Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] >> Please take your seats. [music] 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 welcome to the July 7th planning board meeting. Uh we have we're missing Elizabeth Leone
but otherwise we have a full board. So, first, can I get uh one of my fellow members to approve the minutes from the June 2nd, 2026 meeting? Approve. >> I'll approve the meeting. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. This so moved. Mr.
City attorney. >> Hi. Good morning. Today's meeting of the planning board is being conducted in a hybrid format with a quorum 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. Those wishing to participate
via Zoom may dial the toll-free number which is 877-853-5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 8614342 6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 8614342
6327. Individuals wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if using Zoom or dial star9 if participating by phone. Before [snorts] 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 as a lobbyist if you are speaking only on
behalf of yourself, you are testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information, or you are appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without compensation to express support for or opposition to an 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. 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 be sworn in one by one before addressing the board. So, if you will be uh testifying today, please raise your right hand. >> Do you swear that the testimony you'll
be giving is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll start with requests for continuances. Uh the first is planning board filed PB250776, liquor store prohibition on Lincoln Road.
Um thank you, Mr. Chair. So the there's a series of ordinances on the agenda this morning requesting a continuence to the March 2027 meeting. This is in response to uh Senate Bill 180. Um so we are have been preempted from uh adopting
certain regulations. So with um the first application, we are uh requesting a continuance to the March 2027 meeting. >> Okay. Anything we need to do? >> Um you would do need to vote on that. >> Okay. Can someone move to uh move it to the March 20th? >> Motion to move to
>> the March. >> March meeting. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. Anyone opposed? Okay. So moved. Next one is planning board file 25777 increased distance separation for tobacco and vape stores. Same thing I
assume. >> Same thing. >> Okay. Motion. >> Motion to move. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> All oppose. Okay. So moved. And these are all to March. >> Um those two are to March. >> Okay. The next one is planning board
file AB 260827 North Beach Residential Incentives LDR amendment. companion uh planning board file 260828 North Beach Residential Incentives uh comprehensive plan amendment. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chair. The sponsor of this item, Commissioner Matteo Selenus,
is recommending the item be continued to the September 8th meeting and staff has no objection to that. >> Motion to move through September. Okay, >> I second it. >> All in favor? >> All opposed. Okay, so moved. And the last one is planning board file 260826
Alton Beach Bayfront Overlay Temporary Sales Center. >> Um the sponsor of this item uh as well is uh requesting a continuence. Uh so we would recommend the September 8th meeting for the continuence and we have no objection to that. >> Okay. >> Motion to move. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. All moved. All right. Progress reports file number PB260846. uh PBO0716042 file number 18/ 1819 whatever all this is 6946 Ruvon Dome 1021 Beeritz Drive
and 997 Beeritz Drive. Thank you Mr. Chair. The applicant Alpha School LLC is appearing before the board to affirm their understanding of the conditions of approval in the previously issued modified conditional use permit. The existing cup was issued to Leatit Papon
Montasauri School for a 250 student educational facility. The school has been acquired by a new owner who is appearing before the board to affirm their understanding of the CUP conditions. Staff is recommending the board hear from the new owner and conclude the item. >> Sir, good morning, Mr. Chair, members of
the board. Um, I'm here representing Alpha School at the new owner of the Leapilon Montasauri School on Beeritz. Uh I'm here appearing as a condition of the CUP uh to inform you that we are the new owner and that we will abide by all 18
conditions of the modified use permit. Modified conditional use permit. Okay. Anyone here in chambers to speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? >> Okay. Any questions? Okay. So I guess we can move move to
dismiss it. >> Move to dismiss. Okay. >> Second it. >> Okay. Um, >> do you have any comments about this one? >> Um, no. We're actually very excited and and happy to support uh this new school. >> Great to North Beach.
>> So, all in favor of uh that I guess is dismissing it from future reports, right? >> Yes. Concluding the item. >> Okay. Keith Keith moved it. Second. >> Yeah. >> Can I get a second? Second. >> All in favor? Any >> oppose? Okay, sir. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Appreciate it. Good luck. Good day. Okay. Revocation modification hearings planning board file 2110442743 Washington Avenue. Um Mr. Chair, we did receive a request for continuence from the applicant uh
representative their attorney James Ralph. He advised us that he has a medical appointment this morning. He should be here between 10 and 11:00 a.m. So if we could skip this one. >> Oh, okay. I thought you said to continue it. Okay. And well, he has requested continuence, but >> let him make it.
>> Yeah. >> All right. We'll skip by that one. We'll go to uh the second revocation hearing plane board file 2110448 23523rd Street. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um this um particular establishment,
Bakura, is a nightclub uh located in the Collins Park neighborhood. Um the initial CUP goes back to 2006. So it has quite the history. Um there was a um a series of progress reports in 2025 for
this property due to due to violations. Um in May on May 1st, 2026, the planning department um sent a cure letter to the property owner um and tenant of the space. That cure letter was in response
to several violations which are outlined on page uh two and three of your staff report. Um primarily those violations centered around their valet operations. So the approved CUP um has a couple conditions specific to their valet
operations which was part of their operational plan when the board approved uh the CUP. um at some point their valet company uh did not renew their BTR. So the valet company was operating without a valid business tax receipt. That led
to um violations being issued of the city code operating without a business tax receipt as well as violations to the uh cup since the cup contains specific conditions about the valet. Um so over since May 6th um the the property has
received two violations um multiple days totaling a 44 violations. Um we also u note that we have been working with the applicant and the valet company. Um
I'm happy to report that after you know a good amount of time unfortunately um the valet did resolve their issues and they now currently have a BTR and their violations are pending review by the
special magistrate in in August. um you know given the issues um with this particular property while staff you know is very happy that that valet issue has been resolved we do think it's a good idea to keep this on the agenda um
and bring them back in September so we can determine if you know there's any additional violations um or if they are in compliance with all their conditions of the cup. >> Okay, thank you. Good morning. Mickey Morero here on behalf of Bakar
Nightclub. Um my address is 200 South Biscane Boulevard of the law firm Burka Del Fernandez Larkin and Tapus. Um so again, you know, we were here last month and and we heard a lot from from the board which I have conveyed to my client. Um the thing that Debbie spoke of and I just want to, you know, mention
that a little bit more again. This was these violations every time they would open you and and I've been in touch with code and I understand what happened. they would issue two violations just and we appealed them every time because frankly we felt that this is nothing to do with anything that they did or could
control. Uh the valet company that that they have used and and have a contract with and that that services many many restaurants. I think it's like 60 or so different restaurants businesses in the city um had somehow their license left and no we had no way of knowing that that was happening or doing it. So, so
they were just cited for for that third party issue. We appealed them because it again had we just decided to close until the valet company uh resolve that issue that paperwork essentially issue um they would have gone out of business because a business like that you know five six
weeks you know they lose all their employees. It's not it doesn't operate with the widest margins. So and again it was not something that they could even fix. Uh so we were constant touch with the valet company. we offered to help um their attorney did get involved and and and do everything as quickly as they
could. Re losing the contract with the valet company and seeking a new valet company would have taken longer than than what was allowed to happen here. And we've been in touch with code and they and the city attorney's office, they've been great to deal with. They understand, you know, that it really wasn't anything that we could control or even fix. So,
we're working, you know, and and they were the ones that continued our appeals to August to allow us an opportunity to to resolve that potentially with a settlement or or something reasonable just because we did everything that we could to solve it. And and the other thing that was brought up and and I and and I discussed last time the two violations that did bring us here to in
the beginning, one was related to an event that they allowed and obviously when when they allow a third party to use the venue, they're going to be more careful and they've been more careful since, but in November there was a charity event for a breast cancer charity that they allowed the you know the property to be used. And in that
event, the outdoor patio was used by the charity. It was not supposed to be used. you know, they paid the fine and that was, you know, but it again, it was it was a result of them allowing it to be used for charity. And that's that's unquestion. The other thing that uh that that brought them here was out of the
hundreds of times that they have to notify the police, you know, within 96 hours about any celebrity, any act that's going to be present in the in the venue, one time they were late. They they were late. They paid the violation. But again, that happens multiple times a week and they're pretty judicious about
getting that right. Um, another thing that wasn't in the staff report that was mentioned by several board members, there was an individual social media personality uh who had a partnership, a marketing partnership with the with the venue. There was a lot of concerns raised not just on this day as I see Mr.
Mark shaking his head cuz you definitely had some concerns. I conveyed that to them and while it was a profitable partnership for them, they immediately broke that partnership. They felt that the concerns were warranted. Um, I explained to them, you know, there was some things that, you know, may have been associated with that individual and
his following that occurred and they just felt that, you know, it was good enough reason to break that relationship. And that's since basically a couple days after that hearing, that is non-existent and that's obviously, you know, there was a little bit of social media on that because that individual was upset that he was uh taken away from the club, but nevertheless, he's no longer involved.
And I think things have has straightened out. Um, again the the number of violations I think is is really a misnomer here because it was one thing that a license by a third party vendor was lapsed. They moved quickly and these licenses take weeks and weeks and weeks
to solve because you have to come up with all new paperwork, all new signatures, stuff from the state, stuff from the county, but it got done and and everything's in order now. So I I agree with Debbie. I think that there has been enough concern. They have taken action. So, I I hope you all see that, but we're happy to come back in September or or whenever you feel appropriate to make
sure that things continue on the right path. >> Debbie, did you say a BTR was issued because my understanding is it's still under review. >> We were advised [clears throat] by the applicant late last week. It was approved. >> His code is here. They >> the assistant director of code
compliance is here. Um [snorts] >> so BTR has in fact been issued. >> Uh that's correct, sir. Uh the BTR for the valet company has been issued and um they are authorized to to now operate. >> Okay. Just want a clarification on that. >> Were they operating
were they operating or were they not there for the last two months? >> They they were not there. The valet company was not there because their BTR was was not issued. >> So you were oper operating in with knowledge of violating the cup. >> Right. Let me let me clarify the >> Let me let me before you have a
question. When you say BTR issued, does that have to be issued per location or is it a blanket BTR? >> It's one BTR and then they have to list on their business tax receipt all the locations that they service. >> And so is a BTR been issued for this location? >> Yes. The one blanket BTR has been issued
so they can >> for this location though. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> But this company had a BTR for other locations. Is that what you're saying? >> So it's one BTR and in that one BTR they have to list out all the locations that they're approved to work for. So, were they in violation in he mentioned 60
places. Were there violations in other places or did they honor their cup and decide not to uh operate with an invalid valet or get another valet? >> I I'm I'm not aware of the other locations if they were operating out of there. >> Do you? >> Yeah. Look, again, and I only speaking
to the valet company. I don't represent the other venues and you know, I just use the number, but it's it's something like that. >> But you mentioned >> Yeah. They the valet operator when I spoke to her several weeks ago told me that the only one that got even though her license was impacted the only one that got violations was this venue. No other
>> was operating illegally in other location. >> I don't know that they even knew there was an issue because they didn't receive violations. >> We were here last month. You you you didn't cure it >> between May and June. Well, >> the other venues didn't even get violations, so they didn't know they
were operating. our our our operation. We appealed every one of them >> because we don't feel that it was just frankly we didn't do anything and they did not have valet. The reason it's an issue is because the CUP back in ' 06 when it was originally issued when valet was a major way that people got the
nightclubs required so there wouldn't be parking issues that valet be required frankly and something I'd like to explore and I know today is not the day but we my client would actually like to modify that cup at the appropriate time whenever this concludes to remove that requirement and I'll tell you why they
tell me they they honor it they pay a valet company they pay at a premium because it's required Right. But they even when it's operational valet four to six cars a night the the business has changed. In ' 06 everyone valet to these clubs. Now everybody Ubers that's the
reality and I think you know I think we all recognize that. So they told me we don't need a valet really. It's it's something that is constantly creating paperwork problems for us. We don't that all this time that the valet wasn't operating the valet was not operating. They were the one that the license was at issue. They operated fine without a
valet. they didn't need to valet cars. So this sort of problem is kind of like on paper but in reality it didn't change anything because they don't need to valet. They would ultimately like to remove that condition because I think it's was very important in '06 to have but in 2026 it's a very different
business but but again the valet company Mr. Marks was not operating in the location. They were not and they were not during that time. Now they are >> does co know if they were operating illegally in other locations? >> Uh I'm not aware. Can you find out?
>> Well, how would they approach their if they didn't have a BTR? How would they not be? >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> why would you give them a BTR if they've been operating for months illegally? >> Uh, without without at least knowing that. >> True. I I think what happens is that I
mean just from seeing this happen with some of our valet operators there are times where they're operating they might have had a BTR it lapses for whatever reason someone doesn't get a notice they get the notice that they're in violation they immediately apply and the issuance of the BTR is some type of stamp that
okay it's you know procedural you got it now you're good to operate so I mean >> when did they somewhat normal that it happens >> so that information I the information that I I do know is that they were issued they're they reissued their BTR on June 30th. So that >> But you don't know when they reapplied?
>> No, I I I wouldn't have that information. That information goes through our finance department, which handles all all business tax receipt applications. >> Okay. And you're certain that this location has been approved for it? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> What What about the pyrochnics violation?
>> So that that was something called the police violation. >> Hold on. Let me ask just about this one. By the way, do you have your records that verify what you're saying >> that they were issued a BTR on June 30th? Where are you getting that from? >> From our uh system, our intergov system, >> you looked at that this before you test
before you came today. Okay. All right. Because I my understanding is it was still pending >> for for the valet. No, the valet it clearly says on the system issued June 30th active active status. >> All right. I have a question. >> Do you swear? >> Are they under oath? I just want to make
sure you're accurately, you know, that you not assuming that you actually know that for a fact. >> How of how often is code out there on scene and are they getting called or they get is it just random checks like they do with other nightclubs? >> Uh well, routinely it is just random
checks, random proactive checks that we do at different clubs, but since we knew that this location was was in violation, we wanted to make sure that they uh were either in compliance or not. So, we would do regular checks at this particular location. >> And I think to attempt to answer Mr. Mark's question on the timing, we the
minute we found out, and frankly, the valet company found out about this issue from me. I I found out who they were, I contacted them. I said, "Guys, we're having an issue with this venue because of your license." They're like, "What issue?" I mean, they didn't even know. So, then we got them. I don't represent
valet company. My client does not control the valet company. They were telling us, "We don't know what happened. We're going to get on right away." We had weekly calls. Ultimately, they did, you know, we believe they started the process pretty much immediately. They were caught by surprise. Um, and again, none of the other venues, and I I don't understand
why, and I'm not here to explain it because I don't get it. But we got issued violations just by opening, you don't have valet every time. None of the other venues according to according to the valet company. So, I'm not I'm not testifying. I'm just selling what someone else told me that should know. We're the only one that got violations for this. None of the other ones were
told to close. None of the other ones even knew about this that the Valley company serves. So, we were the ones pushing them to please solve this because it's affecting us. We have we appealed it because again, I think us not appealing it and just closing down would have just meant the business
closes because a valet company didn't file paperwork that we didn't control. And I just think that's patently unfair. So, we did everything we could to help them. We offered to help. They ultimately did resolve it in less than two months. It does take time. For those that are involved, have been through licensing process. It does take sometimes months to to get a license.
When you let it lapse, it's not just make a payment. You got to show new paperwork and it takes time, but they did it. We were constantly, you know, offering support and and and ple urging them on. Um, but I think we're in a much better place now. And and and that's why, you know, I I think, you know, we've done everything that we could do.
