[Music] [Music] hey well [Music] Hey hey hey heat hey Heat
[Music] [Music] [Music] y hey hey heat heat [Music] [Music]
heat hey hey heat heat [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] hey hey hey [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] heat heat [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5
4 3 2 1 okay good morning welcome to the April 8th planning board meeting we have a uh full attendance today and the first thing I'll ask the board to do is approve the minutes from the last meeting if I could get a motion to approve motion to approve second okay
all in favor i anyone opposed okay thank you Nick good morning Mr chairman and members of the board today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a hybrid format with the board physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicants
staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually the public may dial 1-877-853-5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 8614342
6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 861-43426327 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if you're participating by phone if you're appearing on behalf of a business a
corporation or another person you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office if you haven't registered yet you should register before you speak to the board you don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party or if you're testifying as an
expert witness providing only scientific technical or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting or if you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item expert witnesses and
representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk their name address and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating if you're an architect attorney or employee representing an applicant or an objector you must register as a lobbyist these
rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage defeat modification or continuence uh lastly I'd like to swear in any members of the public or staff who will be testifying today please raise your right hands do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you all righty um we'll start with requests for continuence and withdrawals which are several and and Michael you know I know that some of the boards like to know what the reasons for it so um
and then you'll let me know if we need to vote on it the first is planning board filed PB240656 1235 Washington Avenue nightclub so this application the applicant has actually withdrawn it so the board does not need to take any action at this time on that application
okay the next one planning board file 220539 660 Washington Avenue the Angller's Hotel and in this case the um applicant is requesting a continuence to the May 6th meeting this was last advertised um for the February meeting
the board the code places a limit in terms of the time frame um the maximum time frame of which an application may be continued may 6th is the last date that the application be could be continued to unless the applicant provides um plans at the time so at this point the applicant's requesting a
continuence to the May 6th meeting thank you attorney for the anglers um we've been here a couple times because of some other outdoor entertainment venues that have been more problematic we've had you know this this process started a little before all those but we've been working
with neighbors that could be impacted to modify things modify speaker locations we were hoping to actually continue to July because we needed more time to update the plan and test it and everything else but in speaking to Michael the last couple days because of the notice procedures we can only continue it to May um and then we will
be at that point probably submitting updated drawings and then ask you for you know a little more time at that point we would ask you for more time today but we just can't because of the timing of the process so we again we're asking for just May but we we we still think we need a little more time to
finalize things and make it right is the proposed operator still the guy that has the Greek restaurant oh as for the Yeah for the for the food and beverage yes yeah okay all right um so we should take um see if there's any public comment for
continuence i'm assuming nobody in here is here to speak on this item anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised close the hearing any questions from the board all right all in favor we need a motion first and motion to approve second it okay all in favor anyone opposed all right and what
happens if after May they have to start the whole process over again they would have to just readvertise it okay all right you're aware of that Mickey right yes okay thank you okay the next is planning board file 240661 industrial commercial industrial
residential height and setback regulation modification citywide in this case the um commission sponsor is requesting this item be continued to the June 10th meeting okay do we need to move on that or uh yes we do we should take um any comment on the request for continuance okay
anyone here to speak on this item anyone on Zoom nobody on Zoom with their hand okay you want to move it motion to approve second it okay all in favor anyone opposed okay it's moved to June correct that's to June okay next one is planning board file
25747 vendor appointments to land use boards this is something the city is still working on this ordinance so we are re we advertised it for today's meeting but it's not ready yet so we're asking that the board continue this to the May 6th meeting okay anyone here in chamber speak on this anyone on Zoom nobody on Zoom motion to continue i'll
second it okay all in favor anyone opposed okay next one planning board file 257586701 Collins Avenue and 6625 Indian Creek Drive so this is a development agreement with the Doville and the city
um the city is requesting at this time this be continued to the May 6th meeting and it may not be heard by the planning board this will be heard at first reading by the city commission on um April 23rd if the city commission wants to get input from the planning board the idea is we continue this to the May the
May 6th meeting if the city commission does refer this to the planning board it can be discussed in May otherwise second reading by the city commission cannot happen before the May meeting so at this point in order to explore or to leave open all available options um the applicants requesting that this be continued to the May 6th meeting okay
anyone in chambers to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom okay motion motion to continue i Okay all in favor anyone opposed okay so moved all right on to revocation modification hearings item planning
board 2110442 743 Washington Avenue von Dome and this staff report begins on page um 11 of the board packages so this has been before you for quite a while now the current revocation
modification hearing has been before you since um PL the planning department sent a cure letter to the applicant on May 29th and the first progress report was heard by the board on June 25th of last year um since the last time this was heard in
February staff has highlighted in yellow the updates in terms of the um where the the code cases are um most notably as indicated on page 13 of the board packages the there was a case regarding um queuing on the sidewalk and that case
one of those cases has been appealed to the special magistrate which scheduled before which is scheduled for um April 3rd i'll ask Mickey to provide an update in terms of the outcome of that special special magistrate meeting but we are recommending at this time that the board hear from the applicant and recommend
that the um revocation modification hearing be continued to the June 10th 2025 meeting good morning again mickey Morero to South Boulevard attorney for Vendome so appreciate staff's uh comments last time we were here I
believe it was in February um and we were told if there were no new violations and you know going through season spring break Miami Music Week all the fun stuff that happened on the beach we would you would all discontinue progress reports there have been no new violations a lot of scrutiny on this place as you guys know there's they've
been squeaky clean nothing uh not one violation no complaints nothing since that hearing what Michael mentioned there was a hearing I found it very bizarre i'm not going to spend a lot of time on it but the violation that was scheduled and it wasn't appealed it was judicated already this is the one from
May that started this whole process the queuing violation when they did all the different clubs after that one shooting at a different club this was that queuing violation from May we never appealed it we've discussed it here at length we've modified our plan we've fixed the issue for some reason the city
put that May 2024 violation on progress report i mean I'm special magistrate April 3rd which we didn't appeal so we just showed up and said we don't know why we're here it's already adjudicated special magistrate okay no fine that was the entire hearing there was no appeal so there was no reason for that really to go back but it's not a new violation
it was only the May 2024 violation nothing's happened the only violation they've even had since the summer of 2024 was the one on Halloween which we've talked about at length which was nefarious in its own but nothing else since then so we believe they've been operating is is anything pending are
there no appeals pending before the magistrate no appeals pending no open violations nothing new since that October violation that we've talked about and beyond that nothing since the summer nothing okay i had heard there
were pending matters before magistrate that hadn't been adjudicated yet the only one that was the one Michael mentioned it was on the April 3rd maggenda i appeared solely you know but again we never appealed it so it had been should have been closed back in May the code was confused as to why it was there the magistrate was like "Fine but
I'm not going to give you a fine this is an old case." That was it there was nothing else nothing pending nothing open nothing new okay anyone here in chamber to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised all right the recommendation from the staff is to just move it one more month to June that's we that's what
we're recommending it's up to the board okay all right any questions from the board can I I mean so is there something else on the horizon in terms of a complaint or something i mean no like I mentioned in the report there's been no new um citations or violations since we
last um heard from the applicant so I mean I I don't see a reason to keep this open i'm with you Nick i think that there are our our last discussion was if there was no new uh um you know complaints we were fine to move this through i mean if there comes a new complaint they'll be
back in front of us anyway so I think instead of wasting everyone's time and does this is a slow season starting anyway so I think it's a bit of waste well let me ask you this you know if we can we do something where we keep it on the calendar but if there's no violations between now and then then it
can be cancelled i wouldn't do that because it's a I think if it was a progress report I would say yes but because this is an actual revocation modification hearing so I think the board should take action to either continue it or conclude it without having that sort of um criteria which we've done in the past we're continuing
it provided there's no violations the applicant doesn't have to come before the board i think because this is a replication modification hearing there should be some formal action by the board to conclude it and they'll be back in front of us if there's another violation of their cop correct if there is a violation then we would bring them back before the board we would just have
to start the um modification modification hearing process over again the the whole idea last time about continuing till now is to see what happened spring break to with spring break and to make sure that we would have power if they had
another violation and then if of course if they didn't have a violation they'd be done and we don't do this for I' I've never seen us leave this open for other places you know just just to see what happens multiple multiple times after
there's no new violation so I don't you know I don't understand why we're singling them out so do they want to um And our last question did um so if we close it out you recommend that we that we terminate
special events or not well I think that's what at this point we're just recommending continuous we're not recommending a modification at this time to the um to the C okay y my if you guys have a problem with their business model that's a whole
