On you? >> It is on you. >> Okay, park it. >> Mhm. >> Good evening everyone. We're about to start a meeting for 6:03. Um I already spoke with the city attorney. He says he's on his way and he would like us to start off on the
quasi-judicial because the other stuff is mostly procedural. Uh Madam Clerk, can you please do a roll call? >> Good evening. Commissioner Chernoff. >> Here. >> Commissioner Jean. >> Here. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Present. >> Commissioner Smockler. >> Present. >> Commissioner Sue.
>> Present. >> Vice Mayor McKenzie Fleurimond. >> Here. >> Mayor Michael Joseph. >> I'm here. >> You have quorum. >> Is my mic working? Can you hear me? Cuz it's on. >> You can't talk tonight. >> Yeah, oh well.
Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay, next is pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> All right. We pretty much have one item and some updates and yeah. One item which is a 5. No, actually 5.2, um We have to set the agenda. Yes, correct
me if I'm wrong because I want a motion because the city city attorney said we can move on to quasi judicial cuz it is going to take majority of time. Can I have a motion to move up 5.2? I have a motion. >> Second. >> All in favor, say I. >> I. >> I also have a motion to um eliminate
number 5.1. Was this advertised? >> Yes. >> It was? >> Yes. >> I thought special meetings only have one topic. No. >> No. >> No, except for the ones that we put on there. >> Excuse me. Okay. >> They can have whatever you want. >> Yeah, but we advertised this.
>> Got it. >> Uh all right. Cuz this is a continuation. We did a We did have public comment last time. Correctly, this is a continuation. >> Move to introduce resolution number R 2026-73.
>> But before I start, there's a public comment section because of the special meeting. Madam Clerk, can you open up for public comment? >> Sure. The mayor-commission of the city of North Miami Beach has opened a meeting for public comment at this time. There is a 3-minute time limit for each speaker. Speaker, when you're called to
the podium, please state your name or the name of the organization which you are representing. Please speak only on the subject matter that is being presented before the commission. The mayor and commission of the city of North Miami Beach recognizes the importance of civility. The city of
North Miami Beach requests that all in attendance to exercise civility towards each other. Anyone one would like to speak? I have one coming forward, Mayor. >> I got you. >> [snorts]
>> Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager, City Clerk. >> All >> Um hope everybody had a wonderful day. It's really hot. My name is Whitney Prud'homme. I live in Lazul residence. Um today's item, I know it's the development project, and my only concern
I have is make sure you have a conversation with the developer to see what is their communication plans on all of their active construction site activities within the city of North Miami Beach. Cuz once the project starts, it's going to impact the
community in different ways. You're going to have traffic, parking, and then once the project starts, certain business that's within that building, those small business owners are going to have to relocate. So, hopefully you guys have programs or different things in
place to make sure that the residents or the small business owners owners are taken care of. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Good evening, Mayor and Commission staff. Uh resident. My name is Ketly
Jean-François, and I reside in New Leader. Um uh really wanted to talk about something else, but since we have to talk about this project, let's talk about it. Uh it's always whenever we have um an item coming in front of the city when it
comes to um building, it is the parking space. There is never enough parking space. We want to make sure that these people who are coming in front of you tonight have enough parking space. That's what
the residents always ask about, enough parking space. So, please think about it before you approve whatever it needs to be done tonight. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> No one has come forward. >> Okay. Um >> Public comment is closed.
>> All right. Uh we are going to go to the actual item itself. Like I said, this was a continuation from the discussion that we had last week. Um is it the developer here? Please come on up. Um I'll let the Mr. Ning, who is now working on our community development
section through the manager to speak. I guess that was the one of the questions that I have him looking over and before we have um your your presentation, if that's okay. Mr. Ning. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Oh, yes, we're But we But they they When they swore in last time, I thought this
was a continuation, but if you want them to be Yes, please. >> Yeah, I can swear them in. >> more people. >> Okay, please. >> Should we read the title? >> Yes, correct. >> Resolution number R-2026-73, approving a site plan modification for
the construction of a 572 656 square foot 23-story mixed-use development located at 2040 Northeast 163rd Street, sponsored by City Manager Darwin Williams. A resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida, approving
major modification of the development site plan approval granted on January 18th, 2022 by resolution R2022-14 for the construction of a building with a total floor area of 572,456
sq ft. Building height of 23 stories, 255 ft with a mixed-use mixed uses a A including 30-unit hotel, 7,323 7,328
sq ft of retail, 344 residential dwelling units, and 410 parking spaces along with three variances as amended by administrative minor site plan approval granted by the Department of Community Development on April 22nd, 2025 for
increases in total building floor area to 650,384 sq ft, increase in building height to 25 stories, 272 ft 8 in, increases in open space for 30,177
sq ft to 41,326 sq ft, providing 10 additional residential dwelling units, and reducing retail space to 4,526 sq ft, allowing for the elimination of the approved hotel use
and elimination of the variance for minimum lot size requirements for hotel use, and increase the number of residential dwelling units by 32 a total of 374 with no other modifications to the prior project approvals for the property
located at 2040 Northeast 163rd Street, providing for findings of facts confirming confirming expiration and limitations of approval, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. And now, let's do the Jennings disclosure.
>> No, okay. >> Is that okay? >> Yeah, no, I mean, do the Jennings disclosure. I mean, at the very least we're going to say we already had a presentation already, but is it is it between the interim? Is that what you're going to say? >> Just in case. >> Okay, yes. >> Jennings disclosure forms have been received by Commissioner Jean.