And again, is there anyone in chambers to speak on this? >> No. Yes. Are you come on up? Ray Brereslin, president of Collins Park Neighborhood Association. And I just want to go on record to say we're very
concerned about 23rd Street. It is the arguably the busiest street in our neighborhood. You you can't get to Collins Avenue until you get to 41st Street. But yet there's no activity at all between Valero gas station and
Walgreens on either side of the street. Every business is closed or not open. And the city owns two of those properties. They haven't done anything with the property at the Anomar. They've been working for five years with with Miami New Drama in the garage, but yet nothing has happened. If you walk down
that street, it's filthy. You in front of of the property that we're talking about there there's uh uh on on the windows it says not a window, but yet they're peeling. The building is filthy. I mean, to me, this is very
important for our neighborhood to maintain a cleanliness. So, all of this, as far as I'm concerned, is part of a CU that you issue to the building. One of the things they originally told us is that they were going to have the uh um they have that outside area that's all
blocked off and nice sofas and everything else that was going to be open during the day or early evening and offer something to the neighborhood. That's never happened. you know, they want to put a restaurant on the corner. Um, and I know that that's coming through at some point in time. You know, I don't know what kind
of benefit the neighborhood is actually going to get out of that. So, I think you have to look at all of that when you're doing this. And I appreciate D. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ray. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else in chambers? Anybody on Zoom? Okay, >> you can come back up and I guess any
other questions or >> Well, the the question is it was requested of staff to have police discuss. >> Oh, sorry to interrupt. I I missed someone. We do have one person on Zoom. >> Okay. >> Can >> Okay. >> Sorry, Mr. Marks. Hi. >> Um uh we have Brewster. Not
>> Brewster. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? you there? >> Hello, >> Dad. Is he still showing his? >> Yes. >> Oh, there >> I do. >> Can you hear me now? >> Thank you.
>> First. >> All right. Sorry. Again, my name is Bruce Dernod. I represent the Anomar at Collins Park uh with the Miami City Ballet School as dormatory dwelling and workforce housing for the city of Miami Beach. Uh aside from all of the
discussion about valet, I brought this up last month on this call. Um, our concerns and my [clears throat] concerns as a property manager for the developer side and everyone involved is the safety of residents, safety of students,
>> and the activity that's going on at that nightclub. It's been said multiple times that that courtyard is not to be used. That courtyard is used each night that that club is open. Whether it's rented out privately or not, the courtyard is in heavy use. The noise activity is insane. And the activity that occurs
between the hours of 2 am and 5:00 a.m. when that club shuts down, there are people all over the streets. They are crossing the sidewalks. They are in partying in the middle of the streets. They're on my property when they're not supposed to be. And it's turning into an
entire nightmare. My residents are complaining, the students are complaining, they cannot sleep, and I'm going to have people move out of this building early than what they would normally do because of it. So, that's my concerns with the noise and what's going
on. And I don't think anybody's really bringing that up, but the cops have been called multiple times. It should be in the reports. >> Where's the report? >> So, we had requested uh that the police department attend today's meeting. Um,
we have not. We reached out to them again today. We have not heard back from them um for a while. So I don't know if we are going to have any updated information but the previous discussion included the calls for service >> numerous calls. >> Correct. >> Noise
>> but no noise violations. >> No the noise violations would be a code compliance violation. >> The calls for service are basically you know calls reporting any type of criminal activity neighborhood issue. Um and right it could be you know that they
assigned an address but it's happening outside the nightclub and and um you know it appeared that there were several vi the of the police citations um that were during the hours of operation of the nightclub.
>> So but with Mr. not has has um mentioned it seems that there's noise violation happening uh where the noise seems to be excessive between two and five. Do we have any? >> I don't have any recent noise violations or noise warnings. Um I I I don't
believe code has has cited or given a warning for any noise violations within the past several months. >> And I if it's okay, Mr. Shar, I can speak to that as well. So again, you know, I'm happy to reach out to Mr. Nod. I can try and find his contact information and and and work with him. But as you know, I mean, first of all,
code is there every night that they're open. I mean, that's evidenced by the violations. We have no noise violations. It's not, you know, oftentimes noise violations as we've seen with other locations are not that hard to get if you're in violation. The city's very active and they have a very good code enforcement department. If there are
complaints, they get there pretty quickly and they issue these violations. >> Can I code director, sir? Are you knowledgeable in the last two months of code being you've been checking on valet that you could check on them at midnight? What
what activity has code had proactively to look at that place between 2 and 5 a.m. any >> uh proactive? >> So yes, proactively uh absolutely we we are out there. Uh we're not out there the entire time. So there
>> no but between 2 and 5 rand >> between two and five we have randomly uh gone out proactively >> in the last several months. >> Correct. since since May. >> Since May. >> Since May. Um, and we have received noise complaints. Uh, when we have received the noise complaints, it depends if it's on a Wednesday. Uh, we
don't have officers working until 5:00 a.m. Uh, so we would get the complaints after the fact. Uh, and that's not something that we're able to issue a notice uh for because our officers need to observe it firsthand. Uh now when it's been on any other days that our officers are working uh if we we are uh
very quick to to issue a notice for excessive noise. However, uh in the last two months we have not issued a notice of violation. So we have not uh physically observed firsthand any noise violations. >> Do you know how many calls for noise you've had in the last year? Uh I don't
have that exact number on me now, but um >> guesstimate >> a guesstimate a fair guesstimate I would say between five five maybe five to seven perhaps in the last uh two months to three months >> as far as the court usage. Um can you
both clarify whether or not that's what Mr. Kn said? Is it being used illegally? Is that correct? >> From my perspective again to to as Edgar said they're there pretty regularly. There's one night a week that because of the shift they can't be there at certain hours but but they're pretty much there a lot. You can see proactive investigation on the entergov. They're
there pretty regularly. If that courtyard's being used illegally, a violation would be issued. It's been issued before for that charity event. I'm not again I'm happy to speak to Mr. or not. I I maybe there's some, you know, staging that goes on. It's not they're not operating as part of the venue. I'm not saying that people don't walk through it because they could use
it to bring in stuff. Again, it but to say that they're using it as part of the nightclub. It's just that's not my understanding and speaking to my client and the evidence from the violation shows that just not happening. But again, if there's something that's impacting him and his residents where I'd love to talk to him and understand, but but I'm not and again, I want to
point something else out as has been said and and again, I I I know Ray Rosen for years and I'm happy to speak to him and and maybe, you know, address some of his concerns about the neighborhood, but as as mentioned, a lot of these properties are vacant. It's, you know, we just happen to be one of the only open places in that area. So, if something happens a block away, you
know, the the address you put, I've seen this many times, is the address of of the closest venue that has a license, but it doesn't mean it happened there. It is an area with, you know, when you don't have activity, you're more likely to have, you know, vagrancies and other issues. Am I saying nothing has ever
happened as a result of people in the club? Of course not. It could be. People are out partying. There's an argument. It happens at every venue, restaurants, nightclubs. But I think to say that it's all related to this to this venue is not fair because it's an area that's just under underlit and under underactive. >> So I think there's a couple things just so we move things along here. So I think
we we've addressed the valet issue. I think that's resolved. Um and so based on what they're here for today, that's a section that we could probably move. But we do have a lot of issues and I just would call on to like Ry and the Mr. Not. We got to make sure that you guys call in the V and I know it's not on you
guys to do this, but I think we are all um wanting the neighborhood to to to be representative of the city, especially when you have a institution like the city uh um ballet school across the street. Um, I think that bring them back in September is valid. But between now
and then, or maybe it's October to give it a little more time, but I think it's valid that um there are some issues and that we got to make sure that the residents call in some complaints if there's violations of noise um so that we have something to base ourselves on to make a decision in the next um
hearing. >> Make the motion. >> So, I may have more questions. Um, so I guess what is the number one I'm looking at the I guess the cup. Is this the one that was originally issued for Mokai
>> at 2 a.m. >> and then transferred over to to uh to Bakar. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um I I mean I don't see anywhere in there that they can't use the courtyard. It just can't there can't be uh entertainment out there. Is that
right? >> Um they did come back for a modification I believe to the there was a previous uh revocation modification hearing where the the planning board did remove that courtyard that outdoor area from the
venue. >> The courtyard is outdoors. Is it correct? >> It says no outdoors. Correct. >> Item right there on item six. >> Correct. >> So no use I'm sorry outdoors. It says no outdoor entertainment shall be permitted. You can pour people out there
and have them, you know, doing whatever, drinking, and you can maybe even have ambient music out there. I don't know. But you can't have entertainment. >> And so >> the the use of it even as just an outdoor cafe was removed. >> Yeah.
>> As part of their CP I guess >> 21 I believe. So currently if they are using it even if it's just for you know a quiet passive service of of food or drink that would not be >> I don't know if necessarily they're
doing that but if they have people hanging out out there as maybe even like a smoking lounge that would be noisy and that would be using it as part of their facility. I think one of the issues that we've seen over the years for code is when that's not when it's not directly
in the cup saying that this cannot be used for you know XYZ then code is not looking you know they're looking at the CUP and if it doesn't say that they're not going to issue a citation even though technically as you know the planning department's intent and and
some of the lawyers involved said you know the intent of this isn't you know is is so that it's not going to there's no noise out there or it's not going to be used because of it was supposed to be a cafe and that's stricken code doesn't see that and they're not going to issue a violation. So my
inclination so I mean what is it that they're using the courtyard for? Is it just for like a smoking section area or >> so my understanding and I brings this to them in reference to the one violation that >> sorry what >> your mic wasn't on they turned it on
there it's on. Um, it was that it's just not being used. Again, to your point, are some people using it like as an outdoors? Like if like like the sidewalk when they're >> pulling like are there cars back like are there cars back there? Like it can't happen. >> There's no there's no service there. There's no entertainment. There's it's
not part of the venue. It's not being used. I believe we're complying with the cup. I can speak to Debbie after this before, you know, assuming >> get to it is the only way through the venue. >> You can get to it through the venue and there's there's an opening outside as well. I I guess the question, you know,
how number one, I I do think it's concerning about the the noise that pours out. Yes. You know, we've had that issue with with MA and they have done a good job of, you know, having security, >> you know, handle that. So, I mean, it's not something that can't be fixed. So,
that's a concern. The the other concern is if the neighbors are complaining about the noise from the the outdoor area, there's clearly something going on there. I guess I I obviously there's no like formal violation of that other than
that one I think in October, but >> I mean that's that there there's a problem here and it's not going to get fixed until it gets fixed. >> So so the tell me about the pyrochnic thing. >> So let me just I will answer this question first so I get my train of thought. So again, when there are
violations, we figure out we reach out to code city attorney's office what was the violation, try to resolve it. Here I'm hearing about it here. So I'm going to reach out to the gentleman and if it if if it means that we explain to the to the operators just you can't have people out there at all because it's not your noise or your service, but just people
happen to be talking before they come in. It's creating an issue. Maybe, you know, maybe that's what it is. >> Technically, is it under their control? >> It's part of their lease premises, >> so they can lock it up. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. I think unless we want to change the cup, which I wouldn't mind,
>> I think where we're heading, >> we should make them lock that area up. >> If they can't fix it themselves and handle the issue, they can fix it themselves. >> We're just hearing on it. So, we're happy to address it. I just there no violations. I wasn't prepared to address it in a level of detail because I didn't know it was an issue. But to your point,
yes, we might be able just to lock it up. I just Well, I'm saying there may it may be something for staging, but look, yeah, absolutely. That that's that's the goal. We want to solve this. They don't use it. They're not making money in that area. They're not selling drinks in that area. So, if there's an issue that we're hearing about, we want to fix the issue. >> The pyrochnics thing, you know, that's
something you've seen with a lot of the there was, you know, one of these VIP birthday party things. Somebody brought those sparklers that, you know, they their employees are trained not to do that. Somebody did it. It was a onetime thing and they were and it was, you know, I said, and by the way, that occurred prior to us being here last time. It was something that and and I
and I said, "Listen, you guys are on are about to get your second strike, you know, nothing." and and and that the employee that was addressed um it's something that happens far too often and it's a fire issue and and they they recognize the concern but but you know in retrospect they've been hit with a
lot of issues and have really I think done everything they could to address it. This valet thing was was out of left field and it really disrupted everything and we got it solved and we helped get >> the to me the most troubling of all of them is the pyrochnic issue because it's the safety concern. It's a really big safety concern. You got a tight packed
tight club. we've seen what happened at we've seen what what's happened at other clubs. You got an old building. Um, and so I mean that's, you know, very concerning to me that that either there's not good training of your employees or there's just the the ownership doesn't care or they see that
where this is heading and they figure let's go out. >> In my understanding to to go with what because I think this board was cor was very very much correct, you know, and I'm not again my kids know about some of these internet personalities. I learned from them used to be cool, not cool anymore. But in any event, the individual that was tied to the club,
you know, his there was some and that was during that time. There were some poor decisions made um that person's been removed very decisively and and I think >> it's still on their Instagram that that >> he's been moved. >> Well, I know but his name is still on their main profile like clouds list.
>> I can tell you that there was a vote. You can also see an Instagram where this individual was, you know, publicly upset that he was removed and you know, but he's no longer part of the collection. Um, so I mean my inclination would be to continue it till at least you know number one I mean we'll be here sooner
if there's another violation. So my inclination would be to hold it over you know because September I mean everything's dead now and um so I would hold it over till you know the January um planning board meeting. I don't know.
>> I'd second that. give some time for >> seems to be a a long period of time >> but you you come if there's a vi I mean here >> any violation will bring us back >> any CP violation >> all right so
>> one noise >> can we do that move it to J but but if a complaint comes in >> we could reschedu it sooner >> yes if we're alerted to any type of violation we will bring it back sooner um and I'm also happy to bring it back
hopefully you know They they'll stay out of trouble and we'll bring it back in January. >> One noise violation. >> Is there anything else that can be I mean I think if if we come back I mean we're definitely going to want to hear from the police department um >> and and we will make that request again.
>> Strange. Yeah. Um the one one question I had is because this um this you've discussed the courtyard area um there we could clarify that condition today um because I think
the condition is everyone you know the applicant's understanding that that area cannot be used by patrons of the establishment um and that's you know when I read the CUP that's my understanding but maybe if you if you wanted clarify that in the order. Um, we can do that.
>> I would like to make a motion that the order is explicit, that the courtyard is under their control, and that they need to make sure as long as it doesn't violate any fire codes, that they can secure it and lock
it, and that no one, including their employees, go out in that courtyard since they are 5:00 a.m. Um, and most of their activity probably starts at 2. Uh, I think that's imperative that that ends and that it I'd like to put a motion
that that's part of the cup. I >> I have a critical just because I and I think we can certainly explore that. But Mr. President, >> I'm not exploring. I'm making a motion to modify the cup, >> right, >> to require the owner to secure that
location and that it is no one including employees go out there. >> My concern just as to your motion if I may. I think that's a number one that's one of the main entrances ingress and egress. People should not congregate there. It's also a fire issue if they close that. I think it's a fire issue because it's it's one of the ingress and egresses. I don't think we can close it.
So I just don't want there to be a condition created. I think it would create more problems. >> What's that? >> They can't close it. >> I think it's a required fire exit and and also it's one of the main entrances. I'm not People don't congregate there. There's no service there, but it is a required access point. And
>> it's Yeah, the main entrance. It's it's yeah, it's it's it's the primary entrance. It's a required fire exit. So, I I'm very comfortable saying it won't be used as part of the premises, meaning we won't have service there. We won't have entertainment there. And that's what we're doing. But
>> it's to get in and out. >> The gathering is the thing, too. Just having people hanging out, gathering just like on the sidewalks. >> And I'm going to I'm going to make sure that that's an important point made to them about congregation. But, but I just to lock it. I just don't think that's possible and would be create way more
issues as far as ingress and egress and the main entrance would be now unaccessible. >> You you can't make it a fire exit like we have in every other building. So it's locked but it has a push bar on the inside so that it can be used. The alarm goes off. >> I I think it it's fire pumps.