different thing i I don't see that based on what has happened you know this is this all sort of came to you know that culminated on Halloween that was October we're now in April you know so it it's
it's I just think that the issue was resolved there haven't been any new violations i'm sure that there were you know affirm you know just random checks by code many many times um you know I see Mickey nodding his head and so you
know Okay that's my Any other questions or comments no you want Okay Elizabeth any questions all right so want to move it i'll make a motion to close this out and I don't just just to conclude the revocation the revocation modification
i'll second that all in favor i I Anyone opposed okay thank you good job Mickey Morero try all right progress reports first item is
planning board file 180252928 Ocean Drive which is the basic required 90-day progress report this this is not due this is not before you due to a code complaint or violation this is just before you due to the standard
requirement of a progress report um just for some brief history on this application this was was initially approved by the planning board back on April 30th of 2019 to um include entertainment and and an open air entertainment and nie with an occupant
content in excess of 200 persons they did not get their BTR to include the they did not get their BTR to include the entertainment until January of this year their approval was held active due to um many state extensions so before you now just as a typical um progress report since there have been no
complaints or violations issued since they had the entertainment um added to their PTR we're recommending that the board conclude the progress report at this time okay sir hi good morning michael Po 200 South Biscane Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant and operator just here to answer any
questions that the board may have okay anyone in chambers to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's no one on Zoom with their hand please close the public hearing any questions from the board okay someone want to move it i'll move it okay move to close it second
okay all in favor anyone oppose that was easy there you go thank you very much thanks for coming okay planning board file 21448 23523rd Street uh progress report for change of owner and this report
begins on page um 39 of the board packages this is a little bit different because there actually have been um violations issued so some brief history on this on July 27th of 2021 um a CUP modified CP was issued to the operator
Miami Loud Holdings LLC as the operator of the neighborhood impact establishment condition two this is an an unusual condition condition two of the CUP allows submission of an affidavit to transfer approval to a new operator or owner but does require that a progress
report be scheduled prior to the applicant submission and staff acceptance of the affidavit so the applicant requested that a progress report be scheduled before the planning board on December 30th of last year they did receive their BTR for the modifi for
the amended operator on February 24th of this year now as part of any progress report we do a search of of code citations and violations and we did note that there there was a violation issued initially for not having a BTR that was
back um in December um that appeal was actually appealed to special magistrate and was denied there have been um other violations as noted in a report for having a um a promoted event similar to um what happened at um Vendome without
having the appropriate notification to the police department so because of that we are recommending that the planning board hear from the applicant and continue the progress report to the May 6th uh meeting good morning again it's still Mickey Morero 200 South Biscane
Boulevard here on behalf of Bakura um different venue here so Michael's correct and I'll give you a little bit of the story so yeah we are here because it was a change of operator not because it was a revocation situation but there are some little hiccups and I'm going to address them each one what happened with this venue uh this used to be a club
called Gala and most of the I think about 80% of the owners decided to just change the branding change the name they did bring in a couple new partners that occurred at the end of 2024 so they opened um with the new name Bakra and that was a mistake they they contacted me at that time that's when I got
involved they were licensed there was a BTR there was a CU for a nightclub exactly the way it was proposed on that property the issue was they should not have been operating as Bakura without going through this process so they did get a violation for not having a BTR for
Bakura but they did have a BTR for a nightclub that had all the fire safety things and everything else on that site it was just a naming issue they stayed operating without the Bakar name until uh early this year when they did finalize through their licensing council a modification to the proper name and
had to modify the liquor license all the state licensing the valet and everything else and that was a relatively painful process because of all the different parties and agencies so as of the beginning of 2025 I guess February they did have their proper Bakara license and started operating under that name with
that you know going forward uh the violation that was issued was you know a mistake and I spoke to them about it they have some new people that they brought in to run the operations there was a recent change in that ordinance notifying the police i've stressed to them the importance and that they're not going to make that mistake again it was
of all the different times they've had events they did not notify one time in a timely fashion um so they did get the violation we didn't appeal it because they were guilty and I didn't want to go through the whole special magistrate process i just told them "Fix it get your process right." They understand now what they have to do if we need to come
back uh to make sure it doesn't happen again we're happy to do that but that really was the only the only issue okay anyone in chambers speak on this anyone on Zoom there's no one on Zoom with their hand raised okay any questions in terms of the business you said
there's a change in some management or but has the I guess the business model changed at all so that it's now more promoted events like the other it's the same business model before um just a couple of the partners that were involved just were no longer part of the entity so they changed but 80% of the
people were the same they were not operating for you know about almost a year before they reopened at the end of last year but is that but I guess so is it similar to Venome where they have performances inside they just notify the
police they just this time they didn't notify the police it's it is a similar business model um and they they have been notifying every other time this was just one where it slipped through the cracks unfortunately I think sometimes like I mentioned uh and again I told them and I spoke to the person that's in
charge and I made sure she was aware of the importance of this and the scrutiny on this uh sometimes uh someone's in town they didn't have it well planned and they get excited they they they they don't notice quickly enough but again not excuse not excuse and uh now they
understand going forward it's a new person that was handling it so I don't expect it to happen again but like I said staff's recommending us to come back if if you all want to make sure that they have this in order you know we're happy to come back um but otherwise you know there's really no other problems so so um how can you fail
to comply for 50 Cent but you can notify for every other one i mean that seems a little this that's the email is the same no matter who the artist is it's just a matter of the timing of when they signed them sometimes they don't plan that but that's a well-known quantity i mean
so you just they just didn't notify them for No no they it just they it got out late i mean again sometimes they find out the person's going to be available and it's already within the 96 hours so they have to scramble but it was just one time out of all the other ones yeah i don't think it had anything to do with
the particular artist okay all right any if there's no other question I want to move it to the next to continue to just one thing for me is if we move it I'd rather move it to the June meeting because then you kind of get um Memorial Day i would second that go ahead and move it so I'd make a
motion to uh continue this to the June meeting can I just second Can I just say one more thing before reading the description about the interactions that occurred during the investigation by code enforcement i
guess that was you know back in um in December yes i mean I I'm sure you can understand what my thoughts on that are and it's to me it's totally inappropriate there were several people who jumped in there i'm
sure if we saw the body camera it would not be flattering for a lot of them and I just want to make sure you speak with all these people i mean there was even somebody from the Collins Park the president of the Collins Park neighborhood who tried to get the investigation stopped and I just
understood i hope that you speak with them because as you know you know we're impressed when we see you know the interactions with you know sometimes with the Good Time Hotel you know the interactions are really professional and those that goes a long way and so when you see interactions like this especially the code compliance people
who are working so hard and doing the best job that they can they're doing their job exactly that and so I'm I just I you should talk to them i'm sure you already have and um just that was a concern of mine but hopefully we don't see that again if I can respond for just like 15 seconds just to I look I read it
and I absolutely agree with you uh that was before my involvement i did explain to them the situation what occurred there just to paint a little because you know the gentleman that was mentioned is someone we all know i think it was like a grand opening they had a license they thought they were licensed there was confusion with the name so there was a lot of confusion as to why are we being
shut down we have this license and that person saw there was a license so there was a lot of confusion that was not intentional we've dealt with it but I totally understand your your view of it cool thank you yeah was Ray's involvement just as Yeah I know it's bizarre that Ry was in there trying But
again it's like but there's a license i don't understand you know was I can see how that could have happened i wasn't there but if anything I thought he'd be like in favor of the codes today no I think he was you know was it was a nice venue i guess he was there having a good time right it's all very So we have a motion to continue it to June right do
we have a second second okay all in favor i anyone opposed all right we'll see you thank you what's that well I said thank you oh okay all right next one is under progress report plan board file 2205188118 Lincoln Road again a required
90-day status and this staff report begins in page um 49 of the board packages um this is a progress report that's required by the CUP that was initially approved by the planning board on September 20th of 2022 um the BTR was
issued on January 16th the progress report is required to be um presented before the board within I think it's 90 days of the issuance of the BTR um there have been no complaints registered and no violations issued as northern staff report so I'll recommending that the
privacy report be concluded at this time what's the name of the venue again it's a Oro and Elixir oh it's Oro okay the one above MA okay yes very nice place it's lovely thank you very much uh my name is Ian Bachov with Acreman 98
Southeast 7th Street Miami uh here on behalf of uh the C holder uh Golden Era Hospitality doing business as Oro and Elixir um just here to answer any questions thank you okay anyone here to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with
their hand raised okay any questions i want to move it motion to conclude second okay all in favor i anyone opposed okay thank you okay the last progress report is filed plane board file 2046400 Collins Avenue
parking lot and this our last progress report actually this yeah this is a progress report due to code violations this staff report begins on page 57 of the board packages just some history of this parking lot a C was issued back on May 22nd of 2007 to operate the parking
lot um after midnight as valet and self parking um the CP was modified um to go under the current ownership which was which is the Seavoy Hotel Partners LLC um on February 27th this year a violation was issued regarding failure