So, um we'll begin with Commissioner Chernoff. Per resolution 095-24, the subject matter of any ex parte communication, together with identity of the person, group, or entity making the communication, shall be disclosed and be part of the record on file with the city
prior to final action on the matter. Commissioner Chernoff. >> Yes. >> Have you spoken to anyone >> Um with >> matter? >> Yes, I I did speak um originally with the parties that are here, and I can be
truthful and um understand what I'm looking at, and make a decision. Thank you. >> Okay. Commissioner Smith. >> Um I had correspondence since the last one. I spoke to the manager about this
before, and it's all before, and I had correspondence from one of our residents, Ruth Hogan, and what I heard last time when I was here from the presenters.
And I can make a decision based on what I hear tonight. >> Thank you. Commissioner Smuckler. >> In addition to what I said last time, I obviously I was here and I heard what the attorney had to say, and um so
nothing has changed and I can still make a decision based on the testimony I hear today. >> Commissioner Sue. Okay, she has a disclosure form. Vice Mayor McKenzie Fleurimond.
>> Um taking into consideration testimony that was given in the previous meeting. Um I have not communicated with anyone outside of that forum and I can make my decision based on information presented this evening. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mayor Michael Joseph. >> I'm taking consideration in the
testimony and the discussion that we had prior meeting. I I can make a decision based on on the additional information that was given to me this evening. >> Thank you. >> Please swear in everyone. Reswear or swear in new people. >> Okay. If you plan on providing testimony
on this item, please raise your right hand and if you can stand do so. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall you will about provide shall be the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth and your response is? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Uh [snorts] Mayor Commissioner before we begin that we got to take attorney's not here for your benefit. Anytime you defer an item or move it to different day, it's always a good idea to redo the journey disclosure because of the time elapsed. It protects you and
it protects the city in that regard. I drove the journey here with the same thing I'm saying. >> Okay. >> Yeah, thank you Mayor. Um with that at the Mayor and Commissioner pleasure, staff would like to request applicant presentation first of I staff report.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Steve Warnick here on behalf of the applicant for the William site plan modification. Um >> [clears throat] >> We have >> May I ask your position, Mr. Ward?
>> Yes, I'm the attorney for the applicant. >> Okay, thank you. >> Sure. And with the firm Day Pitney uh LLP. So, just some quick quick background on the chronology. Um you may recall, I think many of you were here. Um the original uh site plan
approval was in January of 2022. Um last year, in April of 2025, we submitted um minor modification application for certain changes to the building configuration, which actually
included a slight reduction in the retail. Uh it included additional parking spaces, 38 additional parking spaces, and 10 additional units. Um also and we'll be showing um through Javier Font, the architect,
we'll we'll come up and walk you through some of where these changes have occurred. Um what we're here on in this most recent submittal is just the conversion of the 30 hotel rooms to 30 multi-family units. Um so, nothing further is changing from
what we submitted and worked on with staff last year. Um I will say that the we worked with through the TRAC Committee, multiple meetings with with your technical uh different disciplines, which included um providing an updated traffic study that
found de minimis effect of the conversion from hotel to multi-family. Um we also went through the Planning Zoning Board in April, and they recommended approval of this application. Um I do want to add now um
that we are proffering one additional condition. Um just in talking with staff, we thought that it it was important because there are some rooftop amenities. We want to make sure we're clear if there was any confusion that we're complying
with the code in section 24-58. So, the condition that we're proffering that we've shared with uh Mr. Ing is that the roof terraces, amenities, and covered structures shall comply with section 24-58 s of the city code of ordinances. Enclosed structures above the maximum
building height shall not be occupied by habitable units or commercial uses. That's the intent in the plans, and we just wanted to make sure if there were the that we are committing that we're not going to be using that space for any habitable uses, which the code would not allow.
Um So, with that >> [clears throat] >> I'll just quickly go through a couple slides, then I'll turn it over to Javier. Um again, the site plan and variances were originally approved by the city commission in January of 2022. There's a minor site plan modification
that the your former community development director approved um administratively April 2025. And in this application we're converting those 30 hotel rooms, which are there's five on six floors that are
lining of the parking, which results in a total of 374 residential units. We are keeping the ground floor retail, but again, it's it's it's reduced in size. There's no other changes to the building envelope, height, or footprint. We are eliminating >> [clears throat]
>> one variance, which is for the minimum lot size for hotel use, because we'll no longer have those hotel units. And with that, I will turn it over to Javier just to walk you through um the updated plans. >> Good evening. Um Javier Font, Behar Font & Partners, architects for the project,
4533 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. Um thank you for the opportunity. I'll take you through the design very quickly, um since I know everybody's familiar with this, but I am here available for any questions you may have. So, what you're looking at is the ground floor of the building.
Um at the top of the page is 163rd, and as you can see, the street there is lined by a small residential lobby and by [snorts] a retail component. Um and there was a comment at one of the planning hearings about making a wider
sidewalk. So, what we've done is basically make the whole piece on 163rd a little plaza area. So, that you've got all paved with some nice landscaping up on that. Um on the south portion of the plan, or the lower portion of the plan,
you've got your main lobby area on the left. You've got your vehicular entrance um and exit, a little bit of retail, and then some FP&L and and some back of house areas all the way on the right hand side of the plan.
