
multiple multiple hoops just to Yes. The I mean the idea encourage renovation. Yeah. We're encouraging it instead of discouraging it. Correct. I I think that's a great idea. I think one of the biggest changes is expanding our ability to review changes to
railings. Um historically we have a lot of we see that all the time. There's so many permits for railings. Yeah. And so I think that is probably one of the most thing one of the um elements that affects more buildings than any other element. Yeah. especially we're seeing going through the 40 or 50 year
resertification process um some of the older buildings particularly from the 1960s through the early 1980s have you know very heavy masonry railings and most of those um are having structural issues and we're we're you know at this
point taking those through the historic preservation board process where for some condominium buildings going through the process can be quite stressful. Yes. Yeah, I sat on the committee. So, um you know, I think the even though it's maybe
somewhat minor, but I think the one of the most important things we did was eliminate um some of the things that must go in front of the HPV and giving staff um the ability to approve a lot more things um um at staff level. Um because I remember I think one of our
first meetings you had said that you know you would kind of talk to people after they read through all the criteria and they're like well it's like they're reading a novel. Um you know there's just so much it's overwhelming. Um so we did try to clean that up a bit just to
make it so when somebody comes into the city and wants to do something and they they look at the criteria they think okay we can manage that. And we also tried to make it a little bit easier um moving forward for for you know small projects and big projects.
I didn't know you were on that committee. Very cool. Any other questions or someone want to move it? Make a motion. Move it. Thanks for coming in. I appreciate it. Welcome. My pleasure. Thank you. Have a great uh Elizabeth moved it. Second. Second heel.
All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? All right. Well, that must be a record. I told you an hour. We're good. Are you serious? But on time. Exactly 10 o'clock. Really? Exactly 10 o'clock. Yeah. That's incredible. Our next meeting is June 10th. How's
that? How's that agenda looking? It should be a short agenda as well. Okay. Trying to figure out what meeting I can miss for vacation. We're We're only going to have five board members for July. Just to be clear, we only have five five board
members for our July 1 meeting. July one. Oh boy. Who what happens if I'm gone, too? I didn't realize that. We're returned, by the way. We're returned. You can turn off the