to maintain the lot in accordance with the requirements of the C we did send a cure letter to the Seavo Hotel Partners LLC on March 19th advising them to appear before the planning board for today's meeting um for the progress report we did provide some pictures in
the staff report in terms of the the the deficiencies um in the parking lot now we understand that the applicant um has taken made efforts to to address these concerns and are going to provide some some photos today so we are recommending that the board hear from the applicant
and continue the progress report um to May 6th to 2025 and we do believe that um this continuence would allow staff applicant to inspect the property and make sure it complies with um all the requirements so although although we are recommending that the board continue till May 6th if in the meantime staff
inspects the parking lot and finds the um the the lot meets the requirements then we can administratively just revoke it from the um the May 6th agenda i'll turn it over to the applicant thank you thank you Michael good morning nick Notto from the law firm builds in Sunberg our office is at 1450 Brickl
Avenue and I'm here today on behalf of Seavoy Hotel Partners um this is a parking lot just south of Fifth Avenue on on um just south of Fifth Street um on Collins and uh it's we've had a CP since 2007 i don't think we've had any
code issues the the landscaping has has always been really wellmaintained as soon as my client found out about this we spent I think they spent upwards of $9,000 fixing all the irrigation um doing the the needed uh landscape maintenance um I provided some photographs that I prepared for you
today my presentation showing to you there we go um and you can see this is uh just the interior parking lot and then a view from from Collins again same photographs as we can see uh to us we believe the parking lot
now is landscaping is now in compliance all the irrigation has been um fixed and reinstalled where needed and as Michael said I know they haven't had a chance to go out to the site but uh looking forward to continuing to work with staff to make sure that they're they're happy
with the the status of the parking lot and um if not we'll come back to report on May 6th is uh Eric is he still the uh Yes owner your client okay he's a good guy um anyone in chambers to speak on that anyone on Zoom there's nobody on
Zoom with their hand raised okay well I say that because I know that he's a very responsible operator so any questions from the board so if if we make if we continue this May 6th city goes out see there are no issues you could just pull it yep we'll do that okay all right
let's make a motion i'll make a motion to continue to me i'll second it okay all in favor anyone opposed all right thank you all good thank you okay previously continued items item planning board file 240734 increasing
enhancing porous surface requirements for parking lots and driveways and I just I'm sure everybody got it but I I I received a pretty informative um email from an architect about this i hope everyone read it but go ahead sure thank you um and this staff report begins on
page 73 of the board packages this ordinance was initially referred to the planning board by the city commission on November 20th of last year um this an ordinance was initially reviewed by the planning board on January um 7th of this year at that time concerns were raised
by the public and some board members regarding the proposal to no no longer allow pools to count as part of the minimum pvious landscape area requirements general changes to county review requirements were discussed as part of the reason for this change and action in the ordinance was continued so
the details of the county requirements could be provided now just I'm going to pro provide some background here currently building permit applications whether part of unincorporated Miami day county or a municipality such as Miami Beach are also reviewed by DURM which is a department of environmental resource
management this includes but is not limited to permits related to new construction additions interior remodeling change of use demolition docks seaw walls and pools as part of an amended county ordinance which which was adopted by the county on September 4th
of last year Durm will also now be enforcing new pvious area requirements in accordance with the amended county regulations currently non-structural improvements such as a concrete deck pavers or an extension of a pool deck are not reviewed by Durm but are reviewed by Miami Beach for consistency
with city regulations starting in March 31st of this year DURM will be reviewing all of these standalone application types when not tied to a building permit for compliance with the county's new previous requirements now all municipalities including Miami Beach must provide confirmation that the city
code meets the minimum standards of the county ordinance by December 31st of this year if the municipalities do not meet the minimum county standards then Durham will will review the improvements noted above for consistency with the county requirements now we did include
as an online supplement i think I emailed it to everybody it's also included as part of the online packages for the public to see is the um which is a 87page commission memo dated um May 21st of last year we did highlight in yellow and green the portions of that
document that directly relate to the city's requirements and modifications to the um pvious surface surface requirements now we noted in our staff report while swimming pools are counted currently towards the minimum purpose area requirements they do not function really as pvious um surfaces a pvious
surface is defined as one that allows water to infiltrate into the ground contributing to groundwater recharge and reducing surface runoff however swimming pools are impermeable structures that prevent water infiltration effectively increasing runoff rather than mitigating it further with the increasing frequency
of heavy rainstorms pools often fill quickly and overflow this is the case i have a pool my pool frequently overflows once you get more than three inches of rain it overflows to the skimmer and the water goes into the yard so this is something that's happening now on a on a
um a more frequent basis so we do believe that removing pools from previous service calculations reflects the functional reality of how the impacts storm water management and drainage we also believe that um that um removing this require removing this
allowance for pools to count as pvious also um creates more consistent regulations between the um the city and county um otherwise we'd have different calculations when the county reviews it compared to when the city reviews it in terms of the pvious area requirements now we are on the same page in terms of
what counts as pvious and what is not counted as pvious so we are recommending that the board um review the ordinance and transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation i understand as well that um some applicants have been concerned regarding they already have a permanent process where they have a um lending board
application that's been approved so we have no objection to the planning board including an applicability clause subject to the city commission including that as well in the ordinance at this time that I'll open up to the public for um any comment okay anyone to speak on this item in chambers
you want me up to speak Mickey okay busy day wow it's like moving are there any other lawyers in town i think I've cornered the market for the morning um good morning again Mickey Morero tuned at South Pisc Boulevard so to Michael's point uh we we have a few applications i'm involved in one in
particular but our office has several where as you know these things take time um some of them require planning board lots split then DRB a lot of architectural work so while we understand the ordinance going forward we're just asking humbly that applications that have already at if you go to pre-App that means you've got
plans already done you spend tens of thousands of dollars on an architect and these are single family homes and it's the smaller lots you're going to have the bigger problem because you have less space to work with so if you've already designed it to code as a code reads today if this ordinance takes effect today without applicability then you're
you have to start new plans and it's it's a mess so we would ask that the applicability clause that was distributed I think Matt Amster sent something to you all um that that be included with your recommendation going forward thank you okay anyone else speaking on this item anyone on Zoom
michael anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay close the public hearing any banter among board um I definitely think that the applicability provision should be
included but my question for staff is and I'm not saying the board would vote this way but if the if the board voted with an unfavorable recommendation then what would happen we're not in compliance with county requirements and then on every future application Durm
has to review well um that's Yeah so um your your recommendation is just a recommendation to the city commission correct ultimately the city commission will take that into consideration when they um adopt the ordinance or not but yes if if the ordinance is not as least as restrictive as the county then the
county will continue to review um those those previous requirements and is there any type of threshold meaning you know to Mickey's point if you're dealing with a you know larger lot it's easier for a single family kind of homeowner to to get through that process than someone
who has a smaller lot and they're trying to do work to their home and now they you know they can't have a functional driveway or whatever that might be because of Well so we have so we have although we are increasing the requirements for um landscaping in in the front yard for driveways we do also
allow you to um use porest pavement poorest pavers to count as part of that requirement previously none of that counted towards your previous requirement so that is one of the one of the allowances that we are doing is to offset the stricter requirements now now
requiring you to or now allowing you to have um part of your porous pavement count towards your previous landscape requirements got it so whereas previously it had to be landscaping correct now you're able to use those pavers which would count got it and has this has staff heard from any architects
builders whatever that might be as to the potential impacts for we have had concerns like you mentioned in terms of properties have small properties that may want to add a pool you know to the property and they're already built out i mean there is there are provisions um where somebody could apply for a
variance in that type of situation i mean because my my concern is that this now puts it's it's really kind of negatively impacting what's called the the mom and pop type home homeowner who wants to make modifications to their home but but can't afford to be in
compliance or or they just reasonably can't be in compliance if somebody if somebody is already non-conforming right now and they redo their pool they do the entire house as long as the value of the renovation is under 50% they wouldn't be required to come in compliance with with these requirements so they could redo
their pool um they could redo their deck area is if if they're going exceeding 50% of the value of the pro of the improvements then they would be required to come in compliance with the current regulations got it okay michael question um sometimes when when
applicants are in front of the board either DRB or HPB um they may ask for a variance for like um you know required front yard sideyard so if they do that and they they're allowed to provide less than what's required wouldn't that
affect these numbers as well in other words wouldn't that be sort of a pendound to get around this some of these requirements um well you we would we would still count the So for example let's say you have a a required rear
setback of 20 ft and the board approves a variance to allow you to encroach 5t into that setback that area of the building is is going to count against them in terms of the previous requirement so we still we still take the calculation from the required setback unless there were to then ask for a variance from the from the
previous landscape requirements okay okay thanks one of the one of the architects had written about um asking that courtyards be taken into consideration so are we uh including some consideration for courtyards we don't have that right now
in terms of the in terms of um our our consideration um I understand I understand the concern there and in terms of the way the county looks at it they look at a um a percentage of of pvious space based upon the entire lot so when the county looks at that they