This is our typical parking level, um which happens for the next seven levels or so. Um basically, it is also lined both streets are also lined completely. So, you see the units on the top of the page, those are what is currently the hotel rooms,
and that we are trying to redesign to or reuse as um apartments instead of the hotel component. Um but the view from the street basically stays the same thing. It's completely lined, so you don't see the parking garage behind you. And then on the lower portion of the
page or 164th, you also have the same condition where the entire street front is lined with residential units. This is our many our first amenity level, um which is the ninth level, um and everything you see in yellow is some
sort of amenity, club room, gym, you know, uh office areas, things of that nature. So, all tenant um amenities, and then obviously the pool is at the bottom of the page, and then everything else is covered terraces or trellises or things
of that nature. So, this uh floor is completely dedicated to amenities only. Then we go to our tower. Um, this happens through the 24th floor. Um, basically it's units um, and it's basically the same floor plan that happens all the way up.
There's varying balconies that you can see in the in the elevations just to break up and make it interesting, but the floor plan sort of repeats itself up the building. And then this is one of the floors that was added, uh, which is some additional amenities on the rooftop. So, a good
portion of the rooftop is just mechanical areas, but there is some additional amenities, which is what you see in yellow. The red is the core of the building, the elevators and the stairs. The yellow around it are additional amenities. Then there's a pickleball court, which is in blue, and
then some outdoor terrace areas, um, on that level as well. And these are the elevations. They're basically identical, um, and then some of the materials, um, for the building, some of the renderings.
And as Steve mentioned, basically for this application all we're doing is changing the use of those 30 hotel rooms to units. And I think that's it. Thank you very much. >> So, in changing from the 30 hotel rooms
to the 30 units, is it there's no change in the floor plan? >> Not at all. >> Okay. Thank you. >> They were they were sort of oversized hotel rooms, if you will, um, and we just made them residential units. >> Thank you. >> So, it's it's just a use that changes.
>> Okay. Closing thoughts before we go to the >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Just >> I do have one about the parking. >> No, we I was good. No, I was going to wait. I was going to have the presentation be completed then we get >> Okay. >> That's how we usually do it.
>> Yep. I'll wrap up quickly. Just um wanted to remind you um this is a developer that that's familiar with North Miami Beach and and has built projects here, the Highlands, Nexo Residences is our projects of this developer. They're very excited to get
started with construction. They've actually um have sold pre-sold 25% of the condos. So, things are going well, and their hope is to start construction in Q1 of next year. And so, with that, we're here for any questions or any additional information
we can provide. >> Mr. Neely. All right. >> Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. Uh bear that for a second that we put to our presentation for the staff reporting. Uh is that already open? >> I don't know. Sorry. >> Thank you, Wayne.
All righty. Um Clicker work? Okay. Mayor and Commissioners, this is uh from staff standpoint of William Major's modification of site plan approval public hearing case number 25.08 presented uh this evening that went to
uh Planning and Zoning Board uh last month um during the regular Zoning Board meeting and was recommended for approval. Location for the record uh after before for the record, Edward Neng, interim community development director. Okay. Uh
Maybe my phone is too close. Or maybe something electronic. Uh the loc- location at the 2040 Northeast 160th uh Terrace Street um as number 07.2216.012.0220. This is in the mixed-use employment
center district um on a approximately 1 acre lot. Um, as you can recall, as you can see on the map, it's an irregular shaped lot, which is uh uh why there were several variances granted in the past. The applicant uh uh
uh you know, requested it um asking really for conversion of the uh uh a 30 uh 30 unit to be converted. Um, it changes from the prior approval. Um, you know, that had to run aspect to
it. It removed hotel units. The change of use that must come before the commission per 24.172.1 of the city's ordinances. Um, uh they did have to also uh make certain changes because we regulate parking for
residential units and hotel units very differently, their aspect of traffic, and so forth. There's um you had previously uh uh granted three variances the commission. Um, these run with the land. Uh, this was hotel use uh with if you
change the use, it no longer applies. Uh, the 0-ft interior setback, and that had to deal with the lot side and the irregular lot side that you saw. That was the reasoning behind the commission's uh uh granting of that. And the 0-ft tower setback. All those are
actually encoded into the site plan, and uh the applicant mentioned and staff is confirming there are no changes to the envelope of the building. Um, you know, that the envelope of the building is shown right here. Um, uh uh um as you can also see from this,
the uh the the envelope doesn't actually extend all the way to the edge, only in one particular point. There are thematic modification considerations that changing in the youth, increase in density or intensity, or any other proposed change where staff is not
comfortable. And again, our my modification only really covers certain aspect of the internal aspect outside the youth, and it really doesn't cover here. Now, uh there are aspects of where you can exceed not up to 10% of the metric, and staff has checked out, so um
we find that uh to be pretty consistent with this project. Now, when you're thinking about the modification of the 30 unit, uh there are very specific aspects to think about. First, uh back of right, second, traffic impact, third,
parking, and fourth, height and stories. It is a changing in number of stories, and in which case the applicant had gone from 23 to 25 stories while keeping certain aspect of the height. We have reviewed the application from staff standpoint and uh confirmed the applicant had not made changes to the
facade previously uh noted uh approved by the commission. Uh it um uh complied with the setback tower and lot covered per your variance as uh granted uh and uh we'll cover parking in a minute. First is then the back of
right. Uh with any approval of this type in the uh in the district, we just note to commission how many units are left. As you see, Commissioner uh Mayor and Commissioner, uh there's 966 units left in the back of the right.
