##VIDEO ID:wklz4wnBplA## if you are here to present on an item today and have a presentation please go to the podium to ensure that your presentation has been received [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the mic microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 [Music] 1 okay good morning everybody and welcome to the October 29 2024 planning board meeting um I'm going to start by we received this morning I hope everyone had a chance to read the the minutes from the last meeting if I could get a motion to approve those I'll I'll motion to approve second okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay okay I'll turn it over to the Mr City attorney Nick thank you Mr chair today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a hybrid format with members of the board physically present in the commission Chambers at City Hall and applicant staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually in today's meeting the public may dial 1877 853 5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 861 4342 6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 86143 42 6327 if you wish to speak on an item click the raise hand icon if you're using 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 ass 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 and 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 lastly I'd like to swear in anyone who will be testifying today uh including staff please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth all truth nothing but the truth thank you thank you Nick uh and just so the the uh board understands them we got handed a new um agenda today so the numbers are a little different so use the one that they handed out today so the first item is request for continuances planning board file 24686 6747 Collins Avenue new hotel actually Mr chairman this item has been read advertised for the November meeting okay there was an error in the advertisement so the um the board does not need to take any action on that item which is again pb24 0686 for 6747 Collins Avenue this has been read vertis for the November 26th meeting great thank you next one is pling board file 24661 commercial industrial residential height and setback regulation modifications Citywide and this item has been deferred to a future date the stud this would come back to the board will be the January 7th meeting and we we will be read advertising it for that meeting or a future meeting so no action again is required for pb2 24- 0661 okay uh we are deferring the discussion item on uh loading including truck sizes and safety till November as well so we will move on to progress reports first one is planning board file 22542 uh 200 South Point Drive The Catch Restaurant Mr chair but before we start with this progress report I just want to um let the members of the public know we have updated the agenda I believe you wanted to move one of the items um yeah I'm just going to move item nine to item seven right for for The public's information that's going to be pb2 24- 0662 this is conditional use regulations for GR for grocery stores in CD3 Zona and Lincoln Road that item will be heard after will be heard under the first or previously continued applications it'll be heard after the progress report for The Moxy right it's an accommodation accommodation one of the attorneys so that will continue with the progress report for pb22 J 0542 200 South Point Drive this is a progress report that's required by the planning board after a certain time frame since they started operation um there's been no violations or complaints um uh in the public record for Code Compliance for this property I'll turn it over to the applicant to provide an update and progress report on this item good morning Nicholas Rodriguez on behalf of the applicant I'm joined here by so chever from of the development on people and strategy and the general manager Greg Gilda uh catch opened in may just in time for Formula 1 uh so far so good uh no violations we uh in terms of compliance with our conditions uh we did submit an updated analysis of our valet operations I was in summer so things were a little bit slower but uh every all of the numbers came in um under what our valet analysis had predicted uh so far have been no queuing issues uh with the valet um and I know we've been in communication with Mr ganof about our TDM strategies we are complying with our TDM conditions uh and we supplied a survey to Mr ganof of uh all of our employees modes of Transit so there's a a mixed bag of using Transit using scooters shared ride Services uh we're trying to do the best we can to not impose a burden on the south of fifth neighborhood um but so far so good and we're hoping to keep it that way yeah and Michael you probably mentioned this I was reading something but I think the board knows this that they're here because when they first opened we wanted them come back to just see how everything was going there was no issues or problems so um with that uh is there anyone in Chambers to speak on this item anyone on Zoom there's no one on Zoom with their hand raised for this item okay any comments or questions yeah so first Nicholas thank you so much for providing that information and just for the benefit of of uh for my colleagues on the board here and anyone watching um this information which was provided this morning I did quick analysis obviously there wasn't that much time to to do this but uh about 115 employees and I think that's one of the the major takeaways for these large Neighborhood Impact establishments throughout the city and especially in the residential neighborhood like the South the fifth neighborhood there's there's you know a large um you know Factor not not just the patrons but the people that that work there and uh let me just see if I can pull up okay one second here I've lost my my percentage but just so everyone knows 115 employees uh it says Seven Ride by bicycle 16 by motorbike so I don't know if that's if that is motorcycle or ebike e scooter lots of ebikes and little um lots of ebikes and little mopeds like little fold out mopeds okay so it's it's like micr Mobility um nine public transportation 18 shared ride service are presumably lifter Uber some of them share right but these are numbers that you've reported of how your employees get to work yes sir okay y good and then five five walk so um you know off the bat about half the people drive in their own personal vehicle and and um you know I think one question that we may have here because we've heard from people in these neighborhoods is where do the employees Park yeah there's a there's a garage that a lot of them use over at the Public's area um and then some of them uh Park further away and then kind of walk uh further down okay but you don't provide parking uh vehicle parking for your employees no we do not okay and then just some other information that might be of of interest uh 20 8 I don't have the percentages unfortunately but 28 employees live in 33139 so they're local to to South Beach 10 are in North Beach 33141 uh none are in mid Beach interestingly enough and then um the handful between five and 10 are in ZIP codes like downtown Miami Bickle Winwood uh and and those areas so it seems like a large percentage are close and you know that provides opportunities I think this is really useful information that provides opportunities to to even increase that percentage of Transit usage and uh micromobility even higher not just for catch but for the other large restaurants that will be opening for example in the south of fifth neighborhood across the street Philip AOW and they have similar I believe conditions in their order regarding Transit and and Bike Share membership so um you know I think this is a a good start and uh you know it's invaluable data and data that hopefully all the other applicants will be providing as they provide progress reports to this board thanks any other comments questions I'll just say I've been there many times and it's a fabulous operation really well run and I've met you and you do a great job so would that if someone wants to move to dismiss the progress report so moved second I'll second okay so who made the motion on that Jonathan second by mrone this is this was basically just to accept um what's been presented and suspender progress reports of this time correct only come back if there's issues hopefully not okay all in favor I I anyone opposed all right thank you so much thank you very much thank you okay the next one is um planning board file number six on the agenda planning board file 0 616-00033 The Moxy and this is a progress report unlike last item this is a progress report due to code violations um this cup originates from November 15 of 2016 when the planning board approved a cup for the construction of a new sstory hotel development exceeding 50,000 Square ft as well as an neighorhood impact establishment with outdoor entertainment now we did send a cure letter to the applicant on October 11th of this year this was due to complaints and a violation that was issued to the property and we requested their appearance at today's meeting on October 29th now the the substantive complaint and violation here was regarding to uh a DJ operation on the highest roof um the planning board only approved entertainment on the lower roof and and the um upper roof was for hotel guests only with no entertainment and just to clarify I know that there have been um special event permits that were issued for the property for entertainment on that higher roof deck I did clarify with the planning director that going forward um based upon the conditions of the cop the cop allows with a special event perent to exceed the occupancy levels but not to authorize entertainment where the cup does not allow it so in the future they will not the city will not issue a special event permit for entertainment on the roof or any other areas where um entertainment is not authorized as part of the cup uh we did also note um some additional noise complaints that were um that were um noted for the property um we are recommending that the planning board um discuss the discuss the issue of non-compliance the case that um I mentioned was appealed to the special Master special magistrate this time we are recommending that the um the board discuss the progress report and continue this item to the January 7th meeting that I'll turn it over to uh Mr I'm sorry morning everybody gram pen what did you I didn't even hear what you called me uh 200 South bis game Boulevard to my left is Mr Corey Hayes who's the new general manager we've got Carlos Lopez who's the food and beverage director and I'm going to cough again I want to start off with talking about March because that's the actual violation of issue here and it's our opinion that this is not a violation of the cup at all the uh what happened in March is that there was a private arrangement to have a video shoot on the upper uh deck with a DJ doing his video up there there were 10 people maximum up there they were filming this thing it wasn't an event there was no people invited it was a a filming situation and if you'll note from what code said in their uh companion no noise complaint it was not overly excessively noisy either so that's why we appeal that violation because in our opinion having a video shoot on the roof that is not enter entertainment regardless um as you'll note from the materials and we we did a deep dive into every one of these complaints Etc there have been zero uh noise violations on this property period right the the March event was not a noise violation the special event permits that would happened from July onward had no noise violations associated with them The Moxy in in our opinion has been a great neighbor and we've been working and Cory will talk a little bit more about that too we've been working very hard since we've opened to continue to be a great neighbor regarding what Michael noted about the special event permit um he proper there was a properly issued special event for Samba Sunday which started in July that is now over samb Sunday uh if it returns will be moved off of the upper Upper Deck anyway and it will be on the pool deck it will turn into a daytime event and Corey can explain that better if you need me need him to so uh we believe that the the March violation was really a mistake right there it was not a violation of the entertainment ban um because it was not in our opinion entertainment to have a guy up there pretending that he's performing uh regardless and that's why we appealed uh and again as as code noted that itself did not involve excessive noise so it's as if I was going up there with a guitar and strumming it and someone's filming me and that becomes entertainment because because I'm that's a performance so but uh in some you know we believe the Moxy has been a good neighbor uh we will continue to be a good neighbor and so in moving forward we have proactively moved to we are you know as as Michael discussed that the the city's taken the position that that rooftop cannot be used for special events and we're not going to we're obviously not going to fight that we're moving everything down to the second level which as if anyone knows the building is completely shielded from any residential development to our East um so we believe that any issues if there were any uh for that for that special event will no longer reoccur um so we're here to we're here to hear from you and give you any additional information you'd like uh you know obviously our preference is not to keep coming back but if that's the board's will we'll gladly keep coming back uh at the schedule you prefer and so let me do uh let me do one more thing let me introduce Cory because Stories the new the new GM as I noted noted and he wants to just introduce himself and reiterate the the moxy's continued adherence with a conditional use permit uh good morning um as he stated uh my name is Cory haes I'm the new general manager I've been the general manager there for about five months now um I have over 15 years in the hospitality industry uh 10 of those five years were specifically in food and beverage opening running uh operations uh Standalone restaurants and restaurants within hotels all across the country uh I now live here in Miami uh and have been here for just over a year for my second time living here um again as he said you know I did want to State on behalf of the Moxy South Beach we want to reaffirm our commitment to fully uh meeting the city's sound requirements and being a respectful engaged neighbor on Washington Avenue we understand that sound management is essential to keeping our community enjoyable for everyone uh we're dedicated to consistently following all the guidelines and strength strengthening our protocols to ensure we are positive considerate presence in the neighborhood uh thank you for your partnership truly in this effort um we look forward to working together and you know we want to keep uh Washington Avenue a vibrant uh part of the community here at Miami Beach so thanks Cory before we wrap it up I just want to note one more thing to gild the lily a little bit um you know the city obviously has been engaged significantly more intensely on Washington Avenue as we all know um and as an example from this property on the 20th of this month which is the last Samba Sunday event there were five proactive investigations from code enforcement for noise zero uh uh issues with noise right so we have been you know St this is not a circumstance where in the old days it was oh people complain and it doesn't turn into a violation and and no one's really paying attention there's a lot of attention on Washington Avenue there's a lot of attention on this property and I can tell you again five different visits in one day and and no violations that is that's why again we believe the Moxy has been a good neighbor and will continue to be a good neighbor so um with that we're here for any questions you may have from us and I guess I'd like to reserve time for a bundle because I see M Mr all right thank you we're going to open up the public Mitch I know that's what you're here for so we'll start with you good morning everyone Mitch novic 36 six year resident 35e business owner uh my property sits roughly 300 ft away from The Moxy and uh I loded complaints in uh believe it was August and September uh which were precipitated by some Hotel guests which had arrived and requested a uh a room change because uh they came in from Europe they uh could not sleep uh I called code code did not issue a violation for this intrusive noise which was clearly Audible and my gripe isn't so much with The Moxy it's with the code process code uh the code officers required my uh windows and doors which can withstand up to 200 M an hour winds to be closed uh you know in the old days with my old windows if someone were to sneeze from below I would hear it uh and some of my neighbors have uh non-impact windows and they would be afforded relief from uh a noise uh complaint whereas I was not so uh I believe noise issues begin right here uh for the last decade I've appeared uh for appeared and spoke against every cup issued in my neighborhood which uh provided or allows for open air entertainment with exception to the Goodtime Hotel knowing that that property would impact its neighbors so I would just urge this board to be more cognizant uh of noise knowing that noise attracts noise and should be contained to the property lines thank you thank you Mitch anyone else in Chambers to speak anyone in Zoom Michael anyone on Zoom yes there's one person with her hand raised um Johan Moore Mr Moore were you sworn in this I consider myself sworn in if that uh no no we need to swear you in go ahead okay hi Johan do you swear a firm it's testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do we know your truthful it's just procedural thank you go ahead yes I understand thank you very much I'll keep it brief and simply Echo Mitch's comments as a resident of Flamingo Park uh uh the other side of Washington Avenue the noise needs to be contained uh and I really urge planning board to deny any future cups that would involve the possibility of nuisance noise affecting the neighbors thank you very much okay thank you Yan anyone else on Zoom anyone join in there's nobody else with their hand raised on Zoom okay before we ask question you want to address anything yeah just briefly I I just wanted to note as you can tell the the Mr novik's um concerns will be remedied by the the moving of any special events off of that upper roof right so that was the you know once it's on the the lower pool deck um his issues disappear because the building's in front of him so um and as as Michael noted there will be no more special event permits issued for the upper roof so that that issue is in the past if it wasn't at all I will note this code enforcement notes for the the complaint in September music not loud nor excessive so the uh code enforcement has never found the music from this property to be excessive with that we're here for you okay um why don't we just go early Scott gr yeah um you know one thing that um Johan said um and it makes sense obviously you're agreeing to move the the uh any special events down to the second level and that's going to help out Mitch but um you know that noise then could trickle into the Flamingo Park neighborhood to the West I don't think there's any um residential units directly across from you but music travels um and it could waffle into the neighborhood so you know I think you need to be aware of that um moving forward I know you're a much better operator than than some of the other properties on Washington Avenue um but but it's something that I think you really need to to um be cognizant of I mean obviously you're we're doing this to help Mitch but I don't want it to to have any uh effect on the residential neighborhood so um you know just moving forward just be aware of that and I know you mentioned that you don't want to come back to us but I think maybe after a few months um I think probably you should because we got to you know just get a an idea of what's Happening after a couple of events on the on the second level pool deck I always love seeing everyone it's just uh the client doesn't like paying for yeah I would note Scott just as a again is another detail the The Moxy has a you know modern cup that requires a unified sound system there's no independent speakers Etc all those speakers on the second floor have already been there since the building was built um so any events that occur on the that second level will be subject to the same limitation so yeah absolutely we and I guess the value of having Corey and Carlos here is that they're hearing it directly from the Board and they'll make sure their folks understand it clearly okay right yeah I'll Echo Scott's concern about any potential unforeseen um noise issues heading towards the west from the second level however there isn't really a history of noise complaints from that area so you know I'm open to either bringing bringing The Moxy back in a couple of months or or closing this out today and let's let the process play out I think that this has been a successful example of where there has been an issue or discrep Y in special event permits and potential code violations that's come to this board and they've agreed to take actions to REM remedy that so I'm comfortable going either way on this uh happy to to you know see it close out today um as well uh just a little interesting note here you know later on in the agenda we have an item about incentivizing residential use along the same street so I think that is something that we all have to be aware of is when you mix uses such as residential and entertainment you know these sorts of items can appear uh more frequently uh but with respect to theocracy I'm happy to hear that we're making progress thank you Jonathan um yeah I mean I'm I'm glad the situation is being remedied hopefully um I would suggest I don't think we're ready to close it out but I think if we can continue it um you know if there's no other issues then we don't even need to have like a long discussion about it but um it sounds like you've got it the issue taken care of and I guess just so I'm clear the the complaints that have been issued for the noise complaints they've all been related to the rooftop is is based on what I can tell right the you see when Samba Sunday started which was in July there was reliably a complain that Sunday every month right so that and that was on the room so that's basically where we we anticipate the issues are coming from we haven't seen it from anything else okay I I would my I guess thought would be to put to push it off for like six months uh not necessarily just November but just push it off just to see how things go and um see how is there a way to push it off but if there's no issues in the six months you can remove it or is that not possible no I think once we that in the agenda just they could you know I think you could make it clear if there's no issues just come back and present you know just a quick update um but I think that's but then they got to pay them to do that I'm asking you is if if we put it on the agenda is there a methodology for putting it six months you tell us there's been no issues it can be removed automatically yeah I think if if the board is clear that if there have been that if we set a meeting date and if no um violations have been issued we have to make it clear is it complaints or you know um or are valid noise complaints or or complaints deem to be um um valid by by code right if they're haven't been any then the progress report um does not have to come back okay administrative all right Ian to mit's point though you know there's an inherent issue with the with with code you know there's there's a DJ on the roof code comes to the hotel I'm not not saying we can say we can say customer I just hate that if there's really no issues to make them pay a lawyer I know exp I completely agree but what I'm saying Michael is saying is that it to do that we would require a actual violation issued no I'm saying we could decided as a board it could be complaint from the residents yeah right that's okay without an actual code violation yeah so we could say if there have been no complaints right no residential complaints then we'll remove it administratively if not we'll put it on the calendar for six months so you want to set it for um six months from now yeah let me finish with her I I mean I I just don't know if you sheill or Melissa okay you have okay go ahead Melissa we'll we'll get tell that in a minute go ahead okay hi um I have a different question um am I to understand that there's no entertainment on the roof on the upper roof on the upper roof and that's where this complaint was um why was there a special event permit issue because there was some um miscommunication or misunderstanding of um the conditions of the cup and where the um special event permit could allow entertainment or not how how is it unclear when it says hours of entertainment and no none on the roof I don't I don't know but I'm just seems to me that there's a there's a special permit event process that's broken that needs to be addressed because if they're being issued and and and uh they can't determine from the cup that then there's something that has to be addressed and I think that the manager I mean I understand that it's being addressed now but I think the manager needs to also understand the ramifications of of not complying with their conditional use permit so and I and I can't speak to the history of in terms of who was contacted to see I think in this case at least for this property this has been addressed on the record and I think we're all clear proper with that I just would like not that I think there's something wrong if they can't determine what the rules are so one of the things we have done you'll see it in a cup we have later on in the agenda or I did try to clarify what a special event you know so it's Crystal Clear what a special event could authoriz so um again it's to the the staff of the hotel I mean they they are Weare now so it sounds like that's being taken care of so yes we to again on the record have isue all right Jonathan's going to make a motion that it be moved 6 months and if there's any residential complaints we'll come back and if not it'll be dismissed so go ahead Jonathan so mov so this would be we would schedule then um anticipating for the May 6th yes agenda and if there's no residential complaints it'll be administratively dismissed okay got it I'll second that good okay thank you thank you everyone all righty um niss you're up uh planning board file we're moving this out of it's number 9 to 7 it's planning board file 24662 conditional use regulations for grocery and convenience stores in CD3 zoning on Lincoln Road and before I turn over to Mr Kasin I just want to um go over our staff report and our recommendation of course um again this is pb24 0662 this is for conditions regulations for grocery stores in CD3 zoning on Lincoln Road um this application was before the board last month the applicant requested a continuance the initial application included a request for both gr an option for both Grocery and convenience stores in this area this revised application now only pertains to request for for grocery stores in this area on page one of our staff report we did outline some prior issue prior history regarding um uses and how convenience stores and um grocery stores were previously prohibit prohibited in this area now with the applicants um revised update they're now requesting approval only for an authorization to allow a grocery store subject to conditional use review so any sort of grocery store in this area that was proposed would come to the planning board for review um we are recommending however that that the ordinance is drafted is too open-ended um we believe that the definition for grocery store is overly Broad and we do believe that there should be some um more constraints to ensure that someone doesn't try to game the system and have something that's mes rating as a grocery store is not really a grocery store and result in something that that's not really beneficial and could you know be negative to the so we are we are supportive of this General concept but we do believe that there should be some further development so that we have a definition for example for a specialty grocery store it may have minimum um size requirements it may have minimum percentages of um um food items or specialty food items and probably would have a restriction on the overall square footage and percentages of accessory items to ensure that really meets the intention of um especially grocery store as a board knows once a um a use is approved although we may have an applicant or a change of operator may have to come back to the board for review the board can't necessarily then deny a new owner property owner um if they meet the the requirements of the code so we just want to make sure that we tighten up those requirements so for that reason I recommend that the board provide some comments and feedback and continue this application to the January 7th meeting without turn it over to Mr Casen thank you good morning Mr chair members of the board niss Casen and Cecilia Tores to of acran representing 420 Lincoln Road Associates we have a presentation if we could put that presentation up so I go through it there we go I'm going to try to use this new fangled equipment here to make sure I know how to do it uh whoops not so fast uh so I think many of you know that this block the 400 block of Lincoln Road uh is owned by Ambassador Paul Seas he has owned the property for decades and he has done a magnificent job in restoring and curating the property over that period of time including complete restoration of the facade the historic facade of the building as well as bringing in a quality tenant most recently uh the Zara store which is on the corner of Lincoln and Washington is being greatly expanded and will now become a flagship Zara store which will occupy most of the ground floor on the Lincoln Road side uh I think you're familiar with the property it really is two properties that Encompass everything from uh Lincoln to 16th from Drexel to Washington Avenue and includes the space known as the timeout Market uh the important thing one of the important things to know about this property which makes it truly unique among not only properties on Lincoln Road but probably all commercial properties on Miami Beach is the historic nature and Design of this property it's a massive building uh it was originally built as the mertile National Bank building and uh if you can see here for many years the ground floor main tenant from the time the building was built uh 1939 or so until the 1980s was a Woolworth department store for those of us who can remember Woolworths and it occupied probably 60 70 or 80,000 Square ft on the ground floor why because the building has enormous depth which is conducive to uses of that kind uh and on the corner as well was a liot drugstore uh and so that was a lot of the ground floor space at that building then there was the old Beach theater on the other side uh what we are proposing is quite simple it's an amendment to the uh uh Land Development regulations to allow a grocery store as a conditional use now I would point out that today in the timeout Market space that's permitted as a matter of right but if the timeout Market spaces combined with the other property will then become within the Washington Avenue overlay the myo overlay uh which has limitations on grocery stores so we are actually going to be subjecting the entirety of the property the conditional use process for grocery store I think those of you many of you understand that properties buildings with the kind of depth and floor plate size that this building has are not suited to have tenants that would need a lot of Street Frontage either restaurant or retail on Lincoln Road and so therefore in order to broaden the market the appeal for good quality tenants we need to somewhat broaden the uses and one of the uses is would be for a grocery store and this is the simple uh legislation uh that uh that it would permitted on that block as a conditional use uh with entrance of the for the frontage of retail Frontage only on Washington or Drexel Avenue uh this this request is uh consistent uh with the direction that Washington Avenue and Lincoln Road East are now going in particularly with respect to in making this a better environment for Residential Properties uh to have a grocer even if it is a smaller grocer would be good for the residential property of the neighborhood the conditional use process which is the process that you are the judges for is a significant check to make sure that the use that comes in is the appropriate use and again to repeat the historic floor plates I mean if we're serious about uh adaptive reuse of build buildings given their historic character and nature there must be allowance for larger floor plate uses in buildings of this sort um as I mentioned before it's consistent with the city's plans with regard to Washington Avenue the overlay which you are maybe not considering today but we'll be considering shortly to enhance residential in residential uh development uh Redevelopment of Washington Avenue as far as grocery stores in terms of major Grocers none are within walking distance of this part of Washington Avenue and so this would be an amenity for residents of this area now I would tell you that this is not going to be probably like a Publix or a large uh footprint Market but probably a smaller more tend more towards a higher end Market but that would still service the needs of residents in the area another thing that's very important remember when this first was suppos we were going to include convenience stores convenience stores uh could include like a CVS Pharmacy without a pharmacy there was a push back from the planning staff they did n their last recommendation when this came before you was was going to come before you was no convenience stores that was the only recommendation by the planning staff and there was some push back from some of the people on Lincoln Road who don't want to see con venience stores in the area even though it wouldn't front on Lincoln Road but what we have now is there's a very distinct de difference in definition between grocery store and convenience store you're looking at it right now what is put up on the screen a grocery store primarily sells food a convenience store is stocked to sell a mixture of goods and it goes on to list a whole number of them so a grocery store is not a convenience store and and that that is in the city's codee as I mentioned the conditional use permit is a check which you will oversee and among the limitations imposed by conditional use permit requirements are the public health safety morals and general welfare shall not be adversely affected maybe more importantly necessary safeguards will be provided for the protection of surrounding property persons and neighborhood values you can look at that when when you're approving a conditional use permit and finally concentration of similar types of uses shall not create a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood Geographic concentration similar types of conditional uses should be discouraged you can use all those apply all those criteria in reviewing the conditional use permit I would say we do do not uh favor uh having a finer defin a specific definition of gourmet grosser I mean I will tell you quite frankly that's a rabbit hole that we should not go down because if we get so prescriptive about what is and what is not first of all how can you come up with language that is actually legal and forceable language but second of all if you get so prescriptive my experience is you'll miss something that either doesn't account for something or accounts for something that's a problem uh and you know I if you would notice none of the other retail uses on Lincoln Road or restaurant uses have that kind of provision why should grocery stores which would require conditional use anyway have specific defining language which I believe not I believe in my experience very often more often than not misses the mark let's not be overly prescriptive um and finally as I've mentioned to you before the existing space because of its large floor plates is uh uh is specifically designed for uses that are somewhat larger and here we're looking at the historic pictures I think if you look the one in the lower right hand corner might be me when I just graduated law school getting a hot dog at uh Woolworth's uh but those that was the main ground floor tenant and liot the drugstore was the other ground floor tenant and this is a a look inside the inard of of the property you can see the size of the floor plates and how far they are off of Lincoln Road um as a result there needs to be an accommodation for somewhat larger uses that are not typical of Street retail in linkoln Road or even Washington Avenue and then of course the other part of the property is the uh with the timeout Market uh uh which uh is a large space obviously is ideal for being used as a uh a market again and so that's our presentation we'd request your uh approval of this very modest request to allow this building to function as it historically was intended to as it is designed to do and for a use that