would consider that courtyard area to count if it does consist of pvious material in terms of the overall um pvious requirements but ours does but the city's doesn't no because our our lot coverage and provincial requirements are based upon your front yard street
side yard and rear yard i mean you could you could recommend maybe the city commission explore including an overall um lot coverage that's that's consistent with the county how the county calculates the overall lot coverage for a property
which gives which gives the architects and a little bit more freedom in and in in taking advantage of those spaces right yeah I can see that because that then somebody could offset their um pool with a interior courtyard that that consists of a previous landscaping and then it becomes consistent with the
county right because and we did provide a diagram so right now on page 70 of the 70 of the board packages the county does give different requirements depending on a small lot versus a larger lot so if the lot size is less than um 5,500 square feet this would be our smallest
RS4 lots um the county requires that 20% of that lot area be pvious and for lots larger than 5,500 square feet the county requires 25% of that area to be pvious and if somebody does have a courtyard that would count toward that would contribute towards the requirements how
does the board feel about us just just to give a little bit of more elbow room in the design here I'm definitely in favor of that um and I guess my only other reservation is there's a big difference between a 5,000 square foot lot and a 20
or 25,000 square foot lot and there's a lot I mean we know in Miami Beach there's a ton of lots that are either 7500 square feet or 10,000 square feet and that those are two of the most common lot sizes for single family homes in Miami Beach and you're almost lumping
them into in with the you know the 20,000 square foot homes uh or lots and I I don't think that that's necessarily fair so I I in addition to you know especially since the 5,000 square foot
threshold is so close to 7500 square feet it's a you're it's a totally different anal you know totally different analysis but almost the same lot size and so I guess my proposal in addition to that would be to add maybe
some sort of middle ground for the average lot size giving them more freedom as opposed you know Maybe maybe in instead of 5,000 square feet putting that up to like 7,500 square feet or
even 10,000 okay we can't modify the county requirement yeah no I know but I'm saying for for But we're But isn't there the No so you can't we can't do anything separate from but our but ours is
different though because we don't include um ours is only the side and and backyards and front yard right right the county would include a courtyard in terms of the pvious area requirements yeah and and I liked that that we're
going to change it as you proposed to be consistent with the county so any change that isn't consistent with the county defeats the whole idea um we're not creating our own we're trying to be consistent and I think that's a great idea but I mean based on the nuances in
the city to Jonathan's point we can't have any kind of recommendations to the commission to include some other type of I think we can recommend it and study it and see how that impacts and if that would result in something that's less strict than the county i know right now um what we don't what we don't want to
do is have somebody be allowed to make up the requirement by having a large courtyard and then have too much hardcape facing the neighbors at the rear or facing the street or the front so we don't want to have that allowance for the pvious area for a courtyard offset the requirements that are allowed
facing what the neighbors see that's also a concern i would uh I mean be really supportive if the commission would consider Jonathan's kind of threshold of I would prefer let's say 10,000 which seems to be kind of the average lot size around the city um so that you're not kind of overly would you
be recommending that we have a different um because I wouldn't what I wouldn't recommend is is changing the definition for pools but maybe having for saying um a decreased um pvious area requirement yeah essentially it's this chart but instead of lots less than 5,500 it's
lots less than 10,000 square feet support that or is there any like So do the staff have any other angle for us i guess everyone's concern is for the smaller lots right so so is there anything that the staff can can recommend that we can sort of explore as options to make sure that the smaller
lots um you know have a little bit looser um like I say it's hard it's hard because if we if we modify and say that um for example right now the county says for lots larger than 5,500 ft they have to go to 25% if you want to raise that
to 10,000 ft then they'd be non-compliant with the county but what what about for the ones like the renovations that aren't uh reviewed by DERM so like just making the modification nonstructural improvements the concrete deck pavers well those are all those are all items
that currently aren't reviewed by Durm but Durm is going to be reviewing those oh they're going to start they're going to start reviewing those all right well then if you're saying that we can't do anything yeah so we essentially have to approve as is i mean well but I I would say just at the minimum with the with the
Can we do a separate motion with recommendations yeah so so but so I the first motion is motion to approve with a favorable favorable recommendation correct and then just I'm we're talking about it before I'm making my motion right and then the second the second one
is to make a motion to make a recommendation for an uh applicability clause as well as the carveout for to keep it consistent with the county so that court interior courtyards are excluded from the calculation yes or
included in the calculation correct so go ahead and make the motions was it included in the calculation or excluded to to be part of the pvious to count towards part of the pvious so I'll make the first Thank you sorry I didn't mean to interrupt uh I'll make the first motion to approve the favorable recommendation okay I'll second that
what's the second okay all in favor i anyone opposed and that can include that can include the applicability you referenced okay so that can Yes that's so it's favorable with applicability okay and then the second go ahead Jonathan uh motion
to bring the city's code to be consistent with the county's code in that the uh interior courtyards are included in the calculation i'll second that that's the recommendation okay Melissa second it all in favor of that
anyone opposed just want to make sure that the applicability clause that you have includes if they've had a preapp for preapp and or submit a building permit because some don't get yours the applicability clause that I have is uh for any land use board application that paid an initial application fee obtained
a land use board file number and presented a proposed design at a pre-lication meeting with staff right or and I think we also had alternatively some building permit process thank you yep so just to be clear um Michael and
Nixo the um if if if there's a new application that happens between now and the commission meeting so does the applicability start i'm just trying to just just to be clear so when does the applic are we looking at new permits between now and the
commission will fall under this new two things i think the effective date of this ordinance was delayed anyway so the ordinance takes effect 60 days following adoption okay so so if this gets to the city commission in May or June it'll it
still won't apply for another 60 days okay um and then on top of that with the applicability clause that the board just included in its recommendation that would capture anybody who's already initiated the process all right just so it's clear for the clients of where
we're going with this right okay all righty moving on sorry one one question on that so in terms of any recommendations for changing the lot you know kind of threshold that's something we could recommend to the commission or because it's not consistent with the
county it would essentially just not be considered you could recommend changing the threshold but not in a manner that is less stringent than the county got it so essentially increasing the threshold doesn't matter correct right okay one more question uh retaining walls so
right now the city uh I I think they permit using kind of the PVC vinyl retaining wall if I as a member of the planning board wanted to bring up for discussion not allowing that and only allowing let's say concrete retaining wall how would that
work does that kind of Well I think so the county so the county is requiring now when you have a grade difference they are requiring a retaining wall be installed but there's a difference between the PVC vinyl retaining walls and the concrete retaining walls that I don't let me see if the ordinance right
now mentions I don't think we mentioned the material for retaining walls um I didn't see mention of the material but personal experience trying we do require that the retaining walls be be finished and a acceptable material they don't all they
don't all work the same so materials are usually governed by the building code um unless we have you know specific authority here to um to specify one material over another how is that I guess how how could it be established
what material be used through building code well so right now if you have retaining wall on your front property we do require that that be finished you can't have like a steel you know piling going through with that steel we do require a um I think a a stone a durable
material stucco finish we don't require that along the the side elevations there would be a further amendment I think to the single family regulations i think that would be separate from this ordinance and and I don't think we can distinguish between types of materials
um who could do that or who can make that determination i mean that's a bu the building code is a statewide code um we can look we can look into it but but my initial thought is that we wouldn't have jurisdiction to specify one material or another got it but Nick
would have to go through the building code to raise some concerns and get the building code to review some of the current materials that are used is that where he would go the building code generally speaking is silent as to one material or another right it's um so I
don't I don't know that we we could do that i don't know that we could specify that the retaining walls have to be concrete and not vinyl so which level where does it go to who is this all under the county or is it state or is it Well I think I think we can't recommend I think we can't require a certain material for
the actual retaining wall but maybe we can require that it be finished in a certain material okay which I think is the concern right i guess you're trying to go a little deeper and trying to figure out who Yeah i mean I've just seen I know that I'm dealing with it with my neighbor i know other kind of friends of mine have dealt with the same
thing with the water retention so those that have kind of the concrete retaining walls it works those that don't usually have some type of issue so I was curious if that's something that could be dealt with as we're talking about kind of actually um Michelle just brought brought up a good point if I can just read from the code here
um so we do have a requirement now that says retaining walls should be finished with stucco stone or other high quality materials in accordance with the applicable design review or appropriateness criteria so it is a requirement now got it okay so that's a new requirement not just in the front
okay and that's as far as the the uh the finishes or the That's the finishes this is the finish okay okay i think that Yeah thank you all good to answer your question Melissa the uh the building code is amended by the Florida Building Commission which is a statewide body
okay thank you okay we are on to new uh comprehensive planning code amendments first one is planning board file 25744 commercial use of single family houses on 121 of the books
and this this ordinance was referred by the city commission on February 26 of this year and what this does is further strengthen the prohibition on using a single family home um for commercial purposes it does prohibit the sponsor
the sponsorship of an event in a single family home by a for-profit entity and prohibits the promotion of any party event via social media platforms um on page 124 of the board packages that includes the additions in terms of what's prohibited for single family