So, there's ample room left for the approval. Uh it can really allow for those 30 units to be assigned here without really impacting any other development within the area. I mean, you given your past approval that anywhere
from 1 to 10 uh additional uh developments uh um well, actually three to 10 additional developments based on what you have provided. And of course, the well, hotel room it calculate non-residential FAR traffic important that that's a reason because when you convert that use back,
that's where 40 things go back into the back of the right. So, what's the trade-off here, for the record? Traffic impact at the applicant noted de minimis. That probably you that short explanation why. We utilize the ITE traffic generation
manual latest version. And so, what you currently have two different uses, a high-rise residential use and hotel use. They're different land use codes that have different generation of traffic within the manual. So, think about it as going from
something more intensive with the hotel at about 0.6 to about 0.4 for for for residential. So, you're actually when you do the type of conversion, normally you see a reduction in the traffic generation within the traffic
generation of the traffic analysis. And that is why it termed at the minimis because you're projected a decrease based on this methodology utilized by the city. But parking, now I know parking is
something that when I was your director the last time in the previous time it's something we talked about and the commission did pass changes to the parking ordinance on October 15, 2024. However, that needs to note that those
parking amendment changes would be deemed more restrictive because it required more parking spaces. And I don't know if the city attorney had briefed the commission on SB 180. SB 180
provide preemption from the state. And the preemption date from the state is any legislation that is more restrictive after August 1st, 2024. Now, going back to the fact that at the commission you passed second reading on
this on October 24th October sorry 2015 sorry October 15th 2024 sorry um staff noted that the state had preempted that ordinance and therefore the
applicant must be calculating on the basis of the what you have adopted beforehand. So based on that staff went back to uh what you see in the chart which is based off of the standards that we have in the MUZC district looked at the
number of bedroom that they have and the calculation it it is compliant with what the uh commission had adopted into the code which had the maximum and minimum. Now if the parking wasn't uh
preempted by the state that would be a different required number. But because we have been preempted by the state that's advised us that if we try to do something that's preempted by the state the city would subject to a challenge and it's not
something that community development staff would recommend in this regard. >> All right before you move forward I know there's parking so let's let's see if we can mitigate those issues now. Commissioner Schmukler >> Thank you so much. So um I would like um Mr. Attorney if you can explain that
whole what he just said please. >> State of Florida has passed a series of very restrictive ordinances that interfere with home rule. We talk a lot about live local but we talk less
frequently about 180 I think it is. Um What that said basically is past certain date that ordinances that attempt basically to restrict development were preempted by the state
because they were I mean frankly why it applies to us is very questionable, but that's how they wrote it. Uh there were attempts to rebuild in the wake of that very devastating hurricane that hit the west coast the southwest coast wiped out
like Sanibel and Captiva. And that's the order that's the the law that they passed. Um it is not a model of clarity. I mean it is possible that under certain circumstances it can be challenged. I
happen to be one who thinks that it can be credibly challenged as it applies to us because we were not in the process of rebuilding from the hurricane and it is questionable whether
the ordinance that we passed really directly conflicts with it. But it certainly at least is possible it can be read that way and people frankly have read it more restrictively
than I read it. So you know, I'm I'm a little bit of an optimist about it, but it is questionable that there's this state law that says that something that's more restrictive on development is preempted past that date is preempted by the state.
>> I so the ordinance that we did on parking you what you're saying is it's no longer valid? >> I hesitate to say that because we have approved some things in the past with that
under that ordinance. I hesitate to say that because there's not a clear judicial determination. But I can't say that the meaning that Mr. Eng is describing to it is
just wrong. There is this state law that purports to preempt what is what is more restrictive. Is parking more restrictive? There's an argument to be made that it's not,
but I have to say more people in my business seem to agree with Mr. Eng's interpretation than mine. That doesn't mean we can't try to enforce it and have somebody sue us and take us to court and then we'll know.
>> So so basically they don't even have to put parking is what this law is saying? >> It's any development ordinance. Any ordinance that restricts development. I think the explanation of us listening
to it is Mr. Eng gave it. >> Right, but if the developer came and said putting up parking spots prohibits me from building more apartments, then we have to say yes. >> mean we can't restrict it at all. It only means the change
from what was the prior ordinance may not be valid. It doesn't remove our ability to regulate parking. It says that if we've taken an action that's deemed more restrictive, the action that made it more restrictive may be
controlled by the state. We go back to the previous ordinance. >> effective? >> Pardon? >> When did this become effective? >> I believe it was as I think it was as well, 2024. I think maybe I forget if it was July 1st or October
1st. Do you happen to recall, Mr. Eng? I don't have any information. >> It was either July 1st or October 1st, 2025. >> One of 2024. >> So that that's been in effect for over a year. >> Okay, so but this originally came up to us in 2022.
>> Okay. I mean they they were speaking last week about being grandfathered in. So, now they're grandfathered in. >> Um I don't consider it to be grandfathered, no. I think it is different. They are if the state law has the effect
of preempting our new ordinance, then they simply operate under the previous ordinance. That's not really the same as being grandfathered. They are controlled by the ordinance under which they were approved.
It's just the fact that whether we changed our ordinance adopting a new ordinance, that may not be effective against them. And the only reason that would be an issue, I mean, if they had not sought
any modification, they're already approved. They were approved under the ordinance that was in place when they were approved in 2022. But when we say, "Well, wait a minute. We've You want a modification, you have to comply with our new
ordinance." It's not a matter of saying that they're grandfathered. That's really a different standard. That's where they become um they're trying to assert that uh they've had a use that's continued for a period of time. This has to do with the fact
that they're seeking a modification. The modification they're seeking entitles us, arguably, to say, "Well, based on the fact that you're seeking this modification, we have a new ordinance. You have to
meet the new ordinance." And there is a credible argument that the new ordinance itself is preempted by state law. >> So, why did we bother doing the New Orleans?