>> It's the main entrance. It's how most people get in and out. I I just think >> the go through the cardia to get into the unit. That's that's the main entrance and that gets the people off the street. They come in, they hang out in there while they're going to be on the street. >> Right. If you're going to address the
board, we need you on the mic. >> Yeah, please. >> Well, thank you, R. >> Yeah. Obviously, none of you have actually been to this property, but uh it's it's got a hedge all the way around at least 5t taller than I am. And there's just one little entrance to get
in. There's a guard that will check your ID. You get into that area and then the main entrance to the property is from there. Big huge 12- foot wide entrance, big tall doors. That's the way you get into the property and it is a double door entrance. Um the only other
entrance there is a VIP entrance off the parking lot in the back. All the way along um 23rd Street there is no entrance. And that was my complaint is they don't keep that area clean. It's filthy. >> All right. All right. And so in light of the the the noise issues that we're having and the fact that we want to keep
that area clear to no gathering, is there a way of wording it to make sure that there is no gathering happening there? >> Um certainly you could um require that the use of that courtyard only be for egress and ingress. Correct.
>> And that there shall be no congregation of patrons within the courtyard. >> There would be people there. There would be violation and code compliance could be finding them. All right. >> Okay. I'd make that motion. >> All right. So, we have a motion that that area is restricted to ingress and egress.
>> No. >> Or it's a code. >> It's only You said ingress and egress. It's only >> egress. It's the main entrance. You have to go through there to the main entrance. >> Well, I guess here's here's what I I think I was saying is that Well, number one,
patrons have to queue inside of the property and no queuing shall occur occur on the sidewalk or any public right away. That's the condition that's in there. Now, what sounds like it's happening is that they're queuing in that courtyard as a way of circumvent
and so there's a lot of people gathering out there causing noise waiting to get in to the club and that's problematic because that's causing noise for the neighborhood and that's never I mean obviously I you don't want people out on the street for various reasons clogging
up the sidewalk but it's also so you don't bother the next nextdoor neighbors. Um, I mean, you've se we've seen this, you know, uh, all the time all the time. I mean, there's problems. So, that is what I think we're trying to fix. But if you're if you're saying
that's the only place to enter the property, then they can't allow queuing. I mean, how are you going to allow huge lines outdoor gather, you know, how do you know? I don't know. >> I think it's like like most other places, they're supposed to have place inside. That's it doesn't clear. >> They queue inside,
>> right? [snorts] >> All right. So, we need to make it clear on what the motion is. Keith, go ahead. >> The motion is that it is for ingress and ingress, if I pronounce that correctly, only
uh no queuing in the cart yards because it could happen at 4:00 or 5 in the morning. And that if they have an overflow, it has to be adjudicated on the inside that they check people and if they're good to go in, they go in. If not, they don't hold them in that area.
>> Otherwise, it's going to cause issues with the neighbors. >> That works. >> You can word it how you want in the >> Can we get a second? >> I need a second on that motion. >> Any second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Anyone opposed to that? Okay. Now, the second motion was by Jonathan >> to move it to >> to January January, but with the exception that if there are complaints that come in in the interim that we can schedule it sooner, correct? Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Can I get a second on that
motion? >> I'll second that one, too. >> Okay. All in favor of that. >> Anyone oppose? Okay. Unanimous. All right. Thank you, guys. >> Thank you all. >> Uh James, are you ready? Okay. We're going to go back to uh the other
revocation modification hearing planning board file 2110442 743 Washington Avenue. >> Um thank you Mr. Chair. Just a a quick introduction. So this CUP is also um you know quite old. It was originally
approved in 2008. Um it was last modified in um 2024 and we sent a cure letter in uh in April of this year um due to violations
associated with failure to notify the police department of the you know events or promoted uh activity at the nightclub. There were several um of those violations issued um since that time. Let's see. The last violation we
have on record was issued um let's see I think it was it um December 27th, 2025. Um since that time we have not they have not received any additional violations and all fees um have been paid. So the
the when we wrote the report, they still had I believe it was $11,000 in outstanding fees that has been paid. Um so we just want to thank the applicant for that. And we are recommending uh however that we continue this um just to
ensure that there are no um future violations. Um so we're recommending a continuence to the September meeting. >> Okay. James, hope your appointment went well. >> Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, honorable board members. Thank you for letting me make it to my uh medical appointment. Um
we're it James Ralph Greenwater office at 600 BL Avenue [clears throat] here on behalf of the operator under this file. Um we're our firm was just recently engaged but we're so we're requesting attainments. We're requesting the same um continuence the staff is recommending
to September as the staff indicated. There's no violations. There are no fines doing owing. Um and so we're just asking it be continued and uh we'll address anything that comes up in September which we don't anticipate. >> Anybody in chambers to speak on this
item? Anyone on Zoom? Okay. Any questions? Someone want to move it to September? >> Yeah, I'll move. >> Okay. Keith, can I get a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. All right. We'll see you in September. Thank you very
much. >> Okay. On to previously continued applications. Planning board file I guess companion 260815 and 0816 1775 Collins Avenue LDR amendment and comprehensive plan amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This proposal is for an F increase for the Raleigh site which includes the historic Raleigh South Seas enrichment hotels. This hearing is step three in a six-step process for F increases. Last month, we had the initial meeting in a public workshop which were steps one and two.
The workshop was well attended with four speakers and a summary of feedback from the workshop has been passed out for the board's information. After the board makes a recommendation, the process will continue with a first reading at commission, a second public workshop, and a second reading at commission. The
applicant is proposing to increase the F from 2.0 0 to 2.5 for RM3 oceanfront lots within the architectural district that exceed 100,000 square ft as of January 1st, 2026. These criteria would only apply to the Raleigh site. All
other properties within the architectural district that exceed 100,000 square ft were aggregated prior to November 14th, 1998 and are eligible for a greater 3.0 F. The proposed 0.5 F increase represents an additional
approximately 66,000 square ft of floor area. The applicant has submitted preliminary massing plans to show how the additional F could be distributed. The requested code amendments do not alter existing height or density maximums and any revised design for the project will require review by the
historic preservation board. Given the size of the property and the importance of the three historic buildings, staff is generally supportive of the proposal and recommends the board transmit a favorable recommendation to the mayor and city commission. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez.
>> Thank you. >> Good morning. Um, Mr. Chair and board, my name is Alfredo Gonzalez, office of 333 Southeast Second Avenue with Greenberg. on behalf of the applicant uh Nala Rally LLC. Uh with me
today I have from uh ownership Genesis Hadid. We have other representatives from the project team as well as uh from Kobe Carp's office um Matt Beard. Well, we were here last month and we didn't do a full presentation. We're
going to try to do a a shorter presentation. uh since you've seen we we've had since our last meeting we've had our community meeting as staff has said and um gotten feedback and we're continue to work on this project.
Today's request is strictly a.5 increase in F and um but before I start the presentation I know u Mr. had come in for the hearing wanted to say a few words the the the developer so I'm going to introduce him and then I'll get into the PowerPoint.
>> I'm right here. Good morning. Uh thank you again for the time today. Appreciate everybody's uh focus on this very important project. As I introduced last time and and reiterate today, there is nothing more important in our business right now than the Raleigh Hotel. Um our team has continued to work tirelessly.
We have since our June 2nd meeting in the I guess in the past month, uh we have spent 25% more than I had told you at that time. We had invested already 4 million into the asset that's specifically into the hotel. We're now at 5 million. We're not stopping. Our
goal is to continue to move forward um at a rapid pace. We do continue to believe that our request is uh is appropriate given the size and scale of the project. We're uh fully dedicated to the preservation of the property and the hotel. Um, in line
with this request as as previously presented, there is nothing more important to us than getting this project going and not wasting any more time. Um, and we're not wasting any time. We appreciate your attention to this. We appreciate Alfredo's work on this and Kobe Carb's team. Everybody's working weekends,
nights, holidays, um, to get this project off the ground as fast as possible. And with that, I just I'm here to answer any questions and I'm here for for for anything that you may want to discuss. Thank you. >> Appreciate those comments. Could we get the PowerPoint up, please?
Thank you. So, obviously, I'm just going to go I'll skim fast through the presentation. I know you've seen parts of it. Uh, obviously, this is historic rally and historic images. This is going back to the work that was done. Uh, the restoration that, you know, this now the
capital is is the fifth owner in over 14 years. And uh one concern when uh the new ownership took over was the fact that the Raleigh hadn't been boarded up or protected in over 9 years. Uh and as I said at the last meeting by May 1st all that was completed. So >> sure.
>> It's been open, right? >> Has it been closed or open? >> It's been closed. It it was closed in 2017 after when Tommy Hilfinger three two owners ago. >> So it's been closed for almost 10 years. >> Huh? >> It's been closed for almost 10 years. >> Yes, sir. Wow. So for about 14 years there's been several ownerships to
redesign Toyota redesign the Raleigh. Back in 2017, Tommy Hilfinger Group uh acquired development rights uh through HBB and started pulled a permit and stripped the Raleigh to what everyone's been to this image that everyone's been
looking at for over nine years. And that that continued until this year with the current ownership hearing the concern their own concerns and the concerns of staff and and the city that this building was being unprotected and god forbid there was uh some kind of storm.
So that's why what you see now >> what when was it acquired? >> It was acquired at the end of October 2025. So they immediately started getting access to the site when they had full control in December and realizing the conditions of the Raleigh and uh we've been working with the city ever
since. So they went immediately to get permits and address. So you'll see the facade uh all the interior bracing and shoring that was done in the interior as well was completed and they've cleaned up the pool. And then one thing that I know uh staff has been for years or over
a decade looking to have it removed was there was a penthouse edition in the '9s um and while it was under permit had never been actually removed. Now the building has been braced and protected the current ownership has gone and moved removed it. And then this was a dune
cross over um Dune crossover behind the Richmond Hotel that was in disrepair for years and again they tried they got it done before May 1st. So, not to interfere with hurricane season or um and it's now back in the public eye. Uh that was one cons comments we were
getting from the city that they were concerned about and complaints that this was in disrepair and had been for several years. So, want to give you context. What this project is asking for is a 0.5 F. And as staff and James and
Debbie mentioned, uh it would really apply to only large scale sites in within this this this area. It's about a five five block area that uh several other sites already are grandfathered I guess at a much higher F. And just to
give you a scope, this is an overlay of the RM3 district and the May Beach Architectural District oceanfront sites. So you'll see that there is already four sites. You have the Satai. I understand Satai's over 6.0 F. Uh that was done
before the the the I guess the the the 1996 down zone. >> 2011 is a Satai. >> The Yes. 21101 is a tie. That's number one. Then then you have the short club and the >> short club is 1901. >> Yes, sir. Short club is 1901. Then you go to site number three which is our
site, the Raleigh Richmond Souseas. And then you go to four, which is the Rich Carlton Sagamore site. the Ritz Carlton site and the uh Shelburn site, sorry, not Shelborn, uh Short Club are at 3.15
F, which is the 3.0 F plus a bonus of up to 1.5. So, out of the only large scale sites in this area, and I didn't include all the way in the southern tip, the Lowe's, the Lowe's is at 425 F.
the the Luual Lowe's Hotel is in the RM3. The Royal Palm that's part of the complex is in the MXC. So, since it was a little confusing, I left it out. But it again, only the the few large scale sites. This does not open the door to um
other sites and outside of this bracket anywhere else an oceanfront property uh in RM3 as long as they're over 45,000 square ft almost a third of what our site is over
137 would automatically have a 3.0 F. So, what we're asking for today is for this board to recommend to help this project move forward and get built as fast as possible. This 25% which equates to about 66,000 ft of F
um increase. We're not asking to be treated the same as the other two site large sale sites in that area which are at 3.15 which would have meant about 152,000 ft of additional F. Uh we stuck it to the 0.5
And just so you know, we're not asking for any density increases. I mean, this project was clearly before it started the Richmond South and uh the three hotels had over 300 hotel units. It's been entitled since 220 2020 at 84 residential units and 86 hotel units.
With this F that the current ownership is looking at having at maximum 52 units and under 80 hotel rooms. So, still a reduction from what was entitled. Um, >> yeah, I was going to ask you. So, the the added F is going to go where?
Where's the added F and we we can I'll talk to you about that. Part of it's going to go into the new tower. There's a proposal to and we and right now we're still working on massings. Remember this project once the F is approved, we will be able to submit to the HPB in order to
apply that.5 and hopefully successfully get that.5 allocated throughout the site. So at that point we'll have detailed plans. What you've seen is what's required under the F is to have some massing to have general ideas of where everything's
going to to give this board that indication. That's what the images I have and I'll show you. We'll have >> and and rewind is this just going to be a hotel or is it a condo hotel? >> It's going to be a combination. So it'll be a ro it still going to have a rosewood flag. Uh as you had told it before,
>> can I chime in on that? Yeah. Ju just to put some context. This is a threeacre site. So, this is a very significant property. Um, it was previously three hotels that have all been combined into one property, the the the Raleigh, the Richmond, the South Seas. Um, this will take about a billion dollars of reinvestment into this site to achieve
what we're asking for as part of this application. It'll be multiple restaurants, it'll be a hotel, um, it'll be a residences, there'll be landscape gardens, >> but each three of the three buildings will remain >> remain. Absolutely. Absolutely. We're we're keeping the integrity of what the
HPB has has requested and and our intention is preservation, right? I mean, the goal is to keep the the soul of this property. It is not to uh demolish anything that's >> right. But all three that were once separate hotels will all be now run by one correct flag,
but they will remain independent buildings. >> Okay. >> Uh they will not be >> each building will have condos and hotels. >> No, the condos will be a separate separate building. >> Okay. on the site because it's a threeacre site. You have the space and it was >> I wonder so there's going to be a separate condo >> towers.
>> That's right. >> And then the three existing buildings will remain hotel. >> That's correct. >> Got it. Okay. Thanks. >> Yes. >> The of the picture you showed which one >> I'm going that way. >> Okay. You're going I'll wait.
>> No, no. I'm happy. Um so just wanted to be clear that with this 0.5 of FR it's not also requesting any type of height increase height >> we are we're operating under the existing zoning under RM3 which permits up to 200 ft uh for sites and 200 feet
is typically found in a lot of ocean front sites within the historic district and more than one historic districts along uh the oceanfront. Um, in addition to this, the, you know, the owner had proposed public benefits to
improve 18th Street over a million dollar contribution. Uh, obviously we're restoring the the three El Murray Dixon buildings to their original um 1940s uh facades because they had been altered in the 50s, especially the Richmond the
South Seas. obviously added security in addition to the security that is provided for the the Raleigh site and introduction of an arts and cultural program that works within the Raleigh site and also in the public right away in conjunction with the city of local
artist. Um but these are some of the renderings of what we this building the historic structures are not are actual accurate. They're based on the building permit sets. So you'll see the Raleigh. What you're looking behind the Raleigh
is would be the the new tower. Um here's a street uh straight on. You see the Richmond, the South Seas, and uh the Raleigh. Um and to answer some of your questions you were talking about. So there'll be activations in the lobbies of the Richmond, the South Seas.