homes noting that for example any advertising marketing or promotion of any party event assembly or gathering in any print film social networking platform any other media that would be prohibited in any party event assembly or gathering is sponsored managed or pro
promoted by any entity other than a charitable religious or political organization or candidate for public office um that has received a 501c3 or other tax exempt status um in accordance with the applicable election laws so this is just for the streng somebody
using um their um home as a party house so there's no no permit that can be obtained it's just a pure outb right okay for this all residential homes all through the beach right this is for a for-profit entity it doesn't affect the the nonprofit and the um the political
parties but if again if someone wants to have a birthday party in their backyard and it's they have music and all of that that's fine you're not promoting it as a you know open to you know promoting it as a party on social media so you don't
have to have a special event permit or Well it depends on how I mean I'm just saying if if I'm having a birthday party I don't have social media but I put it on Instagram hey friends please join me is there some gray area there where COD is going to come in and shut down my birthday party
if you're both i think there's a different I think there's a difference between um between I think there's a difference between posting an event on social media and inviting your friends and family versus uh posting a special event on social media and and opening it
to the public and having agreed but code will be with this with that nuance and distinction right okay i mean the key is advertising because if they don't advertise you how it's like how do you find out but send invitations huh you can send invitations
no I'm I'm for this i'm just The enforcability is always an issue but anyway I I think this was directly linked to what we had dealing uh during Art Basel the Venetian and um Hibiscus and so this is we had you know houses
that were were posting on social media for these big um parties that were commercial obviously with boats outside advertising for it so I think we're we're we're that's what we're trying to defeat here um and it's very welcome the city did an excellent job during Art Basel the mayor the city manager the
code compliance and the cops and helping us deal with the the chaos that we had during Art Basel so we're trying to prevent these um this to happen again for uh New Year's Eve and Art Basel those big times of the year but like to to to some of the concerns we just got to make sure that this doesn't get
crossed over in some of the personal uh hosting events so we you know we just want to make sure that we're feeling comfortable that not the wrong people are targeted here and Nick just as an aside that that'll sustain legal scrutiny like if if a homeowner were to
sue over that before Yes okay is Isn't there like a loophole though that if somebody wants to have like this big party at their house during our pause or whatever as long they say a portion of the profits are going to go to charity
you know this nonprofit Um I think that's part of the reason for this amendment right because uh we're where right now um an event like that might not be covered by this ordinance the ordinance includes events that are
maybe not necessarily charging admission um but are being widely promoted on the internet or in some other medium um or you know events that are otherwise again not charging admission but are otherwise sponsored by let's say you know a
private corporate sponsor somebody in the you know other than a nonprofit or political party and if it is a nonprofit do they need some type of permitting or just they can just have a party are we looking at like for beyondund if I might not have the numbers right but if I
remember and discussing with a couple of commissioners is anything beyond 100 or 150 pe you know uh guess you would have to apply for a special event permit and you're allowed a certain amount per year at your home i think I remember that that is I think that was addressed in
separate legislation that is not in the land development regulations um that was that uh was just reviewed by the land use committee and I don't think the threshold is in this ordinance i think that's governed by separate code um do
you happen to know Michael the number of people i'm looking for I don't but there is a process going on right now with either 100 or 150 people where if you're going to have an event at your house that you just got to go through a permitting process even if it's a private over a certain amount of guests and you got to go through a permitting
process right right so this is a this is a two-part um there this particular item before you is an amendment to uh commercial use of single family property and land development regulations there is a separate amendment to the city code
outside of the land development regulations that identifies um specific factors that would make a a a party uh at a single family home commercial in nature and one of the one of the indisha for that was a minimum number of people
and I can find that for you but it's not in this order important for for us I know it's a separate item but for us to put in a context not into a vacuum here of what we're we're saying yes to and just so that we know that um property owners are not you know it's not all of a sudden no one can have a party we just need to know what we're uh what we're
saying yes to all right in the meantime anyone here in chambers speak on this is there anybody on Zoom michael there's no one on Zoom with their hand raised okay close the public hearing um while you're in the information any other questions from the board okay you want to someone want to move it
well I'll make a motion to move okay favorably I assume okay i think it's great you have a moved and Elizabeth seconded so all in favor i anyone opposed okay yeah and just for our own edification if you find the answer to the other question but we'll
move on okay next is planning board file 25745 website advertising for LDR amendments and this ordinance begins on this staff report begins on page 133 of the board packages and this ordinance was referred by the city commission on
February 26th of this year may remember we've already adopted the city commission has adopted um regulations allowing um the language the typical language board application to be advertised now on the county website versus the um publication in the herald
this would expand that to allow um amendments to the city code to also be advertised on the same um county website like before this would also you know um be less costly for the city in terms of these ordinances in terms of having to advertise um in the Herald or other
newspaper allow us to more speedily or rapidly advertise items as needed so you're recommending that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation and this is something that was approved by the voter referendum that uh Yes sir yeah we did reference that yeah correct with the
charter review advisory board anyone to speak on this in chambers anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised any questions yeah can I make a suggestion um I'm all in favor of this but um you know when you go to the city's website um sometimes that could
be a little difficult to find these notices um maybe um sort of on the main screen the minute you go to the the website some little button to press that'll take you to the or click on to take you to the um county website something that's clear that that you
know if someone's looking for these notices they can just click on that and it'll go right to the um wherever that site is on on the county's website yeah a button with a hyperlink maybe that's something that that the commission can work on with it yeah for sure we can conclude that recommendation i I'll
support that that's a good idea motion to approve with a favorable recommendation i'll make a motion approve it okay second well okay so be shielded so Elizabeth second okay all in favor i didn't hear yeah all in favor
anyone opposed okay next is planning board file 2550746 vote requirement for the release of covenants requiring non-transit uses and this staff report begins on page um 143 of the board packages so the
board you we've seen several ordinances come before you that have incentives for the conversion of non-residential uses to residential spaces and incentives associated with those types of um change of uses what this ordinance does is codify that whenever someone's taken
advantage of those incentives that in order to um to um release that covenant that requires the the the the residential use this would require a 67th vote of the city commission to release any sort of ordinance where someone's taking advantage of those
incentives so if they wanted to go back to transient use yeah they would have to the city commission would have to release that um covenant um with by a six sevens vote i think it's great anyone in chambers speak on this anyone
on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay any questions yeah I have a a question and it's I'm I'm in favor of this i I don't get the wrong idea but a question for Nick nick you know we're seeing this being added to a lot of um sort of development
agreements and a lot of um things and and it seems like it's portrayed as well once this is in there's no way that short-term rentals are going to happen here but you know my understanding is let's say you know project uh moves
forward you know there's a agreement and this is in the agreement um and you know a year or two once you know once the building is up let's say it's a condo and some of the unit owners are starting to do short-term rentals or it's an apartment building one owner and he
can't rent them so he's doing short-term rentals um my understanding is there would have to be a a lawsuit um filed or to um I guess get an injunction for him to stop or whoever it is to stop or um
someone's got to sue for damages so my question is um right now if somebody's doing short-term rentals illegally um code compliance has to do an investigation and they go to the special master if in the future
um a pro um a project that that um has this um part of the um um has this in their agreement is doing short-term rentals what would be the process to to in other words who's going to do that is
the city someone's going to find say there's short-term rentals code's going to go out do an investigation basically just like they do now but instead of going to the special master is the city going to file a lawsuit how is that going to work and that's a that's a great question so just stepping back um
this is an approach that we have come up with over the last couple years um so that when the city commission is considering zoning incentives for a particular type of development um as of late the city commission has been prioritizing long-term residential
development that in order to be eligible for those incentives whatever they may be um a a property owner is first required to record a covenant restricting uh uh short-term prohibiting short-term rentals on the property um
because we are including that as as an incentive in in the respective ordinances creating these development incentives it is something that code compliance could enforce uh it's also something that the city could enforce by
uh by filing an action in court to to uh to you know to compel a property owner to comply with the covenant uh but this was a this is an approach that we came up with because of the state law preempting local governments from adopting new regulations on the
frequency or duration of short-term rentals um what what we and the city commission have decided is moving forward whenever you know whenever we consider new development incentives you have to record this at the approval stage um and because it's in again because it's in the code um it could be
enforced by by code compliance yeah and I I just you know I bring it up just because it seems like um we're seeing more of this which again I'm I'm 100% behind but it just seems to be portrayed as sort of like there's just no way there's you know once this is included
there's no way there's going to be short-term rentals in that project i think everything is like that you know anything could be undone true that's that's sort of what Yeah i what I'm saying is it's even though these are in there it it this would be in the an agreement you still have bad operators that will do that and it's basically
still the same process maybe more ownorous now to prevent to to stop that than maybe code compliance going in front of the special master i I think it's the other way around i think right now where we have no recourse correct uh when someone when you know