we believe is very complimentary to what the city wants to accomplish in the Washington Avenue and East End of Lincoln Road thank you thank you n uh anyone in Chambers speak on this [Music] yeah good morning Annabelle yopi executive director for the Lincoln Road business improvement district um for those of you who may not know the the bid represents over 70 folios approximately over 65 landlords that Encompass the bids district and we had an opportunity to meet with Mr Nissan and discuss our last board meeting uh the item that he brings before you um we are concerned obviously because of the lack of framework and guard rails when it comes to grocery stores the city is putting a lot of effort as of the landlords to bring high quality better FNB to the road and the copper Improvement project will include closing and pedestrianized Drexel we hope and we see that this will be enough upgrade to the existing footprint of the road the applicant obviously in the beginning presented convenience store and grocery store and that really raised a big red flag for everyone on the board and our concern is there isn't enough guard rails to what a grocery store can be right now a convenience store can be considered a grocery store as you know you go to any grocery store or community store you can find a lot of the same things I think we all want the same things as having a Gourmet Grocery Store we're aligned with the applicant on that we're just concerned that it's not specific enough and it can lead room for other things to come in and frankly also for the city I'm I'm going to make sure I understand what you're saying so even if we eliminate the word convenience stores your concern that just generically grocery store could be a convenience it's not a it's it's not a one siiz fits all it's not a one siiz fits all so there is a little bit ambiguity actually a lot of how that could be addressed so I think so as your argument you would want a more def definitional correct word verbiage for what a grocery store is so the his ending point was that'll pigeon hole and you're saying no we need to make it clear what constitutes a grocery store yes and I and I think the board along with the staff recommendations were very much align we all came to the same conclusion as the staff we would like to see a little bit more or a lot of what does that Gourmet Grocery Store look like what are the parameters for that description in order to ensure that what the applicant is saying they want to do actually happens so and it also frankly puts the staff in a little bit more of a v situation if later on someone else comes in and wants to do something to be able to defend that after it's already been done on this location so can I ask you real quick do you all have a tenant identified not yet okay yeah and that's you know and that's usually the process is they have a tenant identify it comes to the board and then our board and we all align and we all support and approve it this process has been a little bit different than in other situations so we're aligned with bringing in a gormet grocer we're just concerned that it's too open-ended right now right to be able to say let me ask something just out of Cur did do you consider Publix a grocery store that you wouldd want there or no no okay whole food I think try an idea of what year the epicures of the past you know which obviously don't exist today um as Mr said Dina DCA again does not exist today there there isn't a whole lot you know that are out there um but we do have some and we wrote it in the letter the support that we submitted you know we do identify there are some that could be beneficial to the whole district and the residential Community surrounding Linka road but as it is today we don't feel that there is enough guard rails to go that route so we're happy to support the applicant if there are better uh guard rails on the description of a grocery store what a gourmet grocery store you're not oppos we just want a gourmet you want a very highend we want want something that will complement how the road is looking in the future for yeah oh so we're we're we're not done with the public uh oh okay no no no he just has a question a question for you CU I read the letter from the Lincoln Road bid I guess what would the concern be for a publ who's generally been known once they go into an area to really kind of revive it what would the Lincoln Road bids concern be specifically for a grocer such as Publix well to be honest you I don't think a Publix would would go in that location because it's not big enough for that type of no but they have their green wise you know options which are usually small smaller you know footprints that we've seen in different cities kind of pop up so let's say something like Publix again let's say it could fit or they wanted to go there what would the concern be I again I I think what we want is a more elevated grocer something that would bring the Right audience and could support the elevation of where Lincoln Road is going today um again we're supportive of bringing a grosser it's just the right grocer that would fit with what is happening all the great development that's happening Link Road you know in that corner alone we have under is opening up on the 31st obviously we're getting Negron we're getting Mediterranean Medusa which is a high-end restaurant you know down the street we're getting U night sky so there's a lot of great things happening on linol road and we want to make sure that what other development that happens aligns with that growth and not become detrimental to what already is happening I understand you're saying it's a balance because if you if you overdefined then you're really limiting the universal potential tenants but I I understand what you're saying and so I think his his question is a good one is what you know that's what I was trying to it's a Whole Foods to you higher end or are you talking about just the dean and ducas of the world of the well again we're we're just echoing what the applicants have said that they want right you know they say they want a highend grosser so we are Al right I don't know if everyone knows what that is that's what I'm asking well again it's not an Aldi it's not a Windixie it's not you know uh it's a plum Market or something like that it's it's a it's a unique something a niche retailer that sells you know that doesn't sell food service it sells food items right that are unique and different and they can be defined um I've done retail leases for 30 something years I it can be defined and it can be limited to what what you guys are looking for and I think you're right if you are looking to upgrade the area and to have residents you need to have something that can support that all right hold on one second we're going to get to the board go ahead Nick I I just I know I know the board knows this but but we should avoid making legislative decisions based on uh particular Brands I think you can you can define a use as broadly or as prescriptively as you like um and you can include in your definition the kinds of things that that you would want to see in in a grocery store uh or a specialty store but you I would avoid making decisions based on uh the based on the brand yeah yeah no I was just trying to get an idea of what her vision is of a grocery but anyway are are you finished oh and I just want to say you know what we're recommending as a board is to to come back with the staff with Mr nissam and work together to Define that you know we are open to working with them me we want to support Mr seas and his vision but I think as it currently stands it's a little too broad and I think it could really have unintended consequences down the road okay thank you anyone else in Chambers we do have some more callers on on Zoom yeah I was going to get there sorry go ahead um our next caller is Lyall Stern good morning everybody thanks fre time this morning ly stur in 7:30 Lincoln Road I won't restate the vids position uh Annabelle's already done that um I think your planning staff as usual nailed it greatly which is the current definition for a grocery store is very and it could apply to a wide variety of merchants that sell food on page six I think that and I I have great respect for Mr casden and and Ambassador Seas but I think that you know Mr kasen's concerned about going down a rabbit hole uh really just doesn't hold any water here this is a very simple type of use to define uh we shouldn't be concerned about attempting to Define what we want sorry what we want in our community um and more importantly with what the city is looking to do with increase the residential density along Washington Avenue and along Lincoln Road and with the $3.5 billion dollar of residential development along Collins Avenue North of Lincoln we should all be careful about what we're looking to put here we think that a grocery store is a great idea if defined appropriately and and I'll follow council's advice and not start naming names but I think we all know the kind of food service that we would like to see here that benefits the community all your staff is asking for and all the bid is asking for is let's all huddle up and come back on January 7th it's around the corner with a better definition because if you don't then uh it just goes through the cup process but then you'll have to live with what the definition of a grocery store is and curtail your listening at that point to the current definition which just isn't appropriate here and probably is not appropriate in some other places in the city so I thank you for your time thanks l Michael next our next caller is uh Johan Moore yes good morning again um I want to caution us about this grocery stores intended uh public uh uh no implication meant by that word actually but yes indirectly there has in fact been rather strong request from Neighbors of Washington Avenue for some kind of a grocery store I'm not sure from two angles that that there isn't a concern here though those requests have not been necessarily for a high-end grocery store while certainly I think those requests would um prefer to exclude more convenience or lowend type stores but there was a rather lamented grocery store on Washington uh that was I think sort of low to Middle uh part of the the the niche uh that was particularly missed so given that we're trying to incentivize modest residential on Washington given that Flamingo Park is just proportionately moderate to Middle income I think that there might be a bit of a mismatch between pursuing a goul May grocery store however much some of us might love that and to name a name which isn't relevant to us so I think I can name it uh Eli's Market in New York comes to my mind some place I regularly shop at at Grand Central right but I think that's not necessarily the the right match and I also want to look at it from a different angle I think the desire for an elevated retail experience on Washington May not exactly be compatible with again from this other angle the type of grocery store that the community actually needs and when we think about who shops retail on Washington they tend to often buy things that they can take away with them such as clothes such as decorative items what have you I'm not sure that that group of people is necessarily going to be the primary uh target audience certainly not from the community's point of view for this grocery store they will be more likely to purchase say prepared foods rather than an organic head of lettuce that they're not going to be likely to be able to wash in a water fountain or in their hotel room right so I think we have to be careful about what we're going for here thank you thank you anyone else and our last caller is um Maria setrace iPhone Maria hi can you hear me yes okay great I'm stuck in traffic so I apologize I am Maria s and I represent 420 LCN Road and I'm Ambassador Paul seas and I have to chime in here for a little bit because um we have been uh working very hard to try to get um 420 Lincoln Road and obviously I'm a part of the bid I sit on the board and I think it's really important to have cohesiveness and to be a part of the bid and to participate and shake hands and meet all the Commissioners and you know we're all trying to accomplish the same thing here and I have to be honest it has been very challenging for my Washington side as we all know how it looks how it presents um for uh for what we want to do there for that property and I have to be um very candid in telling you that if we are putting more conditions and we are putting more uh you know things in the way of what we could possibly do there with a you know grocery store it's very very simple we just want to have uh the ability to visit it with you know certain markets and we're looking at high end we're looking at Gourmet we're looking at you know epicures uh there's a a process that we're going to have to be forced to go through anyway which is a very you know responsible process it's called the cop and we all know that so I'm just going to have to say that we should remove so much of what we try to do to try to help ourselves you know by keeping things cohesiveness but it's also going to present an issue we're trying to you know have possibilities of what we could do there and so I'm respectfully asking you know all of the commiss you know I'm sorry not all the board members to please consider this you know we have um been sort of penalized for having such a big property we're not talking about having any kind of Market on Lincoln Road this is not in any way shape or form going to go on Lincoln Road and this is uh my concern is for what's going to go on Washington what's going to go in the inside of the property which is a very large property and so I really want you to consider that when we're looking at this we could get stuck into the details of what's going to happen on Lincoln Road this is not about Lincoln Road this is about the rest of the property that presents it's a very large property and we're a whole city block so um thank you so much for your time thank you anybody else that's our last caller okay okay um do you want to address anything or do you want take questions if I may Mr chair uh like to address some of the comments that have been made I think you can see first of all by a couple of the speakers Johan and then the Lincoln Road bid representative that how you're going to Define this is not so easy uh and do we want to really go down that path of being so prescriptive at this point in time I think that under stores why we should not be now the discussion has been largely about well grocery store can be a convenience store well as you've seen the city code has a separate definition for grocery store and a separate one for convenience store if that's the problem then the city should revisit the definition of grocery store or convenience store it should not be part of this ordinance number one number two and let's get the perspective on this properly this is not going to be on Lincoln Road it does not allow entrance on Lincoln Road it is only Washington Avenue or Drexel Avenue and it is true as Maria was saying that Ambassador seas' property is penalized because of its size because it probably the only property on Lincoln Road on the south side of Lincoln Road that extends all the way to 16th Street he there is a situation there due to the side size of the property and that is what creates the problem because there are these vast spaces these vast interior spaces so they need this particular treatment and as Maria also mentioned if this is one of the options that is taken out of the quiver for tenants uh she Maria was quite candid Washington Avenue is the most difficult place to to to tenant what you're doing then is perhaps forcing the market to get more I should say less desirable tenants for Washington Avenue than when you have more options for uses um and finally I I'd like to point out that Ambassador Seas has had an incredible track record as the owner of this property for many decades from his restoration of the property I I some of you probably remember what that property was like before he bought it 30 or so years ago he completely restored it he's on a wonderful job tenanting it it is a unique property because of its size and its floor plate and as a result it needs to be able to be properly tenanted so bottom line is it's not on Lincoln Road it's this the side streets number two if there's a problem with the definition of grocery and convenience store then deal with it in those sections of the code don't make it specific not to play semantical games I just want to get an understanding from you as well do you cons so under the definition that you would like could a Publix go there yes okay Whole Foods could go there yes all right so you're not envisioning only like some highend okay I just want to understand no they could go there although as was pointed out practically speaking given the size of the floor plates that they they they have they will never go there and the lack of parking etc etc so how many square feet is it it depends I mean there are many different spaces I think I showed earlier and the diagram that there are there's the timeout by the way timeout Market was a a tenant that Ambassador SE house bought which was very fine tenant for that area uh they range from like of five here we go and I can bring it back up let me if I can get the I mean they're functionally obsolete you're saying it's too small for a for a public site grocery store Ian if you combined everything here we go oh that's just if you see here the uh the orange on top that's 8,300 some Square ft that's the old Beach theater building which is an interior space um the uh on the Washington Avenue side you see the uh light orange that's about 10,500 Square ft and I'm not saying that all these are necessarily but is your concern that if you if we further Define it to be more high in grocer there won't be enough tenants out there to potentially take advantage I just want to understand we're just being open here trying to figure out what like what's your concern I'm thinking it gets too prescriptive and that it might as a result limit the universe of potential tenants I got a question for you niss because I think what what it's not so much we're trying to be specific about who we want to see there I think overall uh we're trying to avoid certain kinds of of businesses that you know so I think there's a there's a narrow window of businesses we're trying to avoid versus pigeon H holding this space to be what do you call it Gourmet specialty grocery store is there any way in your in your um wording without uh going down uh a rabbit hole where there's a um we can include something that would avoid a certain kind of grocery store that we don't want to attract there now I understand based on the location based on the size of it we're already eliminating some of those but I think the concern for uh Lincoln Road and and and and it's valid I mean we're trying to develop Washington and Lincoln Road to go into a positive direction um so without penalizing your client um there's got to be a way that we can word something where we avoid the types of tenants that the the Lincoln Road want to without with keeping it broad uh you know I would what I would have to do is of course remember the other thing is it would be conditional use so it would come back to you you'd be able to look at those impacts the concentration things of that sort uh between now and this going to the city commission we'd be willing to if this board recommends we do something to uh sort of further Define I again I would suggest a change in definition should be in the city code for the grocery store provision but we could between now and going to the city commission take a look at language if that is your wish uh which would sort of further Define it but i' really concerned you know about about going down in that direction and the other thing by the way uh and I know the comment was made that well when if you have a tenant come in and then go for the change that's really not fair either because remember what we' have to do is two things let's say a tenant wants to go to Lincoln Road today a restaurant uh they may not need to go to any City Board if they change the facade they need to go to the historic preservation board if they're over 300 they need to get a conditional use permit but the use is allowed so you know when you're dealing with a potential tenant that use is allowed this is the process we don't we're not in that position today with a grocery store we would have to tell a potential grosser use is not allowed we have to go through a lengthy process to change that use and then you have to go through a process to get board approval for it that's a unfair dis that's unfair in terms of disadvantage no other no other tenant uh landlord on Lincoln Road has to face that with the other kind of tenants they have yeah I think so listen I know Ambassador s he's an amazing guy and he's done he's been a great neighbor there's no question about that and and I understand your concern as a lawyer for him I I don't blame you I'm just trying to get you know and ultimately you know we're only were recommending favorably or unfavorably but um the question is what you know what type of grocery store is appropriate there I think at the end of the day that's what it comes down to well Mr chair I mean you could recommend if I may suggest in favor but with a added recommendation that you work on refining the definition of either grocery store or a particular kind of grocery store Gourmet grer okay and exclusions as well I don't think we want to see anything on Washington that could be a another last mile delivery place like gopuff or some of those other places because it I mean those are big spaces but I mean Nick can chime it I don't know if you can exclude but obviously you can Define can what you can Define you can well that's part of it you Brands no no no no no but you can say no last mile delivery services or no you know so which which overloads the the I thought that was the name of a store Sor it is but it's but I'm just using that as an example um you know you can there's there's things that you can do that can Define it better without having a convenience store I don't think any anybody wants to see um you know that especially I think we need real grocery yeah um yeah and then I'm gonna Scott I'm GNA start with you and let you question what go ahead ma'am first of all Matthew you I know you walked the property if you could just introduce yourself as well I was just on the phone with you it was terrible traffic let me breathe for a second okay now so you're on the board of this group but you're also work Road yes I uh for and your name I'm sorry 13 14 years Maria stead great goe and so great to um you know make your acquaintance here and under these circumstances but I just I'm very strong uh I'm very strongly for this and I will tell you that property has presented a challenge when it comes to like I mentioned Washington we all want the same thing for the beach you know I have um been studious about what you know we need to be doing for Lincoln Road for Washington Drexel all that and when I tell you that when it comes to the property and having to um bring possible tenants okay you have to secure them you have to find them you don't they don't just all come uh and know about the space you don't even know most people that are on Lincoln Road have no idea that Mr SAS Paul say has owns a property that is a whole city block in fact the funniest thing when I spoke to to um commissioner Greco okay he told me with his own own that he didn't know that he had you know penalized him by making this very important you know agenda of ordinance of trying to um avoid any kind of you know convenience store grocery store on Lincoln Road I get that you know but this is not going on Lincoln Road let's not confuse that and in doing this and making this about that we're avoiding the bigger issue which is cleaning up the other side of where this property presents you know and it it is being penalized for sure because if you think about it when you look there is a picture of it you see the property stands almost it's a city block but it's a very long deep city block and we are unable to find a a way to have a tenant want to come and be in that property when it presents deep within the property so it wouldn't even have an entrance on Lincoln Road it wouldn't in any way shape or form be connected to Lincoln Road and we're not looking we took away the possibility of con uh a convenience store the last ten was timeout a lot and that was how that was it two years ago yes that was two years ago the pandemic didn't it's been empty for empty for two years well yes and so um and the other issue too is that it's in our best interest to find the perfect uh tenant for that space and it wouldn't be so we already took the convenience store out we already went to the bid which I'm a part of and I understand their concern concerns completely I'm I'm a part of the bid and we said what do you think oh let's make a list of the possible gross you know possibilities so we could H so we're we're working with everyone to try to make the only thing I'll say to that is you're right but the tenant you bring in if one day Paul sells it and they vacate we've got to live with this ordinance so that's all you have to be but on the same hand if you think about it the cop process okay let's really look at what that would do because it's saying oh we can't do that because anybody could do anything no the cup process would protect everyone from that so I instead of denying this request or making it unfavorable I just want to plead to you to really think about what the cop would actually protect you from before you say no to us where we could not even start the process with the tenants we're not going to say no the question is what what is the recommendation go along with because everyone's in agreement I think that we want a good tenant so by the way it's getting um there's going to be a lot happening there so we're going to need it we are we stay there since you're so knowledgeable Scott you have any questions or yeah um I think the idea of a grocery store in that area is a great idea I think the neighborhood needs it um you know it seems like the question is going to be how do we describe grocery store um it's obvious we don't want to see 7-Eleven um it can or because we don't have smile things anything like that we don't want to see that can't the convenience store is not on there and the C process would not you know applicants can get you know they can read an ordinance and find loopholes and things like that so you know we need to be careful um how we go about doing it but but but the idea is a great idea we talked about a gourmet um um um uh Market or whatever I'm you know and I think we heard um Johan mentioned earlier you know this what what we're trying to do on Washington is incentivize residential you know the people that live in the neighborhood would love a place to go to to buy groceries um at a reasonable price you know I'm sure a lot of them will go for you know a high-end Market but honestly I I would like to see any um good grocery store there you know obviously Publix is not going to go in um or some of the bigger ones um Trader Joe's Aldi things like that something that people can go to um people that live in the neighborhood that work in the neighborhood is a good idea um but but again it's how we just it's how we um uh Define grocery store your decision for that today is going to either delay that from happening or not it will we'll see how it goes with the board but I we need to you know I don't think we're going to do it today but there needs to be a definition but again I I wouldn't want to get too scri descriptive and say well you could have you know this kind of seafood but not that kind of seafood it gets it can get a little tricky but but certain things like maybe a minimum square footage um the city had something in their staff report uh limitations on nonf food and accessory items I'm 100% behind that um and we come up could come up with other things but I don't want to um get to the point where they're you know we're telling them well you know you can have right well weal not that I you know we don't there's a middle ground somewhere and I think we should have you talked to Mickey granadine by any chance uh no Laina like they have in Brickle yeah I will tell you that I've got um the other planning board uh member I uh I don't know her name right now J uh anyway she's trying to come to look at the timeout space to see for a grocery store because apparently they're in desperate need of it so I have a envisioning in the future that this whole conversation which is so responsible and I get that we have to do this is going to be the opposite we're going to be asked to do something because if you look at that um there you will see that um this is the one property close by there within walking distance you can actually support anything like this you know I I I'm just being so completely honest and I just want you to think about that Matthew you know oh yeah so so so I did meet with the applicant uh Mr casden and and uh and Murray in front of us here uh to to view the space uh last month uh before I give my thoughts I do have a question that I just I wrote down and I've been thinking about the whole time uh you stated Mr cassen that that a grocery store is permitted by right today at the timeout space at 1601 Drexel Avenue um and you also said that you stated that if you combined it with the other property it would not be by rate can you expand on that because I'm I'm not quite understanding what what that well if it was if if it is combined with the properties that front on Washington Avenue and com and redeveloped in combination then it falls into the Washington Avenue overlay the I think it's called the myo overlay and that has strict limitations on grocery stores in term including uh distances and such so uh we're actually uh right now we can do it as of right on timeout Market but looking at the potential Redevelopment of the that portion of the property uh combining with Washington Avenue it would prohibit timeout market for instance from being recreated so we that's why we are including that but the the time out Market building is 10 15 years old correct something 10 years old so so you're contemplating demolishing that and and or and or demolishing some of the No No a Redevelopment that would that would include uh that property maybe building on top of the timeout Market uh you know building additionally on the uh portions of front Washington Avenue okay and over the alleyway that exists today or potentially yes including that Alleyway uh so I mean I completely understand thank you for that explanation there because that it was confusing um I do understand the the Viewpoint of the link Road bid and all the great things that they're doing there including the large um Capital project that's coming forth as well uh but I can't help but think how a grocery store is complimentary to what is going on there uh many of these restaurants which are are very highend they're they're focusing more on the nighttime use and what does a grocery store bring it brings foot traffic during the daytime and if you travel around the country in many urban areas what do you find in their in their thriving Urban environments you find grocery stores um you know it's not going to be a mass Market grocery store necessarily but you do find grocery stores so so I you know I agree with with with Scott I agree with some of the people that called in that there is a need for a grocery store and we're not going to get a 50,000 square foot Suburban style Publix or equiv here I don't think anyone understand you know anyone would would think that would happen but um I think there should be a way to move forward with this while also establishing some of the guard rails that the neighbors on Lincoln Road are are concerned about um I'm curious what the Neighbors on Washington Avenue think about this I see we have the executive director of the bid here I mean if you don't mind coming up and sharing your thoughts on this if you Troy Wright Washington Avenue business improvement district um you know this is a tough one um I would have to defer to my board however based upon previous conversations in addition to hearing from the community obviously there is a need for grocery store there is a need for some kind of Market um is that the right location I don't know um but we definitely are in need of one so I can't really respond much more than that um and and so I understand the concerns that Lincoln Road has um because they want to define a certain character of people on the Avenue in addition with the mass changes that we would like on Washington Avenue we feel the same way but what does that look like and I think that's still being defined yeah you're absolutely right this still being defined there's use incentives for residential that are being contemplated uh you know I think most people or all people eat food and need to purchase food from grocery stores so not quite sure what kind of person it would attract but again um you I think this should move forward with proper guard rails so that we don't have a you know first Last Mile type uh of delivery service there we don't have a convenience store that somehow could fangle its way under the definition of grocery uh without being too detail to have unintended consequences I'm I'm in agreement in terms of the unintended consequences I mean I think we're all sort of saying the same thing we all share a similar Vision uh but we just have to be so especially so careful I mean especially in that location when you go into the Washington side of it I mean that's not that's an area that is in desperate need of elevation and it really brings down a lot of the area around it and so if we don't get this right it will just contribute to that problem and so I I think you know I would love for you to continue working with with uh the Lincoln Road bid and and get in touch with the Washington bid um as well to to really come up with a vision and get everybody's Buy in an agreement um because I think and like I I mentioned T niss that you know not necessarily worried about you all and you know we all know the contributions that the Ambassador and the senat and and you too uh have have made to the community it's just what happens 10 years from now and what happens 20 years from now and so you know especially since there's a current ordinance in place that was passed by the commission so we're asking for an exception to that um and and a carve out for that and so if we're going to do a carve out for that we need to get it right and so that's that's my thinking I'm I'm obviously I think I guess I the writing is on the wall you know to push this to I think the recommendation was January I don't know how much time you all want but I'm I'm supportive of that to hopefully get some better verbiage to make sure we get it right question uh for staff if we were to approve this today as the applicant is requesting would they have to then come back to us once a tenant is secured yes this it requires a condition conditional process so same same the same with what happened with a Five Below um there was a convenience store but was approved as an exception but had to come back before the planning board for the final um for the final go commission first they yeah so if this if this is adopted by the city commission we will see this come back to the board so if we approve this this goes to the commission they would then either approve or or deny whatever it might be I assume that you all need this in order to start looking for tenants because they delay it they won't go down the road if you don't secure this and then if you do secure someone they come back to us for approval exactly the problem is at that point right but we wouldn't be approving the tenant we would be putting condition right and it's kind of too late at that point I mean I know you're saying we can put some restrictions but at that point you know if it's a if it's a tenant that it was really not the one that we were envisioning sure we can require them to have security outside 247 but it's really missing the point we deny the cup if there's enough that doesn't meet the criteria but you can't do it based upon the user I if it would just be I have question you come in front of us and say technically according to the you know language you're since you're on the board and you're on the have you guys ever have you sat together try to come to an agreeable compromise on a we have a letter from the Ben that actually specifically um was requested of us to pigeon hole exactly the kinds of um right but you don't want that um we are very happy to even that because whatever happens but that's the whole discussion here is how we further Define it so I'm I'm wondering you mean to Define it well that's cuz that's what they want and and you know they probably want to drastically we only want the highest in market and you all that's a little difficult for us but is there a compromise that on language I mean because listen we're going to recommend it favorably but again we're going to say we think you should focus on a better definition of what a grocery store is so that it's if I could so just to make this easy on y'all um I've done this for a really long time I have leased language that goes back 30 plus