Obviously, the main entrance is is the Raleigh Hotel. Uh will be flagged under the Rosewood, but the whole site will be controlled. There are basements. uh and then the residential towers in the rear. When you see this image, understand that with this massing, we just basically for
this purpose, we added two levels of the already permanent building. So just the two top floors is what potentially in some iteration would come back with that.5 F. Uh the rest of the building is currently permitted
and that ends up another image >> and that height of that tower is what's permitted there. It looks huge. >> 200 It's 200. It's 200 feet. It's went under the zone. It is permitted under code at 200. >> So, I mean, obviously, it has to go to the HPB to approve it. >> Uh, but we're not asking for any there's
no text amendment. I was just curious a greater height. >> Uh, unlike I know there's some text amendments that were approved and reviewed throughout parts of the historic district that allow different heights. This is 200 which you know and I could happy to talk to you about the numerous sites in the historic districts
oceanfront sites. 200 has been the standard since the '9s. >> Okay. >> Based on preliminary massing, how many units do you have in there? >> Uh about 52. >> Great. >> And then [snorts]
that just a street the street front view. Um at this point what I'd like to do is just reserve to rebut. I know there's going to be >> okay >> a lot of discussions and if and maybe um during I'll rebut and then I can answer any questions. >> Let me open the public hearing and then
we'll go from there. >> All right. Anyone in chambers to speak on this? >> There any um exparte disclosures before we hear from the public? >> None. >> Do we need disclosures on that code? Oh, this Oh, yeah. Yeah. Actually, it's legislative, so we don't
>> Yeah. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And I know you know this, but just introduce yourself and your affiliation. Thank you. >> Hi, good morning. Amanda Crichand um with uh AQH Law Offices at 1395 Brick Avenue, Sweet 800. I'm here on behalf of
the Shelurn Hotel. It's a budding property owner. Um, my client is here, Mitchell Cohen. He's going to also speak on the record from a more personal basis, but from a legal perspective, I'd like to place um to point out a couple of facts because the board picked up on it right away. Um, I think somebody said
that the tower looks huge. Um, the first page that in the materials that I passed out, and I have given one to um, Mr. Gonzalez, is an aerial of what the site looks like as of the current group uh, Google aerial. It shows a relatively blank slate. So, where we put the F is
important, but it's flexible because this is a 3acre site. You have the Raleigh hotel still standing, you have the pool, and then you have the facades of the two smaller hotels. Um, so there is a lot of flexibility as to where where you put the F. And on behalf of my client, um, he does not object to the
additional F. The height is the issue. It is out of scale. It is out of context with the neighborhood. It is out of context with the architectural district. So on page one, I'm showing you that it's a relatively blank slate where we can put the F other places. Um, you can
also see the height context from around 15 to 20th. That would be the tallest building. If you're looking at the rest of the buildings, they're all about >> interrupt, but you would it's permitted though, correct? >> There is a code provision that allows 200 feet, but that does not mean that it
has to be uh granted. The current building permit is for 175 ft. And in fact, there was a lot of work done at the Historic Preservation Board. I think Mr. Needleman mentioned that before. Um, Grant, I think at the at the last planning board hearing, he said, "Well, if we approve a building that was 200
ft, it'd be undoing all the work that the HPB did before." In other words, this was a controversial project before. There is a building permit for a 175 ft building that is not opposed. That was part of a resolution of previous debates between the Shelbourne Hotel and the
Raleigh. So, what we're asking for today is for for the board to add a condition onto the legislation. This is a proposed LDR and the board has the ability to make u modifications. I do believe that this is the last time this board will
hear this item, so this is your last opportunity to weigh in. But the the uh proposed 200T tower is out of context with the historic and architectural district. And so we respectfully request that the language be modified such that
any new construction would not be taller uh height greater than any of the abuing properties. As um Miss Tacket uh pointed out at the previous planning board, >> what do you what do you consider the abuing properties? >> The Shellorn and the property. >> How high is the Shellorn?
>> It's 150 with a with like a mechanical >> just sorry just a question on that. >> You can see it on I think it's page three of the handout. So I'm on page three. So separate from the I guess adjacent properties if we look at the context of everything you're showing. I mean you got Shore Club at 225, Ritz at
over 200, Satai at close to 400, W at 230. I mean it seems like they are within the context separate from again just the neighboring properties. >> Well from 15th to 20th you're looking at about 150 ft with some tower features. I
mean you look at the Ritz there's that spindle that gets it to 204. Um, you're looking at the rest of the buildings. They're in the 150 range with, you know, little mechanical towers or something like that. There's nothing that's 200 feet in that range. >> Okay. Just so you know, we we can't modify it. What we can do is make
recommendations. >> Well, yes. Your recommendation could be >> So, you know, we can't we don't have the power to modify it. We can recommend. >> Understood. >> Just to be clear. >> Yes. Understood. So we are respectfully requesting that the recommendation be that the leg that the proposed legislation be modified such that the
maximum height of any new construction would not be higher than the abuing properties. I think that would keep the height in context and will also um be a way for for the developer to get the additional F that they want for their proforma. There is no objection to the additional F. It is where uh where the F
is placed. Okay. >> Thank you. Anybody else in chambers? Sir, [snorts] >> good morning everybody, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh, Mitchell Cohen, um, Shuburn Hotel, 1801 Collins Avenue.
Um, [clears throat] every planning decision asks a simple question. Are we protecting the public interest or are we solving a private problem? Today I respectably submit that you're being
asked to solve a private problem. I reviewed the video of the June 2nd committee meeting and at 54 minutes into the hearing, council for the applicant talked about the errors that his client
uncovered during due diligence. developing 101, you check out the property, you know what it's going to cost, and you build in the risk. The way I view it, the applicant is now coming back and trying to cash in an
insurance policy. An insurance policy that says, I want 25% more F to make my project economical. Again, as as my council indicated and I indicated at the last meeting, I have no problem with F.
Again, it's just math and it's contextual. But to add 25 feet to this tower, it's not right. It It's out of context. It's out of character, and I think it impacts the heritage features
of South Beach. Additionally, at the June 30th public meeting, um council for the applicant also said that once this project is completed, the Raleigh's pool will have more
sunlight than it did in the 1950s. Well, I I feel that the applicant is asking you to take the sunlight away from me and give it to him. I don't think it's
right. I'm fine with F, but in terms of of sun shadow, the HPB went to great lengths to make this building 175 and fit in as best as it could. And this
application unwinds it with the additional height. Again, you're being asked to solve a private due diligence problem. and heightened density should be granted on planning matters on on guidelines on
on good justification not somebody who discovered that the numbers just don't add up. So, um, I respectfully ask that the F at 2.5, I'm okay with it, but I don't think
25 ft should automatically be added to the applicant's proposal for the tower at the back, which unwinds everything that has been done. >> Thank you very much for the additional time. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Ma'am, >> good morning, planning board members. My
name is Meg Lustoau. I am the executive director of the Miami Design Preservation League. For the past several years, MDPL has watched proposal after proposal come forward for the renovation of the Raleigh Hotel. During that time, a succession of developers has presented plans to restore this iconic art deco landmark. Changes in
ownership and the resulting delays have taken a heavy toll. Today, little remains of the original building beyond its facade, while the original Terzo floors and many other historic features have been lost. The current developer has submitted a proposal that is largely consistent with plans previously approved both by you, the planning board, and the historic preservation
board. However, it includes one significant change, a request to amend the RM3 zoning district regulations to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 2.0 to 2.5. After reviewing the application, meeting with the developer, and carefully considering the proposal, MDPL opposes
the requested increase in FAR. We are genuinely encouraged by the vision presented for the restoration and reactivation of the Raleigh, the Richmond, and the South Seas. These are among Miami Beach's most iconic historic hotels, and we appreciate the applicant's commitment to investing in their preservation and ensuring their continued vitality. We support the
overall goal of bringing these remarkable buildings back to life in a manner that celebrates their architectural significance. Our support for the preservation of these historic buildings, however, does not extend to the proposed far increase and concurrent addition of two stories to the new oceanfront tower. From the beginning, MDPL has expressed concern about the
scale and presence of the tower on the east side of the property. Increasing its height from 175 to 200 feet only exacerbates those concerns. A building of this size and character immediately adjacent to the beach is fundamentally at odds with the historic oceanfront setting that makes this part of me beach
so special. We note that the two proposed additional stories at top the new tower account for the vast majority of the increased development area that would be made possible by the F request. approximately 44,000 of the 66,000 additional square feet that this F would grant. Indeed, these added floors appear
to be the primary reason for seeking the F increase. We are also concerned, however, about the remaining 22,000 ft of new development proposed elsewhere on the property. I'm almost done if I can continue. >> More importantly, approving these additional floors would establish a precedent that extends well beyond this project. Should the city determine that
greater height and density are appropriate along the stretch of the beachfront to address project economics, it'll become increasingly difficult to deny similar requests in the future, that is not a precedent we believe the city should set. If additional development rights are necessary to support the restoration, the city should explore alternatives that do not further
increase the height and prominence of the beachfront tower. We are committed to working toward a solution that preserves both economic viability of the project and the historic character that makes the Raleigh, the Richmond, and the South Seas worthy of preservation. For these reasons, MDPL opposes the proposed FAR increase and respectfully urges the planning board to transmit the proposed
ordinances amending the land use development regulations and the comprehensive plan to the city commission with an unfavorable recommendation. >> One question. I know you're reading a script and I appreciate that, but if you take away the hype for a minute, what is the concern about additional F? I know
you said that they after careful consideration, but what are the concerns? Do you know or you prepared to answer that? >> Uh, well, I mean we it's a large site. There's plenty of room on the site right now. And this is an this is a concern. >> But is it [clears throat] the height the primary concern or you just don't want any >> the height is a primary concern? But
we're also concerned that someone who had the opportunity to do due diligence and knew the development restrictions came in and said bought the property, acquired the property, and then after the fact said, "Well, now my numbers don't work." Or something to that effect. And is now asking for what amounts to um a tremendous increase in e
economic value for the property. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers? Ray. >> Hi. Um, I'm here to talk about historic preservation board. A couple months ago when Ritz Carlton came before us and
wanted to build their tower, we had a whole bunch of people come in saying, "We don't want that tower. We don't want that tower." Well, we said our job is if they didn't ask for a variance, we look at the design. We don't look at the height. The only people that can really
decide that is the commission. And if if if the current zoning is for 200 feet, the commission can say we want to change our mind, but that is what they currently have. And that is what was approved for the Ritz Carlton. And and
you know, like I'm not here to say whether it's right or wrong, but your board and the HPB is the wrong place to come to talk about heights. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else in chambers? Anybody on Zoom? Alfredo, remind me the original
application that you all made was for 175 ft and then it was amended to increase 25. Just explain that. >> I'm sorry. You wanted me to explain um >> just the evolution of that request >> of the request of >> to increase to 200 feet or was it always
if I understood the original application you all made was for 175. >> No, no, no. There's and I could add >> there was no request to increase. So the the code allows you to go to 200 feet. HPB is who decides uh or votes on whether or not the 200 foot is approved.
So Shore Club got approved at 200 feet. Ritz got approved. >> Okay. My question was you guys from the beginning that >> there's no request here for 200 feet. the you mean under the current ownership the only request that's before you and the only request we've made at this
point is a 0.5 increase of F we're not asking for >> because there was no densities there's no additional density request >> no let me let me talk there there were some representations that it was for 175 ft and I my understanding is that you're
asking for additional in fact since the day you your client has purchased this property it's always been the expectation of 200 on her feet because that's what's allowed. I'm just trying to understand. >> Yeah. And and I could go through some of because there was a lot of things said and I want to clarify some misstatements
and and just >> Okay. Go ahead. >> I think it would help and then happy to answer any questions. So, um this this project this building and project is in the RM3 district allows up to 200 ft.
That is what's in the resiliency code uh today. So we could go and file an application to modify the existing building and make changes and go. >> Is Satai in the same district? >> Huh? >> Is the Satai in the same district? >> Yes, but they that's pre-196. I get it. But back then, so they the commission
has lowered obviously the >> in the '90s there was a save Miami Beach movement that some of those who were around will remember and it reduced the F before this site had about a 6.0 F just so you know like the the before the
in the '90s it was reduced and the city made an evaluation a decision at that time that the maximum height standard maximum height what on oceanfront lots in the RM3 which is our most dense area
would be 200 ft and that's what you find from all the entire RM3 district within the architectural division some tweaks and changes that some extra hurdles that only allow that 200 feet to go to large scale sites. So typically,
[clears throat] for example, if you were in the Collins Historic District in Mid Beach, you could uh if you were 45,000 square foot lot, a third of our size, you automatically could go to 3.0 F, you could go to 200 ft. You could apply. I
mean, I made it clear. Everything has to go through a hearing process. And so [clears throat] >> I'm trying to understand the ordinances that we're being asked to recommend they they don't address the height because the height's already in the code. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> It only it only addresses a 0.5 approximately 66,000 square feet of >> it's not even before us that if I understand >> that's what's before you today. And what I wanted to make clear because I know there's been a lot of discussions. Yes. When this project originally went
back in 2019 2020 under the previous owner, there were lengthy historic preservation board meetings because that's the venue where the city has determined these type of projects, any project once it developed has to go through HPV or DRB depending on the zoning. This is HPB.
>> Could HPB deny if the commission leaves >> under the existing ordinances? Okay. Where you're allowed 200 feet, can HPB even reject the 200 feet? I know they can they could address other issues. >> I can speak to that Mr. Chair that the the HPB in reviewing a specific
application for a certificate of appropriateness could condition its its approval on the basis of the appropriateness criteria that may include by reducing the height or increasing >> they can do that even though the existing ordinance allows the 200 ft. I'm just trying >> they could they could do that on the
basis of their review criteria. >> Okay, >> Brian, can I jump in? Sure. I can I sat on the HPV back then and we we did have a number of meetings. >> Um >> the concern was at least my concern and I think the concern of the board was
>> was this build the the proposed tower is is probably further east than any other any of the any of the other adjoining buildings or or far east. That was the concern at the time and and the it was thought that it would sort of overwhelm
the beachwalk in the beach and and even though the height was uh the approved the the allowable height was 200 ft. What we decided was or the what the board came up with in negotiation over the course of all the meetings was that the building would
only go up to 175 ft. And I believe the top two or three floors were were set back a little bit. Um, so there's a little bit of a step. Um, that was the concern and that's why it wasn't approved at 200 feet back then. Um,
honestly, you know, that I sat on the board then that's still a concern for me. Um, I know what you're proposing is 200 ft and probably getting rid of those um that that step back. Um
I personally I I can't see myself going back on that. I'm not opposed to the 0.5 F increase. Um it's that height and it's the location of that tower that that I have a concern with. Um, you know, I'm
I'm looking at the the um package that or the this that was handed out with the the um site um and it is a rather large site and there does seem to be some room on there to maybe move the tower, push
it back a little bit or do something. Um, quite honestly, again, I'm not on the HPB now, and I couldn't really answer this definitively unless I saw a plan, but if that tower was pushed quite a bit back from the beach, I I, you know, I'd be
okay with the 200 ft where it's located now, um, so close to the beach, the beachwalk, um, it just it it would go against everything that we talked about years ago over over the course of many meetings on the planning board. Hold on.