>> Well, um I think that it I that was right when I it was getting here. I think that ordinance had been in the works for quite some time and it just it went ahead and again, the state there was a a serious effort this year
to modify 180 because it is in again, in my opinion, it's overly broad. It's been applied to a whole range of things that is I think are more than what it was intended to do, which was to allow people where the hurricane
had ravaged them to not be too restricted in trying to rebuild. So, A, there's a possibility that our ordinance could be defended in court as not controlled by 180. I don't think that's a closed issue.
It's >> Okay, so if we chose to then um fight you know, and I'm sorry, insist that they have to have x amount of parking, then we're entitled to do so because
>> We could take that position. They could challenge that in court and we would see how the courts ruled. Um frankly, as I said, I had hoped this past year there was supposed to be an attempt to dial back
that 180 and make it apply in less situations. Um that might yet happen but not in this session. Even though they still have some specials they may be holding, looks like that's not going
to be among the issues. >> All right, thank you. >> Okay. Commissioner Smith, did you know parking was an issue for >> Thank you. Um Mr. Ning I wasn't here then. So, I'm I want to
be caught up if I could. >> [clears throat] >> The rooftop. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Was there a variance given that they could go higher? >> There is no there was no variance that could go higher. However, I have several slides subsequently that may answer your
questions, ma'am. Uh we only have the parking portion and there is a section on height which I'll cover shortly. >> Okay, I would like that because he was saying that the rooftop will not have any
commercial and will not have any residential. But the rooftop has quite a bit of living up there with racquetball or what pickleball and >> Mhm. >> there must be restrooms up there and a bar up there and
So, I want to know if that was an a variance. >> At at the pleasure of the mayor and commissioners, if you wish I can continue on with that presentation that may answer some of Commissioner Smith's questions. Okay. >> Um can you show that slide with the
anything regarding the roof? >> We can't hear you. >> Okay. Um I I'd like to ask you to bring up the slide again and if it's possible, are you able to zoom it? >> Uh IT would be the one to ask to put up there. They'll give him a second.
>> Is the slide on the rooftop? Is the slide on the rooftop? >> No. >> Could we talk about the rooftop being as I had the floor? >> Um well, we're talking about parking right now. >> No, we were talking about the rooftop.
>> We stopped We paused because uh Commissioner Smuckler wanted to talk about this parking. So, now I'm just continuing the parking conversation just to uh complete that. Um is there IT is there a way to zoom in on that one?
Or can you print the file? Can you send it to us or something that I can take a look at closer cuz I can't see it. >> Um >> Is there Didn't we get copies of this? presentation? >> I thought I had the >> No. >> We have copies? >> I don't think so.
>> The the agenda came two pages. >> I I think that's >> got them. We got them. >> Um that she did ask for some So, she can't ask the staff for something else if she already asked her for something. >> What Go ahead, Commissioner Can you repeat what you said? >> Phyllis asked the staff to put up some
screens and now Lynn's asking him >> No, but we were talking about parking. >> Right, but Phyllis went back >> But he's talking He's still talking about parking. He said he we we have to go back >> But we >> continue his presentation and then address the rooftop that Phyllis wanted.
>> Well, okay. So, this This is what I'll do This is what I'll do. So, in the meantime, cuz I don't know how quickly they can zoom in or zoom out. >> Okay, great. >> Okay, so if you can be a little bit um quick on and explain this particular >> All right. Uh Commissioner, um when you zoom into the section you want, I just
need to know how to zoom in, right? Where to zoom in on the on the chart. >> Thank you. Okay, no. So, um so, the explanation is what we approved is is the three So, minimum we need 391. This is according to the old parking code, correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay, and then they have 448 parking spaces. Can I go see what our >> Uh my apologies, Commissioner. Uh you have to add it together because they are um they they they they they are um the
retail is calculated differently than the residential. So, you have to add the retail and the residential together. So, they actually have 457 because you see here they have 448 and nine. And so, So, that's where they get
the 457 in the proposed this evening, Commissioner. >> I see. And according to the according to the number of rooms with one bedroom, two, and three, >> Mhm. >> right? And that one is already the minimum of 391. Is that what was
required? >> Yeah, that is what is required. Uh under the minimum and maximum, plus one space for every 20 rooms is the calculation. They only uh they were required to have a minimum of 391 spaces
or maximum of 767 spaces. Without the modification, the applicant actually would have been compliant uh uh even with the changes. Uh they are simply adding more spaces of their own accord to account for the changes in the
uh uh in the residential aspect and perhaps to get parking. But, they're not actually required to do so. >> Got it. And also the 10 ADA is not included in the 457 that we're talking about. It's extra. >> Right. >> Okay, great.
No further questions. >> I I have I have one more question. So, for um So, how many parking spots are allocated for 30 hotel rooms? It's like eight, right? >> It it would have been 10, Commissioner.
>> Isn't it one space for four rooms? >> Uh It They They Well, they were required to have eight, but >> Well, one space for four rooms is like four times >> They originally gave a bit more, Commissioner, is what I'm saying. Uh So, they originally they had 10 spaces
allocated. >> and then but they're not adding any spaces now that it went from 30 hotel rooms to 30 apartments. >> Right. So, they have moved those spaces to residential and added the spaces
because they um they originally had less residential and less parking spaces. >> Right, but if it if it would require instead of 10 parking spots now it would require at least at least 45 parking spots.