years for grocery stores that exclude what you do not want and what you do want and they can be worked around for all kinds of things and if you would allow me I'd be happy to share that with you and the city so y'all can kind of get through it really quickly um I think that we all in agreement we do not want to see any kind kind of actual convenience stores or any kind of you know uh first Last Mile type stuff Warehouse I you know that kind of thing but there have been cases uh for instance where wind Dixie I think there was a wind dixi case many many years ago where some landlord had tried to say oh you can't sell paper goods or something like that and that case was it obviously when Dixie lost so I I I'm sorry the landlord lost but if y'all would let me share with you some of that language I I can give you whatever you like and y'all can figure it out and we can be done with it I'd like to continue this okay well we'd appreciate receiving that language I know you have a lot of experience in the area and the only thing I would say is the distinction between leases Leasing and Zoning certain things you can't that you put in language would Encompass that particular use so and I think that's what you're looking to do is it not yeah as as long as the language is descriptive doesn't say like a no no no I'll listen I'll just give it to you let y'all figure it out thank you I'm just making we appreciate that I'm just making the offer question so if you could pull up the floor plate again what's the entire I guess space that that you all have vacant that you're looking to lease and why do you think that a Publix or or something like a public wouldn't be able to fit in there well uh let re but well a Publix is Publix is today are 30 to 60,000 Square F feet none of these spaces are even approached that no but again what's What's the total amount of space that you're looking to lease it I mean it it it it varies depending upon the status of the existing tenants it could be as much as we're showing you up there the you know 8,300 ft in the theater uh the uh uh feet in the uh uh on the Washington Avenue side you know it's uh but you have to play with the the existing tenant expiring leases but there are these areas that could be aggregated I'm I assume that you all have an idea as to which type of tency you're going to Target so Bas based on how the lease expirations are looking what's the amount of space that you're going to go out specifically Epicure something exactly like that that's what you have to keep in mind if that's not in alignment with what you want but which would fit into into how how many square feet if you're saying the only amount of 3,000 then for the timeout space that's between 18 to 20,000 square foot that's kind of like our biggest um uh we have a garage there too let's not forget looking to fill about 20,000 it wouldn't take up the parking you know so it it just makes sense no you're looking to fill up up to 20,000 Square fet eventually give or take don't quote me on that I'm not the leasing person for the but you know uh yeah we you could say that we could mhm got it okay thank you and my wife would be very happy if Epicure ever came back yeah no kidding still warning that one um okay I hate to repeat what my colleagues have said and usually I skip my turn when everything has been said but I just think this is really important to get it right because um it is refreshing to see the city moving a direction where there's an overall view for that entire neighborhood to um upgrade um and so we like what the commission is pushing for for the residential usage on Washington and in the upcoming uh uh leases coming up on Lincoln Road uh I think everyone's on the same page everyone has the same vision right now for what that space could be uh and want it to be I just do also understand of uh wanting to have a few safeguards in place to just make sure that uh uh we we keep it in the right direction I think you guys are well intentioned and that's where we're going and I do understand from a legal point of view we got to be careful when we start playing um and zero in on details like that but I think we could leave it up to the um the staff here to make sure that we have uh in our uh recommendation um some wording that we could well think that's why because right now we have no language so that's why we're recommending a continuance um so that we can so that language can be developed and we're and that's why we put on the owners of the applicant to provide us with language so we can see if it if it meets their Vision versus having to impose something on them so we're suggesting that they come up with some language that works for them for us to review and for the board to review can you do that I don't have a problem with that cuz what we do what we would do niss is we would pass it on favorably and put a notation that you know we've asked you all to come up with a a a more clearer definition of of what you envision and I and I'm assuming that that could be presented to the commission yeah if the board wants to do that you could request that between now and the review by the city commission that um additional language be put in place specifically for this area I think at this point for a grocery store would necessarily meet the following additional regulations or additional requirements I don't think it's as hard as you know I don't think it's as hard as as as seems to be I I think this for Zoning for this particular property is you've got to have that for to to be able to do what you want to do I can look at the site plan and actually right around us is um uh allowed so that's why I'm sort I think it's going to be great at all the changes that are coming Mr L we we we welcome your language uh and uh we will I think our thrust though would be to try to keep it uh fairly simple and not too dense where you're you you know uh you're over you're overly prescriptive we're not suggesting that either but I do think that what I don't want to have happen is that because you know the the the commission is relying on you to provide a recommendation and we don't have this language developed yet so I could delay things if this goes to Comm commission and they send it back to the planning board to review the language so I do think since there is no tenant identified it's wise to continue this application to January develop the language that way the board has waited and provid a recommendation on the language be supportive or not couldn't you all develop the language between now and let's say next meeting couldn't in other words unless I mean are you is putting this to January honorous for you or well we could look they are actively dealing with potential tenants right so we can come up with language in a few days yeah I hate to I hate to make them wait another three months for you want to continue till November we can continue until November if you want to continue till November we can continue till November 26th would that be fine with you do one month and then you all try to come up you understand what every absolutely I think everybody wants the same thing it's just but I understand prescript it too much could be very detrimental to the value I I get all that there's got to be a compromise where we can you know accomplish what I think you all envision right but they're just scared that you may be not envisioning that and that they'll be a bait and switch that's the only thing I can think of they don't want you know it's not necessarily them it's whoever comes after cor correct correct cuz whoever it's got that that ordinance unless it's change again has to live with you know um we want the property probably do the same with retail merchants on Lincoln Road if if that's your concern if that is the concern of Lincoln Road they should do with the retail Merchants because that can really go as you've seen very off track more so off all right so then n let's move in a month and um and because we want you to be successful believe me and we want you know we want you to have a great in and so is we'll do that all right so move to motion motion to uh to continue this item to next month's meeting and the purpose is to give you maybe a month to come up with what what everyone can that you're happy with they're happy with and yeah what language that'll just some further defining language in terms of grer or or or particular grer second will give us her be happy to anyone opposed okay pass thanks so much and thanks for your passion we really appreciate you all coming in to speak to us okay now we are on kid oh asking for lunch already um we are now on item what was seven so it's a planning board file 24695 Washington Avenue residential since I guess they're both companion yeah we're going to take the next two items together okay so planning board file 0695 and 0696 Washington Avenue residential use incentives comprehensive plan and Land Development Michael sure so just um this has some complicated history and the the board has seen this before so um and just just some background in terms of the process since since this does include an F increase the city now has in place a six-step process it's um the first step is a a meeting before the planning board then a community outreach meeting a second me a second meeting before the planning board City commission review another Outreach meeting and then a final review by the city commission now in this case the planning board did review this application previously we did have a uh public um community outreach meeting and we did provide the summary of that meeting which occurred on July 30th I'm sorry that meeting was on September 10th and on page 12 or page 30 of the board packages we provided a summary of the comments provided by by the um the the members in attendance now since that time the commission sponsor has further revised the proposed F increase the prior increase was to um allow up to a 3.0 F this current um draft allows up to a 4.0 F so because of that this whole process is starting over again so this is now is the first reading at the planning board for this um these incentives I'm going to go through and outline these incentives again and then after this meting meeting there will be a another community outreach meeting and this will come back to the planning board for in November for the planning board's final review and transmission to the city commission Michael uh can I ask a question about process before you start are we required to continue this item yes yes this now is and that's why we we have already scheduled the um the second Outreach meeting and in order to avoid delaying this further we have scheduled this for the the second reading um next month so we do believe that this um time frame can can occur without slowing the process down um so again what this ordinance does is allow for um tangible incentives for non-transient residential uses on Washington Avenue from from 5th to 16th Street now this this area does include a variety of zoning districts and I'm going to go through some of the changes that are proposed as part of those districts now again these incentives would apply to projects that have have non-residential apartment uses only um some of the requirements are that the non-residential that no residential unit shall exceed 1,200 square ft in size it does require a minimum micr Mobility component within the interior of the structure accessible by all residential units it does now require a minimum um lot size for an El eligible project of not less than 13,000 Square ft now we did provide on page um six of the board um page six of the staff report for page 20 for the board packages a comparison between the prior approval and what's proposed right now um there has been a sort of carve out for um a property to um to um for example this this ordinance would eliminate the minimum off street parking requirements for non-transit residential projects provide a cap on the number of parking on the number of parking spaces provided for an eligible project however this would not apply for example to the property we just saw located in the CD3 zoning District that has parking facilities which which the the prior property the the SE house property included a parking garage that was approved by the city prior to January 1st of of um of this year it does increase the maximum F right now the current F maximum is 2.0 for the cps2 rm2 and cd2 properties and would increase that from 2.0 to 4.0 for those properties and would increase the F for cd33 CD3 Zone properties to 3.25 it does exempt the micr movability component from F within the building now in terms of height it does it does provide for an increase in height from 50 ft to 75 ft and the current height for hotels and Transit uses would BT be be decreased from 75 to 50 ft now on top of that if you provide additional additional um additional if you comply with additional requirements you could get up an additional 25 ft in height and that's within um the cps2 rm2 and cd2 Zone properties not to exceed 100 feet now to get that additional height you would have to provide um you would have to prohibit off street parking except for the property I mentioned earlier um it would have to exceed the minimum micr Mobility requirements and participate in a public mic a public micr Mobility Network it does require that a it actually does eliminate the mobility fee for projects that that get a a building permit by September 1st of 2032 and it does sunset these incentives for projects that have obtain obtained a full building permit by September 1st 2032 it does also allow for enhanced permitting process um for these types of projects now since the f is was increased from 3.0 to 4.0 this latest um proposal does also include a um density increase from a previous 100 to6 units per acre up to 175 units per acre to allow for that additional f um now we all recommended that recommending that the Board review and provide comment and continue this um application for the Land Development regulation modifications and comprehensive plan amendments to November 26 meeting in the intern we will have another public Workshop meeting and provide you the results of that meeting at the November 26th meeting well I'll turn it over um to the board for any questions okay is there anyone here to speak on this should we ask questions before or or do you want to do public I'll be here in case okay I think this is a step in the right direction I think this is what we were concerned about previously and uh Washington Avenue business Improvement District itely supports the idea now of doing some great things with residential on Washington Avenue there was were a few things in there that we didn't agree with but I think since we have to start all over again and based upon the sunshine meeting that happened I think now we have a great Foundation to really start doing uh what we would like to do on Washington Avenue thank you can I ask question of Troy what are those things that you had an issue with before that have now since been resolved well number one I mean the F was a big question um and I think that there were certain property uh owners who um wouldn't sell and it would be too difficult in this market for anyone to buy and so although we could have come upon an agreement we could have said what we wanted for the Avenue no one would have ever sold their property um I think now that we can go to if it's approved to a 4.0 it will make a big difference um the the height U will make a big difference and so those were the the biggest things and there were some other language in there regarding the timelines having more to do with nightlife but um I think that was the main concern so you you were looking for a higher F absolutely thank you anybody else anyone on Zoom yes we have uh Daniel Caldo Daniel yes hi good morning member Daniel sadoo with Miami Design preservation League um so we haven't had a chance to review this latest version yet but just going back to what we've said all along is we want to make sure that there are massing studies that there are drawings and diagrams to ensure whatever is done is uh sensitive respectful compatible with the surrounding neighborhood many of you know the unfortunate fate of the urban project there across from the historic post office which this board granted additional uh entitlements to and um now it's been sitting there for several years vacant and mosquito uh Nest so whatever we do we want to make sure it's done right I do want to caution what was said by the bid head you know anytime you increase F the owners just put the selling price higher and that's just how economics go so I think we have to look bigger at what is the overall Vision what we want as a city um and hopefully with your support we'll make that happen thank you thanks Daniel anyone else Michael we have no other callers on Zoom okay Scott questions no I mean I you know I've mentioned before I know that the sunshine meeting that you're referring to I mean I I attended um obviously you know uh incentivizing residential in Washington when it was good um I saw some some massing studies that were done and and I'm seeing rather large buildings kind of rectangular shap boxes so that that's that's a concern I think we you know this is very preliminary um we should move forward but I mean at least personally that's a concern of mine moving going forward but but I'm sure some of these things can be um you know discussed and may maybe further refined um but um you know it it's a positive direction to to incentivize residential but that's how we go about doing that Matthew Michael so what is if there was a parking requirement um as part of this or there is today what is the typical height of a parking Podium for these types of buildings well um typically if someone's building parking it it it depends on the requirement typically if you're not going to build more than a fivestory parking garage um because then the setbacks change um but we did provide masing studies in this in this set the planning board that include um The Heights without a parking pedestal so I we do think that with the um additional F that's proposed now additional height is warranted but my but my question is let's say that uh a building was being built today residential um you know at a at a 2.0 F that's allowed today and building the required parking let's say one space per per unit you know how how many levels of parking would that be we have to take a look at we can probably take a closer look at that for next meeting and see based upon the current requirements um how many parking space would be required and what that would entail in terms of a parking garage but really is sight sight specific depending on the the number of residential units um and the size of the lot but it would be like one to two levels presumably of parking correct depending on the number of the number of units now um of course the more units who provide the more parking spaces that would be required under the under the current code requirements but what we're reviewing today is there any is there any required parking for that there's required parking for um for loading and for staff so whatever the required parking is for loading you have to double that to also consider some some required parking on site for staff that may be needed but it's very minimal it's very minimal very minimal so uh I think the point that I'm trying to get at is if residential was built today in current zoning you'd be required to build perhaps 20 to 30 feet of of parking at the ground level yeah or more depending on just how efficient the site is yeah of course if you have a larger site you can be more efficient and do it in fewer levels so so I think you know 100 feet 90 feet 80 feet might be very reasonable uh for us to consider and then we take away that parking that we're not building so so if it's 20 ft of parking take the 100 ft and subtract 20t you're at 80 ft and presumably we could still within that same volume you know meet an F of of 3.0 or or such um you I attended some of these public meetings with the community and I think one of the big concerns isn't so much the increase in density or the increase of f it's it's the height it's the actual uh you know um impact that you have on the build environment when you're walking around and um you know the it's it's a good idea to incentivize more residential and um I think there's a way probably to thread that needle where it could be done without you know going so high that it that it really is out of character with the rest of the neighborhood uh the the other thing is um you know I think the question was answered by by the Washington Avenue bid you know the the increase in F from 3 to four uh you know I think probably surprised many of us up here when we were reading through there since there wasn't necessarily any context um but you know Washington Avenue has a lot going for it it has you know future Transit Lanes as well uh which would you know which would could support uh this increase in um and people living there so could be supportive of it but I think that that height the height is what is always you know the big the big stickler here and um you know any way that that I think we can help move that height to a more reasonable level whether it's setbacks you know can you explain the setbacks that I was going to suggest that you know that's another mechanism is the setback so if you have a street wall That's say you know 50 ft tall um you know five stories and you have the tower further set back as you experience walking down the street you may not even see that Tower you're going to be you know um more aware of what's what's what's immediately at the at the front setback so that's another mechanism that can be used to to further um diminish or minimize the the height but I was thinking the opposite of that actually reducing the required setback so that your floor plates could be larger so that you can use that allowable F in a way that doesn't require going uh to that maximum height well generally right now in the commercial districts um we don't the setbacks are pretty minimal already so I think that typically if you were in a a residential districts that's when you have the higher setbacks kick in for example we'll talk about later on the agenda 1250 West Avenue that has a a pretty substantial increase in setbacks once you go above a pedestal height however um for commercial districts probably going back 10 years ago if you were doing a res residential project in a commercial District you had to follow the residential setback requirements those requirements were removed um 5 to 10 years ago so now a residential project in a commercial District typically can follow the commercial setback requirements so that's something that I think we could take a look at if you want to um have an increase in setbacks above a point or if you don't if you want to have the building you know be able to max out the the setbacks then you don't need to you don't need you don't need to modify the setback requirements for a residential building and a commercial District however you also have to consider that you want to have light and air so you don't want to have um a larger floor plate typically if you're doing an office building yeah you can have a very large floor plate but that floor plate may not work for a residential building where probably a more slender Tower is more appropriate is there any way we can get these uh these massing studies that are you know that are in this staff report up on the screen for our our benefit and and the reviewing Public's benefit we don't have we don't have a presentation um prepared so there's um but it's in the staff report the back if PJ can bring up the staff report for this item give us a second and while he's doing that I just want everyone to realize that there there's also a sense of provision of 2032 for all these incentives which I think is important to note I mean look it's I I'm only the second one in here but you know I think this is you know there there is some some really good you know ideas behind here you know we have a housing shortage in the city the population keeps going down the price of housing is increasing in the city so more Supply is you know is a basic way to help help combat that but just like a grocery store you know we need to make sure that we get this right here um you know there's big potential for for a big change so and P are are you able to bring up there we go if you can go to um Matthew which page would you like to go to from the well it starts [Music] on right I mean Michael which which example do you think is a is a good one there's you know there's about five or six different Parcels I think outlined here see pag you go to page um page 30 of that staff report and I if it's possible to rotate it almost there so this this is an example of um the the property at 1260 Washington Avenue that shows a 4.0 F and 100 ft in height and then the prior the prior um slide before this shows a 4.0 F at um a height of 75 ft are there any other examples of a 4.0 F yeah we provided um um currently so um I know this just because we we did this for our analysis for 1250 the Waverly hotel has an F of about 4.2 um but typically the maximum currently in the city is around three 3 3.25 does staff have any any thoughts thoughts on on this change to the proposed incen we feel that you know um it fits in with a desire to provide more residential uses along Washington Avenue and ultimately um any sort of um new Tower or demolition will require review by the store preservation board so I think that and we and this historic preservation board has approved projects along Washington Avenue that do maintain the historic character of Frontage while also allowing new development for example the the project we saw earlier The Moxy um that they restored the the ground floor still allowed a tower um behind that at 75 ft in height so we do think that that that that height and provides the flexibility and I do think that having higher height provides more flexibility for the for massing if you have a higher F and have a squashed building then you may have more more impacts on creating a a unit that may not be a desirable residential unit I think you have to limit the um the width and um size of a a floor plate for a residential Tower versus a um an office building or something of that nature and then the other only other question I have is about the micr mobility component how is that going to be further defined and yes so that's actually going to be we're going to have we be modifying um other parts of the city code to further Define what's part of a micromobility network and also to make sure it doesn't run a foul of our prohibition on um scooter rentals which is in place right now Citywide so we would be modifying um those definitions if this gets to the point where where um it's going to be approved there ever is a place to do you know no parking requirement and actually instituting parking maximums it is South Beach it is along you know the historic uh neighborhoods along Washington and Collins and ocean where you do have the highest percentage of people today that and this would be the first instance where the city would actually place place a Prohibition you know the city has reduced parking requirements elsewhere in North Beach but the city has never prohibited somebody from providing parking in accordance with parking District number one so this will be the first the first time that the city's has actually prohibited um parking in these instances and that's smart smart policy in North Beach a lot of those units have twice or even more of the required the minimum required parking so I think you know people are concerned that that people are still going to buy a car and live in these units and park on the street but that's not the reality likely of the situation here Matt you don't know that I don't I'm sorry you don't know that to be true well you don't know that to be true I don't I'm sorry I'm not quite following just what you just said you do not know that that's the reality I think if somebody's buying somebody's buying into a building understanding that there is no parking there they they buy into that building with that understanding and if parking is not readly available in the neighborhood then that's going to dissuade them from buying that you know buying that living in that unit so I do think that that um this is the area where that micr Mobility component um can can work and where right now if you look if you look at the most buildings in Flamingo Park there's no parking limiting 50% of the floor area Rao of the floor of the first floor to micr Mobility is not the highest and best use of of a development um but I would be supportive of removing the parking requirements and letting them decide what to do that's another good comment I think you know we're we still can fine tune on the micr mobility component and what that looks like I don't think I don't think prohibiting anything I don't think telling a owner of a property you cannot do this or you cannot do that I don't think that's the right way to go at all so maybe maybe you just come I know we I spoke to you about this before um Elizabeth you had a concern with limiting the maximum unit size to 1,200 F feet I think that that needs to be raised to 2,000 square fet I think that um if we're really serious about having families live here that um we need to raise we shouldn't have a ceiling we should have a floor and that floor should be 650 Square ft I think that we should raise that to 2,000 square ft and make it actually liveable for families I don't think 1,200 square ft is I mean I live in 12200 Square fet now and it's not enough for me and my husband so I think that that if you're if you're going to do something like that you need to get it right and that I think that that would have favorable approval was I think the intent in doing that was to avoid uh you know luxury but two it's not 2,000 square feet is not going to be luxury especially not with not in South Beach and not for a family I'm I see what you're saying I feel like that's one of these things that should be workshopped a little bit more and I agree with you Elizabeth um and I agree with the you know the I agree that there should be some minimum square footage um to make sure that we're not you know creating an environment that's sort of inhumane um you know just to live on South Beach yeah um but I think this is an important proposal and and ordinance to push forward uh we've seen that uh incentives work by the the amount of uh office space that we have coming to Miami Beach and um I think this is important to move forward for the future of our city because we need this housing space so I'm in favor of it the only thing that comes to mind is like all these new residents they're really going to need a grocery store that was the whole point [Music] um um I think that we should definitely commend uh the commission who's proposing this because agree for a long time the planning board has been talking about this for years I think everyone who's been on here for a few years um Can attest to that and we've tried to kind of move the density away from the water kind of more towards you know center of the city um so it's I think this is a really important step uh towards bringing residents back to the beach um in a very smart and thoughtful way my question is on the ground floor so how much retail would be allowed uh to be housed on the ground floor whatever whatever could fit in after you factor in the required micr Mobility component and any sort of Lobby or stairwells you can have accessory commercial uses on the ground floor that are typical for so let's assume that someone is taking full advantage of you know the 40 f um you know again at least to me it wasn't totally clear about what the micr mobility requirement would be and know you said that has to be further defined but I just want to make sure that we're kind of putting you know the uh the I guess you know framework in there to allow for retail use because I think you know once we bring once we bring the density and and kind of critical mass into the area it'd be a shame to not have thought through what that retail use could be right don't Envision you you we're not going to have this micro Mobility component as the street front that's something that would be like within the interior of the building correct it would still have your active uses along the street right so I'm meaning is that just going to be you know a you know 500t space or can you kind of have more of a space because if anything I'd I'd further promote that retail use versus the micr mobility even though I think that the micro mobilities are important and it's going to go a long way towards reducing the uh I guess you know driving and and parking requirements so I just want make sure that we can kind of balance both um other than that incredibly supportive and you have to have enough depth to have viable retail also yeah for sure so I just want make sure that kind of as we push this forward we can proactively think about how to balance both the you know retail needs obviously the residential needs which is going to totally in my opinion start to change the fabric of the city in a positive direction uh while also balancing you know the micr mobility which I think all forward-looking cities are starting to incorporate agree that's important because I I just just um you wouldn't want to have a large site that has only a residential building with no active uses on the ground floor correct so you want to make sure that you have that that commercial component like if you look at let's say you know downtown or brickl you know from these buildings that were done in the 70s that that's really what you saw you saw a lot of you know these residential buildings which had no planning for for retail use um so if if we're going to do it let's do it where we can really activate the streetscape and and that gives an additional incentive for these people to move in and start to create that vibrant City that I think we're all you know trying to accomplish Melissa anything else um I'm seconding what youi says I think it's a a fine balance between the residential usage and um and the retail and to make this uh you know a happening vibrant neighborhood I think we're in the right direction so congrats to the commission for Pulling this out and I and I do and I do think the the new um f on Heights um are um part of the trade-off I know people don't like seeing the these changes and we tend to resist it and a lot of residents get scared of it but um you know some's got to give to attract some of the investments in the city in that area to follow up in terms of just I me you mentioned the the height again um typically when we have an F of over 3.0 in the city the height is 150 to 250 ft I mean sorry 150 to 200 ft in terms of the allowance so having an F of 4.0 with a height of you know 100t 100 feet or so is not excessive reason does that does that does that include the exemption for the micr mobility or is that 100t it's just separate yeah that's a separate measurement right okay that's that that that um micr Mobility is not exempt from the height okay just checking all right so Michael there's no action for us to take today no just to no the only action is to um provide any comments and continue to the November 6th meeting okay November 26th meeting all right well unless anyone has any more comments let's do that make a motion well hang on one more comment and just because I know the sponsor is here want to acknowledge Him and I know he's listening to us the micromobility part extremely important I think it needs to be fine tuned um whether it's you know a sharing Network or it's people's personal devices many people uh who have scooters and ebikes you know they they keep them outside or they keep them in their apartment so I think that component if there's going to be one still here needs to take in account also potential private ownership as well uh wherever that that may be as it fits into here also Nick want me to let you know um just to clarify we do have minimum unit sizes you know um for for apartment units anyway so that would that would that would apply here as well and you still have to comply with the comply with the minimum what's the minimum usage minimum minimum square footage minimum of would be 550 for new construction and 800 average okay I mean there are plenty of families that live in apartments 12200 Square fet I think that we really want to increase that I'm not willing to set a a maximum at all like I'm not willing to tell a property owner you cannot have you know you're GNA have to live in 12200 sare ft I've already spoken to another sponsor and he's supportive of the 2,000 because that's a real family place yes we have to look at the market implications EXC it's not going to be a a luxury condominium on the waterfront so yeah so think I think as we get to next month's meeting if there is if there a consensus on recommendations we can provide that as part of the planning board's recommendations if there's not a consensus we also can provide any sort of additional comments that the planning board members individually had as part of the um ordinances all right and and when's the workshop the public Workshop um let me see just let me clarify that just a minute prior to November's meeting right yes let me just get that sorry I just got a some problem with my computer just a second just a minute just want to get the