I'm sorry. On the HPV, give [laughter] me one second before we get into questions. >> One second. Nick and Debbie. So, I want to understand I mean there can be concern about height, but if this ordinance that's before us doesn't address height, I just don't understand what our what our even ability is
because it doesn't have a it doesn't provide for height in this ordinance. So, >> we can make a recommendation separately. But that's about a se that's to go back on what the existing ordinance are have nothing to do with this or >> you but you could condition your recommendation on on this ch what you're
looking at is is you're right this this change before you does not include a modification to the height. It's only F. But you could recommend that for a project that that seeks to avail itself of the additional F that the height has to be reduced. You could you could
recommend that as a condition of the F increase. >> Okay. All right. I just want to make sure I understood what our power is. Go ahead. >> Before you open up the questions, I I'd really like to do a rebuttal, but I want to I want the board to understand and be clear on a lot of things you heard, some of which are inaccurate. So, um, just so
you understand, and it's true, the HPB will be the is the body that is dictated by the city to evaluate this proposal. We're not asking for 200 ft. We're suggesting that it's one of the areas we want to put the FR if it's if this board and ultimately the commission grants it. We'll have to go back to historic
preservation and they'll have to evaluate when they evaluated back in 2020 and in 2019. They did. We had a lot of discussions of where the tower should be located. Actually, this tire this tower part of the requirement is that set back 100 ft from the property line which is a greater setback than what
would have been required had that not been done. So, the building was moved back further from the ocean. There was all a competing challenge because HPV had deep, you know, extensive conversations not only on some people who were concerned about the shadows on the beach, which is standard all along
the beach, but also others were concerned if you put the tower too close to the historic buildings. So, there was a balancing act. That's the balancing act we understand that we will have to go through once we know what the FIR for the site ultimately will be. If the
commission ultimately approves at 2.5, we'll have a plan. will suggest where our FR should be placed within that site and then the board will evaluate and do a thorough review comparing what happened in 2019 2020. Staff will
evaluate the actual plans not massing studies to see what the impacts and where the best location whether the 200 ft is appropriate is it 185 whatever that you know is it a fatter building thinner building all those things will be taken into account at HPB but I also
wanted to >> so so Scott what's your view on that I mean should we be usurping HPB's role or because see for me the tough part is that yeah if you look at the immediate vicinity it looks out of context, but if you take the that whole district, it's
not. So, and yet >> I agree with that and >> yeah, I mean, you heard from the city attorney, we can recommend, you know, that's in our purview to recommend, >> right? >> Um, >> but yeah, I'm saying look, I sat like I
mentioned before, I sat on the HPB back and I said go through all these meetings. You said usurping their their authority. it would be like usurping what what what I went what I did before and what the what the board did before. Um so that's why I I just feel that um
you know I couldn't again um I don't have an issue with the F increase >> right yeah other than one objection it seems like nobody has a problem with the >> yeah that's the only concern I have uh with the project and I just >> you you have your time go ahead >> don't want to go back on what we did
before >> and I and I I respect that. Um >> and again we're just we're just a recommendation. >> Yeah. Yeah. I get it. I I have one question for the architect. Just one second so I can understand kind of what the request is. >> If you were to increase the F and you're
reducing the height, obviously you have, let's call it a wider building, uh wouldn't that create more of a shade situation for the neighboring assets? I guess north and south. >> It would. It would because you would end up with a building if we're 200 feet
long now and you're increasing the F your building could go 250 275 ft long get closer to the historic buildings and it would create a much wider shadow >> as the day would go through across the entire site and to the beach.
>> Um the length of the shadow would be reduced. Mhm. >> Uh it may not it may only go to the end of to 18th Street um to the north, but it would get much bigger. >> That that was discussed years ago. Again, >> skinnier and taller may be a much less
impactful shadow >> as it moves across throughout the day. >> What was discussed back years ago was wider north south instead of east west. Um but I you know I I don't remember if if that was ever maybe they maybe they
at the time um they considered it but I mean I know I s I remember suggesting that instead of going so high just make it a little wider north south um which gives you the F and it wouldn't be as tall and you're and you're not being you know you're not lengthening it
lengthening it east west which would block which would cause more shadow. We did we did make it wider but we stayed within the sight constraints because of the sight lines that you have with the Raleigh from the east on the beach and then looking >> you with the setbacks on the south. So you kind of have this natural setback to
the north which is the sight line of the Raleigh. You want to maintain and preserve that. >> So there are ways to make it wider if we push into that sight line. >> Yeah. I mean again I'm looking at this that was handed out and it does seem like the it's almost a blank slate. it.
But that that exhibit has a lot of inaccuracies and I and I will point them out when I get the picture. >> No, it's a picture. It's true. But as you were on the board back in 2020 when there was countless hours of debate of how you would relocate the tower, we had a fatter tower, longer tower, taller,
and where to place it. And while I understand you as one of the board members at that time were concerned about shadows on the beach, that was your number one concern. Others didn't agree with you. They wanted they were concerned about impacts on the Richmond South Seas and Raleigh historic building
in the historic pool. So there was a competing on that board of different opinions. And what I'm suggesting is at the end of the day, we have to go back to that board and let them re-evaluate. They may agree that some
extra height is valuable. They may say no, but it will be fully vetted at the Historic Preservation Board that ultimately approved the 2019 and 2020 HB order that this is running under. So, um, but I wanted to be really quick and
and clarify a couple things. So, it is a blank, it's not a blank state. There's a building permit there today of 175T tower and, um, the Oh, I already talked about the second page. There were statements made about how the [snorts]
Shelborn's 150 and your exhibit that you have is missing a lot of heights. If you go to our exhibit, they copied our exhibit. They erased the tall heights. So you lost the reference to 171 feet at the Shelborne, the 150 at um the SLS,
you the 185 at um the Rich Carlton, the 183 and 137. So somehow you didn't get a full picture, but if you look at our exhibit, you have all the actual heights that were posed. And when they talk
about the shadows and it should be clear the first exhibit is a shadow of 175 that December 21 at 175 ft they have a shadow. They do have a shadow on the permanent building one month a year for
a couple weeks a couple hours a day. Um no one's entitled to have 100% non- shadow. Actually, some of the shadow is caused by their own building and their own their own sight conditions that they've created. So, um I wanted to be clear. This makes it seem like if you
put a 200 foot tower, it's also going to create a new condition. That's not accurate. Uh yes, we do have an impact of shadows, slightly increased impact from 175 to 200 in January. Uh but again this is a massing study that we started
with and for HPB we would have to really hone in see how we tweak the cutbacks as we did before. All that's on the table to see how it can minimize the impact to not just the Shelborne but to the beachwalk and to the historic buildings.
Um but I did also want to refer that the historic Raleigh pool. Yes. And I and it's an accurate statement. It was made at HPB. It was shown that prior to this project even getting underway uh and the the demo permits that were issued uh
after 2020 uh the Raleigh since the 40 the 50s when there was additions done by the Richmond had an eight-story towers 5 ft from the property line and three what I call the three-story barracks. So the whole side of the Raleigh during that
period of time until our modern time was casted in shadows a good part of the day. So with the tower placement, considering where you place the tower, the board looked extensively the openness in between the tower and the
historic buildings, you create you ended up creating and our shadow studies showed it in HPB that it improved and you would actually get more sun and light and air at the historic Raleigh pool, which is an iconic pool and we could all agree on that. one of the most iconic pools in the entire city uh was
getting more sun and light and air with this project than leaving the existing conditions. Um I did you know so at the end of the day I also wanted to make one comment that uh we're not using the majority the vast majority as it's
quoted in a letter you received um [snorts] on those two potential two floors. We're talking about a maximum of 30,000 square ft. That's less than 50% of the F we would obtain. Most of the F is actually going historic and other infill elements that makes this project
viable. That's that's where the F so it's it's inaccurate to say that 44,000. We can't our footprint at best large case largest case is 15,000. So that say suggests that we're putting 22 thou two floors at 22,000 ft doesn't meet the
code. uh and we're not asking for a tax amendment to do that to make our building uh taller and wider. Um I also wanted to I know there was a lot of statements made about uh my client on his acquisition. He did want to make a quick rebuttal statement on things that were
made on his decisions to acquire the property and move forward. Okay, let me one more quick Dick. I want to make sure again I'm sorry about procedure. I want to know the answer to this question. If we pass this on favorably without a discussion about height, okay, and the height stays at 200 ft permissible, HPB
can still require that the building be lower than 200 ft. [snorts] >> Yes. >> Is that a is that an accurate statement? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Because my view, I mean, this is just me that that we let HPB decide if that's appropriate or not. But go ahead.
No, I just um I appreciate the the commentary today um and the consideration. You know, I just want to reiterate, right, some I I've I've had the fortune and opportunity to develop in in cities like Miami Beach that are very preservation conscious. Um and that's why when we approach projects, we
don't approach them with requests that that that would be viewed quite controversially, 300 ft and four F and let's be really aggressive about it. We approach these projects from the perspective of what will it take to get
these done. Let's get this project built. Let's not debate over something that then continues to sit vacant for the next 10 years. It is true after we acquired the site and we were able to get our physical hands on the property
that the Raleigh Hotel was crumbling and my first call was to Alfredo to say, "What do we do? This is not going to survive another hurricane season if we get hit by a hurricane. it's just not going to. And the decision on our side was made to immediately protect the hotel. And [snorts]
these are decisions made because we care about the project that we're invested in. There's a significant amount of capital committed to this. We don't believe if we were to zoom out and we were to look at this in context of the scale of the investment taking place, the rebirth of an icon of Miami Beach,
uh the investment that this will draw, the tax dollars that this will create, that even if we go back and stay within our right of of of 200 ft, that that should even be viewed as controversial. Now, I understand everybody's got different perspectives. We also don't think that the the square footage being
requested is significant in the scale of the site. It's a threeacre site. So I I do just make the statement because we're not asking you to make a private investment decision. That is absolutely not the case. And in doing so, I'm also asking you not to make a private investment decision about somebody
else's pool being covered for 2 hours a day for 3 weeks in the year. I think the context should be what is appropriate for the Raleigh for 3 acres of property on South Beach. What is appropriate for this neighborhood that has had to look at a a building that has been crumbling
over the last 10 years. and the number of calls that I've received as an owner saying, "When the hell is this going to get built? It's time for this to get built." So, all we ask is we look at this in the context of what is appropriate for the neighborhood, for Miami Beach, um, and and and allow us to
continue to move this forward so that this project can can get going. Thank you. >> And I and I just want to add Thank you. Our last >> We got to move on. >> I know just had two more quick points. Number one, you do have a list of support letters before you and notably the first support letter is the
Marseilles. The only abuing property to the Raleigh site is the Marseilles. They are supporting the F increase and they supported the 200T building when it was proposed in 2020. And if ultimately HB approves, they're supportive of a HPV
supporting a 220 building as uh 200 foot building again if we we propose that to HPB. So that letter is there. And I also wanted to make it clear this amendment would as proposed by the Shelburn's council would mean that we would have to
lose 50 ft of the permanent building to take the F cuz it clearly says a budding oceanfront lots. Well, a budding oceanfront lot and a budding properties have to under the city definition have to be a budding. A budding is they share
property lines, not across the street. I'm not comparing myself to what's on the west side of Collins Avenue and the Marseilles is at 127 ft. So if you approve this amendment, you're telling me you want the F remove 50 ft of the
existing permanent building. Um and again I really think that the appropriate venue to debate and to see what is makes sense where should we locate the building and what the appropriate height looking at all the factors is going back to the historic preservation board and let them have the
detailed plans and staff have the detailed plans and make an evaluation and ultimately that board will decide >> how to use it and with that I >> thank you very much and if you have any if you have any questions I'm happy answer. >> Oh, and besides besides you, one second.
Anybody else in here to speak on this? All right. Last I'm going to give you last minute and then we're going to close the public. >> Well, just only to speak on the comments about the requested um amendment. Um I if the amend if the amendment language is problematic because of the
interpretation of abunding properties, you can just make it 175. There's an existing uh building permit for 175. We don't object to 175. We don't object to the 2.5 F. The proposed amendment is if you're going to take advantage of the 2.5 F, then you're going to agree to the
175 hood height. It's an ask and then a concession. So that is the request. >> Okay, understood. >> Okay, closing the public hearing. Um again, my view is that I would rather the HPB address this, but um obviously welcome to your comments. [snorts]
>> It's a question of whether or not we want to make a recommendation towards a height. >> Well, you can I mean it depends on the recommendation. I would not be in favor of saying only recommending it favorably if you lower the height. I would rather say we we recommend it favorably. Please
take a look at whether you believe this is in context. Something a little more uh benignous >> because at the end of the day if what Nick said is true that HPB can require that it be lower >> right >> when they see all the project I'd rather let and that's their decision,
>> right? I think HPV >> just in front of us is the F conversation >> and HPV tends to be conservative in a lot of these issues more than the planning board. So I think that our job today is to decide if we want to >> that's my view. So >> Right. Right. So I I I can make a motion if unless someone wants to
go ahead looking at >> Yeah. I mean I I'm very troubled by the blockage of the the Shellborns pool. You know they put $100 million into it. They preserved all the historic elements of the pool. They they
you know the Morris Lapidus T diving board. I mean it's beautiful and it's and it's wellrun and they're they're good for our community and to take away even if it is just two hours of prime sun during the busiest you know months
of the year of December and January. I mean, I think that's wrong to do for the new project's benefit to save the I mean, but perhaps to save the shadow, the the shade in your pool. Um, and so I I have big problems with that. I don't
think that's right. I don't think it's fair. And we're talking about giving you guys a public gift um to help you guys make more money. And I don't see it as a benefit to the community to be taking, you know, and and the Shelborn Hotel is
part of the community, right? The nearby community, whether it's immediately adjacent or just across that small street. You know, I think it's important to, you know, you know, not do things to the detriment of the neighbors who did do everything the right way. They put in
all this money. Um, and I don't think that's right. And so I I I I I commend you all for coming in and saving the day. Uh but I just think that there's got to be a way to protect the people
the surrounding properties. Um I I agree it's it looks to me too far east. Um the the current building uh you know and and so I'm not I'm not you know totally unopposed to the 200 feet. Um, I just
think there needs to be more coming back to uh, you know, you know, we've seen we've seen this issue in the past, right? People buy these properties, these old, you know, antiquated buildings that are historic landmarks for us. They
something happens. The financing falls through. The the buildings sit in a really bad state for years. They crumble and then the a new developer comes in to swoop in, save the day, and they come to us and say, "Well, the only way we can
save the day is if you give us this." And you know, we saw we've seen that all up Collins Avenue. And and so there's a problem with that. And I'm fine with, you know, allowing, you know, welcoming developers to come save the day. And I'm even fine giving them things to
encourage them to come save the day. But when it's going to be to the detriment of others in the surrounding area, I don't think it's necessarily right unless the benefit to everybody around, you know, uh, not to phrase it to coin a
term, overshadows the detriment, >> exceeds, >> you know, well, you know, whatever. So, um, >> you wanted to use that one. >> I wanted to throw that over. Um, so any these are my my thoughts. I don't I think there's I it is a huge property
and so I think there's a way we this can work. I just think it it needs more work, you know, to to get done. But so I don't think anybody I mean the good thing is for you guys that I don't think anybody's opposed to the extra.5. It just needs to be reworked a bit. Um I
don't know. So, I'm, you know, I'm I'm sort of in this place of I'm in favor of the 0.5, which alone is a benefit, but um, you know, sort of a gift from the city, but at the same time, I don't think that it
should, um, you know, affect or impact, um, obviously the beach shadowing, but but the neighborhood pool. I mean, I don't think the issue is with the build, you know, putting a shadow on the structure of the Shelborne. I mean, that's fine. It's just I think it's
where a majority of their food concessions sold and and you know, pool. I know they've got memberships. I mean, you know, who's going to buy a membership to the pool if it's covered for the prime time of the day. And so, um, you know, those are my thoughts. So,
I would I don't know exactly how I I you [snorts] know, because I I hear what you're saying. you shouldn't really condition any of this on it. But I think I would move um you know I I guess it would be a separate uh amen you know proposed amendment. I
would make a motion to um you know say that if it you know I guess here here's the proposed amendment is to is really broad right? So I don't think anybody's, you know, opposing the certain height if it's properly placed. Um, you know,
>> so would it be a proposed amendment or recommendation to >> It would have to be a recommended. We can't we can't propose also, but just to be clear, you can recommend that the commission amend the ordinance. So that can be part of your >> That's what I'm going to say. So my my I
guess motion would be to separately recommend that they amend the ordinance to um you know the maximum height of the existing structures on the abuing oceanfront lot. But I'm also not totally
opposed to it being higher if it's you know >> again. But but shouldn't that let HPB decide? >> Well, I think but but then here here I I have a >> they're going to see the project. I don't know what they're going to do and we have an obligation to, you know, in
terms of the planning, you know, decide. >> So, should we just hold on? All right. We I I think we all know what the issues are. So, someone make a motion. >> I I would make a motion to approve this with a favorable recommendation. >> Hold on. We're still this procedurally. We're starting with the uh first LDR amendment, right? We have to do them
individually. >> I would do the the comp plan first. >> Okay. So, we're going to start with the comprehensive amendment, which is planning board 80816. Please make your motion. >> I would make a motion to approve this with a favorable recommendation to go from the 175 to the two F.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. All in favor of that motion? >> I Anyone opposed? >> No. >> You're opposed. That's just on the Okay. >> Just to just to be clear, it's the 2.5 2.5. Sorry. >> What's before? It's the extra 0.25.