when a when a property owner in a district where short-term rentals uh are permitted we have we we have no recourse there right unless there's some other violation of the code unless there's a noise or sanitation or parking issue um so what this this this tool allows us to
to you know to to limit transient rentals in districts where they are otherwise permitted and under state law we couldn't you know we couldn't prove them if we wanted to i understand look like I said I'm 100% behind this i just you know I just it just seems portrayed
something like a like it's going to cure the problem when you know it's it but like you said it's another tool and and that's yeah good for the city so I'm in favor all right i think we close public hearing if someone wants to move it motion to approve with a favorable
recommendation second okay all in favor anyone opposed no okay good comments though Scott i agree with you planning board file 25748 variance fee waiverss for building reertification and this staff report
begins on page 147 of the board packages this ordinance was referred um by the city commission to the planning board on February 26 of this year what this ordinance would do is allow the city commission to wave the land use board application fees related to variances
associated with the building resertification process so for example if somebody had to rebuild a wall of their pool deck and it was a non-conforming setback and they were exceeding the valuation that would require them to comply they would this would allow the city commission to wave
the fees associated with that variance respect of this this is only associated with the building reertification to sort of um eliminate um any sort of impediments to reertifying a building i can't think of anybody recently that's gone through this process this is just you know um perspective in terms of in
case this does happen or maybe we have a lot of four-year certifications coming up or you know it's 40 years and I think every 10 years after that so this would just allow an easier process for um and this is for um residential buildings that have to go through this reertification process allow this allow the city commission to wave the um
application fees we are recommending that the board transmit this to the city commission with a fable recommendation and this does indicate that the um associate would have to sort of um present a financial hardship in terms of
their application through what like an affidavit or something um up to the city commission says that the city commission would review whatever documentation they're submitting to present their financial hardship right okay anyone here in
chambers speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay any questions okay someone want to move it i'll move it favorable recommendation i'll second okay elizabeth all in favor
anyone opposed okay cruising through today all right next one is planning board file 25749 setback regulations for air conditioning units and Jazelle is going to go over this um ordinance jazelle all right the mayor and city commission of the city Miami
Beach Florida amending the resiliency code of the city of Miami Beach by amending chapter 7 entitled zoning districts and regulations article 5 entitled supplemental district regulations section 753 entitled supplemental yard regulation regulations by amending the setback encroachments
for air conditioning and providing for codification repealing severability and effective date this um is a recommendation to transmit to the city commission with a favorable recommendation uh a little bit of history about it um on December 11 2024 at the request of the commissioner uh
they preferred um a proposal pertaining to setback regulations for single family homes um regarding uh sorry for residential districts I should say um and air conditioning units on February 26 2025 at the request of the commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez the
city commissioner referred the attached ordinance um this is uh for package uh terminal air conditioning units like mini splits so this is to modify some of the setback regulations um a little bit history
about it these are usually um in hotels living senior facilities and these existing multif family units um they're usually are um an option for it to be a little bit uh less cost burden since they're affordable and energy efficient
uh what we've seen is that with these existing apartment buildings um they tend to sometimes not meet necessarily the setback regulations and these are usually for like life safety um code requirements and it's just an option so that it's not a bit of a cost burden to
property owners so we did decide to recommend some of the land development regulations to include in some of these residential districts uh some of them include um central air conditioning mini splits and PE uh PTA systems um so that
they can occupy an interior rear um yard uh this would allow them to have a minimum 18 in within the setback um they would still have to comply with the height requirements 10 ft above uh the current flood elevation um they would they still can't be visible from the
right away so um that is not necessarily changing um this would include specifically in the RM1 RM2 RPS1 and RPS2 residential districts and uh the other uh modification that we're clarifying a bit is that in terms of
generators AC units um some of those regulations are not necessarily um going to be modified however we're including that some of these districts such as the RM2 RPS1 and RPS2 are a little bit more in line to the RM1 that are already
exist in these regulations um the other thing I wanted to note that regarding the PEC system is that for buildings existing as of January 1st 2015 those are the regulations that will take in place so these are the existing buildings um prior to January 1st 2015
that will take place and having a little bit more of a setback to accommodate 18 in within the property line anything after January 1st 2015 they still have to comply with a minimum setback of 5T so those are some of the modifications to simplify thanks Jazelle right
district for some additional input right now the reduced setback allowances for um for air condition units in a sideyard only apply to the RM1 district so if you're an RM2 district you can't take advantage of even the 5ft setback for AC units so this this expands what's what's
allowed now in RM1 to the um RM2 and RPS districts and then does also now allow um reduced setbacks for example a lot of these older buildings only have a 5ft setback so in that case they can't put anything within the sideyard it can be cost prohibitive to add to the roof so this allows those mini split units to be
installed within the side of rear yard also just to also clarify a lot of these um you know either non-conforming uh buildings they tend to already have a minimum 5 foot setback so it's almost impossible to you know install some of these mini splits so this is just to
kind of expand a little bit those setback um so that people are able to actually locate these units in like an interior side or rear yard yeah thank you both anyone here to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay any
questions comments motions sounds pretty sensible i'll make a motion to approve okay second okay all in favor anyone opposed okay i think the next two are companion items I believe planning board file
2550750 RO district regulations for non-covering uses and alcohol sales yeah we'll take the next two items together and the staff report begins on page 159 of the board packages um these ordinances were were referred by the city commission on February 26th of this
year so right now this pertains to um properties along the east side of Alton Road between 12th and 14th Street are currently zoned residential office on the city zoning map these were these were originally constructed as single family homes and prior to the designation of RO were designated as um
CD2 which is commercial zoning district so that's where we have um like the dentist office yeah yeah um the code does now allow residential office so dental offices um other architect's office though those are allowed in the code right now we have a non-conforming
use which is the um the nursery that's been in place for so long a retail sales are not allowed now in the Aro district this would allow the um the the nursery to expand their cafe because they also have a cafe would allow them to expand
their cafe operation to include the sale of beer and wine so this would allow the limited expansion for the sale of beer and wine only for sale for consumption on the premises only provided that the number of seats not exceed 10 the area not be expanded beyond what it is right
now so it really is focused to um this limited area and only applies to these this essentially is the the garden space right now to allow them to offer beer and wine for sale um on the premises only
i'd like to ask a question how is this not spot zoning if if Roro doesn't allow alcohol but we're going to say Roro in this one location does well I mean why can't they apply is
isn't that a process for them to apply a variance and get a liquor license under conditions or or you can't get change their zoning i mean why why are we Doesn't this open it up to other Roros's
it all it's it's allowed in any RO district that meets the requirements of a um that has an existing cafe yeah that wants to sell beer and wine so and essentially this only applies to this oh so it's got to be an existing cafe because this is this is the only one in
the city only one in the Aro district okay so they couldn't create a new cafe right and this doesn't apply to other locations there there's no one else in the city that this could possibly apply to we have an RO district in North Beach
but there's no existing cafe that's there so they can't they can't put one in they can't put one in right okay all right thank you it's an adorable cafe it's It's a little French cafe and I would And you can't And you can't get a variance for you so this is the only
option is to This is the only way and the only one i mean so we're not just picking on us i I just wanted to clarify yeah no good point we'll take him but yeah it only applies to this one good okay um did I ask if anyone's here on this anyone on Zoom no right there's
nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay um so want to move it one one quick question do we know the current hours of operation for the cafe the current hours i think I think they close at 5:00 something like that i mean it's it's a
just a it's literally in the back of the nursery so we do we we do we do limit so right now um it basically requires that the indoor seating must close no later than 10 p.m and outdoor seating must
close no later than 8:00 p.m and the city ever amends the hours of operation in the future they would have to comply with those amended hours of operation that's current i mean I'm I'm I'm leaning toward you know in favor being in favor of this just my concern
is I mean as Elizabeth just mentioned um you said they close at five so they're not even they're just sort of expanding they're just kind of in the back they actually Yeah I know i know where they are i know they I Okay i was in high school when I picked up plants from there so I They've been there a long time um
behind there by the way it's just a little cafe no behind them single family homes oh yeah okay yeah that's what there's no music there's nothing i mean it sounds harmless but it is kind of a funny sort of approval to to just to basically you're trying to help one
business that was trying to you know increase its income and we're changing i maybe the business concept needs to change not that I mean I would love to see them stay forever but I just find it kind of weird that here we are deciding on on on this on the basis of one business trying to just round up their
profit at the end of the month and uh I'm I do should also mention too that this is located within the expanded Flamingo Park Historic District so they are restricted in terms of you know coming in someone's not going to come in and demolish what's there and build a brand new building because of those restrictions so it does allow them to
you know um take have the city take in consideration the restrictions on that property and allowing them to you know maintain the property and and gain income from it all right and right now they would have to close the outdoor at 8 correct okay all
right that's fine all right any other questions all right someone want to move it did someone move it i will no not yet we can take a motion I think for both right yes i'll make a motion to approve
favorably okay can I get a second no second second okay all right is anyone opposed all in favor okay and that was for both right we were