sequence yeah I just want to also um important to make the public aware so the public Workshop will be on um November 7th at 5:30 pm and that'll be via Zoom with that was there a motion to continue the the um ordinance all right so so after that Workshop then come back to the planning board on November 26th if planning is going to tweak the proposed ordinance or no we're gonna if if the we're going to probably looking to further the um the micro ability component and um um the massing studies again and um and that's it and then the planning board will make its final recommendation okay November 26 okay great all right someone want to move it to next month I'll make a motion to move uh this item to next month second I'll second it okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay and that just for the record that's for both items pb2 24- 0695 and pb2 24- 0696 correct okay the next item is under previously continued applications planning board file 24670 uh 0519 and 008 4041 Collins Avenue Hotel give me just a second to find this report thanks you can just read that description the next item the agenda is an application has been filed requesting modifications to a previously issued condition use permit for a neighborhood impact establishment with entertainment specifically the applicant is requesting approval for the renovation and reconfiguration of the previously approved venues in the hotel and the expansion and introduction of outdoor entertainment in some of the venues chapter 2 Article 5 Section 252 of the Miami Beach resiliency code so as noted in our report um starting on page 105 of the board packages staff has outlined the various venues on the site what page Michael 105 page 105 of the board packages this this applicant is requesting modifications to a previously issued um Cup this property has a long history um most recently the or preservation approved um renovations to the building including reconfiguration of the entire exterior portion of the building as it faces on the ocean as part of that um modification the applicant is requesting an expansion of the occupancies previously approved by the board now originally they were they were um requesting expansion of the entertainment component currently the cop allows for entertainment at an ambient level so they can have a live band or a DJ um outside but never to exceed um ambient levels or a level that would interfere with normal conversation originally they wanted to expand upon that they have since withdrawn that request so this request only includes um modification of the venues just to clarify where some seating has been moved around occupant seats have moved around and they are requesting to increase the overall occupancy um now just to go through the summary of our um our staff report the notable changes start on page on page9 of the board packages that's where you can see the proposed um pool deck as well as on page 110 on expansion of an outdoor venue now as I mentioned previously the cup that was previously approved is something that we would not recommend in favor of today which does authorize um ambient outdoor music up until 3:00 a.m. M and that's how they've been operating um on page 113 of the board packages you'll see a comparison of the prior approval on the upper left and upper right the proposed the proposed venue as relates to the pool deck the applicants requesting an increase in occupancy of approximately 400 people that's part largely due to a um a solid covering which could be placed over one of the pools to for a larger dance floor to expand that occupancy so we are recommending that that not be approved without a special event permit um so we're recommending that the applicant maintain the current occupancy which is 1,590 people and only be allowed to increase up to the proposed 2,43 persons as part of a special event permit only up to um eight times per year currently um likewise the applicants requesting um modification of an outdoor venue short in the bottom of page 113 previously this this component was only indoors and had approval for indoor entertainment now they're proposing an expansion of that area with the construction of a new outdoor deck and they're requesting that that outdoor area be allowed to have entertainment um like the rest of the site we are recommending that for this this new component that um outdoor entertainment not be permitted and any indoor entertainment be limited to the indoors of the establishment so in summary um we are recommending that there be no expansion of the outdoor entertainment venues including for the pool area and for what's called as the andz lounge or venue number five except as may be permitted with a special event permit up to eight per year now we did provide in starting on page 116 of the board packages a um a red line or underlining and and striketh through of the prior um conditions of approval in any sort of um um modifications the only um disagreement or um discrepancy between what the applicants proposing what staff is recommending is the issue of the um occupancy to go above the um approximately 1600 at all times as well as to allow um outdoor entertainment even at aate level for the area they're referring to as the andz lounge I'll turn over to the applicant for their presentation good morning still um have you ever and Nick noo with the law fir of bills in sunberg 1450 Brickle Avenue here on behalf of the owner and applicant uh just I'll dive in to just to respond to Michael's presentation we are in agreement with staff's revised or modified CP we're comfortable with the occupancy remaining at the 1590 um and using special event permits to the extent that um the occupancy um exceeds uh exceeds that uh as Michael indicated um there's also a modification to the what is the onas lounge um that includes an outdoor component that wasn't previously existing um we're also comfortable with not having entertainment uses in that area so we are in agreement with staff's um report as proposed with one minor um uh request which actually has to do with a transportation related condition I'll leave that for for uh a moment it it it our request would be to allow us to work with um City uh staff city transportation staff in particular to come back after operation to review our proposed valet attendance um that will allow us to incorporate um and this board has considered that as recently as April of this year in a different application and included that as a as a modified condition that will allow us to um uh be able to uh provide data that substantiates ride share and other components that can't be uh included um until you have actual trip generations and until the property is actually operational so that would be our request I'll provide some language we've actually provided some language to staff I think they may have uh some some they may have some modifications to that language not sure um but just to dive a little bit back um this property is The Confidant historic Confidant Hotel um it's been operating as a Hyatt for some time um the Hyatt it remains as the operator but we are repositioning this hotel as an onaz which is part of the Hyatt brand it's a it's a higher end luxury component of the Hyatt brand and so we're particularly excited about this renovation which is ongoing um as staff indicated we did receive historic preservation board uh unanimous approval from that board um in 2022 which allowed us to go through the permitting process and the property is under uh under that renovation currently it's actually closed at the at the present moment allowing for those modifications um there are both interior and exterior modifications um the exterior modifications are repositioning of the pools um and the pool deck area as well as an exciting piece which there's a historic 1940s home or 1930s home I should say um that had been placed in one location on the property it's been lifted and relocated to a different place um which uh which with through consultation with the historic preservation board and and planning staff it's a much uh better suited location um for both use and enjoyment of that uh of that historic home so we're we're quite excited I'm going to go through quickly um the this is the location 4041 Collins Avenue um this is the existing cup um it's color coordinate color coordinated um you could see that these are the uh the venues the pool deck area the 1930s home is in Blue uh towards the middle um that was its prior location um then you have what is the um the two of the restaurants and then on the second floor is what is now we referred to as the andaz lounge um it's actually being repositioned to a new um uh that's the new entrance and lobby area you'll actually go up um a flight of stairs and that'll allow those uh folks as they come in to be able to enjoy the Terrace area and see views of the water as they check in this is the proposed um re uh redistribution of the of the venue spaces so we're not adding any venue spaces the venues remain the same there's five as part of the current cup there's five as part of the proposed or modified cup the occupancy as as uh Michael um alluded to uh some of the spaces actually decrease in occupancy some change slightly uh increase with uh SE counts um and we've agreed as uh as Michael indicated to um to the status quo as far as occupancy 1590 as is uh presently in the current cup you'll see the relocated in blue the relocated historic home now has a more prominent location towards the water um which really will allow you know those that walk down um this the boardwalk to be able to view it and and enjoy it this is the the Ona's Lounge component as you can see there's the in lighter shade of pink is the is the Outdoor component that we as we have agreed to not have the uh the entertainment uh component to it um we are particularly excited about um about this repositioning a significant investment has been made into into that and so um we are uh we acknowledge that Cups have have evolved over the years um but we have been a good Steward of our of our cup uh over that time we intend to remain that way we believe that the um the the andas component of this will bring an elevated um an elevated component to this area and uh and to the uses um and patrons that serve it I'm going to have now uh just go briefly Michael alluded to this this is just the the the redline version of the modified cup as you can see it the three Meal Restaurant went went down significantly occupancy um and the other venues had slight modifications um and we this is the staff's recommended modified cup not not our original proposed um number so you'll see the pool venue has an occupancy of 400 which is what the the staff felt comfortable with and and we're we're fine with that as well we'll available as a special event permits to the extent that we intend on exceeding our occupancy um the nature and operation of this hotel um is not um is not that of of of uh of you know uh an entertainment in the sense of uh DJs all the time having promotional events and things of that nature that that's not consistent with the operations of our hotel so we're comfortable with the modified cup as it is um and then I'm going to have Mal malcol go through just briefly the overall design changes because I think it's important so you can get a flavor of what the what the revised venues are and then if we can we'll go back to our our request for a slight modification to the um to the traffic uh condition to the valy attendant condition malcol good morning good morning uh Malcolm Berg president and uh design director of eoa group architecture and interior design firm in Coral Gables um so I don't think you want to delve too deep into the narrative of the project with the narrative basically started with the aquous nature of the location the fact that we are over the ocean looking at the ocean but frankly the property was devoid of any relationship to the ocean so we wanted to bring sort of an anthropomorphic somewhat uh biomorphic relationship back into the property in so doing we brought the pools much closer to the lobby and the lobby Lounge the current situation as was just mentioned as you enter the property you have no idea where you are you have a lower uh Lobby we brought that lower Lobby to the second floor which is the andas lounge um so you come in through essentially sort of a jump entry take the elevator straight up uh beautiful Grand stairs that take you up to the second floor go into the lounge check it at the lounge and that Lounge takes you directly to the outdoor Terrace that outdoor Terrace is now the covering that is currently the retractable uh roof uh at the at The Confidant so we're replacing the retractable by a solid cover that solid cover will have little pools uh that basically light up at night that are also filtering light through a skylight down to the lower level so the dining room will have an outdoor Terrace uh with skylights in it uh that act as basically imagine them as as as the water version of a fire fire pit on the second floor so also important before we even get to the graphics to note that as we're talking numbers we're not talking about one massive party space that's not what this is at all there are many discrete small portions that are kind of independent sort of tied symbiotic to each other but not uh this is not a mosh pit by any stretch of imagination all right so getting into a little bit of the concept the aquous world uh bringing uh uh the ocean into the property uh looking at the site itself um obviously Ocean on the on the right hand side you can see the the historic building um at the bottom of the picture that has been moved from where this was down to this Zone over here on the Southeast corner this upper pool is now 5T higher than the grade used to be so we've actually brought the the East pool stays at the current grade the center pool gets higher to get much closer to the level of the lobby Lounge so the andas lounge exterior Terrace is only 5T above this one so a real beautiful uh uh um moments of hierarchy as you go from the lounge itself to the Terrace to the middle interstitial pool to to the lower pool this is now uh showing sorry in the previous one down below you can see the lower restaurant to the left of the upper pool which is this one right here that is below the Terrace and this is the lower restaurant interior lower restaurant exterior as we go back to the upper level we have the andas lounge here and this is all the Terrace with the andas lounge connecting the balcony with a ballroom balcony it walks you down and at the end of that Terrace you step down to the actual pool bar that acts as the Ambassador between all the spaces just giving you a bit of lay of land the entrance this is that uh Grand stair historic stair that we are sort of repurposing putting new chandelier new materials on the wall adding an elevator at the end so very intuitive path of travel that elevator takes you right up to the andas lounge itself from this Lounge we walk straight I mean there's there's a bar at the andaz lounge as well and from there we go directly out to the Terrace The Terrace with s of the Li pad water features I'm not sure you can see them yeah um that get lit up at night but you can see there isn't a lot of room for assembly space it's really much more neutral as an extension of the uh of the lobby Lounge as we walk past uh the the lily pads we get to the end of the uh of the Terrace looking down on that interstitial pool that is now 5T higher than the greatest today and Beyond on the right hand side you start to see the uh the bar and and then you start to see the uh the uh the pool and the bar next to it and this is the lower pool so you can see the separation between the lower and the upper pool again this is not a huge party venue by any stretch of the imagination and this shows the image of the 1930s relocated home uh much more visible from the bordwalk than it was presently I think that's where we are thank you malcome I neglected to also introduce just some other members that are here David Horowitz from ownership is here as well as Adrian dski from kimly horn to address any traffic related comments that there may there may be I do have um that language that can be distributed it's consistent with an application that um that this board approved in April of this year um and it's consistent with language that's embedded within both um our traffic analysis as well as um as the the city's traffic review um so that with that we were here to answer any questions I can distribute this I will give it to Michael and he can distribute it okay thanks for the presentation uh anyone else in the chamers speak on this anyone on Zoom yes we have one caller on Zoom Daniel Caldo hi Daniel do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth all truth nothing but the truth yes thank you Daniel Calo with Miami Design preservation lead I just wanted to um highlight this project because they have gone and moved a property 1930s single family home they've elevated it to the new flood requirement and moved it on the property and if you have not seen it yet I urge you to go check it out this is an amazing example of what is possible with resiliency and when you have dedicated owners that take care of their properties and do not neglect it like way too many along the ocean so just wanted to chime in and say thank you to the owners for their restoration and renovation project good de here thank you Daniel um real quick is there any disclosures any board members have to make on this one no used to go to Bar mitzvos all the time at this property anybody else no okay um all right so we're going to close the public anyone else on Zoom there's nobody else on Zoom for their hand raised so we'll close the public hearing any questions from anybody Scott you want to start no I mean it it they you know whatever the city recommended you guys are are going along with so I mean that goes a long way with us I think um obviously you know I think I read somewhere years ago there was one minor noise violation so um I'm in favor and um and I just looked at the I guess the language you're talking about the the valet operator or the number of attendance and um yeah I know we we've done that before where we we didn't require I guess initially there's a certain amount but if you find you need fewer then we're okay with that I'm I'm in favor of of adding that as well thanks Matthew beautiful project I've stayed there pre renovation and uh beautiful then and certainly will be even nicer when it when it opens uh I do have some questions I was trying to find the TDM the transportation demand management plan in the packet and I couldn't locate it and uh so I just wanted to learn more about that this is a a you know large Hotel even larger Hospitality uh type operation with hundreds of employees thousands of guests and and and you know it's it's a part of the city where they're used to having these big type operations but it's still going to be impactful and it's not easy for a lot of these employees to get to the area so I want to learn more about how this is going to be uh controlled and mitigated please so as part of the traffic study and Adrian decowski with kimley horn offices at to Alahambra Plaza and Coral Gables um we included a whole series of uh Transportation demand management strategies that are incorporated into the traffic study they should also be um pull P into the transportation memorandum these consist of um having uh employee transportation coordinator role um that's assigned to a specific person um employee at the site to uh facilitate the entire program there's 20 short-term secure bar uh bicycle parking spaces that are provided the hotel coners will provide Transit Information including route schedule and Maps um dedicated scooter motorcycle parking within the off-site garage uh car pool incentives for employees uh subsidized Transit passes for employees uh 10 rental bikes um they will be those rental bikes will be serviced and washed on a monthly basis on the site uh car and Van pooling designated parking spaces also in that off-site garage uh lockers and for bicyclists to store and change clothes and a shower facility for bicyclists use on site so I think that's great and these are the the kind of um you know items that that can help move the needle we saw with catch they provided some great information they followed up you know after the operation was open and underway I think after this um after this this hotel and all the other Associated Hospitality venues are open whether it's it's 90 days 180 days whatever the time period is that includes the season you know I'd like to see you all back here for a progress report to talk about the transportation impacts and the uh the different strategies that have been outlined in the in the uh Transportation demand management portion of your operations I Michael can correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's already a requirement to come back at a 6mon I don't think there was especially put in because this is a modification so I do think we need to expressly include a time frame um also just to be aware now going forward in the future that the city requires on an ongoing basis an annual basis a progress report to the planning board I think at this time we we should put in a condition that says after the site is you know um up and running according to the plans approved here in you come back to the board for progress report or issues such as the um um traffic Val and TDM is um is um provided to the board and further evaluated so I'll Le up to the board what time frame you think is most appropriate to come back to the board for that progress report and then with that I have no objection to the modified condition that you that you have in here um with the understanding that we are going to have a progress report now you know maybe 90 or 120 days after um operation starts mat you have a time frame in mind for that again I I think it should it should uh it should take in account season you know the winter months here like for example we had a progress report this morning they opened in I think May and their report basically covered the slowest part of the year um so it's it's helpful but it's not the most impactful so why don't we go six months from now that it could be yeah six six when do you anticipate opening we anticipate February Okay so so we're what November December J February March April so that would be you want to do it till May I think I I'm happy to leave this leave this up to Michael and his team to figure out the appropriate time to bring it back just and that and that would be my recommendation we're we're happy to come before the board and give a progress report what we the reason the condition is drafted as it is which is also consistent with you know the the other application that came before it is to allow staff to navigate those that analysis independent of the the the board process right so it doesn't mean we wouldn't come back before the Board address any transportation related issues and also advise you of our attendant um you know capacity uh but I think allowing us to have that flexibility from an administrative level and then allowing staff to bring us back before it not making it a condition precedent I do think I do think we have to have a a date in there um to start with um so I would say I would say six months six months okay uh so not just the valet portion which is important since there since the parking is all site um but also all the the TDM strategies that you've outlined uh with respect to your employees as well I think that's important have in-depth information to provide to us on that and it take a a really great effort to to help you know help employees find the most appropriate and best way to get to the good news with this property is it's an on ongoing the the the fortunate part is this isn't a new um property right so we've been operational for many years we expect and anticipate that our employees um will come back to us many of them um dur after reopening and so there'll be that continuity of operations um and and we've been able to serve our employees and and and our patrons uh without any issues um throughout our operation to date so that that would be what we anticipate we're just trying to make sure we don't um unnecessarily burden our you know the the progress report with the the the strict compliance with the conditions that's our int and staff has said that they they are they accept that change so I'm supportive as well yeah anything else Jonathan yeah I mean to Matthew's point I mean it was really helpful for us to understand for catch this morning you know how many employees are coming from you know how many are riding a scooter how many are driving you know how many are coming from South Beach mid Beach none from mid Beach but um so that will be helpful um so just to understand because in the current I guess uh staff recommendation there's 11 morning and 37 evening Valley attendance that's that's what the traffic um analysis generates but again that's a conservative analysis you're asking for revisit that you're okay with this for now but you want to revisit it at the progress report you're going to come back and show us how you don't really need that much that many valet which is fine you know if you don't need it you don't need it and I don't think it should be in there but you're okay I'm just making sure you're okay with these new provision because in in what was passed out was I guess the old language and so I just want to make sure no the that language is not that language is not included in in the the it was using the old 13 so like for example the staff recommends like valet service shall be provided 24 hours a day seven days a week you know I assume you're okay with the rest of these yes absolutely okay yeah that it was only that specific item the item on the valley attendance that we wanted the opportunity to be able to revisit it based on an analysis okay um nothing for me other than just to confirm with staff so there's going to be no change to sound or music I think that that's all consistent that's correct was there okay Melissa just I'm just relief that you guys pull out the outdoor entertainment you just saved an hour of your your time Sor and hours thank you and hours in the future uh no I'm I'm on board on it with everything including the uh new uh Transportation suggestion I think it's beautiful it's it's absolutely stunning thank you she whispered she wants to move in there well honestly there's there's very few hotels around that that are up to standard yeah so I agree thanks to you the owner back there thank you all right someone to move it with the added condition that they'll come back what did you say six months six months after they start operations I'll move it modifying the condition right we're going to add that we're going to add what you included the top of this page Transportation condition all right so that we'll add that as well as a six Monon correct correct so Melissa moved it can I get a second all right is she'll second it you want can I do an all in favor or I need a roll all in favor okay anyone opposed all in favor I okay great thank thank you all very much very nice presentation thank you thank you uh we'll do one more then before lunch what do we have next new application planning board file 240704 1343 Alton Road for a daycare center is the applicant here on that let's see the applicant should be here um via zo are you are you on this one no no yeah the applicants um available um via Zoom oh they on Zoom okay the next item of the agenda is pb2 24- 0704 1343 Alton Road an application has been filed requesting modifications to a previously conditional use permit for the operation of a daycare center specifically the applicant is requesting to change the owner operator and update the conditions of approval pursuant to Che 2 Article 5 Section 252 of the Miami Beach resiliency code we should note that this application actually has a long history going back to 1991 and hasn't had a a change of ownership since then so over time our Cups have changed and evolved so as part of the um conditions approving the change of operator and owner we all recommending some of the conditions you know be updated so back on August 27th of 1991 the planning board granted a conditional use permit to operate a daycare facility as a subject property now at the time this property was own cd1 and not located in historic district so at that time a park an annual parking impact fee was required which was being paid now later on this site became located in the Flamingo Park historic district and because it's it's classified as contributing building in that historic district there is no parking requirement so one of the updates to the order includes removing the required M that they pay the annual fee for the parking another requirement by the planning board was that they provide um an on Street loading zone for the property now since this property was initially approved Alton Road was was redone and there's no longer any sort of loading areas or parking spaces adjacent to the property so we're just recommending that as part of this approval that the condition be updated to remove that requirement for um on on Street loading there is parking available um at the front of the site as well as um up operationally along the alley for um for loading or unloading so this this application is relatively minor just it's just before you for a change of ownership operator now just to note that this now is a non-conforming um use in the um Ro this is now R zoning District however as long as the the use is maintained and and continuously operated this use may may continue and since it has been operation for so long we don't anticipate any negative impacts from its operation we all recommending approval we have the I believe the the applicant or owner is online if you'd like to speak on the item um Lauren Pau and Lauren I'd first like to to swear you in do do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes thank you you have 10 minutes for your presentation hi yes um my is I'm the new owner of the property and so um I would just like to continue the operations on the property for a uh Child Care Center uh my vision for the property is to uh provide a Monas education for the community and just provide a higher standard of uh education in general in in the community and um I'm willing to comply with any uh request from the board thank you and there's nobody I guess we're want to take public comment down um is there anybody on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay anybody in here no okay we'll close public hearing um any questions comments no I fine with that I'd make a motion to approve okay got a second all right great all in favor I anyone opposed okay Lauren you're all good thank you thank you okay staff is hry huh is H should we do the 12 50 West now since that one went so smoothly yes yes um you want to take a lunch break now uh yes okay we'll do a 15 20 minute lunch break so let's say it's 10 to 12 1210 I got to makeone e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 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 welcome back everybody we are on to new comprehensive plan and code amendments the next item is item 12 on the agenda planning board file 24717 notice requirements for land use boards thank you and this um application of the staff report begins on page 143 of the board packages now this ordinance proposes to amend the Land Development regulations by replacing the current requir M for a 30-day published notice in a newspaper of General circulation with a 30-day online notice published on a website hosted by Miami date County this would include public hearing notices required for the city's Landy boards including Board of adjustment design review board historic reservation board and this board um the planning board um currently all required Public Notices are required to be published in the newspaper circulation and these are done in the Miami Herald and the Sunday section um previously we had two options we could provide we could do publ notice on a Thursday in the in the Miami um Herald neor in the herald neighbors or on Sunday over time the The Herald has removed that section from Thursday so now we're we're limited to providing public notice on Sunday in order to provide that notice we have to give them the um our our notice the Tuesday before the meeting so there's a there's a big time frame required for us to publish any newspaper that's any any public notice that's required this option allows us to do public publish notices online on a um County access a County website which will also be more um cost efficient compared to the current process right now applicants pay you know some over $1,000 dollar to publish their notice in The Herald and this the planning department spends tens of thousands of of dollars every year in doing publish noce is for the herald this online um process would be much more efficient we believe um um be more available to the public and um is actually a better solution compared to the current option so we are recommended planning board transmit this ordinance to the city commission with a favorable recommendation okay is there anyone in the chambers to speak on this item Daniel it could have come for the last hearings um anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay uh we'll close public hearing any questions someone want to move it one question okay there are no U limitations or restrictions as to when things can be posted meaning if I come to City staff and say I want to submit a proposal that day we can submit to the well I don't know the technicalities of the County website yet so but I'm sure it's going to be much much less restrictive compared to the The Herald notice make a motion to approve hang on a well you can make the motion but but we'll discuss right still suree um Michael the red notices that go out in front of the property that's they're not changing so we still we still do the mail notice to all Property Owners we within 3 and 75 ft we still do the site posting this would just take place of the herald notice to do it an online posting this is just replacing the The Herald Herald notice correct do do you have any sense of how many residents you know or whatever rely on those notices in the newspaper I guess the only thing I'm thinking is if there some people who religiously look at that is there any way we're reach we're contacting people to let them know about this new website I'm sure the city will be doing some Outreach um when this does go live it does go live right and and the city commission has already adopted um this rule for for for actions uh that require um newspaper notice under the city code there's going to be a ballot question on the November 5ifth ballot to address uh newspaper notices for ordinances because our Charter requires that those noticed in a newspaper um what this does is this would narrowly apply the allow uh notices of land use board applications to be to be noticed online uh instead of instead of in the newspaper all right I'll second the motion okay yeah I mean I just want to make a comment about this I completely understand the intent behind it newspaper circulations going down and there's less uh opportunities even to to publish these within the newspapers I kind of Wonder though you know what's the impact to newspapers it's you know if a press is really important to a functioning um you know a functioning democracy a functioning government a functioning um you know just general well-being of the population so this this probably will have an impact to to the Press um by reducing the amount of advertising in there so um I'll be supportive of it just for the reasons that were outlined the staff report but I think there could be unintended consequences to the press That's so important to our our region any other comments all in favor I any post that passes with a favorable recommendation 7 to zero okay number 13 planning board file 24718 underst story and height requirements in SF districts and this report begins in page um 151 on of the board packages so currently um homes that have an understory require review by the design review board now an understory is a home that's been elevated above the ground lever so you have a usable space under your first level um typically the design review board now reviews homes that include an understory or also have a design waiver and may include a variance if a application only has a variance and doesn't have an understory um that would go to the board of adjustment now when our resiliency code was first adopted um a couple years ago or first um came for review a couple years ago we had developed um um regulations with the idea that these understory homes would be reviewed administratively so the requirements are pretty strict in terms of um um the design requirements you have to have a certain percentage of opening along your along your front elevation along your side elevations we require Landscaping to bleed you know under the building so we have all these very prescriptive requirements to ensure that you don't have the solid Mass to make it look like a third story building the idea is that you have this open area um under the house to serve as um for for water retention or for for flooding so it's it's it's intended as an area that that can adapt to rising sea levels we still having your your um accessible areas um your occupiable areas um