>> All right. So, it's four to one. >> Sorry. extra.5 extra.5 going from 2.5 >> that's just on this motion. So that's a 51. >> Okay. >> Um >> who was No, >> Scott. Scott.
>> Scott. Thank you. >> All right. Now let's go to the LDR amendment and then we can discuss what recommendations we want to make. So, I would make a motion to approve the LDR amendment with a favorable recommendation.
>> Okay. >> Can I get a second? >> I'll I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor of that? >> I I >> Anyone opposed? Scott. Okay. Same. 51. >> Okay. Now, somebody wants to make a a motion on on a suggested request to the
commission. Go ahead. >> Yes. Uh, I'll make a motion that um I guess if if to to recommend an amendment that if anybody is going to take advantage of the 2.5 F or the.5 F
increase, the the height of any new structure cannot exceed um the maximum height of the uh I guess the the next closest oceanfront lot. >> Well, what would that be?
>> I would say I mean 175. We can just say 175. >> Yeah, I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that. >> You're saying 175. All right. >> Do I have a second on that motion? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. I want to do a roll call on that one, please. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Marks,
>> no. >> Mr. Frerieden? >> Yes. >> Miss Bey? >> No. >> Mr. Needleman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Cement? >> No. >> Mr. Elias? >> No. only because I want the HPB to decide that. >> Yes. Correct. >> Agreed. All right. That
>> so that fails. >> Yeah. >> Um >> yes, we're move on then. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is it possible to send to send a like to
in the con the referral to the HPV and whenever they get it to have the me message from us delivered that we had an issue with the height of it given the impact on the beach on the neighboring properties things like that
>> that that wasn't the consensus of the body. I I'm I'm just asking if that's something that we could pass a a recommend like a a note to you know like as part of the >> I think that it given the planning
board's role in planning and policym I think that if you were going to make a recommendation it should be that it be part of the >> of the regulation itself >> but to you all you know because I appreciate all your concerns but I obviously you're going to partic
participate in the HPP hearing and I'm I just feel that that's where they should make that decision and I hope you'll be as active there as you were here today. >> Thank you very much. >> I understand the the HPV needs to step up. >> All right. Next is um previously
continued application filed PB260838 one ocean drive session agreement. >> They do an appropriate >> um Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to give a brief introduction and then turn it over to um Azie Dominguez who is our director of asset management um who's
really been working um on this on this particular agreement. So, as noted in the report, it was in uh 2023 that the mayor and city commission adopted a resolution um approving a concession agreement with the Buché Brother uh for
the Pier Park site. Um since that time there were um disputes. The city was involved in a dispute um and there were the existing uh occupant of the site and the Buché brothers were uh involved in a
dispute that has been uh settlement agreement has been approved. Um which is really why this concession agreement is coming back to you. that settlement agreement included um an initial 10-year term and extension terms. That period of time triggers
planning board review. So any um any concession agreement or lease agreement that exceeds 10 years or that is 10 years or more does require the review of the planning board. Um so that's why it's here before you >> the settlement if I read it correctly.
So they they're going to keep it under current management until August 27. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> That's correct. >> That is correct. Okay. Sorry. >> Um >> sorry. >> No, no problem. Uh staff has reviewed uh
the terms and we are supportive of this agreement. Again, they would have a um a 10-year period with a an extension of 5 years and then an additional extension that would be possible of of three years. Um they are committed to uh
making a significant financial investment in the site um $50 million and um the plan has already been reviewed um by the design review board. the design review board had um comments. So, it's it hasn't been approved yet,
but uh it will be going back, I believe, uh this month uh to the design review board. So, with that, um I can turn it over to the real experts in the room on on the the terms, but planning staff is supportive and we're recommending uh that the planning board issue a
favorable recommendation. And >> and Mr. Chair, before you turn it over, I just want to point out that nothing about the program of the uses has changed. The planning board, you may recall, um, held a hearing on the approval of the use since this is GU
property. Uh, and the planning board transmitted a favorable recommendation. Um, nothing about the the the program of the use is proposed has has changed. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I just would like to also include because there was some concern that SNA
had um in our meeting before last or the last meeting we had a attorney representing uh Bucher up just informing our community that there might be a settlement. Uh I wonder what there might
be a settlement. Oh, but he gave actually no >> other than informing people that there could be a possible >> uh and that this wouldn't and basically all he said was this there's a chance that this might not turn into a four-year battle where it sits empty.
>> And uh I had no exparte with them. Never met the lawyer before or after. Did not discuss it. We did not vote and nor did we issue to the city uh a resolution in support for or against the settlement.
It's not in our lane. Uh although I can also state that our community was happy that there could be a mutual agreed because there were three parties and it was pretty complex. Um and that there's been zero I never saw the concession
agreement, never discussed it until it was in planning. So, thank you, Keith. No conflict. Thanks, >> Mr. Chair. If I can just say my name is Aaron Tandy. I am the general counsel for Buché Brothers. >> I was the person that Mr. Marx was ad
mentioning. I was the attorney who went to Sofna. Just so the record is clear. >> So, wait, just so I'm clear, you So, Nissan is outside counsel. You're actually their general counsel in general. I'm general counsel in house and I've been asked to appear here today by Nick and Azie as a sort of subject
matter expert. I' I've registered but I'm a subject matter expert in case you have some questions about the concession agreement that Azie would feel more comfortable I answered about our intentions or or the terms. Okay. >> Good morning. Azie Dominguez, division
director of asset management for the city of Miami Beach. Pleasure seeing everybody here this morning. I'd like to open it up and see if there's any questions on this uh before I hand it over to uh to Aaron so that he can give you a quick uh review and summary of the
amendment. >> Yeah, I don't Anybody have questions? >> Go ahead. >> I if there's no questions, I I'm going to do what judges usually say. I'm going to just be silent. >> Quiet. [laughter] >> Yeah. I mean, unless uh >> comments have no question.
>> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Anyone here to speak on this? Anybody on Zoom? No. >> See, I knew that. Um, >> I'm proud of you. >> Um, someone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve with a favorable recommendation. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> Anyone oppose? Okay. 6. Easiest job you ever had. >> Yes, indeed. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Debbie. Thank you very much for the introduction, Nick. >> Thank you. >> Okay. New applications planning board file 260844 1940 Park Avenue lease agreement.
Are >> these all looked at together? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yes, for I think many of you know this is the site of the um Barkley Plaza. It's a contributing building located within the Collins Park neighborhood um in the
museum historic district. So, this property has had a very long history. Over since over 10 years ago, we started um with RF RFQS for the redevelopment of this site. It was previously owned by
the um Miami Beach Housing, what was it? The CDC >> Community Development Corporation, >> the Miami Beach CDC. they were involved in some difficulties and the city actually acquired the property um over 10 years ago. Um since that time
we have issued um I believe three different RF RFQS RFPs and none of those projects actually were able to move forward. Um so most recently the city issued an a in it was in 2022
an RFP. Um we had one proposer um and we have um that's the the current project you see today. So the the idea of the project is to construct a multif family building. This multif family building
will have a small percentage of units um that will be dedicated for elderly workforce and a small percentage that will have up to um 160 AMI rents. So the
rest of the building will be will be market rent. There's total of uh 105 units in the building. Seven will be the elderly workforce and I believe 15 or 16 are are proposed to be restricted um to
an AMI rent of 160 or less. Um they've also proposed a transient use restriction. So they are agreeing to a covenant that would in perpetuity prohibit any type of short-term rentals or transient use. Um they've also agreed
e given the the uh poor structural condition of the property that if total demolition is required which you know from from my experience my perspective it may be that they will reconstruct um the historic facades both on Park Avenue
and Washington Avenue. So uh we are generally supportive. they they have agreed to a $2 million upfront rent payment and then um they've also agreed not to request any uh city subsidies for the
um for the project. The initial term is for 51 years plus two 24 years year extensions. Um, so this does require, you know, a review and a um recommendation by the planning board and ultimately it would require approval by
the mayor and city commission. Um, but I see Stephen Anthony, our director of economic development is here. Um, and I believe Stephen, are you going to show a presentation? >> That presentation will be with the council for the development. >> Okay, great. Um but with that uh if you
have any questions for staff um we're here and happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you gentlemen. >> Well uh Director Tacket Stephen Anthony again Stephen Anthony economic development director for the city of Miami Beach. Um it's pleasure to meet the board. Um I actually don't have any
additional comments. Director Tag did a fantastic job of going over the general terms of the of the ground lease. Um so again as as administration and staff we are we are certainly um uh we are certainly approval of the of the terms
of the ground lease. Um believe this was a great opportunity to activate uh this parcel um and really get it back into into use for uh for the community. >> Thank you Alfredo. >> Um good
still morning. Good morning. Alfredo Gonzalez on behalf of 940 1840 Barkley Partners LLC. Um and I think that director Tacket and director I have um really highlighted that we've been
working together. Uh the commission approved the term sheets last year and we're very close to having a final lease ready to go to the commission. Uh highlighted by all the points on the term sheet. So, um I'll have a presentate more of a presentation when
we talk about the LDR amendments that we're we're seeking that would go in line with um the ultimate lease that's going to be approved by would be approved by the commission. So, uh happy to answer any any particular questions. >> Okay. Ray, are you speaking or this letter speaks for you?
>> Are you commenting on this item? >> Yes. >> Okay, come on up. >> I just um Mr. chair, since this project it will be coming before the HPB. >> Yeah. I'm just simp simply saying that the Collins Park Neighborhood Association is thrilled to finally have
this property be um developed. >> Nick, what were we going to say? [clears throat] >> What were we going to say? Because it's coming before HPV. What >> the So what's before the planning board today is the review pursuant to the city
charter of the proposed lease agreement and the text amendments to the comprehensive plan and LDRs. I was just going to advise Mr. Wrestling since the application will be coming before him as a member of the HPB. >> Oh. Um, >> can I ask a curiosity? >> Be careful. [laughter]
>> Legal actually. Um, aren't city leases over 10 years required to have a public vote? Yes. So that's current. So the the charter was amended in November of 2024 to require a uh a referendum prior to
the sale or lease of 10 years or longer of any city property. >> Any city. >> This um this lease was awarded prior to the charter amendment. So it so so the charter amendment has a losing my mind has a carveout for any leases that were awarded prior. But good question.
Anybody else in chambers speak on this? Anybody on Zoom? >> Okay. Any other questions? I want to move it. >> Question. >> Oh, so it seems like demolition is most probably going to be required. So,
>> sorry. >> Yeah. >> In all likelihood. Yeah. >> So, so when it's rebuilt, they rebuild with the same facade. Do they get any additional height? Do they get anything else that is accompanied with with this or has >> um we're going to talk about that in the next application, but they are not requesting any additional height and
they're not requesting any additional F. They are requesting some other LDR amendments, but not height and not F. >> So it would for the most part be rebuilt to pretty similar spec. We I don't know if they've finalized the design yet, but I you know they are looking to to
maximize the F and the allowable um I think they're actually a little bit lower than the allowable height, but um I think that will be part of the next presentation. They probably have some visuals um for the board to show what the initial project is.
>> I guess my only question would be is >> the lease payments that were contemplated, is that based on what they're going to rebuild or what's currently there? That's based on their current plan. They haven't confirmed 100% because they haven't been able to get a structural
engineer to really evaluate the the existing structural systems of the building. Um, but they're anticipating demolishing and and reconstructing. Um, which I think is a good anticipation to have because that's likely from my experience to to be required. So the
numbers are based on on that assumption, >> meaning it's it's based on the rebuilding assumption. >> Yes. >> So that's how the rent payments [snorts] were structured based on what they're going to rebuild. >> Correct. Now they're they're proposing currently for just really just
rebuilding the facades and then the new addition to this site would be kind of in the middle of that. So it wouldn't be a complete reconstruction of the existing historic building. It would be some reconstruction of the exterior
walls and then a new um project kind of inserted in the middle. >> So does rent go up if they build more I guess is my question. >> So it is just a single the single payment. So it's the single upfront $2 million payment. >> Right. >> So that would they have to pay an additional amount in the event that they
ultimately end up building more? >> So right now as as as is that's the the structure that's that's been set forward as the as the current plan has been set. No. >> Yeah. The the the F allowed for the site is 2.37. So that's what the current
plans are. If they were to come back and say we want more F, then I think this would all be open to renegotiation. I I could clar I could do I could clarify on behalf of um >> the well not the applicant but I
>> all the negotiations have been taking place on the anticipation of most likely having to demolish the building and and do replication and restore elements. Um I mean this building has been set for demolition by an emergency mission that's been stayed
over the years. Uh we have not had we just recently got access to the site. We've been working with the city to get access. Surveys are about to be done. So, the architect who's here with me today will be able to kind of um start having a real plan, but we anticipate
the number of units we're anticipating and when I get into the LDR discussion, that's going hand in hand. So, uh it's not that we're negotiating a lease and then after the lease is negotiated, then we're going to come back and say, "Oh, we want more units." No, we're upfront
that we want about 100 need about 105 units and the break up between the different uses that the city and and we're discussing that's all intended to be approved together at a commission meeting. So ultimately, best case scenario, we'll have the the two the LDR
and the comp plan amendment up for a vote and the final approval of the lease all together. So it's the intent is for it to all be at the same time and it's clear we're looking for about 105 units to be built. So it's
the next presentation won't be something that's uh not part of the discussions of the lease. Debbie, quick one question on that. And you mentioned no uh I guess a covenant for no no uh transient uses includes
hotel use and um I assume and there's no chance that they would want to come back and ask for that or >> so the current agreement requires no transient use including no hotel units.