Right? >> I'm not sure. I'm going to say >> 30 apartments, so >> Oh, 30 apartments, so yeah, they would need actually 31 bases because remember what we will round up from staff down point to 32 because in addition to the
fact that these are studio apartment uh uh commissioner. So, one base per part uh per unit >> Mhm. >> plus one for every uh 20 units, right? So, you got 30 plus 30 divided by 20, which is 1.5. We round
up to 32. >> Okay, so we should be getting 32 >> Yeah. >> instead of the 10. >> And >> So, 12 more. >> Yeah. So, the applicant had uh well, 22 more. So, the applicant had compensated
by going from 417 to 457, which is 40 spaces. >> Right. And and you had um I know we're talking about the parking, but you had mentioned something about the basket of rights in the few minutes ago. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> So, I thought the basket of [clears throat] rights was only for that uh area that the city had done a few years ago, which was like Biscayne Boulevard and West 60. >> Uh no, uh commissioner, uh the basket of right applies separately to each of your
mixed-use district at the top of by the city. So, each mixed-use district, mixed-use town center, mixed-use employment center, uh you know, where uh you know, the different district over by where the river riverwalk uh towers are, they all had their separate [snorts]
pool that track has that uh that have to track differently for the commission but yeah. >> it was just those two areas but you're saying it's any area that has a mixed use. >> Right because in order to provide you with the accurate picture of what you may approve at the commission, we have to go back to what you told staff we're
going to approve in particular for this district. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No. Okay. Okay. We can move on with the slides. >> Yeah. >> All right. Uh Now to height and story. Um bear with me while I find Here we are.
Um the roof level um while the overall height is 200 and um 252 and uh 8 in, the roof level is actually at 254 uh feet and 4 in and the roof that contain the proposed
amenity. Why that's important? That's important because of the rule that the uh commission adopted. So, the commission has several items that uh are adopted in our code that caused applicants to react a certain way or design a certain way. One of that is
you don't count the mechanical portion against the height limit. That's under section 24.83 of your code and that's a significant portion of what's being proposed. The permitted height for the racquetball court, the court itself is open to the sky and it's at 254
uh feet. Now, there's also aspect of oh, they got extra stories. You don't allow 20 story but your code also allows you to uh um to have extra stories underneath that 254 feet as long as you know, you meet certain
requirements. So, that's also accepted for as well by what the commission had previously adopted. Now, in addition, the commission has two other sections where it poses certain rule for the rooftop that would affect how staff is able to evaluate this uh in terms of
compliance. One is that um rooftop terraces that open to the sky portions like the pickleball court are allowed on your rooftop amenities that under section 24.51 S1P. The other aspect is that there, you know, under that rooftop amenity there's
aspect where they want you to provide shaded seating areas and stuff, right? So, wait a second. [snorts] I thought it was supposed to be open to the sky for this racquetball or pickleball court or whatnot. Doesn't this seem contradictory? Well, that where the commission and put
another section in regarding covered structures and amenities. Now, uh, it that under section 24.58 S1Q, which is two sections later, where it provides for certain rules on covered structures including those bathroom that would be naturally required if you have
those amenities under the building code and uh, other climate controlled structures. How do other cities deal with it? How did we deal with it in the past on uh, uh, in terms of approval? Well, it's the difference between habitable
space and non-habitable space. We treat that differently from a living area standpoint. That's because it's occupiable does not mean that it's defined as habitable space. And that is where the applicant has come in on the distinction and direct uh, sighting of
uh, the city's adopted code in order to support that condition of approval where nothing on the top, based on our code, can be utilized for non-habitable uh, um, for habitable space, but it can be used for non-habitable space such as
bathroom for uh, uh, uh, the pickleball court and uh, other amenities. What the staff is always concerned about is whether or not an applicant will build out a space and close it and suddenly make it into a bedroom later on.
They're not allowed to do so because that make it a habitable space. What this condition does it make it enforceable that the amenity they're proposing up there remain part of those amenities only. And under the code then, you're allowed
to have the covered structures, you're allowed to have the rooftop terraces, and you're allowed to have the mechanical aspects not count against the height of the building. Uh good commission uh did that answer your question, ma'am? >> It does. I you know, I again, I wasn't
here. And I did drive by the project again because zero lot line. >> Yes, ma'am. >> If the house if the property on the south also wanted to build
and they build zero property line, they'd be abutting each other. Is that what we want in North Miami Beach now? With no space in between? >> I >> So then the the reason the rooftop became >> Well, >> part of it because like pickleball
>> All right. >> on top of the roof, what kind of netting are they going to have? So that the tennis ball doesn't go flying all everywhere. And what kind of privacy will the zero prop- property line have next door?