elevated now um this ordinance what we found over time is that since it does require going to the to the design board right now it does entail an extra time frame for somebody that wants to do an understory home and sort it could be a disincentive for people to do that understory home because of the extra extra time frame involved in going to the drb as well as the additional expense now the additional time frame is typically three or four months now um also people that are going to the design review board already for an understory home typically since they're already going to drb they may then also ask for a design waiver since they're already going anyway they as well ask for a design waiver so we believe by by um by by placing this back under review by the planning staff we're probably going to eliminate a lot of design waivers because people are not going to probably go to the drb just for design waiver they'll probably design their home to comply with the requirements of the understory um that require now another thing that we're doing as part of this ordinance is modifying the highight requirements when the resiliency code was adopted um it put it put in state in in place under across the board maximum height of um um 31 ft for um flat roofs and 34 ft for slope roofs regardless of the zoning District that you're located in now in practice and staff and the designer View Board has been very good ensuring that that maximum height is only appropriate to the rs1 or rs2 properties that have the largest you know um lot areas for example on um Star Island orong areas of North North Bay Road or on Pine Street Drive where we have the large Lots so um this ordinance establishes restrictions on those Heights so it's not across the board that staff can approve the higher height these higher height allowances are only allowed for the rs1 rs2 properties or RS3 properties that have a minimum lot size of 18,000 Square ft to be more consistent with the the rs2 lots for the RS4 RS4 properties they are limited to um a 4 foot increase in height at step level anything above that would be a variance so there may be circumstances where somebody wants to go higher than that um um 28 ft for a flat roof or 31 ft for a slope roof for an RS4 property but in that case they would have to make their case before the design riew board and that would be a um a variance so we believe that this ordinance will um further Foster more people to do flood resistance flood resistant or more resilient homes by um not by removing that additional step in the design review process and we believe we have sufficient staff to review these homes administratively so we are recommending that the um planning board transmit this ordinance to the city commission with a favorable recommendation I do know we have our chairperson of the drb here U Miss Sarah Giller Nelson if she would like to speak on this item hello this is exciting I've never been on this side um so yes I am Sarah Giller Nelson I am the chair of the drb I have been the chair for the past two years and three years previous I was the vice chair um I have uh very deep roots in the community in fact I was thinking about it this morning that my family has lived on Miami Beach from for almost 100 years so and I'm you got Beach High yes I did uh and I currently have two at beach high right now so we are very invested in the community and the success of the community and the longevity of the community um and I take my role um you know serving on the board like all of you do very seriously like I really feel like we're contributing um I was here today to talk about the consequences of adapting this policy removing the story review from the purview of the drb um I will say this that as you all know we are a city that loves our design we are world famous because of it we have lifeguard stands that are designed we have our signature sidewalk color that is only here in Miami Beach um I'm sure very few other cities have that if you look at our manhole covers they are also beautifully designed inspired by Art Deco architecture why is this because the residents demand it we love it this is why we come here this is why visitors come here and good design is good for business it it increases our property values it increases the demand it makes our community very very desirable I'd be willing to argue that the most beloved communities in the county Miami Shores Co um Coral Gables Miami Beach have a very rigorous design review process before building a a single family home so the design review board plays a very important role in ensuring the high quality of design in our city which is something that so many of us desire what my concern is with this the elimination of the review of the understory since a number of years ago when the state government preempted any consideration of historic conditions on single family homes that has been eliminated from our docket our docket has gotten very very very small single family homes are one of the biggest ways that we make an impact on what our community looks like and again ensure the highest of design standards that we all demand the underst story is an architectural feature that is fairly new there have been many conversations with me personally um as well as I'm sure with staff just explaining to Architects and designers especially those who are not necessarily from self Florida what this understory really is and how it functions it's still something that very much is being worked through I chuckle to myself all the time that because our design standards are so high that simply putting can I have sure a couple more minutes thank you that simply putting homes on stilts would not cut it for the Miami Beach Community it's definitely not something that any of us would want and that is why we have this sort of understory concept however it is something that often needs to be finessed what has happened to us on many occasions is that we on the drb see designs that of a home with an understory and they appear because of how it's designed like a four-story apartment building that's plopped in the middle of a single family home neighborhood which is you know one of our main purviews as well is compatibility with the neighborhood does this new structure um is it compatible with its neighbors will it enhance the neighborhood certainly plopping a building that looks like a four-story apartment building in a single family neighborhood especially with older homes that are only one story is very jarring and is not appropriate and one of the ways that the drb has been very successful in ensuring the highest standards of design in the city is working with Architects and developers to finesse the details to make it look like although this is a three-story building to make it look like a home that belongs within this community and that is really where our expert P lies that is really where a success lies the staff does a fantastic job of checking off the boxes of reviewing all of the projects of working hand inand with the applicant and then like you we get to see it once they've reviewed it and perhaps they're at an impass perhaps they've done as much as they could as much as time allows and then we a body of experts in design and architecture are able to finesse the details are able to take this under story that is not successful and able to work with the applicants to make it successful it is an essential part of the design process my concern is that by eliminating the requirement to have us done that everybody's going to lose that the quality of design in our city is going to suffer um what I'm also very um concerned about is I will also say too and I was just having this conversation I cannot tell you how often we have had comments from applic um developers Architects say to us the enhancement that you work with us to make have significantly made improved our structure so what we're doing is contributing positively to the entire process um I would say this too I hear and I understand that resiliency is a very important goal again my family and I here for the long term we want things to be resilient however and I also understand that the permitting process sometimes does take longer than people want it to what I'm urging you to consider is that eliminating the design this is part of the design purview there are other ways to speed up the process as well as to create and still maintain the high quality standards of under story structures one of the ways for instance could be I get the comment a lot that we have applicants that come before the board that just or that come to the city to get a permit that is a minor change maybe it's a different change in the window color or a railing cover and instead of going through the entire into a queue where you have people where you have the planners from the city needing to review say a five-story building if there was a separate queue for just small scale projects that would speed up the permitting process this is just one of many ideas of wanting alternative ways that we can achieve this goal of making the perming processing faster without sacrificing the design standards that we've all come to appreciate um so I just wanted to urge you to not to not recommend to the commission to remove the understory from the purview of the design review board thank you very much I'm happy answer any questions thank you Daniel well it's hard to follow Sarah Giller Nelson so but I will try my best Daniel Calo with Miami Design preservation League this is about Resident input it's about neighborhood community I grew up as many of you know on one of the islands my mom and my sister now live on them I cannot imagine a home right next to them being knocked down now under this new ordinance administratively you've got no idea what's approved got no idea what their construction plan is what's a plan for all their workers the hours you have nothing in the city's records other than an administrative approval to go by and I know several of you are in community groups and I hope that you will take this to heart because because I think it's well intended to try to streamline things but what you're really doing is REM removing entirely the design review board process I would suggest an alternative would be now that unders stories are still under drb but if you don't have an undor you don't have to go to drv make it even and so if you don't have an unders story you also go to drv because the point is having the neighbors be aware of it I can't tell you how many mansions on Star Island hibiscus Palm where the neighbors literally their only right was to go to a drb hearing we had one case where they said your window Speck home window is looking right into my master bathroom and that's something with all due respect to the staff that they're not going to notice if there's no neighborhood input so we would say to you just like she mentioned some of the Cities I don't know if she mentioned Beverly Hills Palm Beach all of the high-end cities have Architectural Review which is part of living in a high-end high value area and you want to keep that neighborhood input you don't want to silence a residence a vote for this is a vote for silencing the residents we urge you to vote no thank you thank you anybody else in Chambers anyone in Zoom no before I forget there's an applicability section that the um the commission sponsor like included to to apply for people that are in the process right now because there may be some people in the process right now before the drb that may be requesting um a higher height so we want to have the planning board include this applicability section which would say this ordinance shall not apply to Landy sport applications that have paid the initial application fee obtained a file number and presented a proposed design at a pre-application conference with planning department staff before October 29th 2024 if that would be add so yeah so recommending that if the board transmits this favorably that that um that applicability section be added to the ordinance okay all right um let's do in order Scott any questions or comments um yeah I um no I I understand that we want to streamline the process I know anytime anybody has a project here it takes a long time um and and I think anything we can do to move in that direction is is good um but I you know with this is something that because it's a relatively new um thing we may be seeing more of um I do think it should probably stay at the drb for a little while I say a little while until we get to the point where we kind of see what Architects are proposing what are some of the the drawbacks what are some of the positive things we get out of it what are some of the things that that we need to be aware of moving forward and let's say after we get um I'll just say so many of these um you know to the point where the city can say okay now I know if we were going to move to let's say a year from now or two years from now um review them administratively we know what to look for we know what types of things are going to be proposed we know maybe we can put some regulations into to um um address some of the issues that we see that we've seen coming up in the past couple of years me I'm talking like in the future um so um I just don't I think it's it's at it's a good time um point to do this now I don't know how many of these homes we've seen built in the city maybe you can let us know how many that that have been permited and built already um um I think we have probably around 40 or so 40 okay are most of them on the islands they're all over the place they're all over the place okay well let me ask you typically typically typically they started out as responses to waterfront homes and then we saw them um um more now even in interior Lots do you still see times when um something is going in front of the drb and it's like oh this is kind of new this this design is is putting something in place that's we haven't seen before and it's something I think we've seen so many so many varieties now and I do think that um that if we if we do get come to an impass with an architect where where um they're not willing to make changes that we recommend as part of as part of their design at that point we would take them to the drb so if it's a it's not just a matter that you submit your plans and um you automatically get approval it's something that staff would still look at and if the design is still a bad design we would say you don't you don't meet the um the review criteria we still can take them to the drb or make them you know make modification to their design okay so that would be administrative decision you guys make every instance just like right now if somebody comes forward you know forward with a design that doesn't with our criteria we do have the authority to say no we you have to make changes to the plan to the to the design or else make an application to the to the drb all right so then if I understand what you're saying then this would give staff the the right in any circumstance to make them go to drb well if we can't if we can't improve their design administratively their option is to make modifications to comply with our design review criteria okay or but if they did agree with staff then they could buy exactly yes okay so basically we're we're putting a lot of discretion in your hands is wait we're reviewing we're reviewing all these homes now as part of the design review board process um it would it would make things um less cumbersome to review um but it's it's something that we're still be reviewing all of these at at staff level it sounds like you're saying that if things were still going in front of the drb you if this was approved um the pro the application would come to you you'd review it you would pretty much put forth the same comment you would as it was going in front one of the Dr but would you well if they didn't agree to all of them would you automatically send it to the drb at that point say if you don't if you don't comply with our design um requirements then your options are to comply or make an application to the design re right full compliance like often times you know if someone comes for us with a blank elevation or you know um um other design elements that are out of scale or has a has a massive three-story tall front entrance ptico that's not consistent with the neighborhood those are all things that we can review and we have in the code already um design review criteria that we could use to deny something or to require design modifications so so I'm clear Michael so this does not give give any uh relief to you guys of less work it's really just for the process to be quicker for the actual yeah it's not really less work it would be a lot it would be a lot more work if we're going to do the opposite and take more homes to the drb we would have to have more staff to go to drb um but it doesn't really it's it's going to be it's going to require maybe um less staff time at the drb you know because there's there's things that can happen administratively versus going to the drb but there's still that fallback where if there's an impass between um the architect or the owner and staff they have the option to go to the drb to make an application how how many of these homes have you seen that you have had to send to the drb well now they all now they all have to go to drb we have we have we have we have had impasses in the past we have had times where we're not going to recommend in favor of the height being requested that's why we did put in sort of um limits so the staff so staff can only approve these certain height limits if they want to go higher than that now the drb can just grant them but now actually a variance before the drb for the smaller lots have you seen any designs that you just completely object to I mean to Sarah's s Sarah knows we've had there's been often design um plans where we're recommending a continuance that uh we believe that design is not is not sufficient and recommended continuance and and and that's worked better for for everyone or I think in the in the end everybody has everybody has done the modific made the modifications necessary to get their plans approved there have been limited limited circumstances where the drb has actually denied denied the plans and they have to start over again okay I think if I may um I think what the drb offers is another layer of expertise and time to have another set of Expert Eyes review the plan and make sure that not only are the design the minimum design criteria being met but that what is being put forth is the best possible solution for that property and that also that extra additional expertise and vision and contribution would be lost by taking it away the staff does what we what we often do is we'll get a design that needs some finessing and that maybe in the discussions with the staff the applicant they've reached an impass or it's still not really coming through and we give them that additional ideas Insight help to create a more successful project and so it's that additional layer which I think is key to uh from a a building that's fine to a building that's fantastic and that's something that people really appreciate and aspect of what visitors everybody would love in the community got it Mr CH for we do actually do have two other callers online now um the first is Matt amster Matt are you there check your good afternoon oh there we go go ahead Matt yeah it took a little bit to thank you good afternoon Matt amster um we uh represent uh many single family homes that do uh go before the drb and all I am here today on The Limited purpose um the applicability section that Michael Bouch mentioned to you uh a few of our clients are in that sort of in between stage so if you do go forward to recommend uh for this ordinance today we do ask that you include that applicability uh just to be clear these are homes that have underst stories we had already planned you know it takes a long time to design uh under the rules in effect today uh and so we will be going to the drb we will get their review and uh we just want to make sure that we have the opportunity to follow the same rules that are in effect right now it's just we're in the pipeline and the the change would negatively affect the projects thank you right the applicability section would be included right yes okay there yes who's next we have another caller um Glendon Hall can you hear me yep all right thank you um my name is Glennon Hall I'm president of the Pine Street Lor HOA uh we have been very disappointed that so many of our pre-1945 homes have been demolished and replaced with out of scale white boxes we are totally against any process by which this approval process would be just administratively we want to make sure it gets reviewed by drb for Community input thank you thank you that it that concludes our Zoom callers okay I mean I just I mean I'm I'm open to the idea of of either way on this I mean I came in thinking you know we want to stream on the process but you know it's it's um I mean I'd like to hear the what the rest of the board has to say on that but but one other question for staff um what was your reasoning behind um allowing the RS3 properties with a minimum lot size of 18,000 sare ft to go a little higher and not RS4 I understand those are smaller Lots but are you is there anything specific any Lots specifically that have been brought up is is that the reason that's in there so so right now the code it's this has been in place for a long time even for traditional homes in rs2 zoning District if you are if you are over a certain size um actually you can you can make an application to the to the design review board for a design waiver to ask for additional height so if that's something that the board has looked at staff has looked at in terms of the size if you're consistent with an rs1 or rs2 size lot then it may be appropriate to have the the higher height we felt that that was not appropriate to the RS4 Lots because those are really the the 6,000 foot small lots and if you put a collection of together you're still going to be neighboring small lot so we felt that in that in that circumstance if there is something really unusual about that site the applicant can still make an application for variance which is a harder standard to meet than versus just a design r view approval just then car out a curiosity what's the difference in the code uh in like minimum lot size or maximum lot size between RS3 and RS4 it's um yeah it's between 10 10,000 so just going down the line rs1 is 30,000 square ft rs2 is 18,000 sare ft RS3 is 10,000 sare ft and RS4 is 6,000 ft so that's why the 18,000 ft is in there for RS3 lots that that you be consistent with an rs2 zoning okay Matthew I want to thank Sarah and Daniel for speaking and others about this I think this is an important public process uh a piece of that process that otherwise um uh might might go way and uh you know to the point Mii Beach is a worldclass city with worldclass design standards and just another set of eyes from folks who live in the city um you know the staff do an excellent job of reviewing and offering suggestions uh but you know as someone who has has been a a uh observed the drv process it does make many of these projects better and uh I think combined with the rules about pre 1942 buildings that no longer exist um you know the the opportunity for improvement is is continuing to to go away I I support the reasoning behind um increasing the resilience of the uh the building stock in the city I'd like to know are you aware of um you know many situations where where developers or homeowners were going to do an understory and because of the drb requirement switched to a regular on grade or or amount since since we first started with the with the concept of an understory home the code has always required design review board so we never had a case where it was it was done at staff level um as a right so I think everybody understands coming into it the code require ired designer view board approval so nobody's come to us and said that um you know we're not going to do a home because we have to go to drb um but I do think that just anecdotally there may be some um some um developers that are not you know building homes for themselves just for the quickness of it to avoid a time delay or just do a house a house without an understory because you can do it in four months quicker than one that has to go to drb so what is the the the foundation situation for a home that does not have an underst story that's built in 2024 is it at grade is it elevated above the the current ground level well so you have a minimum requirement so um regardless of whatever home you're doing you have to raise your first level to BF plus one so typically that elevation with the exception of some of the islands the baseball elevation is is 8 ft so your minimum floor elevation is going to be plus 99 ft ngbd and typically the city's streets average you know in the lowest instances 2 to 3 and 1/2 ft or so on the islands or lower AR Balon Road um so you do have a um a bigger difference between your street elevation and your first habitable floor in those lower lower Ling areas and those are the areas that more traditionally um were more naturally attuned to have an understory home since you have to elevate your home so high anyway you might as well use this this understory level we are seeing now that homes that um are maybe in interior areas of the city that have already higher Street elevation they do have to elevate their High their their first floor higher to get a usable understory level and that's why we do have the higher high higher height allowance for an understory home versus a non-story home since typically you have to elevate it higher than BF plus 5 which is the the maximum elevation where you can start your height so even though for example an understory home we start at an elevation of BF plus 7 or8 we start the measurement for height at Bap plus 5 so just because you're elevating the home higher there's still a minimum point where you have to measure your height from so it doesn't it doesn't give more height because you're you're adding more to your first level there's you are capped at where you have to start your your measurement from so under story or not new homes built today are still resilient and still able to you know still have that same protection against against you know natural weather yeah you have to build to at least BF plus one but of course the higher you go the more resilient it is you know with with you know to a degree and make sure it's compatible with with the neighborhood of course you don't want to allow you know um understory homes with with a even a 15 or 20 foot we typically see an understory level that's um 8 to 10 feet for the understory and that's from the first that's from the first level of the understory to the um the the top of the first level that's habitable now also over time the city has elevated the minimum the minimum elevation for your understory um we now require that you elevate your first unoy level to the Future Crown a road and as public works over time elevates that number that that base standard keeps going up it was it was about approximately 5 and a/4 feet ngbd a few years ago now it's just over 6 feet so we're seeing that number you know gradually increase to and we see this as a um as a ongoing process these these numbers are not set in stone these numbers are going to be going up on a constant basis for the forceable future and I think that's a great reason you know why I support this process still of going to drb for the understories it's it's still an ongoing process even with a couple dozen homes being built you know the the extra public process here involved in these important single family neighborhoods something that we probably should continue Jonathan I I'm sort of torn on this um I think there needs to be much more done to streamline the the ability of residents to have um you know homes that are compatible with climate change and sea level rise and and I think it needs to be more accessible for people you know not with you know who are renovating a smaller size house you know to be able to do have equal access to this and not have to go through a really long drawn out process especially you know if if it goes back and forth it can take many months and that obviously there's a lot of money that's being wasted as that's delayed but I I totally I I hear the comments by um the the chair and um you know I personally I'd like to learn more about this process I'd like to learn sort of the average of how long it takes to go through all of these things and to maybe see some examples um you know in addition to Alternative solutions to streamline these things whether they necessarily need to go through a full um hearing or whether there's some a more informal way to have design review board members perhaps have them involved in the administrative process we we had a process um probably going back 15 20 years ago a single family residential review panel and that was very difficult to organize and operate and it just in the end it fell apart and and didn't go anywhere and that's why everything moved to the design review board we did try try that you know process previously well perhaps they didn't have a chair like they have today um so I I guess that that's I guess I'm I'm interested I don't want to push this through um and I also don't want to not do this because I think it's incredibly important I think and the commission is clearly you know indicated by sending us through you know a desire to make this process easier and I think for many this an underst story is Out Of Reach for many residents and I don't think it should be um because it's going to be it is the future it is going to be you know what what new homes I might Beach are going to be looking like and you know in the future and if we want to keep moving our city forward we have to do some things to make this process easier I'm not taking away from the process I think it's extremely important I guess I'm just wondering if there's a way to provide you know you know if there's any other alternatives to this so I I would be more in favor of and I don't know what the timing is like in terms of pushing it forward to the next committee or the ne or the next commission meeting but I would like to continue this so that we can explore some Alternatives alternatives to this and you know I'd like to the opportunity to meet with the design review board to get a better sense I you know I really admittedly I don't have understanding of we can provide you if you if the board wants to continue this we can provide you with more backup information including designs of understory homes that have been improved and um are in the process of being constructed I'd like that I'd also I also didn't understand so the the current applications that we heard the gentleman say that they would be you know it would be detrimental for them to be included in this explain that oh you're talking about for the applicability well Matt amster so this particular instance um so the properties he's referring to are zoned RS4 so right now the deer the deerb can grant up to a height of 31 fet for a flat roof and 34 ft for a slope RP however it's unlikely the Deb would grant that height for an RS4 property and we wouldn't we would not recommend in favor of that but this applicability allows them to go to the drb and they can just ask this height as part of their design review board application although we have told them we're not going to be supportive of this height but does allow them to go to the drb without asking for a variance if they were to fall under the current or under the proposed legislation they would have to go to Deb and ask for variance because they're asking for more than a 3 ft in height so this just allows them to go to Deb the current process without a variance although they understand it's not likely or may not be likely that the drb May um Grant approval otherwise he would probably be in favor of this I'm sure he's in he's in favor of the the other aspect going forward right right okay so would the board like to continue this till the November meeting well let's see if Melissa I have a few questions sorry sorry skipped you every time I'm kidding um like what Jonathan said just to Echo that sentiment I'm definitely torn um overall significantly more in favor of streamlining the processes in the city but my concern is If This Were to pass the favorable recommendation at what point in the process do the neighbors you know on the adjacent properties have a chance to come and voice their concerns I mean you might be dealing with people who you know can't afford to redo their homes but they've been there for 50 60 70 years whatever it is and all of a sudden you have someone coming in building something that's 30 high and they can't come in to say you know you're you're ruining my property or whatever it might be so we do have a requirement that we do post the site oh so I see I see that before but they'd have to rely on staff correct there's no just like Noti there's no it doesn't the the the planning department is not going to make a change based upon a neighbor coming in to look at a set of plans this just this just notifies the neighbors that an application has been submitted and they're able to come in and review the plans that have been submitted but right but that doesn't give them a chance to to come in and say I'm Mr so and so and and again this is how it's going to impact me we can't we can't do that outside of a public hearing process we can't negotiate like that with with neighbors right so his question is what what rights they have they really they have the right to transparency from us and and we have the right to we have to notice them some other there has to be a different way look I mean I'm in favor of streamlining like y'all are I just think that that there has to be a a better way to notice the public because um I mean putting it in a like we do the special magistrate you know that could be an idea I mean I think it requires a little bit not noticing it's participation just yeah but you have to notice somebody so that they can participate you're going to notice in regardless placing but placing a sign on the property isn't I don't feel like that's you know it's like going up no I understand what you're saying but the point of the order ordinance is I don't think it's really about notice it's about participation yeah there there's a notice provision but there's no participation provision but to actually be able to participate you have to have a different form of notice like for instance nobody would know at 7410 on Harding that there's a a live work in I mean live local issue would notice how it's it's small it's a 70 it's it's 8 and a half by 14 just a small it's eight and a half would it be possible would it be possible and this is a question for staff would it be possible to I'd say you know either pass this with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation but if it's with a favorable recommendation to say okay you know we or let's say unfavorable where we want it to stay with the drb but we want the drb to have a more streamlined process meaning the drb is no longer able to I I don't know suggest substantive changes that requires them coming back it's maybe that also makes it more complicated too so I think once you put more um kinks in the wheels here it's it just may make things more complicated to then start another process that's outside of what's already been established so I think that the commission sponsor would actually like like a decision a recommendation today whether it's favorable or unfavorable I think if you want to recommend either way you could also recommend additional changes being incorporated as part of your recommendation I'm asking staff what that would be meaning as it is right now just from what I'm hearing I would vote to to have I would I would vote uh to recommend an unfavorable recommendation but having said that I understand there's an issue with streamlining you know applications in the city so I'd say unfavorable but City staff how can we possibly streamline single family homes coming through the drb for Vi you can't there's a whole process for drb so you there's no I don't see how you can streamline homes as part of the drb process there's already that process in place there's a noticing requirement in place we have to send well we probably save some time now with our our notice requirements changes so rather than having to publish you know 38 days before the meeting we can publish sooner so we can probably modify our deadlines a little bit based upon that but we can't have I think a SE a separate process outside of the design of View Board process to complicate matters further can we limit the scope of what the drb is able to opine on I mean is that possible meaning I don't know what the technical language is right now but the drb is able to review and approve XYZ and a single family story home so instead of saying that they're able to review ABC DFG it's ABC or whatever it is it's all under their purview now um I understand so I'm saying maybe we can limit it but there's still that that opportunity for public input and opinion so what is it what about adding a is just an idea of you know having a this this process as outlined in in the proposed ordinance but adding something adding a proposal that a neighbor you know and maybe even beefing up the notice provision Elizabeth