um if they were to want to amend that to include any type of short-term rentals that would have to be, you know, brought back before this board as well as the city commission. And it's, you know, the city's commission's direction um for this project was to increase our
residential housing stock, long-term residential. >> All right. Someone want to move it? >> I'll move it. >> Favor Yes. >> All right. Can I get a second? [snorts] >> I'll second it. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. All in favor of this one? >> I. Anyone opposed? >> All right. 60. Thank you. >> All right. So, I'm assuming, Alfredo, you're staying for this. Deborah, you're going to present on >> So, this the next application is the um the LDR amendment plus the companion uh
comprehensive plan amendment. So that's planning board file 26833 and 260834. Um the comprehensive plan amendment uh is being requested because this particular uh application
number one is proposing to increase density. Current uh the current zoning allows for 100 dwelling units per acre and the applicant is requesting to increase that to up to 150 units per acre plus a 30 dwelling unit per acre uh
bonus if the project meets certain um certain restrictions in terms of a percentage of affordable or um attainable housing. Uh they are requesting a reduction in the allowable unit size. Currently allowable unit size
for affordable or workforce housing is 400 ft². Market rate housing the current minimum is 550 ft. They are requesting an amendment to allow 400 square ft regardless of the um whether the unit is
is income restricted or not. They're asking to reduce the um setbacks for for their new construction. Um they're asking to eliminate the parking requirement, the vehicular parking requirement. They are still
proposing to uh maintain the required bicycle parking. Um additionally, they are proposing micromobility infrastructure within the site. They are asking for an amendment to allow the historic preservation board to wave the
loading requirements. Uh currently the historic preservation board does have some ability to wave loading uh with an existing contributing building on the site. So they're just asking to um if they have to reconstruct the property to allow the board to also wave the loading
zones. They're asking for some uh exemptions from the resiliency and adaptation standards from the they're asking for a reduction of the minimum landscape standards. um they have a yard encroachment with the driveway. So even
though they're not providing um parking for the units on the site, they are providing uh some parking for loading uh and drop off and pick up. So I think there's there's a maybe four parking spaces that they are um proposing which
would need either a variance or a code amendment. So, they're asking uh for an amendment that would allow driveways to encroach into that required yard. Um, finally, they are asking for a um a
zoning map designation change um and also a future land use map change. When a property is purchased by a government, it automatically gets reszoned to a GU. Um however the future land use map does
not become automatically changed. So the the applicant is just clarifying that this will be a GU zone site which it is automatically since the city has owned it. Um but the future land use map as part of the comprehensive plan amendment is also being requested to change from
currently RM2 to public facilities and staff is very supportive of that. um that request and we're hopeful that some of these, you know, zoning amendments would will make the project feasible because we really do need to get this
particular property back to active use. It's been a a real concern um you know, for preservationists, right? We, you know, as you know, someone who was on the preservation board as staff for a long time, you know, it's always been a concern, um, this building in its
current condition, but also, um, it's become a real nuisance to to people who live in the neighborhood. Uh, we've had significant issues with breakins. There's been a lot of police activity on this site and I know um you know certain neighbors have reached out to me
directly really encouraging the city to try and move forward with the viable project. So with that um I can turn over to the applicant but I'm also here for any questions you may have. >> Thank you. >> Good morning. Uh again Alfredo Gonzalez
on behalf of 1940 um Orley Partners LLC. I'm here today with associate uh David Butter, also the architect on the project from Brooks uh Scorpio and Huber. Jeff Huber is here as well. And [clears throat]
these LDR amendments help bring the site into conformity. Um we've worked with staff on them. I'm going to go through a quick presentation to get you bearings on why what we're asking for. Uh if we can put the presentation up, please.
So Oh, good. This worked. So just to orientate I mean everyone understands just in case the Barkley is located just off uh the across east of the convention center and park. It's almost the diamond. It's an odd shaped lot. So um
and you'll see from the images of the building that's been this way since I guess for the last almost 12 years it was boarded the city acquired it. There were fires and arson. Uh so this building will likely have to come out,
but there are uh part of the negotiations to restore and and and and save whatever elements we could save off the building to be reused and um the rec the comp plan amendments is going to be
allow for residential uses because technically as a government site you can't have residential uses. So um this is going to be a mixeduse project as you heard before. Um and so on the comp plan we like to it to be residential, you know, add residential uses and also the
residential density because it is a government site. It has an F greater than 2.37. That's the F that the site has. Uh typically in the RM2 it's two or less. So it it creates a disparity that
now that that this will clean up. So it allow the density to actually be able to use it and we do get bonuses for the affordable h the housing earnings of no more than 160 AMI. Uh there's also an elderly component which we don't have to make a text amendment that we're that's
part of this project as well. So in the land development amendment um we also are doing the residential density. We're requesting the minimum unit size to be 400 square feet uh to allow for you know more we're not trying
to do high-end luxury units there is going to be this workforce market rate units that are more for uh providing a need that in the area we've all you know at this board at commission and many boards there's a
discussion of trying to find affordable housing even at full market rate. Um so we are also need setback encroachments because we're trying to keep you'll see that this is the site. Um and then
trying to keep the the the the format of how the uh the Barkley used to be. It's and keeping that the facades in the historic element. We're going to need uh relief from some of the setbacks. and kind of show you on the higher floors is
just a small portion and we included that in our request. So this project by amending the LDRs it's clear that we go in to the HPB uh for that review. You'll have obviously um we can't include the
parking without also replicate the facades because there'd be no way other than this driveway on the northern portion to enter or exit the property. Um we're asking for the frontage standards and
the landscaping to get some relief because of of the site. Again, ultimately all this will be approved by the historic preservation board. Um, and just so and that and that's really at this point what we have because we don't have development drawings at this
point. We just got recently got access worked out with the city. We've been working with this, you know, we're partners with the city and we we have access and our first step is getting surveys so I could provide the survey through our illustrious architect and then have design plans starting to be
prepared. Um, but I just wanted to point out that and I know it was pointed out previously, but that we're looking about have about 105 units and right now there's about 16 units would be uh restricted residential. Another seven
will be about elderly [snorts] housing and that'll that'll bring the total set aides in in the building to over 22% um of the overall building. Now if you I know the staff recommendation we we call
for 10% being a minimum of 10% to be the this restricted residential staff is calling for amendment to be 15. The reason we're asking for it to stay 10% is to allow the flexibility with the city. Ultimately we have to do whatever our lease requires us. So, it's not that
um we could do 10% and the city doesn't want us to do 10%. That it's dictated in the lease terms. Now, I wanted to leave that flexibility there. So, if as it goes along the way gets to the sorry gets to the city commission, um if there
were some changes in the percentages of the units, more more elderly housing mix, it the city would have that flexibility. So that's the only um reason we'd like to leave it at 10% versus 10% today at at 10% versus um
moving to 15 even though I understand that currently our term sheet says 15%. But I wanted to leave that flexibility and not have to trigger a new LDR amendment down the road if there was a change by the commission.
>> And with that I happy to answer any questions. >> Can you comment on that Debbie? Sure. Yeah. I mean the the lease agreement is it does require a 15%. So to be consistent with that we are recommending that the text amendment also have the 15%.
>> Um >> Right. So I understand what's the argument about how gives you more flexibility. >> Right. >> I understand. >> Yeah. I don't well you know I think what what the um attorney is saying is that if we wanted to reduce the the units
that are restricted to 160 AMI and increase the number of actual affordable by the legal definition of affordable units then that might throw off the um you know the percentage of the the
regular kind of income restricted versus the actual affordable from from staff's perspective. You know, we want as much attainable housing and affordable housing as possible. So, you know, they could increase the number of elderly
housing and retain the number of the the 15% number. So from from our perspective, we um want as many attainable units in the building as possible and of course we support the elderly the elderly affordable housing
units. So these are just minimums. If they want to increase um the number that wouldn't require any type of amendment. So we're our recommendation is going to remain a minimum of the 15%. >> Okay. Anybody else in chambers speak on
this? Anybody on Zoom? >> Can I clarify one thing? Sure. >> Closing the public hearing. Go ahead. >> Um and and I agree with what Debbie said, but the the issue is that the elderly housing that the city is also wanting to see in [clears throat] the project is is is part of the overall
scope. It's there's no text amendment or requirements to have any percentage of elderly housing. So if the city ultimately again it's the city decides to change change it up and maybe have more elderly they have the right I
wanted to give them the flexibility at 10%. So say fine if the overall there's there's an overall cap of how much affordable elderly you could put into a project and still make it a viable project in any in any in any stance it's been vacant for so long. So, um, at the
end of the day, even if it's 10% or 15, we're we can't dictate that change. We're the we're entering the lease agreements with the city. The city could make those changes themselves and suggest it. And we're not counting, you know, like there's 22% right now on this
project being proposed that's going to either elderly or or restricted residential. So, it's helping those in need over 22%. Um that makes >> you said you said how many units are in here are proposed >> 105 units 105 okay
>> 105 units are proposed and 22% of those are earmarked three they're elderly >> and to satisfy the 15% >> can you explain I I don't understand um what benefits if okay so they're elderly
they're a certain age are you giving is there government money going to help subsidize it Are you lowering the rent? Explain what how that >> Sure. >> affects their rent >> through the housing. >> I'm 20 and I'm 65. What's the
difference? >> So, it's a voucher program through the city and the housing housing authority. So, they wanted to have earmarked certain number of units that they could use through their program. >> So, they'll be built, they'll be, you know, there's a requirement that they're all mixed throughout the building. So,
>> rents will be the same. Those are be set by the housing authority maybe housing authority and in the city's housing program for elderly. >> Yeah. >> So those units would >> I'm >> you know yeah those units are basically the cost will be set by the city
>> and and the vouchers >> just a quick clarification. So the the senior units wouldn't go above 80% of AMI. Okay. >> So it's 80%. I got that. >> Okay. Thank you. That's good motion. And these are all six month or more.
>> I think it's 12 months. >> One year >> for workforce or anyone, right? >> They're one-year rentals. >> One-year rentals. Beautiful. >> I'd uh I'd make a motion to approve, but keeping the 15% in there. >> Okay. Or are we in the comprehensive plan amendment or the LDR?
>> Which one has the uh 15%. >> The LDRD is the first one. Okay. Move to send that >> favorably with 15% left. Okay. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor of that? >> I
>> I Anyone opposed? Okay. I guess we need to wait for Melissa, right? >> Oh, wait. We had five. I guess it passes. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. And then next is the comprehensive plan amendment. >> I'll make a motion to approve uh
PB26-834. >> Second. >> Second. >> Yeah. >> Keith. >> Yes. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you very much. >> You guys have a good day. >> Um All right. So, before we get
discussion items, I just want to point out that um Nick, I just sent Nick the uh BTR for that valet company. >> Yes. And um it does not appear despite the testimony that we heard from the code that that location the Miser
[snorts] location is identified as one of the uh properties for which they are approved. >> I sent it as an email to you guys too. >> Okay. So I I just want to point that out >> because I I drilled down on that specifically and they kept telling me, "Yes, they're approved. They're
approved. They're approved." And it doesn't appear that was the case. So, um I I guess staff can deal with that as they may, but it kind of concerns me that >> if it's true, I think we should come back in September. >> Well, it's concerning that it was that
was that they both testified that that >> BTR the BTR was issued. That's a fact. >> Yeah, >> but >> they're not listed. >> That location is not approved. It doesn't appear from what I'm looking at. I may be wrong, but >> we'll have to review internally and see if there's any other record evidencing
that the with the valley operator. >> But if if it's in fact they don't have a BTR, can we can we put something in that says that this isn't just a clerical error that then we can come back in September and dis and uh and review with
them because how do we know it if this isn't cleared up in September when we come back? I mean this whole premise the whole premise of which I agreed with of January had to do with the fact that they were covered and that they we would
not see reoccurrence of valet issue. >> So the board voted to continue today's hearing to the January me meeting unless >> a new violation is issued before. >> Well, hold on. >> So there's going to be new violations. >> Hold on. Hold on. That was under the assumption that what they told us was correct.
>> I understand that. Um, under >> you could conceivably you could move to reconsider your vote. >> Uh, >> well, I want you to confirm that what I'm looking at is accurate. From what I'm looking at, they are not approved. >> I mean, >> that was the whole discussion.
>> Yeah, I can't tell you that decisively without doing the research. >> U, but but here's the thing. If it you guys are going to look at it, if it's not proper, they're going to get another violation or bring them back and we're going to be back in September. So, so and we could also We we we probably
shouldn't be talking about here when they're not here as part of since we ended that meeting. I I'm just saying it >> it's not about discussing it. It's a fact. I just go through that process. City >> PTR even if even if there is no violation if after doing the research we could we could maybe bring this back as
a progress report in September if necessary. >> Yeah. I mean it's up to you but but let us let us look what was represented us was inaccurate. >> Let us look into that. Yeah. We need to know if that's the main issue of the hearing. And sorry, just one point. If it if it does prove to be false, can you bring it
back as a modification revocation instead of the progress report or it have to go progress report first and then? >> No. I mean, the board unless a violation is issued. If a violation is issued between now and then, then we could we could schedule the modification revocation hearing for September. >> If it's true, we're going to get a
violation next week or this week >> if the code goes out and does it. >> Yeah. If the Well, code better go. >> I just want you to be aware of it. Okay. and and and if it's true that they're not approved, then you need to let code know that because he's he stood there and I'm sure it wasn't on purpose, but
he confirmed and I specifically said, "I understand the BTR is issued. Is this location approved?" Yes. And looks like that may not be true and he may not have been aware of. >> Let us look into it in case there's some other record that that we don't have. >> That's all I'm asking is for you to look into it. All right. Discussion item. Single family residential zoning
regulations. [clears throat] Can't remember who requested that that be a remember who asked for that discussion item. Usually it's usually [laughter] >> Yeah, it was it was me. >> So, we have a there's a
>> document. I I um we included in your package a commission memorandum because this is um this is a discussion that we've had already um at the land use committee. Um several commissioners over the years have um you know pointed out
that our single family development regulations are perhaps you know the most complex of all of our different zoning districts in the city. And the um you know planning staff has has often you know discussed the issues with with
permitting um of single family homes in terms of the amount of time it takes staff to review a building permit for a single family home for example because the regulations are extraordinarily complex and they've been layered over time. Um and so we we support u you know
a a another look at these regulations in order to to simplify streamline um you know really what is permit review. So I thought it would be helpful to to provide you with the current discussion uh pending uh city commission in which
we have kind of two options. We have option one which would really be um a dramatic change basically only having you know allowable setback or minimum setbacks and maximum heights but the
volume of the the home you know could really be anything as long as it's contained within that kind of envelope that we provide. that would be kind of the most extreme and the simplest uh form that we could uh you know adopt. We
also have option two which is more surgical in terms of going through our regulations seeing which ones are really causing the the issues in terms of our difficulty in reviewing and um you know amending that to simplify. Um, we are
supportive of option two because we do believe that a lot of our regulations are actually resulting in, you know, significantly more compatible homes. Um, you know, if you have a good architect, the good architect is is going to use
these types of, you know, the setbacks and the stepbacks um innately because they they are going to be looking to break down the massing. But if you have a bad architect, they may just come in with a box um without any movement or any relief for for adjacent neighbors.