>> All right. So commissioner, there's several uh ans- things that relate to this question. First is the irregular side of the of the lot. So in terms of this square right here, if something were to come in here, you
want want it to abut, otherwise you have a really weird alleyway abutting the buildings. Now, as to outside here, there is um a alleyway here already that allow for the other lot lot that does not have an effect. And on the other
side, that is for the district's determination on how to proceed if that building come in. And other major cities, sometimes they are next to each other because that is how the dense development had come into play. And other places I've you seen me argue
before the commission on other projects, we had to say, "Okay, you know what? This development came in first." But you know what? We want to make sure we have a pedestrian walkway to cut through the block. And so the commission thought fit to recommend in its
condition of approval that the building would be designed a certain way. And so that's still within this commission discretion for any future project that comes in. Certainly what you mentioned, Commissioner, is a valid question. It's a bit more nuanced from
what we see here. >> Right. And I'm wondering looking at this project and the project being approved tonight, do we want to change our code on certain areas, 163rd Street, 167th
Street, to have zero lot line as not a variance, not asking the city for a favor, but that would be the new norm, and that would bring us more profit for a developer to have more
land to build on. I'm just saying it if it's going to work here, it could work. And I think I I would like the manager to consider bringing that forth, maybe as something to change our code that on
certain streets, 163rd, 167th, that it would not be a variance if it could apply to have a zero property line. Now, what do you What about the tennis balls? We had to vote Some of the commissions may have been here or may
not have. But we had a vote about the basketballs on the the Jewish school, were you here? That the the was the screening going to be high enough? Is there going to be a requirement
that where that pickleball court is, I played pickleball once and I'm asking for some a friend that maybe doesn't hit it as well. Um is there going to be a requirement that there's going to be a fence around that? >> Would the applicant be amenable to a
conditional approval regarding the pickleball court and ensuring that appropriate fencing or netting is provided? >> She's asking for a friend. Okay, do we have a height region do we have a height restriction, Mr. Ning, from the city that it we should require
this fence to be? How high? >> Um >> so that there was not problem? >> There is no regulation on that, so at at our discretion if the applicant Yeah, well, we can work with the applicant to make sure that the any such netting is at an appropriate height uh
to prevent any falling objects. That would be normally kept in other cities. >> You also need to be certain from a liability standpoint that whatever is there is not just, you know, making sure to uh that uh the pickleball balls don't go over. We need to be sure that there's
something to make sure the pickleballers do not go over. There's got to be adequate uh from a liability standpoint. There have to be some adequate barriers that someone's not going to run up to it chasing a ball and accidentally go over
and go plunging over the side. >> Sorry, Steve Wornick, applicant. For sure, in the building permit process, like the building code will require certain safety measures on the roof. >> What was the vote from the planning and zoning, please, Mr. Ning?
>> It was 7-0, Commissioner. >> Yeah, 7-0. 7-0. >> Uh Believe it was 7-0, Commissioner. >> Thank you. >> Mayor, move to approve ordinance number R 2026-70.
>> even finish. >> What do you mean we didn't finish? We've been going for This was a a nothing that they're asking for. >> I'll I'll second it because I just I understand this is How many other more slides do you have? >> Only one last slide, Mayor. This is the last slide. I'll let the commission option both in the continued direction
or to approve including all prior conditions from resolution 2022.14 with exception of the hotel one. Motion to approve with the additional conditions as mentioned this evening or motion to deny. >> You got the final thought, Commissioner sir. Go ahead. >> Okay, so um according to the architect
that was answering the question just now, he said that the floor plan hasn't changed, right? But you're adjusting from 23 to 25 stories. Is that correct? So if the floor plans doesn't change, the room numbers change, that means that
the rooftop we're keeping the same height but reducing the number of stories. Or I'm sorry, increasing the number of stories. >> To to to clarify, Commissioner, I think what he meant was the changes from last year's submittal. When we submitted for the minor modification, there hasn't
been any changes in the plans since last year. But there has been a change since the original approval in 2022. >> So the the number of stories increasing is happening from last approval. >> No, it it's happening from 2022. It
happened between 2022 and last year. Yeah. >> so now we have um increased the number of stories from 23 to 25. >> Yes. >> Right? This is the the new So if no floor plan has changed and the ceilings
are getting lower, how are the how are the the rooms Does that make sense to you? No. >> Let me have Javier address that. He knows better. >> All right. >> So, the original design that came to commission was 23 stories. >> Mhm.
>> The changes that were done were done administratively through the ordinance that you guys had passed. So, we worked with the city um and city staff for about a year to make these changes. And they were all done administratively because your
ordinance allowed allowed them to be done administratively. So, the site plan or the approval that we have today is for a 25-story building with exactly the same plan that we're showing you today except that 30 of the rooms
the hotel rooms that are facing 163rd that lined the podium the the first floors the parking floors we want to make into residential units. That is the only change because all the other changes have been already approved
administratively. They didn't have to come back to commission because they met the administrative ordinance requirements. >> How many units are there per story? >> Per story? Shoot. Somewhere in the mid-20s I would
imagine. Somewhere in there. >> So, now you're increasing two stories. Is the rooftop one of the stories? >> Correct. So, what increased the number of stories >> is one story. >> Right. What increased the number of stories was one parking level one parking garage level. So, we we added
the same floor with the same um number of units that lined the floor we added that on the eighth floor move the original um amenity level up one level and added
the rooftop which was 100% mechanical before but since the project went to a condo, we wanted additional amenity areas and additional terrace areas and the pickleball court, etc. etc. >> Okay, now I understand. So, the 23 to
25, all the floor plans are the same. You reduced ceiling height because hotels need higher ceiling height, I understand, right? >> No, we didn't reduce ceiling >> reduce the ceiling height? >> So, but you took two of the story you increased two stories but kept the height the same. >> No, no, the height is higher than it
would have than it was originally on the 23 stories, but that was approved under the administrative >> Oh, from before. >> variance, correct. >> from 255 ft to 272 ft 8 in. >> Okay. >> So, what we added was one level of parking >> More parking and the other one
>> and the roof top amenity areas. >> Okay. Okay, clear. Thank you. >> All right, um commissioners >> Vice Mayor. >> Vice Mayor, um Floor is open to final thought with Commissioner Jacques. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Mayor and Madam City Clerk, thank
you. Um when it comes to community benefits, it's been a number of years. Can anyone refresh our memory as to whether or not there were any community benefits that were proffered outside of impact fees? >> Uh
my apologies. Um um my mayor, I was not with the city at the time. I did not recall any specifically in the conditions of approval >> [snorts] >> when I reviewed it yesterday. >> Um before my time as well, Vice Mayor.