allowed to do that okay all right well shockingly we're on our last item planning board file 25753 distance separation exemptions for adult material in retail cosmetic stores well tell you did you guys actually try to scratch out the No I don't know why
is that a dirty word i don't know why that is like that yeah interesting um so um this ordinance was referred by the city commission on February 26th i'm going to go through some technicalities here because it is a little bit complicated and maybe
non-intuitive in terms of how um adult um material and um establishments are classified so basically if you u I'm going to go through the definitions just to be clear an adult bookstore means an establishment which sells offers for sale or rents adult material for
commercial gain it doesn't have to just sell books or books don't even have to be part of it this definition includes establishments selling or renting adult videos when applicable under the above stated conditions now adult entertainment establishment doesn't actually mean there's actually entertainment involved so adult
entertainment means any adult bookstore adult booth adult motion picture theater or new dancing establishment now adult material means one of the following regardless of whether or not it's new or used books magazines periodicals other printed
matter photographs films motion pictures video cassettes slides or other visual representations recordings other audio matter and novelties or devices including but not limited to clothing food drinks materials for preparing food and drinks which have as their primary
or dominant theme subject matter depicting exhibiting illustrating describing or relating to sexual conduct or specified anatomical areas as defined in the section or instruments novelties devices or paraphernalia which are designed for or use in connection with
sexual conduct as defined in the section exception so the exception is um birth control devices or devices used for disease prevention so the definition for adult material is pretty broad um any any business that's selling adult material that's that's classified as
such will be considered adult bookstore and will be considered as an adult entertainment establishment so basically whenever a any adult material is offered for sale or rent such establishment is classified as both an adult bookstore and an adult entertainment establishment
so it's not what you may um just infer that there's some sort of entertainment involved no just the mere fact that you're selling anything that's classified as adult entertain as adult material you are by defa facto an adult entertainment establishment so currently such material or establishment is
prohibited within 300 feet of any district designated as RS RM or RPS within 300 ft of any parcel of land that's um has a house of worship school public park or playground or within 1,000 ft of any parcel of land which
another adult entertainment establishment is located the only exemption currently in the code for these distance requirements is for a hotel with a minimum of 300 hotel units this ordinance would amend the exemptions to allow the limited sale of
um of items classified as adult material for a portion of ret for a portion of um cosmet for would allow material adult material in a cosmetic store um with certain exemptions so this would include a definition for a cosmetic store which
we don't currently have so a cosmetic store would be defined as a non-medical retail business that is primarily engaged in retailing cosmetics perfumes toiletries personal grooming products hair care products skin care products and beauty tools this ordinance would
amend the distance separation requirements for these cosmetic stores located only in a commercial zoning district and where the adult material constitutes less than 20% of the floor area of the establishment so this this would specifically allow a cosmetic
store with adult material within 300 ft of a multif family residential district and within 300 feet of a house of worship it would not be allowed within 1,000 ft of another adult establishment nor within 300 feet of a residential
single family district nor within 300 feet of a school um public playground or park now the ordinance that's drafted includes a limitation to 20% of the floor area we're recommending that that be lowered to no more than 10% of the
floor area and not to exceed a total area of 100 square feet to ensure that this would be primarily um a cosmetic store and that the adult material would not be would not constitute a large area where I recommend the planning board review and transmit this to the city commission with a favorable
recommendation wow that was a lot of description so so yeah so so so I honestly I have a lot of questions let's let let's let's open it fantastic day thank you
good morning bardov with Acreman Law Office 98 Southeast 7th Street here on behalf of EIS Inc doing business as GESA uh GEA is a German um cosmetology cosmetic uh tech company um they own
hundreds of patents and put products on the market that are unlike really anything else and the ones that are out there are extremely expensive they mean to revolutionize the cosmetics industry uh with these materials that they have where where are they on the beach so they're not on the beach they're not in
the United States at all they're seeking to put their first store in the US on Miami Beach as opposed to the design district or somewhere else um because they believe in the beach and having met with and spoken with several commissioners um we've explained to them what we want
to do and we realized based on the existing code and how it is drafted this is an amendment that's necessary to be able to lease a space uh that they would be able to use on Lincoln Road um where do they want to go on Lincoln um I
believe on the 500 block so towards uh I guess around the Pennsylvania Avenue area and how many square feet um their store for the the retail floor area would be I think around 2500 square f feet just under 3,000 uh it's a large space they're going to have offices in
the back because it would be a US office for them as well but the retail space um and how big is the retail portion the retail portion is about uh 2500 square feet they'd be looking at maybe about 300 square ft of that is what they'd want to use for this particular purpose
and I'll I'll explain that in a second so you have a better idea seems pretty small yeah pretty small exactly so um basically with this technology that they've produced things that you know uh devices you put on your face they help tighten your skin they give you shine
they remove the bags under your eyes this technology that they use uh has been implemented in other ways as well they've created a product line called satisfier which is uh uh sexual wellness products essentially do the same thing just not on the face um so uh and and
and yes it we laugh but uh it's the the highest selling product with the most reviews on Amazon this is uh not something that they're selling on the side of the road trying to make more money this is uh a re one of their biggest products and they want to be able to sell that in their store so you
know it is it's not everything they do 80% of their store is cosmetic products and cosmetic tech but they do have this and they want to be able to have it in the store and so working with the commission with the planning staff with the planning director they've put forth an ordinance to amend the code that
would allow us to do this to make this work at a maximum of 20% not to be seen from the storefront basically it's hidden in the back to a limited area and the 20% is what we need for it to work and that's what went forward when we saw
that uh planning staff was recommending dropping it to 10 we were surprised because that honestly would probably undo the whole point of this whole ordinance for us um we've also met with the Lincoln Road bid they passed a resolution in support which if you like I could read into the record but they've
essentially supported the the 20% as well not to be seen from the storefront and and just to be clear these are self massage female toys they're not pornographic displayed no no pornographic displays nothing pornographic you know if you don't know
what it is and and they'd be on uh I guess displays that children can't read they're very similar to the facial devices and as far as they look they look identical exactly your customer who's your customer even all of us everybody everybody well Well do you
allow minors to walk in your store uh anybody can walk into the store one of the things that was brought up is that if minor shouldn't be allowed in the store we can have somebody out front checking IDs it doesn't seem appropriate for Lincoln Road though but these are not things that should be visible to
minors you can't sell them to minors that's in the code and that's not changing so this would be an area in the back with displays kits wouldn't be able to see them they're higher up uh they wouldn't be sold to minor can be a tall 14y old yeah and if they saw it it would just look like every other facial
massager in the store there's nothing pornographic nothing visibly pornographic about it if if it's a small percentage of yours what's your unit volume uh that I don't know off the top of my head but I'll tell you based on the price point their products are
around 30 $40 $50 not $500 $600 like other cosmetology tech products on the market if it's a small percentage how does that drive the overall unit volume and why do you need this as a as as I mean why so yeah so the the the unit
volume is probably high so the the the purpose of the ordinance is to create a percentage of the floria where these products can be displayed it's not just one product they have a line of them so they want to be able to display them within the store again they're not in the front of the store but why is it
necessary because this is a this is a product line of theirs that they want to be able to market to everybody it's not just the cosmetics well again so I'm a I'm a 14-year-old with my a girl with my or a boy with my
mother and we walk in the store how do you market it how how would anyone know it exists you make it sound like it's invisible so how would the how would the adult know and the child doesn't yeah so so the best way I can put it um imagine
a store that's um kind of a hybrid between a Sephora and an Apple store uh very clean smooth sleek looking store displays down the center displays on the walls and one product in each square within the displays and each product has
uh labels what it is it has a name and it says what it's for so you would have to read next to the display what it is and the there's nothing pornographic in the language of what's being displayed there it's describing the product if you want an example i mean I just Yeah
describe the product but there's there's there's a lot of places right now that I see where I go to my aesthetician you go to G Beauty and Sunset Harbor right and they're selling a bunch of creams and cosmetics for women the top shelf has some self massage female massagers on the top shelf and you describe this you
know but it doesn't look like anything crude or anything it's just part of products like yourself what's your understand what's your concern that my my concern is I don't understand what the adult portion of this product is and is it something that minors shouldn't I
mean it sounds like he keeps he's saying it's hidden from the minors but it's being advertised so I don't understand the the adult nature since it's a public uh forum and there's no problem with this thing tell us all in graphic terms what is this what does it do hey um it
vibrates Um library I just all of this is Hello Kitty uh this is those are the cosmetic products those are not the satisfier products and I will also add that these are sold in every CVS and Walgreens including on
Miami Beach hello Kitty you got Hold on i just want to remind everyone this isn't about their store this is about an ordinance yes yeah and it's about it's about the products and this is the ordinance all of this is marketed to kids hello Kitty is so the the the
cosmetic technology products are they do have uh uh marketing deals with lots of influencers online with Hello Kitty they have a brand again those are the cosmetics those are not the adult materials as they'd be defined by the
city which is the satisfier line which is completely separate from that and what's marketed to kids which you know kids would walk in those displays are lower they would be able to see those and again they'd walk down the store even if they were tall enough to see the
adult materials they wouldn't know what they were they could read them they could see adult sexual wellness products they'd have to turn around and ask their mother what is this let My concern is let's take it away from
him if you have a if MAC or any cosmetic store decides that they want to start selling vibrators and other types of sexual material is there anything prohibiting him under this ordinance why i don't understand that there he has a