So we think there's there's likely a middle ground um between our current regulations, just a volutric regulation um in order to make the process simpler for property owners, but also ensure um that there's
some level of compatibility within existing single family homes. neighborhoods. Yeah. >> So, this was going to go in front of the commission or land use >> it's current it's currently land use has has generally discussed this already. It's currently pending a discussion item
at city commission. It was actually on the uh June agenda. >> Um so, you know, well, we're hopeful that that it will come up at the July meeting. >> So, and they would they would request that the LDR and the plan and code amendment come to us. Yes, potentially they could
>> more. So, this is informative for us to know what may be coming. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, what I mean, my preference would be option one, not that we're being asked for it, but is there any way to include in whatever the city commission is going to vote on ways to incentivize,
I guess, owners or developers to rehab or redo existing properties? Because at least what I'm finding is that there are, you know, many people being priced out of Miami Beach because people are selling off their homes, their their lot, whatever it is. People come in, they build the big box, which I'm not saying I'm against, but that creates a
whole new playing field. So, you can't really get someone moving into Miami Beach for 2 million or even 3 million. I mean, we're talking about homes that are going for [snorts] five, six, 7, 8 million dry lots, 5,000 square foot house for just a lot
of money. So, is there any way to include in here some type of incentive for rehab and and redo? I don't know if that's larger, >> you know, lot coverage ratio. I don't know, maybe a larger kind of maximum unit size, things like that. Instead of
50%, maybe it's 55 or 60% if you're redoing your home. >> So, we we currently that's that is part of this. We currently do have incentives for architecturally significant homes that were built prior to 1966. That requires a property owner to go through
an architectural significance evaluation by staff. Um it's not a that's not a difficult process, but that's just one more step, right? That's another delay in in the time frame. So what we what this would also do is is not require that additional step. So basically, if
you have a home built prior to 1966, you would automatically be eligible for the those incentives, including the lot coverage, the unit size, reduce setbacks in certain instances, even for addition. >> So it goes from 50% to what? >> 50% to 60%.
>> And the lot coverage, Jake, is >> 40%. So could that be something let's say that's included for homes that are not let's say that are pre 1990 or you know whatever that is meaning can we >> we don't you know and I mean I we could
certainly look at that we don't really see we see most of the housing stock in Miami Beach is is I think half of it is pre-1950. >> Yeah I'm sure >> and then we have a good chunk from 1950 to 1966. I think a lot of the 80s and
90s homes have have been demolished. Um, but we could certainly look at increasing that for anyone. >> How how do we kind of allow for more affordable housing on Miami Beach where people can stay, you know, it gives them an option of they're moving into a redone home instead of a newly, you
know, rebuilt home, which obviously increases the cost. That's what I think we should all just be trying to figure out. >> Yeah. Clear. You're trying to make sure that some of these houses a lot that are bought with like bungalow or smaller house sizes are kept that way and that there's incentive from the city to that they're offer so that the people are not
knocking it down. >> Sure. Because let's say I I want to sell >> not not me someone wants to sell a house that right now is 4,000 it's a 4,000 foot house >> instead of knocking it down rebuilding right they can get up to let's say 5500
that another house couldn't get but they have to keep it within the same let's call it footprint whatever that is brings down the cost and again I think it introduces a new price point where maybe it's not the million or 2 million maybe it's 3 million but it's not the 7 million >> right it's important because Most of the time they they they look at it and they
look at the money they have to put in to fix it up and it's just, you know, the complexity square footage is much more profitable than just doing the work. So >> So maybe they make up that money by being able to build a a larger home, but it's not the newly rebuilt home. >> Yeah. So I don't know. I mean, if that's
something we we could >> some incentives that the city can include. Yeah, we I mean we can certainly include more incentives for the retention of homes. We can expand that um and make it easier for people to avail themselves of these incentives.
>> Yeah, that's that's all I'm hoping for. >> I think that's important. >> Okay. Anything else on this one? >> Nope. >> Okay. The next is swale maintenance and use of swailes in single family neighborhood. >> That was definitely mine.
>> Yeah. you have um so um I we did I did provide you uh with the code sections I have reached out um to Rodney Nolles uh assistant uh public works director and you know basically just to summarize what's in
the the existing uh city code is that swale maintenance in single family neighborhoods is the responsibility of the property owner right the city does not um actively maintain uh the swailes
um in front of an adjacent private property. So that is currently the the requirement of the property owner. Um the trees I know there was a question about planting trees and and shrubbery in the swailes that is property owners
are eligible to do that through the coordination with the city's urban forestry department. So um the the urban forestry department will allow for the introduction of trees. Um but that again any new trees or new shrubbery is going
to default to the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to maintain that. Um public works also looks at uh you know sighteline triangles and and things like that to make sure that there's no um there are no safety issues with with any landscape that's added.
Um, as far as parking is concerned, they um, you know, I received a a um, response that they do not uh, regulate parking on the swailes. Um, all they would regulate is the ability to introduce paving, for example, that
would not be permitted. So, if someone wanted to pave the area in order to provide parking in the swale, the city would not permit that. Um, but as far as parking on the grass, the the only enforcement the city would have would be if by, you know, parking there that
somehow cause damage to the swale or the landscape, then it would be the owner's responsibility to repair all of that. Sometimes if you have, you know, large work trucks and things, they do kind of rip up some of the landscaping. So, that would need to be corrected by the property owner. So I think what what we
were trying to solve for last uh last meeting was you know the people that are obstructing the use of their soil and by doing so they were introducing parking on the street which is restricting vehicular access you know kind of down
down the street. So what can we do to ensure that that doesn't happen whereby even if the maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner fine but they should not have the ability to restrict access to the soil specifically parking or whatever that is
because a lot of times what people do is they put those big rocks they put the signs no parking on grass and then they have guests over and then in front of their house they're just parking on the street. >> Right. And well, and I would like to add to that. You you talk you talk about the allowing the city allows some some
shrubs or trees to be planted. >> I'm under the impression based on seeing a neighborhood in new construction that the city is requiring at this point that their trees be planted on the swells of these new construction to increase I think was one of minor's initiative to increase shading. And so it's not even
right now it's not a a a an option to not. And so we're back to to to his point is we're ending up with swells that are no longer um being used or can be used to be parking. And so we end up with all these cars on the street instead of the swells like it traditionally used to be. So there was
an initiative from the city of increasing trees being planted on swells. It has become an issue in our neighborhoods. >> Okay. And that that's accurate. So the for for new construction projects um we do require um shade trees. That is a
much larger city initiative um to increase our shade canopy. Um that wouldn't be necessarily required for an existing home that was going through a renovation, >> but that's something that we can you know the the planning board could certainly
make a recommendation that we modify that policy. Um, another another issue is if people are parking on the street and blocking travel lanes, you know, that that's not allowed either. So, that would be an enforcement issue that I think we could also look at.
>> Here's an example, right? So, here's a residential street that a neighbor sent to me. It's my street. They sent me the picture. You have a house here with big boulders blocking use of their swale. Then they have someone in front of their house who's parking on the street. Then
across the street you have someone who's restricting parking on the swale. So there's literally nowhere to drive. And they they call enforcement, they call code. They'll come out, they give them a warning, please move your car, but that's not fixing the underlying issue
where there there shouldn't be restricted access to the swale and people should be able to park there, which would open up the vehicular access. So I guess what could we do as a planning board to try and introduce I don't know if it's you know some type of code where you cannot restrict access to
the swale. >> So are those people are allowed to put private rocks on the on the city property >> that's subject to public works review. I don't know I don't you know I can't speak to a specific property whether or not that that particular property owner obtains
>> North Bay Road it's the same all these flags are the same thing. Is that something that we could work towards introducing language to prevent that type of obstruction? >> But then but then do you want people parking on front of people's lawns? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. I think I think it's important
>> it's better that they park in on their lawn than in the street. >> So at this at this point their option and if you don't >> by the way the option is not that they're not parking, they are parking, >> right? and they have their staff doing it because their drivers only allow for one or two cars. So the moment they have staff every day you have the whole, you
know, neighborhood is struggling with what he's showing. We have the same thing the Venetian and we call enforcement sometimes when it's an issue. Everyone gets ticketed and then everyone's up in >> and they're literally parking on the street, >> right? They're parking on the street cuz not no swell space because everyone's blocking their >> Well, you can't tell if that's driving or parked, you know?
>> I mean, the lights are off. That's that's definitely a park car. >> And here's the reality of it. Like you you the swells do get beaten. Like I I don't block off my swells in all the areas where we have the property and they're beaten to and it's just something you got to accept like you're going to have that's the question. So you res are going to go crazy about
that, >> right? But that's part of Okay. So but the other idea is that the the supposed to be parked on >> I mean >> no >> they're not authorized parking spaces but it's not something that the city actively regulates.
>> Right. And the city unfortunately also I guess with their I guess the code >> restricting the amount of cars that go in a driveway which we've addressed I think in a previous meeting. It's also gone to the point where you can only fit two cars as it is in in your front
driveway area which hopefully is going to get better. But I mean is there anything that we could I guess introduce or put it as a future item to include in the code that again restricts obstructing the swale? So that would be that wouldn't be part of the land development regulation. So that would be
in in our public property um section of the city code and you could certainly make a recommendation to the mayor and commission that they limit any obstructions in the swelles to facilitate you know parking of temporary
>> vehicles faces. Well, I'm just I just want to caution the board, too, because that, you know, it would be very hard to distinguish between who should be parking there and who shouldn't be. It could it could really lead to a free-for-all. >> Yeah, it's a complicated issue. >> It already is like that. You can't control. >> They're still parking. They're just
parking on the street. >> I I think there'd be there'd be some push back. People who want to keep their swells nice, but I also think that it solves a lot of the problems that we're always dealing anyways with. So, it's one, you know, at least you're solving one of the two problems because the amount I mean, there's not a single week
on our chat in the Venetian Islands that we're not dealing with people complaining about all these cars parking on the streets and and we can't do much about it because our our streets are narrow, which is typical of a lot of these streets where you can't apply for actual residential parking because the
streets are not made wide enough to actually uh have legal u parking on the streets. So, I mean, um, >> imagine an ambulance wants to get through. Impossible. Deal with that. >> When you do, >> well, again, if you're blocking a travel lane, that is a a violation, right? >> That's happening. >> But it's So, when you do a code
amendment, who gets notice of that? >> Just a a regular amendment to this. >> If there was an amendment to prohibit any >> block of of that, >> I'm just saying because you're gonna have neighbor like I'm tell I live right near the North Bay Road neighborhood.
They will go wild on that, but I want to make sure they're aware of it. >> That would um that would only require a a a newspaper notice, which we now do on on on online >> and nobody >> um and notice on our on our website. Now, you could, if you were going to
recommend something like this, you could you could recommend that additional notice be provided to um, you know, to either property owners within specific areas if this is going to be focused on certain areas or to the neighborhood associations, but you know,
the neighborhood associations may not reach everybody, >> but it be citywide. So, even if it wasn't a problem on a particular road, it would be citywide, >> right? Right. Well, it sounds like what you're really talking about are single family districts. >> Right. >> Right. But there's a lot of them where it's really not a problem and others
where it is. >> Right. >> And I'm just telling you, I know neighbors that are going to go ballistic because they take great pains to put things on their soil so people aren't >> but you know >> ruining the grass and parking in front of >> and to maintain it. Sounds like it's the illegal. The only other thing that I
would say is that if if it wouldn't be a change to the code restricting obstructing your swale, then maybe it kind of switches from there being a violation to the, you know, the driver of the car to now it's the property owner, someone in front of them. And I I mean, that's even worse. That's
impossible for them to manage. But >> the status quo doesn't work. >> Well, what's weird is that if it's already illegal to park on the swale, right? >> It's not illegal. >> It's not illegal. >> Oh, it's not. I mean, well, they're not they're not parking spaces, right? So, technically, it's it's not something
that we encourage. >> You don't encourage it, but >> it's not prohibited. Like, can they get tickets for parking on this? Like, >> um >> I don't think so. I I think the only as of last week as I just dealt with the city with that in our neighborhood is
that unless a little bit to what you're saying technically unless there is a cause that it's it's blocking it's creating it's part of the sidewalk or it's creating some obstruction outside of the swell um or you know that a a specific uh
resident you know makes a complaint of you know of that lives on that property that somehow uh they won't come in enforce ever. And so, um, so at the very >> But, but, but that's my question. Is there something to enforce? >> If they're blocking a travel lane, yes.
>> Okay. But just someone parked up on the grass. >> It's not something we regulate. It's not something we're going to regulate. Now, if they're if part of their vehicle is in the travel lane, then then we would So, you know, you see that, too. Sometimes they're half on half off um the swale area. And just as a visual, I
understand like some of the push back from some from some people, but just as a visual, it is much nicer to see everyone parked on the same all on the swells and have some on the swell, some on the street and you have the zigzag on the street. It's just it's kind of a mind frame we have to change about that. And and even if it means that we have to
as a second step maybe allow different materials that could be used there just so it's not a bunch of grass that's torn up. I mean, there's a lot of good common sense, too. if you're parking on it when it's after it rained, obviously you just tear everything up. But, you know, there is six months of the year where that's
not an issue. But, I think that um it's it's a real problem in a lot of our neighborhoods. We're going to upset a few people to push it maybe in that direction, but in overall it's one of those things that will become a new normal that then um works better for these neighborhoods. And it's a safety it's a safety thing, too,
>> right? But I think if you're going to if you're going to prohibit people from blocking their soil with rocks or whatever, there should also be some rule that you can't just randomly park on. >> Like unless maybe it's a service vehicle. >> Well, because it's technically that property is not owned by the property
owner. It's city property. You can't say just my people. >> No, but you don't want just random residents being able to park on someone's soil, right? >> Well, we have that already. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, you have let's say let's say you live in this house. You could have someone from down the block who's having a party and then someone from there is parking your swell. But I
think that just happens in the normal course of >> most of the time it's people's own life, >> right? And in most neighborhoods it's kind of understood you're going to try to use the space in front of your your does happen and usually you there's little discussions between neighbors your house. >> Well, let me ask you this. Why does the city if the city owns the swells why did
they allow private residents to like there on North Bay? Because I jog there and every that's the only example I can people put flags on them. There's rocks on them. there's how why is that allowed? >> Yeah, I don't know if it is. I just don't know if we're issuing citations for that. Um, but if you are going to
put something in the swale, you should be coming into the city and and discussing that with public works and green space. Um, I think what might be helpful if we, you know, after the the end of this discussion if we continue this to the September meeting so that I
can have someone from public works here, okay? and maybe even someone from code because if if the issue is occurring in certain neighborhoods and not citywide throughout the single family districts then maybe there is something in terms of enforcement that the city could step
up if it's limited to you know if the real problem is limited to just a few neighborhoods >> but at a very minimum I would like us to um uh push forward the fact that these requirements of new trees uh for shading on all these new properties be reviewed
because right now that's causing a real problem >> and I would suggest that that also be continued. I think that requirement is in the LDRs. Um but the the Miami date county landscape ordinance sets minimum
standards that we have to follow. We can either follow them or be stricter but we cannot be less restrictive. So >> is the county because I I was under the impression >> it's both. So, the county sets the minimum standards for for all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Miami Dade. And then in some areas, our
code is stricter, >> right? >> So, um but but I would recommend the board schedule that for for an upcoming meeting. >> All right. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we'll move those both to September for you guys to get some information.
>> And then come September, ideally, we we would be in a mo in the position to make a motion, I guess. to make a recommendation to the commission. >> Correct. >> Recommend that they forward an amendment to us. >> Well, on the swailes, it probably won't
require amending the LDR. So, you can make the recommendation. I don't know that the ordinance will necessarily come back before you, but I think the purpose of continuing this to September is to allow staff to come in, present to the board, and maybe then the board can uh better develop its recommendation.
>> Okay, sounds good. Anything else, guys, ladies? We're good. >> All right, we're ajourned. Thank you.