so but adding a provision that somebody a member of the public or a neighbor can flag it or pull it from the automatic process to go before the drb so that if there is somebody who wants to be able to say that window is looking right into my you know my window that that's something that can be worked out either either before it gets to the D RB or at the drb if it can't be worked out but I guess my point being is providing an extra buffer so that if there just so that there's not you know but at that at that point you're going to be delay things even further Because by the time you get to that that public notice the applicant has done their permit drawings and then they would have to then go to drb that could then require further changes so that process would probably double the time frame I I think we're trying to make it too complicated so here's the question I just just a comment but I just think we're making it too complicated I I I I think we all agreed it's it's a great thing to find ways to streamline it and make the process quicker I think it's great we're dealing with resiliency issues um but at this point the debate is is you know does this play an important role and before we these projects are approv and it does and I think you know we just spent you know an hour discussing a grocery store on on Washington and how it impacts the whole neighborhood every house that gets designed is a semi-permanent building and it does have a huge impact and there's other ways we can find to streamline with it but if we're adding all these kind of details and curves and we just make it Complicated by changing the process for the residents and I'm not sure it's serving any purpose I think we got a process that works what we're trying to save is is time and this is not seeming like the right way to save time another thing that could be you know just thrown out there is right now we have a 30-day notice requirement for all drb applications one thing that we um looked at in the past was a a a reduced um notice requirement for certain types of applications that's something that could thrown out there or maybe it's part of your recommendation for the commission to look at as part of as part of um so to to Jonathan's point so you can't think of anything so Tak the other side if we pass it on favorably any suggestions that can that that can minimize their concern can I I think that it's part of like we just talked about today the notice requirements changes once if the city takes over this this um publication has had more has more control over it then it's easier for us to know no something for two weeks and and 30 days versus having to send a separate a separate Herald ad for two drb meetings if it's if it's more done in-house that's something that I think would lessen the time frame for review but still requireed drb but you're still that you're you're saving you know two or three weeks versus still having you know months to go if I could also add a little bit of information about the drb the HPB these are just one step in the permanent process and part of my point was that I too would like things to be sped up and but maybe looking at other parts of the permitting process to look for efficiencies as opposed to eliminating the review by these boards that do contribute very positively so that's that's the drb is not the only thing being put in front of people before they get a permit there's a lot that happens before and after before construction actually begins so so I I would make a motion to before before we do that actually the commission sponsor would like to come and just speak on the item um if he's going to be in person or via Zoom so we can just I think I think he's going to be uh dialing in Via Zoom um hello CH Suarez hi can everyone hear me okay yes hi okay I i' just like to mentioned the reason I'm putting this forward is because we have unprecedented flood levels from these uh from our storms that we've had these 100e storms back to back in in Miami Beach uh you know the fact that we're not able to use this as a right okay is it really puts a danger to single family homes in Miami Beach you know I I think when you build a a mound uh and put a house on it what does that do if your neighbor doesn't have hasn't elevated to the proper standard it it's going to flood their homes and that's why a lot over the last couple years especially since I've gone door too for thousands of single family homes they said you know flooding here has been so bad ever since my neighbors built this house and and those houses don't have an underst storing so you know look we have to plan for the future you know I I have children I want them to live in Miami Beach and I don't want them getting flooded and uh I think the previous guest that spoke mentioned something about the permitting process this is one of the biggest H uh hurdles in in the permitting process uh for single family homes and you know we don't have the luxury of of waiting anymore with with with client change and sea level rise particularly in Miami Beach so I just wanted to explain my position on this I think it's you know it's about time uh we're hurricanes are only getting worse year after year uh so I I I uh I want to thank everyone for taking the time and and listening to me thank you commissioner I I mean I think it's a great initiative to be thinking of ways encouraging people to be developing their houses and making them more resilient but um I got to say when you're taking on a new project of building a house that's going to be a three-year project adding on it three extra months is not what's going to make it a you know do or die of this this this design you either like the design and you're going to go in that direction or you don't um like I said the problem is is three months here and then 3 months on the next per and 3 months on the next thing those add up but I don't think that this is necessarily a game changer where people will pull away from a certain design based on a delay of 3 months I I personally would make a motion to continue this um I know that the commission wants an answer but um I think it we owe it to the process to understand what alternatives are if if we just vote this down now I would second that what I would second that well you're saying if we vot staff I mean it's well intentioned but the question is is there really any Middle Ground I mean I I don't see where there's a middle ground what what more are we looking for we I think either has to be favorable UNF I don't see where there's I'd like to know I mean how Ser I mean I understand you're saying it's a three-month process I mean I don't is it actually a three-month process how much does it cost do you have to hire lawyers is that like a $50,000 thing is it a $20,000 thing I mean it's a you know you know having a sense of what what this really what kind of Burden this really is I mean I don't know anybody who has an understory home I'm sure I will in the next 10 years but you know I just I'm trying to understand really is this is this a problem that we need a solution for really or is it or maybe not I don't know I mean underst story homes themselves they are more expensive and typically applicants to this to the drb do hire an attorney than I'm required to um some people that are um you know um knowledgeable of the application process or homeowners have handled it themselves um but generally of course it is more expensive and and the base fee because we charge um the a base fee for the application plus per square footage so the typical application to the deerb is going to be $10 to 122,000 or up to maybe $820,000 depending on the size of the home and of course it's not really a cost concern if you're on snar island but smaller homes you know we are seeing more of these understory homes on smaller Lots so that would become a larger percentage of cost you know for those small properties so so I I understand the the concern with the cost there and that especially for the smaller smaller homes isn't that something that could be tackled on a separate um you know a separate policy decision if that is a cost cost issue well it's also a matter of twoo of like all these all these homes require staff review over multiple processes so it's a matter of who's going to subsidize the review who's somebody has to pay for these applications so if the applicant himself is not paying for it then the rest of the city is paying for the application and who's subsidizing it it's not like this is typically each of these homes we have at least one or two pre-application meetings with the applicant and then we have at least two submissions that are reviewed before we actually have to then review and prepare staff report so there is lots of Staff time involved in the preparation before you know going to the be but this all wouldn't be eliminated would it if you were reviewing administra be done as part of the it' be the few would be eliminated it'd be as part of the it be done as part of our um building permit review process now it would require more staff time at the building permit process because right now it's front loaded basically if we have a home that's gone to drb it's been evaluated by staff for zoning design so when it comes for building permit that's a quicker building permit review generally compared to a home that did not go through that process so so again I'm going to ask you all the staff I mean is what if we continue it what benefit is that I I think no benefit except to provide more information but I don't see I don't see um I think I think we're wasting time doing that the land use the land use and sustainability board um they recommended it with a favorable Rec recommendation did they consider all these things that we were talking about yeah they yeah they recommended the board transmit this with a positive recommendation they did recommend in favor and a big part of that discussion was that if you don't seek um an under story now um that you're still required to raise a home to to minimum blood elevation so that often requires bringing in a lot of fill and and and building a home on on a burm which I think is what what the what the sponsor um addressed during his comments it was a big topic of concern for the land use committee but the land use committee also discussed issues of of um of notice which are you know a couple of the board members have raised today I mean at the end of the day I I think you should view this as as as one or the other it's either these are going to be approved administratively or they're going to require drb review I don't think there's there's a third option what a height sorry what's the difference in height between a home with an understory versus a standard home that could be built without an understory it could be up to three feet taller 3 to four feet taller and that and that's and that and the purpose of that is for the understory so it's not it's not to gain more additional height in the Living Spaces it's to gain uh usable understory level you know initially back when we first had understory homes we had a height limit of um 7 and 1/2 ft for an understory level that really is not a nice usable space for understory so that's part of the reason why we did raise the height to have a more usable understory level not just a a dark area underneath the house I guess excuse me one second I'm I'm being is there someone on Zoom I'm being told that someone's trying to get on Zoom in sorry we have two callers now on Zoom if you want to if you want to one second if you want to take them up um please Deborah castanada yes hi how are you how are you all thank you very much for this opportunity I'm very grateful uh for giving my opinion and I live in the Florida billing I believe these Charming neighborhoods has a potential for elevation and refinement benefits benef us all as a residents with a too sophistication it is time for Miami beach to theart from the outage 70s and 80s 80s um Aesthetics and embrace a more exclusive atmospheres while is is we can continue still iconic charms yeah m excuse me one second Deborah which item are you talking about I don't know if you're on the which one yes no I'm talking about the project that we were talking about what you mean is it one 12 uh 12 no that's that's next I'm sorry I didn't think you were on the right one that's if you could call back in yeah that'll be the next item taken up okay I'm so sorry yeah this call back on the next item thank you so we do have somebody um named um Fred who Fred Fred Fred you there FR check your mute button yeah can you hear me now we can sorry if you could introduce yourself please hi Fred Carlton how are you we can hear you thank you okay great yeah listen I um uh have had some experience with this underst story uh you know the understory as you guys know was uh originally suggested by the commit and staff uh in order to uh you know combat uh Glo you know uh climate change and to leave it in the hands of drb uh first of all makes it very confusing and Fred even get it hey Fred Fred we lost you after you said it's confusing in drb so we lost you so if you could keep going from there um hear me again now we can hear you go ahead okay so um yeah you know to to go to drb for something that the staff and commission uh you know uh were The Originators of I think is really an Overkill uh it takes four months to get into drb and if you go into drb and they deny it and it's going to have to go back to staff and then staff will have to send it back to drb you know you're delaying people by by potentially you know 4 to8 months in the meantime they have carry costs they have insurance costs they have taxes that they have to deal with you know if we're if we truly are about you know trying to create resiliency then you know this was already put on the table I I just don't see why drb needs to get involved in this they they originally were not involved in it and for some reason it got pushed off to them and I've spoken to some of the people on drb and they don't even want it some of them you know uh I'm sorry I'm going to single out Miss Geller but when Miss Geller talks about you know well you'll be taking away some of the power of the board you know this is not about power this is about how to serve the citizens of Miami Beach and how to make things easier you know we the building department is upside down uh you know admittedly so there are many other departments that are upside down admittedly so you know this isn't about power you know we have to be able to move the process along and you know we've become the city of no and you know you look at other cities that have much better processes they don't do this kind of stuff you know this is tens and tens and tens and tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars that were causing people okay because of because of all these delays so I would really urge you to vote to send this back to a staff level and take this around D away from drb because drb's got plenty other things to do okay thanks for appreciate it anybody else all right closing it Tom good afternoon um I was following the the discussion and I just wanted to to come up here and say a few things because I know that you guys are are struggling with this and it's it is a difficult item um historically and I think Michael went over this um the under story homes have always been reviewed by the drb and one of the things that our consultant recommended when they were drafting the resiliency code in 2022 and staff recommended to the Commission in 2022 was that the review of under story not be man mandated for drb review and the reason that both our consultant recommended that and staff recommended that when the resiliency code was proposed in 2022 and 2023 is that in our experience particularly on a coastal city like Miami Beach under story homes are a far superior new building typology um even though homes that are non understory are more significantly elevated that's not the most resilient way to do a new single family home and so we've seen outstanding examples of un understory homes that are actually um not just more contextually compatible but also provide a much better alternative for neighbors that are currently lower but at some point in time will likely either have to raise the home or build a new home um the other thing I want to mention is that I I don't think it was staff's intent or the land use committee's intent to Discount the role of the drb they've always played a very very important role in design and development in the city and in terms of commercial and multif family development they will continue to do so and if homeowners want to seek a waiver from the drv they certainly would be able be able to Avail themselves of this but just like we had recommended in 2022 the primary reason for recommending that um drb review not be mandatory for understories to encourage this type of typology because of the length of the process and the time involved with going to drb we have had instances where homeowners have just decided I'm going to go with the other options so I don't have to go to drb and so I wanted to bring that to your attention the sponsor did indicate that um regardless of your recommendation he would like this transmitted to the commission because he'd like to get this before the commission um for their consideration in November thanks Tom all right well we've two choices let me ask a question U Michael um you for the design of new um understory buildings the city has guidelines or are they are they um what's the word I'm looking for regulations you look on page um 158 of the board packages you see a whole whole host of understory requirements and understory standards in the in the um you said about we've seen about 40 of them in the city I think one of the first ones now that I think about it was right up the road here on Meridian just north of Day Boulevard I remember right I think I think that was something that was approved before we had the underst story standards in place um I I guess the the the um thing I'm still debating um is and you mentioned Also earlier that we're seeing more of these now on smaller Lots on the the interior Lots not so much on the islands or on the on the larger lots and that was my you know that kind of I I would say we not we're not seeing fewer on the larger Lots or fewer on the islands interior Lots we we didn't see these homes on interior Lots because they were actually penalized by height um once the resiliency code was adopted to remove that that penalty now we are seeing um more homes on these interior Lots um yeah I'm just I'm I'm still torn with it because um you know I still believe that on these interior Lots it's a it's a relatively newer type of of um just just just add one one point two that the standards I mentioned those were those were originally written with the idea of Staff review if we had originally thought that all these underst hes were going to go to drb we would not have been so strict with the standards we' have been more open with the standards cuz it is it is a tedious process now reviewing with the drb it's just um because it's very prescri it's very prescriptive if you don't comply with this requirement then you have to ask for variance or or do something else so we do believe that we do have very strict standards in here that would apply now for um staff level review and um it's not something that's just you know arbitrary or um undefined Michael question is there any um way you can think of that if we were to because I am torn but I I'm leaning in favor of it to defer to staff and and your recommendation but to add a a thought of somehow getting neighbor participation if required like they could come you you can provide your recommendation and then add that as a um another note like some methodology where an affected neighbor could come meet with you all why I don't know we're not we're we're not going to be able to um make changes to the the plans based upon meeting with a neighbor I don't know Tom if you want to provide yeah the one thing I would mention Mr chair is that in the draft ordinance there's actually at the direction of the luse committee a posting provision was provided where these types of homes would be posted so a neighbor would know that this type of home would be constructed but Michael's correct right but then they would have no like no because otherwise then they process okay what about I not detail but could couldn't they modify meaning we're not looking looking St recommendation the say again my my master bedroom is here and this window is looking in the thought behind the posting was that the posting would be required before the building permit is issued and that way if a neighbor saw it and had a concern they could reach out to their new neighbor and say hey I've got this concern and then they could try to work that out certainly if they wanted to advise of their concerns with staff we could take that into consideration we couldn't veto it or require that they make changes that are contradictory to the code right but it is something that can be taken into consideration all right but if they don't fully agree with all of your recommend they can you can refer them to drb mandatorily yes they don't we all know the facts so we just have to vote let me just mention one more thing and this is um because if this passes your workload would go way down long that maybe add something maybe the PO no I don't think that's correct their workload won't go down they're still reviewing every well I as far as preparing for the board meetings um okay and and anything maybe that is after that but what if in those postings it and this you know tell me how you feel but in those postings it said on just like a board meeting on this day in time or you know a uh maybe the afternoon three-hour time frame or something any affected party can come into the off planning Staff office um review the plans make comments to staff and you know address any concerns they have I I think we wouldn't be able to do that um all right guys we Tom last thing then we got to vote just in response that Mr needman certainly if somebody wanted to come in and review those plans and make an appointment with staff they could do that it's probably better just to let them make an appointment as opposed to create a specific time frame a lot of people see those postings and they just don't know that they I don't know it says in there but maybe it needs to be more explicit if you want to review you certainly recommend that the posting include language specific to a place where um an affected person can come review the plans or maybe it's probably going to be something that's going to be through the building department and maybe posted online because it's going to it's not going to be plans that we have if it's going to be in for permanent it's going to be something that the building anything to make it clear to a you know join property or anyone interested there's an opportunity for you to make an appointment and go see the plans and address any concern concerns that you have yes all right we're going we're like to make a motion to please move favorably to the commission with any suggestion um I'm fine with with everything that's in here I mean they've obviously done their due diligence okay we have a motion have a second no second can I second I'll second it we'll get a vote okay I'll do a roll call for this so this is a um would be for a favorable recommendation to the city commission as drafted uh Mr freden yes Miss Bey no Mr cement no Mr ganof no Mr needleman I'm going to vote Yes just because um I I think streamlining the process goes goes is is important now a roll call is just yes or no Mr Elias yes and Miss lone yes so that passes a 4 to3 with a favorable recommendation okay we're on now to for I believe 14 and 15 are companion items planning board 2473 and planning word 24698 uh West Avenue Alton Beach Bayfront overlay district and development regulations so we're going to take the next two items together and this uh staff report for us begins on page 161 of the board packages now just for an overview of the process because this it does include an F increase they would have to go through the same six-step process that we mentioned earlier that the Washington Avenue um incentives are going through this is the the first step in the in the process after this meeting there will be a community outreach meeting followed by a second planning board meeting then a city commission review another community outreach meeting and then ultimately a final adoption hearing if that's the case before the city commission so this proposal includes um a new Alton Beach overfund overlay District which would amend the rm3 development regulations um specifically to the property located at 112 I'm sorry sorry 1250 West Avenue this would include the construction of luxury hous residential units this includes an increase in the maximum F or floor area ratio from 2.75 up to 8.53 as well as a building height increase from 150 ft to 435 ft the applicant is also proposing to modify certain setback requirements these modifications are listed on page 165 and 166 of the board packages this includes a a chart showing what's required what's proposed and the difference compared to um what the code requirements are right now on page 166 we provided a summary of the applicants proposed F and hyp bonuses this includes as proposed an F bonus of 1.0 for not exceeding a density of 55 Apartments per acre uh F bonus of 0.5 for executing a covenant prohibiting short-term rental and perpetuity on the property an F bonus of 1.25 for the design and construction of a Baywalk extension at the Bay View terorist condo an F bonus of 1.0 for obtaining a building permit within 5 years an F bonus of 1.25 for redeveloping the property on the east side of West Avenue with a public parking garage and a building height bonus of 285 ft above the current maximum height of 150 ft for a project that implements all the above bonuses allowing for for a maximum height of 435 ft The Proposal also includes an additional 10% F bonus via the transfer development rights potentially resulting in a maximum F of 8.53 now we noted in a report this this would be a um increase from the maximum size currently allowed of 228,000 square ft the applicant did provide an infrastructure analysis and Ming studies as part of their application now we also noted that the applicant did reference the um the nearby um Waverly condo as a comparison site so for that reason we did provide a um comparison of this proposal with the Waverly site and this comparison can be found on page 167 of the board packages and just some things to note the um the Waverly site has a height ranging from 279 ft to 334 ft versus The applicant's Proposal of 435 ft the F for the Waverly site is 4.2 versus what's proposed of 8.53 um notably as well the tower setbacks um for the Waverly site as well as what the code requires the Waverly and the code require at least 50 ft and the applicant is providing a tower setback of 26 ft on the North and South Side we also noted that the um the Waverly has a frontage or a width of their Tower the range is to 60 ft to 90 ft versus 180 ft proposed 148 ft proposed for the development site now we did note in our report that while we do believe that certain bonuses as profited by the applicant may be appropriate we do believe that collectively they result in an oversell project that is hostile to its surroundings we believe any bonuses should be commensurate with the actual benefit and should not result in a project that creates an imbalance with the surrounding context in terms in terms of scale mass and Building height we did provide some recommendations in our report in terms of um the bonuses while recommending no change to the um required setbacks um because the um we we're not supportive of the tower width of 148 ft so we do believe that the existing setbacks which would allow a um a width of 100t or more appropriate especially at the height that's being contemplated we're all recommending that there be no bonus for um um the reduced the reduced density and also no bonus for obtaining a building permit within five years typically projects that receive approval from a drb or planning board um get the building permit within 18 months we do believe that 5 years is excessive and is not warrant a bonus we believe that a bonus for restrictive short-term rentals should be limited to 0.5 that maybe commensurate with other pending proposals in the city um we do believe the bonus for Development and Construction of the Baywalk should be limited to 0.5 and we believe that the bonus for replacing existing Transit uses on the east side of West Avenue with the public parking structure should be limited to no more than um 1.5 and that the additional 10% 10% F bonus um also not be included or be eliminated we're also recommending that the proposed height bonus should be limited to no more than 150 ft so in summary we're recommending that the bonus does not exceed 2.5 and that the maximum Building height does not exceeded a total height of 300 feet with no no modification to the setback requirements after the applicants presentation we asked the board to provide commment and feedback and continue both these or um both the um the ordinance related to the comprehensive plan and the ldr amendments to a date certain of January to allow us to time time to have the the first public Outreach meeting before the January meeting that'll turn over to uh Mr Lin for the applicant's presentation uh thank you Michael can the presentation be pulled up and Michael do you see Michael Stern's hand being raised I think he's probably under Ms yeah that would be like that would be likely would you be able to promote him I don't know what the would I think he he has his hand raised when when it's time for him to speak um he can speak just within a minute it'll be time so if you want to go ahead and promote him it would be good so good afternoon uh Mr chairman board staff Michael Lin T sou King Boulevard oh before you start this doesn't require disclosures right that's correct this is a a because I think a lot of us may have met okay go ahead sorry Michael no problem no problem here today representing the applicant with me today is Kobe karp our architect of record my colleague Nicholas Rodriguez Adrien debowski from kimley horn Michael Stern is in Germany right now but he is one very much to participate so you'll be hearing his voice uh very soon so we're excited to participate in this process um it's a very long process as I'll describe to you all later it starts now it culminates with a second reading at City Commission in April we do think that this Tower is appropriate uh for this neighborhood it's in contextual and we think that the public benefit package that we are offering to improve this Corridor is commerate with what we are requesting so what I'd like to do is turn it over now to Michael um probably go through next slide so just before I do the zoning is rm3 for this section of West Avenue that's Bayfront on the west side of West Avenue uh when you get past the flamingo it reverts to rm2 but on this particular section of the corridor it's rm3 all the way down to about Bentley Bay where it again transitions to a CPS Zone next slide and this is the extent of the Alton Beach overlay originally we wanted to confine it to the boundaries of our property staff had suggested well if you're going to be pursuing a Redevelopment of the bikini hosel property include that so we did but just as an early note we have no interest in the floor area from the bikini hosel property that can remain there and have it benefit the city when we donate that property to the city next slide so this is we're going to have Michael Stern uh is he promoted already Michael yes Michael are you there yes can you hear me yes very well go ahead Michael okay great um so I'd like to uh sorry is there a way that I can see the slides while I'm speaking um I don't think so I don't he swipes over to the screen share part I think you probably can if you dialed in Via Zoom you just have to swipe over the screen you can see the screen share Oh you mean just yeah Michael yeah if you if you swipe over one screen do you see it the screen share I think I have it now yes okay okay ready still got so thank you good afternoon everybody uh appreciate uh the time and I'd like to introduce myself first my name is Michael Stern I'm the CEO of JDS development um and I'd like to just start by introducing the team so um for myself for JDS my partner uh GV development um all of us live on Miami Beach first of all and we care very deeply about the imprint that we leave on the city I'd like to start with just a quick case study of another property we developed directly adjacent um to this site monad Terrace which is directly adjacent to 1250 West Avenue um just to remind everybody who's not familiar with it it was originally a little street culdesac that had a number of older homes Bungalows on them um they weren't in great condition um we had a complicated assemblage to assemble the entire block uh closed the street there were a lot of uh legal issues and infrastructure issues to deal with to get this property uh veloped um Nick if you can go to the next slide um so this is what it looked like before um with 1250 West the property we're talking about now kind of in the background on the left in the these images um and if you go to the next slide um we took a lot of care to make sure that we developed a property that was very respectful to the neighborhood very respectful to the in the way that it greets the street if you look at that image on the right um we at Great expense buried the parking in a very resilient way this is one of the most resilient buildings um built in Miami Beach it was actually built to what is hopefully going to be the new West Avenue street elevation at some point um but we wanted to make sure that we didn't have a big parking Podium that greets the street in an unfriendly way so we buried the parking created a very Lush landscape uh both in front of the building we also care about how the building um will not just impact the residents that live in it but also all the residents that kind of live with it every day so we did a very Dynamic facade that is very attractive over time um and we think we think we did a a really nice job of integrating a building with a challenging site um into the landscape of the neighborhood um we think that it's elevated both the architectural Integrity of the carer and uh the values along the carer not just for this building uh and its residents but also all the buildings around it seen a lot of appreciation um since this building has been built um but the point is um we're not here to to damage neighborhoods we we're in we're here to enhance them and build um very um respectful and contextual buildings um that Embrace their surroundings let's go to the next slide so now we come to the property we're here to talk about today 1250 West Avenue um this building has 238 existing units um it was built uh in a different era no balconies I believe it was originally built as a health care facility um it is in very bad condition it's got a mold problem it's got rotted pipes it's got a rotting Foundation um the building is is utterly Obsolete and is time to go and the question is what is the right approach to developing this very important site and uh I'd like to run you through our proposal and why we think it's best so there's two paths there's the asof right development under the current zoning and what we think is a superior Urban Design approach which is our proposed Redevelopment and I'd like to run you through those two different scenarios and explain why uh we think what we're proposing is appropriate and a better uh plan so this is a massing um of basically the as of right zoning um the zoning requires sort of a squat and short bulky arrangement in order to all of the floor area it provides very limited opportunities for architectural expression um it tends to to lead to a short squat building that creates bad Shadow impact on its neighbors um it also does happen along the cter to allow short-term rentals which we don't think is the best idea if we can go to the next slide and what we are proposing is a building that is a lot less dense we would limit ourselves to about a 100 units only so the commensurate traffic impacts and Sewer impacts would actually be a lot lower and those impacts we think are a lot more important than height we would commit to doing relatively large units which would discourage short-term rentals we'd actually prohibit them outright but the key is we would create a very compact Tower footprint that would actually create a lot less Shadow for a longer period of time on the neighbors we would also very strategically place the tower to minimize impacts to both monad Terrace on one side and 1228 West to the other we would also create a much bigger Street and Waterfront setback to preserve views for all of the other buildings around it let's go to the next slide um so these are some aerial shots that just demonstrate the difference between what the AZ of right zoning would typically call for and what we are proposing um so this is the building footprint in the asz ofite pedestal which is up to 50 fet in height um you can see that the street setback is relatively minimal at 20 ft the Waterfront setback at 42 we can go to the next next slide and this is our proposed pedestal which would be tiered in height so it would Cascade