very specific product but we're saying adult material so pornographic movies could be in the back of a a uh cosmetic store under this ordinance correct if it if it conformmed to 20% or 10% yeah we're not reviewing
the exact um nature of the adult material how do you So it opens it up how do you enforce this with code how do you how do you monitor this i mean like how do how does that work it does require as Ian mentioned it does require that um the they cannot display the
material in such a manner that it's visible to minors and you cannot knowingly sell or rent it to minors but how do you enforce that because we can hardly enforce code can walk in there and see if that's accurate right and one way Elizabeth that that could be enforced is like for instance
when you go to a news stand or bookstore and there are certain magazines that are on the top shelf behind a you know like an opaque cover it would probably be something along those lines as far as to buying alcohol at the at the store buying cigarettes there's age requirements to be able to buy the material we just we're not a proactive
code enforcement no we're not in the proactive business here we're in the reactive business and what we're scared that a 16-year-old is going to go buy a vibrator a 5-year-old that is going to walk in there with Hello Kitty everything is Hello Kitty look I'm I'm
going to just I I would also add um you know we're not otherwise changing the code as to adult bookstores which is what they call them they're allowed by right in the city if they meet distance separation requirements which is I believe 300 ft for 1,000 ft from another
one 1,000 yeah yeah and so this is just to reduce the distance requirements for a cosmetic store selling less than 20% so that the location on Lincoln Road would work and there are other locations on the other side of Lincoln Road which would be
allowed by right without this ordinance which is another reason why this is kind of a specific to us request you didn't explain to me is this a co a cosmetic that goes someplace other than your face is this cosmetics or is it a device that
in any other place would be considered adult it it's cosmetic technology devices that are meant for all ages it's there's just this one specific satisfier branded product line which is what the city deems adult materials which we would not be able to sell can't we
classify it as adult cosmetic and limit it more so that it's just not wide open to any kind of adult just for just just for clarifying this beauty line which I my my my husband's background is in beauty so so I'm familiar with this
company and so it it is an actual cosmetic you know line of products and serums and creams and and and devices and facials and technology finish so this is not some weird sort of you know uh face front to
be selling to be selling uh pornographic stuff this is a legit company that I'm familiar with from Germany who sells cosmetic serums creams devices that you know for peeling and stuff and they they they they cater to a more affordable price point but with what they call uh
you know technology scientific based products so so it's a cosmetic company is no different than would be um you know I'm trying to think of a specific company that sells one brand of product but but they have their own just their own brand they carry and what I'm understanding there's a certain section of it based on the technology they
develop with some of the uh handheld devices for for the facial application of the serums and the treatments and on um that they've also used that technology to develop u self massage toys for female and so that are you know tasteful in the way they're you know
that they're designed and they don't look like anything they suggestive um and I just and then they're just trying to open up a space in their retail that that would be selling those products based on their their their and correct me if I'm wrong you're absolutely right thank you very much for that i So is
there any way then to narrow down this very wide adult definition to something that fits yeah i mean I would comfortable if they were selling you know stuff with with with porn magazines or you know if it's a cosmetic look
exactly like it would be as for a a there's nothing offensive like I said you go to G Beauty they sell them on their shelf there you go to to Can you modify that down can you take Can we modify and eliminate the adult part right so so I guess so the I guess the hesitation here is that the adult
definition may include material that that they would be uncomfortable i think we're not we're not debating we're not debating any of the the the u self massage tools i think what they're more worried if it goes into a whole different we we would be okay excluding
you know videos magazines i mean we're specifically looking to sell this product line and no other adult materials 10% well we are specifically requesting at least 10 that's what the city why we recommend 20 to 10 at that point if you're div putting a separate section
like how how important is it to go from 20 to 10 20% seems pretty large in terms of the overall area especially when it's only 300 square feet well it would be even at 10% they say 10% or not to exceed 100 square feet so that's our concern we would like more than 100 we
did not I did not work with Ian nobody gave me a floor plan this was referred from the city commission we didn't have the direction to include the specific address so we didn't have this information so we gave our best guess in terms of what we thought um would be appropriate i mean I I think I think the
you know going from 10 20 to 10 is as is as kind of a you know we're always or if they're okay with the 10% as long as you take out the 100 feet square feet is that a problem it's up to the the board in terms of
recommendations is that is that what I'm hearing you don't mind the 10% but it's the it's the or we we would request to leave it exactly how it was drafted uh at the 20% um if if we reduce it down we'll obviously try and work with it but it creates a hardship for us based on
the designs we've already created um well hold on can we get back to so let's get back to the original question is there a way to so I don't think people are going to have a problem with 20% if if we can eliminate some of the categories of adult material is that
possible or or or in the inverse if we if we specify um like personal massagers for example that you you know rather than try to exclude every category define what they sell yeah and and and maybe that there's
a basis to treat that differently than other I would just remind the board this is a tax amendment brought by the city it's not an application for us for commercial use but it came from it came from you putting the name of our product right into the code we're fine with that it came from you for this store
otherwise it wouldn't be here today no that's absolutely right but technically we're not the applicant it's the assistant city and the city is waving the fees for this the direction is to for the city to wave the application fees we would not be here if the city so to make it palatable store on Miami Beach we don't know what the sale
percentage of sales from the these items come from we don't know the I don't know that that that's really the issue it's about what's displayed in the store and the percentage of the kind of an issue i mean what I mean what are your dollar sales what are your sales volume that come from this these that that I don't
know because right now we don't have any stores in the US to get that metric this is an international company you want to open in Miami Beach uh just the one but looking to do hundreds throughout the US this would be the first one so so Nick again um getting back to the gerine
issue it sounds like what the concern is is the definition of the adult product so can you come up with a a suggested recommendation about how to alleviate that concern yes and I I would want to be very careful about that because I don't want us to get in the business of
determining what is what is adult or what isn't or distinguishing even between types of adult material i think the I understand this is a this is a text amendment um but but I think the the the the question here is about a very specific type of material that is
sold generally in retail stores like drugstores um so I think based on the discussion I think there is a basis to treat something like for instance a personal massager differently from other types of of adult material and that maybe the um the the the
the provisions here in let's see 7.5.2 two could only apply if you know it if it's a cosmetic store um seeking to sell
personal massagers personal yeah just make it that I'd be fine with that and subject to all the other restrictions that we we've drafted the square footage whatever anything else right that's it's that's all you're doing okay okay well if we can do that I'm fine with 20% and
you're good with that we're good with that thank you Yeah all right i'll make a motion for Are we Anyone have any other comments so hold on do we have to make a motion to approve favorably and then do a second motion with the recommendation or can we do it we can do it all together okay all right go ahead Melissa i want to make sure what we're I
want to make sure right so uh so correct me with the wording here so motion to approve um with uh including that the uh adult uh toy be limited to personal massagers and are we taking out
bookstore and all that kind of stuff well no that that's No that covers it so So this is if on page 176 of your book this would be an amendment to paragraph 4 sorry which page Nick uh 176 of the book right paragraph 4 and it would be an
amendment to paragraph 4 where it says uh a cosmetic store located in a commercial zoning district and where adult material that's where we would insert correct um uh you know consisting of you know personal massages personal massages and then I think in the recital
and this is something that we will do internally but in the recital for the ordinance I think um we we can explain there that this particular product is something that is you know it's is not limited to just standalone adult stores but rather is generally sold has neutral
marketing materials and so long as it's you know not visible uh from the storefront or to minor you know there is a it it is different from other types of adult material that is regulated I think I think that's how we we we could handle this all right
all right so I need someone to second that all right I'll second that okay all in favor I anyone opposed Okay thank you very much can I Can I just add I'd be remiss if I didn't just congratulate the Florida Gators on their
national championship yesterday as painful it is for me congratulations thank you smart not doing it before you presented that was the 20% yeah 20% right we got We got this at 20% that was at 20% not the 20% that's right um Mr chairman if I may I wanted to respond to
the question on the Sure on the commercial yes melissa it's for you i I'm sorry i just wanted to respond to the earlier question on the commercial use of single family homes so So it is two ordinances the ordinance that the board transmitted
today um governs commercial use of single family homes in the land development regulations what that ordinance does is prohibits the sponsorship of an event in a single family home by a for-profit entity and prohibits the promotion of any event whether or not sponsored uh via social
media platforms the separate amendment that was approved by the city commission is an amendment to the special events regulations um and what that does is for for those special events that are permitted meaning you know non-commercial not right exactly that if
the event meets certain indisha that a special event permit will be required if fireworks are involved if more than and this was your question if more than 100 attendees may reasonably be expected to attend when more than 50 vehicles are expected to pick up or drop off
passengers uh where institutional institutional or commercial grade speakers lighting um generators or other equipment are expected to be utilized or um where an institutional or commercial grade bar uh that meets certain uh
staffing requirements permits is expected to be used in that case a special event permit is required so it's a it's a two-pronged approach but the the the minimum number of people in the other ordinance is 100 okay thank you thank you all right meeting adjourned and I know you all have lunch coming at noon if you
want to wait around for it but that was a record as far as All right who knew who knew was the adult category that he was talking about this morning so I should have asked him if he brought one and show up to everybody maybe we
should have