down towards both the water and the street the dark gray that you're seeing here is the only 50ft portion the other sections would tier down tier one at 16 feet and tier two at 19 ft um we would also have significantly greater front and rear setbacks to that 50ft section so in the Practical world the real world it's a much less impactful podium in the as of right condition let's go to the next slide and this is the tower footprint that is allowable as of right above 50 feet um so you'll see that there's roughly a 50ft front setback a 63t rear setback but the set Pack's not that dramatically different from the pedestal it creates as I said a pretty squat uninteresting short building and what it does is it creates a 318t long wall 150 ft tall directly against its neighbor monad Terrace and the other neighbor 1228 which would perpetually cast those buildings in Shadow not a great condition if you go to the next slide and then really the Crux of of our argument is we are proposing a much more compact Tower footprint much more elegant in its proportions 40t Waterfront setback almost 200 ft setback from the street and a wall length against our neighbors of only4 ft and that's really what matters in terms of real world impact that and the density to the neighbors I think once the building is going to at least match its height that the length of that wall becomes more important in Practical impact to the neighbors the building will not overwhelm the street between the tiered pedestal and being set back as far as it is and it preserves View use to its neighbors including the Waverly by being significantly set back from the water for the tower portion and I'd love to run you through some slides to show some of those real world impacts so this is looking at the building from West Avenue in front of 1228 this is an as of right massing with a pedestal and a PO and a tower above that at 150 ft if you go to the next slide and that's our Tower massing with that cascading tiered Podium and a much more elegant slender Tower uh floor plate let's go to the next slide this is actually From A Balcony at a West Avenue facing monad unit this is the real world impact on the street side um of that as of right condition if we go to the next slide and this is the proposed condition with that steep pedestal and the further uh setback of the Tower from the street by placing a smaller more compact Tower in the middle of the block the real world impacts are actually a lot less to both the Street and the two neighbors we go to the next slide we have a straight on view so this is straight on um from West Avenue looking at the building and what we are proposing sliding the tower Mass back and stepping the pedestal and creating a much more elegant condition and it does have we do we are asking for some side setback variances but there is a greater side setback to the as of right condition um given that it's a a variable based on height so we are asking for some setback uh relief on the sides but it's still a greater setback condition than the AZ ofite on the sides let's go to the next slide and this is a a shot of the building in context um it is taller than the Waverly but it will not be visually jarring It generally fits in context with both the neighborhood and the Waverly and some of the other neighbors um it is a much more interesting and better Skyline to have some variety with some architectural interest than to have kind of a I don't know Michael do we lose you it's okay it's time for me to take back over the presentation anyways so this is a view of bang Bay looking back toward the East toward the beach you'll see that there are different buildings at different heights throughout this whole Corridor you know going to Flamingo on the North the Waverly then AR poos project in red then you have the Floridian down south the icon you need uh a cityscape that is varied if you just have the same monotonous cityscape it'd be like con like condo Canyon and Collins in the 50s a bunch of fine people live there many of my clients live there but still you have replicated one after the other these short squat buildings with a possible extion of the bath club and Charlie seagar like lime green 6,000 Indian Creek which is in interesting but beyond that it's a replication of the same building typology which is monotonous so I think in any cityscape it would be better for a city to encourage buildings of different heights like is along the west Avenue Corridor next slide this is just a view of looking back toward downtown toward the Port of Miami um looking toward the southwest corner of the beach with all the different buildings at different heights along the bay and traditionally in Miami Beach you have the taller buildings hugging the Bayside or the ocean front we're no different in that regard next slide this is again if you're at Port of Miami looking Eastward toward the beach again you're going to have a whole panoply of different buildings of different heights particularly along the Bayfront next slide this is the public benefit summary that I alluded to a little bit earlier what Michael Stern intends to do because the bikini hustle is such a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood is that he has offered to purchase Bikini Hostel and upon approval of this project demolish it get rid of it and what we have thought would be helpful is to construct a parking garage at this location as you all know West Avenue is being raised hopefully within the next year with the raising of West Avenue comes uh deletion of over 100 on street parking spaces many of the buildings on the east side of West Avenue between West and Alton don't have any on-site parking our parking garage will be about 120 spaces what will happen we'll convey that garage to the city upon its completion now if you all have different ideas about what could be better at this location we love to hear from you and ultimately it's up to the elected officials to weigh in hearing from you and from the residents along West Avenue the next part of our public benefit package would be completing the missing Baywalk segments uh behind the South Bay Club 1228 West Avenue of course we take care of our own then there's a short segment between the Capri and the Western of Lincoln row that we would also handle with that profer what we've heard over the last week is that well these Baywalk these missing links are fully funded by the go and that was true I think because the construction cost estimates that were the basis of the go Bond were done from 2020 2021 and each year since in construction costs have dramatically escalated so it's true that most Geo Bond project will probably funded the 60 70% Mark but there's a shortfall in funding now so we would step into the Gap and do that and to the extent that there's no gap which I highly doubt then the city commission would have the utter discretion to transfer that to West Avenue to help there with any cost overruns or any other thing along this Corridor and then finally we are asked to broaden our public benefit give back to think not just the West Avenue but this will be an iconic project for the whole city so why not think about something that could benefit the city and a lot of folks do use the County Health Center down there in Alton right now it's been rendered an unsafe structure they are seeking a tremendous amount of State funding with County funding we'd like to add to that mix But ultimately again it's up to you all in the city commission to see if that's the appropriate type of profer next slide this is a rendering of how the park and garage could look with a liner unit facing West Avenue of course all the parking area be appropriately screened next slide these are the missing links of the Baywalk starting on the right on the south behind the South Bay Club and then our segment which is 1250 1228 and then a much smaller segment between Lincoln Road and the Capri on the North next slide I'm just curious of the bailing Michael so baing they were just going to leave it empty I mean the unfinished portion was just going to sit there they they haven't given the easement to the city to build it they haven't bought the ement and they haven't granted the ement on either understand the the public benefit they're going to do that for you but you still have to get the easements I don't know I don't have the details on that so I can't speak to that it's going to be through a development agreement with the city that's just now starting to be negotiated but the idea is that we would profer the funds to the city I think the city has a contract with Rickman rickman's also doing the West Avenue raising so it makes sense to have them also do the Baywalk like for instance for South Bay Club I don't think that they have to um like it's it's almost like a series of dominoes like the property to the north the South Bay Club doesn't have to open their Baywalk until the South Bay Club segment is open so that I think the city is focusing upon that they made the much progress there your client's going to complete it whenever okay we'll we'll be we'll be doing the funds I do think it's underfunded now with the Geo Bond so we'll be stepping into the breach um next slide please and this just shows you like the benefits of the city for those all the elected official courts have concerned with City finances you can see a set times increase in the amount of City uh property tax that comes to the city based on the completion of this project and then what we tried to ask our economists to do on the right hand side is to estimate okay if you're going to build this new luxury building there's obviously an increase in household income and how does that translate into spending patterns and what they found was that I think it' be about 23 million for the increase and then 149 million would be added to the city's economy meaning buying at restaurants and retail shops because it's like a a good money M multiplier effect that will be very helpful for our city so each each new potential resident going to spend a million dollars in the city not sure how that would work but that's a pretty high number $149 million yeah we're going to be working with our Economist on that as well um to refine that next slide and this is a legislation summary um this is obviously residential accessory uses are permitted no outdoor restaurant seating that's seen as a nuisance in this neighborhood floor area bonuses a height bonus our side interior setback start go back one step the bottom floor the retail of the parking garage you're donating to C the retail will remain with the owner with what type of tenants you know we've talked about Civic uses there it could be code enforcement shares it with the police station for a mini substation there could be really anything it' be good to had an office here for the city though yeah oh okay think that'd be our first our first choice right the but the retail on the bottom I I thought okay as long as there's an active use there and it's not a dead elevation facing the street right okay you know that would be fine just Michael wants developers always want to control the corners adjacent to their development so that's just one way of ensuring that it'll be a nice quality use there and not something that would be disastrous so okay so again going to four like we as Michael alluded to we are modifying the interior setbacks there are permitting some minor setback encroachments and although we love this board we're trying to streamline the process and just have mechanical parking be done on an administrative basis rather than coming to you all the transfer development rights as I think this through it's really not necessary for our project and we will probably be revising our legislation and deleting that because the floor area that comes with the bikini hosel property we want it to remain Bikini Hostel property if the city would like to Embark Upon A TDR program and sell the its development rights to a developer that want that's fine and then the city could use those funds to construct attainable housing somewhere but as I think it through I think it's just causing confusion we don't need it we're not using any development rights from the bikini hostile property so next time you all see this in January 7th that'll probably remove from our legislation next slide this is just an example we've heard that our bonus system is confusing it's Innovative it's too new this hasn't been done before but as you all know in Miami Beach our recent history was in the 80s it hovered close to bankruptcy so they open the door to developers they had developers go through a bonus system that was present in the 90s the bonus system was based upon this is an excerpt from the old zoning code the bonus system was based upon Design Elements and believe it or not just average unit size of Apartments the greater the apartment size the greater the the F bonus next slide and this is the bonus system you have a density reduction to 55 units per acre leaving us only with 104 this is a substantial reduction from today we'll profer a covenant that prohibits short-term rental we will fill the funding gaps for designning construction of the RightWay improvements and or missing Baywalk segment we'll obtain a building PR within five years of course I've heard the critique from staff that could probably be reduced a little bit we're trying to give ourselves some wiggle room because while I dearly love the building department it does require a lot of effort to get through that building department department so but there's room for change there and um what's the last one Nick can't see it it's okay we'll come back to that um so this is just the slide with regard to the traffic study showing that yes even we're going to reduce the trips and we're going to have um that commercial use that's closer to Alton likely retail but that is even with all of that it leads to a net reduction the net new trips um for our project next slide and the water and sewer analysis came late it came in actually uh yesterday it showed that nothing wrong with the water lines in the area but the public works department through its consultant is concerned about the sewer line um being a little bit old in this area so we're going to have our civil engineer talk to the public works director to see what we can do about that to try to help out with that issue um that's a one of the benefits of going through this this is an exhaustive process but it identifies infrastructure issues up front and allows us to tackle them so I think that's a smart way to go uh next slide just curious yeah how does that get T let's say that your engineer finds a problem who how do they address that I think it probably is rolled into our development agreement and would be one more voluntary profer that we would uh give to the city in order to fix this you know we don't want to overburden if you tell me a sewer Line's 80 to 100 years old well that's a problem so so can I ask let's say you were to rebuild what's there today would that not be allowed if there was an issue with the sewer capacity if you could build as a matter of right is matter of right I mean or maybe that's for for Michael and Nick well typically any sort of development approval they have to do a a water and sore analysis and I my understanding is that as Michael stated there hasn't been an issue with the water but um typically The Source system may may need upgrading as part of any sort of Redevelopment of a site but he's asking if if you can build as a matter of right you didn't have to come here what is that process still in place I don't review any sort of water sewer analysis so I'm not sure what that process is for if this is demolished and if it's rebuilt good question so Matthew to your point it's hard to say they have to do it anyways but we're under the magnifying glass here and subject negotiation with the city so I think the city's in a position to ask us for help whereas if we're going as of right they may not do so okay as part of the conditional use process and is this in a zoning District where they require a conditional use permit no no okay no 50,000 foot rule applies to commercial industrial and mxe and the last before we get to there just one back so this is the timeline I talked about earlier starting with you all then we have a virtual meeting in December uh January 7th back to you all for the formal transmittal hearing first reading before the Commission in February March another virtual community meeting and then April City commission and then ultimately it requires drb approval uh at some point after that unless you put an under we're not unless you put under story on then you're good that's right no this this is the this is the six step F review process so this is just continue so all we would be doing is agreeing to move it to the to provide any comments and then continue till January got it and then I'm sorry Mr chairman just I think and you've been very generous with the time um uh Michael Stern wanted to comment in the last three to four slides and then that's the end of our presentation okay Michael you there yes I'm here um sure just just uh wanted to just show some images you could just scroll through them Nick I we took a lot of your time but just some real world images and context showing the condition from the water generally in context and how the building greets the street and with that uh we'll take comments questions okay is there anyone in Chambers speak on this s coming up ladies first actually never mind guess not okay fine I'm kidding I'm kidding I'm kidding I'm joking I'm joking you've been here long enough I mean I have been here 4 hours and I tell you what but you guys are doing God's work I swear um but I am a neighbor I'm at the Waverly uh my name's Mike dorge um and um one of the things which said was um comparing the as of right versus this new development and they want to preserve the views for those at the Waverly well they're not preserving my view I'll have people looking in my bedroom I bought this my unit 12 years ago I researched zoning and realized that nothing between me and Au 30 at 650 West could be built higher than 150 ft and pretty much this what's the height of the Waverly do you know pardon me what's the height of the Waverly I'm in Southside I look at mon no I'm saying do you know the height of your building we provided in a report so the Waverly ranges from 279 ft High to 334 okay I think it's a 34 story building I'm on the 24th and okay and I think the the monad comes to maybe 18 I don't know but I didn't oppose um monad number one one because it's as of right number two it's a nice building I look down on it if they get 2 million in a unit great I look down on it that's wonderful um also I own a unit at Floridian and when the five Park was built I didn't object to that because we were getting the whole city park and the alternative was this massing of buildings which would have been hideous and it didn't affect my corner view too much because I was already looking at the Continuum and everybody else um but in this case this building will directly impact me they show a massing of the a of right well they're not going to do that because they built monad and they're just going to pardon my French piss off all the people they just sold to if they put a building 20 ft next door right now there's a pretty wide setback between that building so I think the alternative of just saying well let me go higher well that might help monad today versus the as of right but it's not really helping monad today versus what's there because they have a pretty good setback with the parking lots between the two buildings so I I'm not sure why suddenly we should break from tradition and let these guys go higher when you're going to get overwhelmed with every building between their and the Florian wanting to do the exact same thing and also I like the neighborhood because of the people that live there it's a first crowd it's a young crowd and it's a a a a neighborhood the big buildings come in the people with their Bentley show up the neighborhood isn't the neighborhood there these big fancy buildings and nobody's there listen I look down on the mo i' half the people aren't there whereas the the other units they're all out walking their dog they're normal people the flavor of the neighborhood is going to change with highend you know $ 25005 million residents um and my view gets lost and I don't think they should have that right they can build whatever they want to build within the code and monad was a very good example of that why suddenly they going to go buy the Bikini Hostel to save the neighborhood nobody cares about that Bikini Hostel and I certainly would rather have the Bikini Hostel than a parking garage which I don't think we need either so from my point of view this project should be DOA Dead on Arrival and I hope you guys all feel the same way thank you ma'am hi everyone my name is Megan faxel I am a resident of Miami Beach for eight years I currently live at the Flamingo and I absolutely adore our community I first and foremost am a very Avid uh creative artist and also an advocate for sustainability of our future and also when I saw the design of this building I really did see the future now moving forward I would like to note that the JDS development will be a beautiful addition to West Avenue the proposed development is going to be not only architecturally beautiful but also al future forward I would also like to note that the Redevelopment of 280 units will have far more impact on the infrastructure and trafficed on West Avenue the proposed JDS development at 100 units will have far less impact on not only the sewage waste management and traffic but also on the environment and on our beloved Bay as a big supporter of sustainability and a prosperous Miami Beach future I'm impressed with the plans JDS has for 1250 West Avenue thank you thank you anybody else we have several callers on hold on hold on hold on are you here for this okay we always take customers inside the store first no problem good afternoon everyone my name is Selina maum I'm from Germany and I live on West Avenue I would just like to make a few quick comments on the presentation we just heard so um first of all I would like to start mentioning that in my personal opinion the Redevelopment of the bikini hosel would be a very great Improvement of the area I work a lot my dog or just for Joy at night and um I feel especially during the later hours it's um the amount of drunk people hanging out there and hanging out in the area doesn't feel very comfortable for me and um also as we heard in the presentation I would like to mention the finishing of the Baywalk would be an amazing addition to the community especially for families uh with kids with dogs it would be great for them to be able to work the entire Waterfront um in terms of the design of the proposed development I think it's a very modern and elegant design construction and um I believe believe that sorry um take your time it would be just a very iconic addition to our Miami Beach skyline especially the very um skinny architecture it doesn't seem like a massive building that people fear they're blocking the views so I think the design is a very as I said iconic addition to the Miami Beach skyline thank you so much thank you good afternoon everyone my name is Tim Carr with the West AB neighborhood association I just wanted to review the statement in case you did not have a chance to read it last night that we sent out from our board meeting yesterday but again on behalf of the West AB neighborhood association regarding the proposed leg legislation for the JDS Development Group and the Redevelopment of 1250 West Avenue in the related floor area ratio and height bonuses the wabner board and director dors require additional information from the developer and the city and the feedback from affected residents and others before taking any any position on these matters again the legislative process should provide additional information and feedback to inform this decision so we really appreciate what you guys are going to be doing today because this is really just the beginning of the process we haven't really heard um we did a zoom call last week was really the first Outreach to the community but we haven't really heard from most most impacted uh from 1228 the board there TW uh monad Terrace and the Waverly uh board as well so we'd like to continue to gather their feedback we just had our first chance to see the city's report so we're really Gathering all that information right now before we really come out with a statement in this process and we really look forward to your dialogue and feedback on this as well lastly I just like to say the and as you as you saw so this is just the first step and then there's going to be I think a community Workshop kind of okay and we're going to have the city's going to have as as Michael has said two more outreaches once in December I think the other one is in February so again I'm happy to be at the be beginning stages of this process and we'll be listening attentively to your comments as well in this whole process but just in closing again the board does appreciate the public benefits uh that are being proposed by GDs and the connection and the positive impact that it can have on our community as well thank you okay Tim question for you is this the first that you've learned about this or have have you had any conversations with the developer in the past no we've been talking and uh you know people have been reading pieces and stuff like that so we actually had a presentation to our board prior to all this so that we could get up to speed and everything were you able to offer any insight at that early stage to the developer not really uh just really taking in the information of what they provided and we're really kind of waiting on the city's report as well in that process okay thank you all right thank you everyone Tim sorry just one more question for you could you talk about I guess the perceived benefits for the West Avenue Corridor you know with the I guess removal of the bikini hosal the donation of you know the public parking kind of what that means with them raising the roads how that off sets parking and again you know our job is to represent the community and solicit feedback from the residents one of the challenges that we have with West AB Phase 2 and the new kind of restrictions uh from the state and County regarding parking we're going to lose significant parking during that phase from basically uh 14th Street all the way up to 17th Street and then phase three from 14th South down to a street so our thought is again to activate the community have first first floor retail potentially relocate that tired uh post office on uh right next to uh the where the pumps station is being built right now uh but then having parking you know four floors of parking above that to really help accommodate the residents need they don't realize it now but we have already been working with the city for a couple of years now on the parking analysis and really this the the extreme need that residents are going to need especially a lot of the properties around here because a lot of them you know on the waterfront do have parking but the ones across the street are smaller buildings a lot of those people do depend on you would welcome a parking garage there yes so this kind of gets what your seeming need guess absolutely it's interesting because I've heard the exact opposite so that's I appreciate that because I'm welcome like again this is the early stages we welcome everyone's feedback in this process so we can make the most uh and you'll alively actively participate in these these coming meeting okay great absolutely all right but I welcome Elizabeth anything that you've heard as well thanks so I've heard that you you don't need a parking garage and that you've got plenty of parking and that some of the parking down on the south end is not even utilized now they're going to park especially once West phase two really gets going thank you absolutely all right thanks anyone else in Chambers okay thank you sure how are you my name is uh marovich and I'm a broker with sou bees and I've been in Miami Beach for 20 years now and just most recently purchased the home of my family in in your neighborhood so I'll introduce myself at another Point um and I can't wait to actually be able to walk my family from Sunset Harbor all the way south of fif so I'm really looking forward to that walkability um I personally love the Sleek design you know we we sell a lot of luxury condos and you know I think West Avenue West Avenue is built for a project like this and and needs it really to enhance uh enhance the Miami Skyline I think it's you know got so much more potential and it's a great neighborhood and I think there is just a ton of demand for that um and yeah looking forward to Bikini Hostel you know not necessarily being there for you know the the appeal and I think the design of this project is amazing and the way they designed it is better than you know a little more clunky and bulky feel so thank you appreciate your input yep hi guys my name is a and I live in 12 00 West Avenue I'm a sober guy today and I represent a community of over 1500 people they're all sober and we definitely walk the area uh my background is real estate property management I looked into this development and the project and I showed this to few of my fellows they all agree it's a perfect project for this location I walked South Beach on a daily and West Avenue definitely needs a bayw fully completed which is developer is willing to to be part of um um regarding the hostal that needs to go ASAP um actually stayed there in my drinking days Miami got the neighborhood right there in the middle in the center I feel like w stav you can beat their nexts downtown in Brickle um it's the future when you build it like that it's water views it's right in front of the park which is amazing and the design is just perfect C sleek and it shows um a lot about the developer again my background it's real estate property management I looked into it I seen the presentation before and I run this by other people so you guys have our support I walk and I walk a lot so yes I'm here to support the guys thank you thank you come on hi good afternoon I'm Isa Bel jardini and I live in West Avenue next door to the 1250 so apart from saying that uh I believe this project is going to be extremely beautiful and it's going to enhance the whole West Avenue area which has a great potential I also wanted to talk about uh something more practical which is like parking uh for me it's always very difficult to F to find place to park my car Al because uh it's always full full and I believe um that instead of having the bikini hostel which is an antique building and also a little bit degrading for the area having a parking lot such as that one will be helpful for the whole area so yeah just on the Practical side basically thank you so I have a question if they if this project goes through and and there's a parking garage there that they convey to the city is that going to be designated for West Avenue res how's that going to work we don't know I have no idea I have no idea okay that hasn't been that hasn't been developed or all right will that be part of these discuss and I mean because obviously part of the reason is West Avenue needs parking from what we're hearing I mean it wouldn't make sense if all of a sudden it's just a City Garage that you go and pay for you know what I'm saying so what I know at this point is that the the garage is intended to be a public garage whether there could be spaces designated for for neighborhood residents is something that that could be discussed but I don't think that's well I I I I'm just right I'm encouraging the residents that if you need parking that that's part of the discussion but anyway okay anyone else in Chambers okay they already under tenative contract hello everyone my name is Sean Sani I've been living down here in Miami beach for about what's your address 12 years I live on uh 1241 West okay thanks so um I'd be excited to see this project get um go through the it's it looks for from the design like very Majestic and like just the the wow factor of the the green it would be like the big brother brother of like monad whenever you would develop it so it would it would bring a like the well I'm a wellness professional so like I love anything that like is different than what's there right now it looks like a college dorm atori so like that has to go for sure I'm not sure about all the details and I'm sure you guys will figure that out I don't know about a parking garage either cuz I ride my bike and walk every on rollerblade so I I wouldn't need that you need to e Matthew I'm sure you got like there's dude there's going to be you'll figure out the details on maybe something that would be I don't I couldn't even think what would be better there but like what's there is kind of Dead Space right now I'm not even sure what to put there I don't know maybe another dog park I don't know but um um that's all I had to say I appreciate it yeah thank you thanks for coming in all right anybody else in Chambers okay we'll go to zoom we have at least eight callers on Zoom wow so I'll start with the first one um FAS Ilan yes hello can you hear me yes yes thank you uh I see a lot of people in the chamber today so uh who came you know with the developers presentation so unfortunately I couldn't be there um but I I'll try to make this brief uh my comment today is in strong opposition to the applicants proposal a 450t skyscraper on West Avenue with an F increase unheard of to 8.53 I'm also in partial opposition to your staff's recommendation for a slightly less High 300 foot Tower at 5.25 f as a policy issue and this probably should be addressed by the city commission I think that stacking unlimited F bonuses for tangential uh public benefit is a slippery slope that would ultimately destroy the unique character of Miami Beach especially as compared to other overdeveloped parts of the county um all of the City commissioners were elected on a platform of inscale development uh appr propo which your staff correctly pointed out um the inaccurate comparison made by the developer uh for non-conforming uses to the Waverly condominium that was built 25 years ago um under completely different circumstances I would also um note that it is inaccurate uh that the buildings surrounding the project are within the same height finally I would just like to address one point of the F bonuses which is the public garage for which the applicant is requesting a 1.25 F increase and your staff has has also requested a one um a maximum of 1.5 um this lot 1255 West Avenue is a very narrow l lot under 10,000 ft wholly inappropriate for this purpose and incompatible with the surrounding Residential Properties um and apart from usage uh this benefit is in no way commensurate to a 1.5 F increase I urge the board to reject this proposal and limit any consideration of public benefit F bonus to a maximum of 1.0 to 1.25 for a total of 3.75 to 4.0 and a height not to exceed 200 feet to be in scale with surrounding buildings thank you thank you next our next caller uh Steven Stark he's not allow hi my name is stepen you're not allowed to speak okay I used to work together go ahead Steve thank you uh I live at uh apartment 2202 in the Waverly uh uh I have sent a letter to you uh Brian and to other members of the board um I I mirror the comments you just received from the last speaker um I do believe uh I do agree with the staff that this is a ridiculously oversized project that the three time increase in the F and the Three Time increase in the height allowance I think is totally inconsistent with um what the city has tried to do what the neighborhood looks like and other issues with respect to this uh this will absolutely block um my Southern View but it's it's not just about my view but certainly to the extent that it is higher than our building it will cast a much larger Shadow I don't know if you've actually seen what the Shadows look like from high built buildings you know along the corridor uh I will essentially be looking into build uh units over there um I I I've lived on South Beach since 2006 I originally was at the Flamingo which frankly is a problem that a property that has had lots of problems um I think that building a a unit of this size for um High income buyers uh for essentially a 100 people um and otherwise changing the whole scope of the neighborhood I think really doesn't disservice I agree with most of the findings of the of the staff but I also disagree with the findings of the staff that essentially the developer coming in and saying I will magically solve a problem for you with both the Baywalk and the um the Hostile property which has been a longstanding problem uh for the city and which frankly I think can be solved without giving away development rights that essentially create a property that is literally three times higher than the building next door um I think it's it's it's it's way out of proportion in what's there now I think the as built rendering that you saw will never be built I don't think it's a good comparison um we would not object to building another um uh uh uh of the of a monad as next door and I certainly would not object to a slight increase above the 150 but uh we disagree even with the 300 foot um uh proposal from staff and would ask that you reject this proposal and allow much more evaluation and discussion with the community and with the developer and with other people to make sure that this project doesn't like ruin the character of this neighborhood thank you thanks Stephen again I just want to make it clear that right now we today we are not rejecting or approving anything this is just the first step in a long process but next our next caller is Jackie good afternoon board my name is Jackie laland I am on the board of 1228 West so directly across from the proposed development and while I don't speak for the board at this time because we have not come to any direct conclusions I will share some of the concerns that we have um as a board and we will most probably be working extensively with the developer to address those concerns I think it's fair to say that staff's report and and the and the word hostile is interesting because I think there are some dramatic proposals um before us and we share some of staff's concerns so we know that Michael Sterns can build a beautiful building we have no objection to a building being built that's beautiful and appropriately scaled um I think he's got a good track record doing that but we will be forever and as will West Avenue and the whole Community as you know affected by what ultimately is built I do want to tell uh the planning board that there is a drought a parking drought there should be no confusion in your minds about the necessity for a parking garage if it's done properly and beautifully and contextually within the neighborhood um I do think we would want to work with the city on dedicating some spaces many buildings have no guest parking uh only you know limited parking for the residents that exist it's a dire issue and we are happy that they are proposing that as part of their package um and I don't think there's anybody that's going to sit up and stand up for the bikini I can't imagine that would exist so that's a that's a really important element of what they're proposing and and we agree with that um we just look forward to having extensive discussions with the developer we have a lot of input we'd like to give to all of you to the developers and obviously to the city but we hope the city will be open to reserving some of those potential parking spaces for uh surrounding buildings and having said that we do encourage this development to go forward I don't know if it's going to be as proposed we don't know but something needs to be done there that will be contextual and beautiful and I think Michael can do it so that's how we feel at the moment thank you Jackie next next caller Natalia Sanchez hi this is Natalya and uh uh David Greenberg I live at unit 5A at monad Terrace uh one of the units uh right on the bay I'm a normal person who lives at monad full-time um I was originally skeptical about a a a large building uh being built right next door to me uh but I must say now that I've heard the developers speak about the proposed building the more I think this project is actually great for monad and the entire West a neighborhood I just don't think other developers would bring this much benefit to the table for the community and would be so considerate to the like adjacent buildings so so here's what's jumping out to me from the presentation I just watched the significant setback from West AV and the bay is a huge win that's a really big setback um also the building is not taller than other tall buildings in South Beach so I just don't understand why people are saying the height is at all inappropriate or at a scale it's basically around the same height as the other tall buildings um we know from monad uh I live at moned this is a developer that really cares about design and style so this new building very likely is going to look amazing which I think will be beneficial for real estate values quality of life so I think that's going to be a huge win uh I live across the street from the Bikini Hostel it is absolutely a win to remove the Bikini Hostel it's a nuisance it's not good that is a real win um and of course helping to extend the Baywalk anything that gets that done is awesome for the neighborhood so look someone's going to redevelop this property on West AV right next door to us um I think as a City we should be saying yes to developers who are considerate and who have proven to do a good job in the neighborhood to me it sounds like others opposed to this are just like kind of concerned about the impact to their unit at their apartment uh not the overall Community uh thanks for your time appreciate it thank you next our next caller is Reed read check your mood button thank you I am unmuted now appreciate the assistance my name is Reed heidenry I live at the Waverly on South Beach I'm on the 27th floor my view is looking West to the bay and it's also looking South above monad Terrace as well I uh I respectfully disagree with my Waverly neighbors who spoke before I would much prefer a taller Slimmer building less units less density further Step Back From The Bays also a huge win I agree with that um and also in my opinion people who live in modad especially on the South Side like the guy who just spoke you know they want space between them in the new building they don't want a crowded densely populated clunky building um the monad residents also there you're used to a taller Tower above them the Waverly to the north so I don't think they would mind as much um back to the Waverly people who live on the 30th floor of the Waverly they have units at the Flamingo looking into their bedrooms already so it's nothing new I agree with the last guy that you know said it's more about people's individual views and again I'll take Bentley's next door over drunk tourist St bini hosel for $30 a night all day every day I'm a big fan of this building think Michael Stern did an incredible job with Monet Terrace and I hope it gets approved thanks Reed next next caller Alex at italcraft decom uh thank you guys I live on the South Point Drive I've been in Miami Beach for a long time and this is what I call home uh I think moving forward this city needs to be upgraded and I think is unavoidable uh this a beautiful building and what is this all about so we have an opportunity to have a great building substantial prettier and Slicker from Beverly and Flamingo that they're so big and heavy and and wide uh I believe it balance as well with the five Park and all the other tall buildings around less density so so important for the traffic the traffic is stable into that neighborhood whoever goes and not now with the construction but all the time so this developer uh has already proven himself with mon Adam very familiar with monad I see it by see when I go uh by boat the green I mean the building is beautiful so that's a chance to have another beautiful building uh the Bikini Hostel I don't have to say much everybody hates it so it's going to be eliminated public parking is always a plus uh the bay walk walk fantastic everybody loves you know the the boardwalk that we have in south pach on the other side in call in Ocean Drive going up north is amazing this will be as amazing so very very important uh about the skyline everybody Lo loves the skyline in Miami downtown in South Beach and in order to have a beautiful Skyline you have to have different buildings you cannot have a building with 50 ft bigger or 20 ft higher than than the other one you have to have a little bit of extremes and this is what make you know what make the the Skyland better I would say don't discourage this developer uh you're going to discourage all developer and West Haven is going to look old for the next 20 years we have an opportunity to have a beautiful beautiful sky line and I think we should take it uh that's all thank you thank you Alex the next caller just has the name iPhone iPhone you're up let me not know just un unmute yourself hello lucana here that might be me the that is you you're good yeah just introduce yourself in your address thank you so much my name is lucana I live at the Waverly and um besides apologizing for not having my name on my phone I don't know how to do it um I also didn't prepare anything today I see a lot of people um seem to have prepared their speeches and have a very strong opinion either Pro or con I came with a very um open mind um and I don't really um I agree with everybody that said it shouldn't be a personal view or if it's affecting my unit or not it should be about the community right and what made me raise my hand um and and really uh decide for for my side and and I'm going to oppose to this project is when I heard someone on the floor saying we're going to become bricko like bricko is amazing and downtown and we all love like no I hate bricko that's why I don't live there I live in Miami Beach I think we're very different from bricko and I hope we don't become bricko so if if starting with this development and I do appreciate them Monet I think it's a beautiful building I think the project that I just saw it's very different from the on it so it's a very high rise and Brickle Style again that's what made me speak um so I really hope that the representatives that we elect do not allow us to become brico uh otherwise we would live there right um so this is Miami Beach um the small buildings the art deco that's that's what makes us right and I hope that's that's where we continue yes we have to develop and the Monet is a good example of how you can develop um starting putting these highrises and becoming Brio is what I hope we don't go so thank you for that thank you we have four more at this point callers um the next one next person is Steve uh hi my name is Steve Dickens I'm a resident of the Waverly um I my view my unit looks south over the monad directly at the side of this proposed building um and all this idea a that somehow it is not Community oriented if you are trying to preserve your own View kind of doesn't land well with me um what is community oriented is have the rule of law and when I bought this unit I looked at what the laws were I am an architect I practice architecture I can read zoning ordinances and I saw that my view would be protected and now what I'm seeing is that my view apparently people are willing to have it just thrown under the bus for a developer who is primarily offering a public parking garage is by far the biggest of these benefits When I can look down and see a parking garage that blocked South which never has cars on its upper level and as near as I can tell is rarely ever full at all which has far more empty spaces than the ones that are getting lost on West Avenue so I I I it is not be not Community to try to protect Law and Order when you have gone through the trouble to figure this out yourself you know if the people who live in the adjacent buildings never looked at the zoning to figure out what it was I don't understand why I should suffer because of that is what it comes down to beyond that when I read the staff report as near as I can tell the developer just kind of successfully shifted the center of the argument because staff comes up with 300 feet they don't even say why that's better than 420 that the the developer is offering a much much less any rationale for why the height should be a bonus they go through in the report um they specifically say that the current maximum f for the site is contained within the first 11 floors of the new building even with very generous ceilings 11 floors will fit within 150 ft or another way to look at it is you can have some reasonable modest bonus F and still fit it within 150 ft there is no reason to go to 300 ft or 420 or anything above what the law has in there without something truly exceptional like the park which um which was given to us and I will just say in terms of neighborhood do we want West Avenue to be Edgewater because that's the essential precedent you're setting here where every single Waterfront building is turning into a 650t power of super Prime residences um where most of the people aren't even there and a lot of them are currency sinks and some of that's laundered money and we know that whole story I don't think we want to be Edgewater and even coming down to the idea that they're talking about a cities having buried skylines Edgewater increasingly doesn't increasingly it has a hedge of buildings at 650 fet tall so and what's what's St doesn't happen here the board allows this and the commission allows this one you know Well Bay terce is probably next and what about southern towers and really any of them because when your incentive is suddenly to go three times as tall or even to go higher at all you your incentive is to sell out because we're seeing that happening on building after building after building in Edge Water um and in the Waterfront part of Brickle too and I think you have to think of this precedent here that you're setting that people like myself who looked at the law would get thrown under the bus and that you're setting a precedent that everyone else gets thrown under the bus too it's only a matter of time before essentially everyone loses their views because because that's that's the domino effect so I think I agree with the commenter this should be DOA that um the developer has shown with monad that he can build within the 150 foot height limit beautifully wonderful units great looking building very fascinating there is no rationale all right all we got to let you go Steve it's I appreciate your your input but you're not repeating yourself so we're going to go on to the next caller thank you so much next caller is Deborah cadaa yes hello how are you thank you again for this um opportunity to share my thoughts with you all I'm owner of the Floridian building and I really believe and I strongly believe that our neighborhood holds a future for a a potential refinement A A Touch of sophistication it's time for Miami Beach to move away from this outdated 70s and 80s aesthetic to embrace a more upscale ambients while providing its icon charm because it's beautiful but it's obol that transformation is essential for Miami Beach to REM re revent and avoid becoming obsolete as scenes in growth of neighborhoods near to the Bay by doing so we creating communities that will evolve into more exclusive environments welcoming highend developers that will only Embrace or quality of life as residents I strongly believe that I can um that this will appeal um Miami Beach and I'm very supporting of this wonderful project and I'm very happy and pleased that Bikini Hostel is being replaced in in an in our beautiful neighborhood thank you so much thank you our next caller is Daniel Caldo hey guys Daniel Calo here with Miami Design preservation lead and um I remember growing up in uh here and seeing where you could walk and see the bay easily there was a lot of housing for residents that work here uh and then one day it was bought up and all the buildings were knocked down and replaced with a luxury condo also called monad Terrace in spite of the loss of these residents at least a new building was beautiful within the existing zoning envelope now next door another condo takeover is happening are the residents of that condo there today to speak is the vision of the planning department and this planning board to only have new luxury homes and condos that are Out Of Reach except for only the most wealthy seems like another solution looking for a problem how about we address code enforcement issues at the hospital without a highrise being the only solution where is that in our comprehensive plan is there any affordable housing component of this proposal what is a real public benefit can we find parking and address the hosle without a major up Zoning for an all luxury highrise and finally in an era where Tallahassee is already preempting our zoning rights are we really going to be rushing into a major upzoning when we don't know whether the state will make that apply throughout the city and I point you to Fifth and Alton we were told this could only happen here and now we're dealing with the prospect of highrises even along Ocean Drive so I urge you to please be very careful when proceeding with Chang Zone thank you thank you um our next caller is Isabella Gomez hey everyone my name is Isabella Gomez and I reside on West Avenue I think this is a beautiful development and it's important to prioritize and enhance the safety and the security of our neighborhoods especially by removing that Bikini Hostel this project will also boost I think our local economy and introduce luxury living in in Miami Beach and I think it's something that will align perfectly with Miami Beach's Vision to create a a more safe and and Vibrant Community that's all okay our next caller is uh Eric Marshall hi Eric Marshall resident of the Waverly and West Avenue residence since 2001 and wow you guys put in some hours I I stopped by that office at 10: this morning and you're on item three or four and 3 o'cl thanks for the diligence um I'm the one that submitted to planning and visual audio visual aids a couple weeks ago October 14th I believe it's part of the minutes there um as as an attorney I saw that letter of intent and I and I went through it uh you know and itemized the different ones about the resilience the code and I wasn't sure if I was doing it correctly and then I saw the report by Mr Mooney and since we agreed on most of them I felt like I did uh you know with regards to the different criteria I I see that you're doing your diligence which is certainly appreciative uh you know you hear the different viewpoints from the West Avenue from from different residents and I'm in the Waverly my bill is already my view is blocked by the Monet so it's nothing personal with me it's more so just I was in downtown Miami yesterday uh on Sunday we go down every Sunday and those buildings are so close to one another there's they're beautiful buildings but they're on top of one another you know and so I I can't imagine having a building it's a beautiful view today and then six months or five years from now there's another building right next to it where so happy their news gone again you know I feel like this will just be a domino effect so I just wanted to make my presid known that I've been listening all day I sent it in a couple weeks ago I realized we're early in the process and as a Waverly board member I I heard the 1228 we haven't taken an official position with regards to that but you certainly hear wavy callers calling in I I've spoken with tomama wer I certainly will be partaking in the process to to see what happens uh you know I'm not going to put my head in the sand like Dead on Arrival but at the same time for sure on first review seeing it knocked off 150 fet and maybe there's more to go but again thanks for the time and I just wanted to call in and let my feels know thanks sir again and our last caller is Martin Mohler can you hear me now yes thank you uh I'm Martin Mohler I'm also a resident of the Waverly and I'm here to express my absolute firm opposition to the requested amendments to the comprehensive plan and to insist that the developer of 1250 West Avenue allowed to build only a matter of right project on the site and not under any circumstances a taller Tower I speak not only as a resident of a neighboring building but also as an architectural curator historian and educator much of my research has dealt with Urban history and specifically what makes cities successful or unsuccessful this proposed Tower is precisely the sort of project that threatens a unique neighborhood such as ours architecturally socially environmentally and ultimately surprisingly economically it scale would dwarf not only adjacent buildings on the waterfront but also the lowrise Inland neighborhood that is essential to the character of South Beach the project is obviously aimed at the so-called super Prime Market meaning that it would be only lightly occupied for most of the year and its owners would do almost nothing to support local businesses or Street Life as we all know perfectly well with all of those apartments would be air conditioned year round pools would be meticulously maintained and Untold energy and other resources would be expended as the units sit almost empty but it's on the economic front the projects such as this are most damaging ultimately at first of course it like this kind of development is a boom to city coffers but here's the problem if amendments to the comprehensive plan are granted for this proposal even at 300 ft let alone 420 ft then that plan is rendered meaningless every older building in South Beach would suddenly have a virtual Target on its back the market would shift immediately to one in which all properties become valued solely based on their ability to be transformed into Super luxury complex that would maximize profits for the developers that begins what I call the terminal super Prime Cascade in which the community faces accelerating population loss closures of local shops restaurants and other businesses and destruction of historic architectural Fabric and culture I'm well aware that there are several existing buildings including my own that exceed the 150t height limit but these were built in a different era and aimed at a very different Market the proposed project must be assessed based on how things stand today and today our neighborhood our city are at Great risk from development that serves only the investors and not the community as a whole this Tower will Loom over our neighborhood even at 300 feet seriously compromise our quality of life and open the floodgates for out of scale development please do everything possible to limit this and other proposed developments throughout South Beach to no more than 150 ft in height we know perfectly well that the developer can build a beautiful profitable building in that existing envelope because they did it at monad Terrace and they can do it again and shouldn't be allowed to go beyond that thank you very much okay we have a couple more callers now that I said we had you know well all right the next one is monad terce please keep just anyone speaking going forward if you're reiterating what's already been said just try to keep it brief thanks good afternoon Bor um I'm the general manager at Mona Terrace so I just wanted to introduce myself as I'm sure I will be very involved in this whole process so anything you guys can do to minimize the damage to our beautiful building it would be much appreciated I do worry about many things um I've been the general manager for two years there so I do know my building like the P palm of my hands and there's many things that worry me but I do trust that this process will go through you know many meetings and many things that would happen prior to making very important decisions um I do appreciate everybody that has given great comments about monetas and also care about monad as a building everybody from the from the Waverly um so mostly I just wanted to introduce myself to let you guys know thank you thank you for what you're doing and and we hope that this is going to be a seamless process thank you and please keep participating in the process thank you the next the next color is a Candis Candace can you hear hi can you hear hello yes yes you're there hi good afternoon okay my name is Candace and I'm a resident of Miami Beach for the past 15 years um I have I'm a condo owner of both primary and investment properties there um I live on Bell Island and just to mention about the style of Mo of this new project coming forward I live in a colonial style building and it's a constant fight people want to paint it white people want to try to modernize this building so it seems to be what the community wants is this modern style in Miami Beach and um another another point I want to bring up is that talking about this being making the area unaffordable but these older buildings are becoming unaffordable um I also have a unit in historical building and between the repairs and assessments a lot of people have to sell because they simply cannot afford it and the building is deteriorating also I do use the Venetian Causeway to run walk and just enjoy being outside and that has become kind of a hazard between the scooters the bikes everything going on on I think the Baywalk is a huge benefit for the health and the well-being of the community um and also the building is just it's very Tastefully done and it's in line with the future of Miami the future of construction and it's just Cutting Edge and I would urge anyone that's afraid that this is going to start looking like an area of Brickle or Edge waterer I would really urge you to take a look at monad because it was done very Tastefully you have a lot of greenery around and we're in Miami Beach I don't think we're ever going to have that feel of Brickle and it's done uh very discreetly Tastefully and um you know I don't think you can really get better than that and then my last point about the benefit to the community is the parking and um parking on West Avenue is really difficult I even noticed recently that the Whole Foods parking lot had made it now public parking and I assume that that's from lack of City parking so those are just kind of the points I want to bring up I am actually really excited to see this move forward I'm just so happy all the residents agree it's great so I would suggest we close the public hearing now yes close quick is Michael Stern raised his hand again no so we're done with no more on Zoom actually yes his hand is raised again all right but he's the only one yes all right so we're closing a public hearing other than you know the applicant so yeah just two minutes Mr chairman yeah and just remember this is exploratory you know there's a lot more to go here so we're not making DEC I'm not going to rebut the 20 speakers at all um just that we do understand it's Our obligation to reach out to our immediate neighbors Jac Lon is a friend even then she'll be tough on me um and she's on the board at 1228 Mona terce we feel strongly about as you heard there's a range of opinion coming from the Waverly but we will still reach out to all of them we don't believe our job is done we're just beginning our Outreach efforts and we're GNA keep on going um Michael can I stop you there on the Outreach um if you're gonna be you know working with neighbors um you know whether whether buildings or or groups or anything can I just ask that there be transparency since uh you know this is a big ask of the public of the height and the F that uh any sort of agreements that may come from other private parties about this project for support if that is something that happens at that that be transparent so everyone is aware of that sure it has to be it's a code requirement thank you so that's fine I'll abide by the code so with regard to the domino effect you know and the approval of this being some type of uh Catalyst to demolish these old condo if you look up and down the condo buildings on West Avenue or in B most of them are in excellent shape even 1228 West Avenue is in great shape you start down at Bentley Bay go to the Floridian these have been well maintain buildings so this is definitely certainly a one-off based on its structural condition um I don't think the other buildings are nearly as in bad of a shape as this one so I don't subscribe to this theory of the domino effect and honestly the last point is this is really like a anti- live local act I heard Daniel reference State preemption but this is actually the opposite you know we live local act does not apply to the multif family districts but the philosophy of us is very much opposed to Liv local idea of just going in preempting local governments and doing what we want we're engaging in discussions with you with the city Administration with the elected officials trying to win neighbor support and offering substantial public benefits package that we wouldn't have to if this was a live local act development so that's all I have uh Mr chairman board members Michael are happy to answer any questions you all might have I have a question um I just want to make sure to what you were saying about Outreach I can't stress enough the buildings behind the buildings that are that are near they have got to be contacted and this is It's too it's too important to the east right any any buildings behind it any of the smaller buildings anything that that even is you know goes from West just North MH I mean excuse me East it it's just it's it's so important that they'd be contacted yeah absolutely um yeah and just all I want you all to bear in mind is that this is recommendations to them because they're going to go forward with public Outreach and so I mean I know we heard a thousand comments I'll be pretty quick no take your time I just want to make sure we understand what's going you know what we've heard is a a lot of people want to see you know they're talking about some of the older buildings on West Avenue and they'd like to see them redeveloped I don't think think anybody's against that uh the question is what goes in its place um and you know I think what you're proposing is really out of scale with not just West Avenue with the city in general um you're asking for a lot and it it you let me go back to when we had all our discussions over five Park you know went on and on and on developer asked for all these things a lot of meetings this and that and basically there's a building there now and if you ask most people in the city they H I don't like that bill was bad idea we should never do that again we don't want we don't want to see that again and and here we are now doing the same thing again um there going to be a lot of negotiations with the city and this and then try to get F height all sorts of things and you know if it goes through what we're going to end up is another with endend up with is another building there that a lot of people are going to say h we can't let that happen again so I just think it's it's it's way too much I mean open to still talking you know we heard the developer built the other Pro uh building next to there nowhere near what this one looks like and I assume it's financially or will be financially successful um if on this site he wants to go a little higher than what's currently proposed or or whatever you know I think we're I'd be open to that I don't want to speak for everybody but but this is just I mean it's it's it's reach reaching for literally reaching for the sky and I think it's dangerous for the city to go down the route of well you know developer is going to say this is what I want to do and let me I don't know if I should use this term but Grease the wheels by saying we're going to build this for you this we're going to make up your shortfall here for this project to get it done I that's that I think is the most dangerous part about this proposal so I'll leave it at that I think it's a lot also I mean it is it's it's it's an incredible reach um I it is reach for this Moon settle for the stars at some point in real estate but um I think also that it like you said it is the anti local and I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of that and because that's the nature of real estate um and we have to be really careful and thoughtful of of the things that we that we do up here and um again I would encourage you to reach out to everybody and get their thoughts and I'm just I think it's just a lot it's I do I'm shocked to hear that everybody wants parking when I have been told the opposite and and I know that we need it but um I'm just thank you for everything it's it's a it's a knockout project it's really lovely um but again it's thank you all right I guess I'll go next uh yeah thank you Michael I know we don't have to disclose but I met with uh Michael and Nicholas and and the developer at um at the location and I actually didn't know uh that this developer he's built a lot uh around around the country some really well-known buildings um the Steinway tower in New York City it's the third tallest building in Manhattan over 1,400 feet and in Brooklyn the Brooklyn Tower is over a th000 feet by far the tallest in Brooklyn uh these are really magnificent buildings and um you know great architecture there down Miami he's doing in brickl a thf footer at 888 uh Bickle Avenue and another one across from the uh the metro rail station in Bickle as well uh nearly as tall uh so certainly we know he can go high and we see monan terce Mo monan terce he can go low uh you know what attracts people to Miami Beach I I think a lot and what I've heard from others as well it's a it's a lowrise medium density City and we have the build environment to do that uh you know we have walkable walkable and bikable streets we have from Miami anyway a pretty robust public transit system frequent buses uh The Trolley system as well in South Peach these are just a block or two from this location uh so I want to take a different stab at this I haven't heard anyone mentioned yet but the and I mentioned this to the developer as well the my concern besides obviously the increase in F and substantial height is the decrease in density that is being sold as a positive here uh going down to 55 units per acre maximum and um I pulled up the comprehensive plan of the city and the different uh future land use map categories something this low is unheard of in such a high high density high intensity area in fact Michael can you can you think of any other area in the city that can go as high and have such a low uh density now without taking analysis and and reviewing everything I mean a lot of these zoning districts you know allow a variety of uses it doesn't specify the density is the maximum that's allowed so we don't set like a minimum a minimum density anywhere um so exactly so why would you know why would we set the precedent or why would the city set the policy and set the precedent we want to lower the number of people we don't that's we don't we don't think it's warranted to give a bonus for lowering the density they're they're they're doing it on their own their own valtion that there's no need to to to to Warrant to to um um um I guess reward that with a bonus all right I mean we just talked about increasing you know doubling the F and and the height uh to promote more people moving to the city it has been noted too that you know we are removing regardless of the state of the building these are um Studio one-bedroom apartments with an average rent of $2,000 to $2,400 a month so we're removing 20 plus units that are probably people that are you know living and working here to do um you know Ultra Luxury y yep and look no one's going to argue that the building is beyond its its useful life right built in 1960s it's a very challenging environment uh so something will be you know built here in replacing this building I think the question is um you know besides the height and the F again you've heard from from dozens of people about that already what about the number of people that that can live here if we're going to go to 400 plus feet or 300 feet uh is it the best policy to to lower the number of units would the developer you know be open to to you know raising the number of units it's not going to it's not going to replace every unit that's there but strictly speaking you know it might be harder to sell all these large units it may behoove them to look at different unit sizes and I'm talking this from an you know an urban planning and an urban policy perspective here it may be better for the developer to look at that and that's the that's the feedback that I'm going to provide and ask that as you go through this process that you reconsider the bonus that you have proferred uh the the floor area ratio bonus for decreasing the density of this neighborhood this is a really remarkable neighborhood and probably more people should have the opportunity not less to live there okay thank you I don't know where our chair or vice chair went but I I would have made a motion to continue it yeah we just need a motion to continue I'll second that I make a motion to continue the January planning board meeting and second Mr cement all in favor I sorry do we have do we have do we need a quorum you have a quorum you have a quum I would just note one last thing great job everybody I would just had one last note regarding the the renderings that were provided so we do have definitive information from the building permit for the Waverly I would just ask for the applicant to go back and verify the Heights and renderings that they're showing because it looked like the renderings show that the wav is matching up with the height of this proposal when actually the this proposal as presented is 100 to 150 feet taller than the Waverly so I just want to make sure that those that those Graphics are gra are accurately represent I did I did notice that that it's about 100 feet taller um than the Waverly and it just looks like the same height in the in the renderings so so then on that note as well what is the reference that these Heights are being measured from you know is it ngbd is it I think at this point we're we're probably going to end up with a um a 10t height discrepancy depend so that and in the overall scheme of things that 10 foot is meaningless this point so this I think at this point just you know we have we have the permit drawings I can give them to the applicant and we can have a you know direct comparison with Heights thank you all we'll see you on November 26th at 9:00 a.m. thank you very much thanks everybody okay e e for