Um that's >> I just said I wasn't here in 2020 when it was approved. >> Yeah, and Steve Warak again. Uh in looking at the resolution, there were not. This is even though it's in the CRA boundaries, there there was no application for CRA funding or
um any kind of support in that sense. So, that's probably why there wasn't any community benefit agreement. >> Okay, and in addition to that, the the sales um office that you guys have, um are are you a leasing or are do you own
that parcel? >> They're leasing the parcel. >> Okay, thank you. >> for the sales office. >> Thank you so much. I had a question about I think there was a public comment about tenants. How many tenants are currently in the in the building?
>> So, I do we don't know the exact number of tenants, but they're aware that the construction and will be starting at some point early next year, so I think they're expecting to be moving out end of the year. >> I guess the question really kind of plays into you know, giving people ample
time to make provisions. So, obviously, if you said Q1, what are you looking for in Q1 to actually start the What's happening in Q1 of '27? >> The hope is to obtain the full building permit to start the construction in Q1. >> Okay, so I would hope that if you go
backwards If you go backwards, when when do you hope to at least give them a notice so that they can cuz if if you have more than a dozen businesses in there, it's going to be a challenge for them to, you know, relocate in in less than 6 months. So, I'm hoping that there's some due diligence done there to
ensure those those tenants are, you know, >> Yes. >> properly noticed. >> I think the tenants are aware, but we will certainly continue to communicate. >> Thank you. >> All right, Madam Clerk. >> No, no, I I I had asked him for permission to speak and he said I could. Thank you. So, um again, I'm I'm I said
this last week, I'm going to say it again. My my comment right now has nothing to do against this project, but um if my math is right or if I'm right, we we gave them 80,000 square feet through administrative waiver to the
manager. Um we gave them 80,000 square feet administrative waiver, but Ruth had to come here last week. How many How many feet did we give you? In the right-of-way? Yeah, in the right-of-way?
>> Four. >> 40. Wow, she had to come here for 40 square feet, but but our residents have to do this for 40 square feet. She had to come and get our approval, but for 80,000 square feet,
anybody can do anything. That's wrong. We don't treat our residents right. Our resi- This is not your fault either. I'm not blaming you. I'm just trying to tell I'm blaming you. I'm just trying to say that our residents deserve a little bit more special attention.
For her to have to come here for four- We couldn't have done 40 square feet administratively, but we can do 80,000 square feet. Just saying, but thank you. >> Final thought, Commissioner Smith, please. >> Um I heard what you said that you're in the CRA and you're not asking for anything
from the CRA district, although we did just do some major sewer work there, which will make it so it's buildable, but I want to ask staff without any
an- anything promised to the city, does the art still apply that they have to have art? That they have to do the regulation things in reference to the other simple aspects that in
2022 you didn't ask for? >> Right. Uh Commissioner, unless it was particularly stipulated in the uh uh original approval a part of site plan, because this applicant had not applied for CRA fund, and the city
code, it's written in a way where the public art benefit is directly tied to the CRA fund request or other aspects. The short answer is no. >> I believe city attorney and city manager uh
over a month ago I requested that we put in a new ordinance in reference to that art, so it wouldn't be tied in strictly that. I'd like that to come forth soon, cuz now we're stuck. Now we're stuck. I mean, I would like the developer to be a good partner with
North Miami Beach, and some of these things that are just simple, whether it's for the more more people using the library or any or the transportation that there's
community and developer you know, partnership. >> Right. >> I would like to see that come forth. I don't know if the developer has anything in mind that he can contribute, but I would certainly like to see something. Thank you.
>> Okay. Com- Commissioner, if I might, um and you and I have talked about it, so we are working on something, but you need to know that there is some reading possible about imposing that kind of restriction
>> No, I'm not imposing a restriction. I'm for the project 100%. So, I'm not >> Not on this one. I understand you're speaking generally, but the same Senate Bill 180 that says you can't restrict development could be read [snorts]
when you add requirements to development as being in conflict. Well, that doesn't mean we can't do it. It means that it could be challenged. >> Well, I need then you and the manager to get together and find out where's the loophole that we can start to beautify North Miami Beach. I need you to do
that. I need you the zero lot line now that I looked at it when I saw it last week, I was so against it. The more I see it today, I'm so in favor of making that a possibility down the whole street. >> Okay. >> Because I think that'll be a
beautification and an upgrade for the neighborhood that people will want to develop here. And the sooner we bring that forth about the zero lot line also, the better. Thank you. >> Call you want to call them in? >> Call the question. >> Madam Clerk. >> Are we supposed to do public comment? >> We already did public comment.
>> No, not we did public comment before. We didn't do it now. >> No, we're ready. From my understanding, we did public comment. >> We did public comment at the beginning of the meeting. We didn't do public comment for this. >> And actually had the opportunity to
speak to him two >> two times. >> We never when after he's after we called the motion, we never did public comment. >> I >> I mean, probably nobody wants to speak anyways, but >> No, I don't >> No, no, no, we >> No, like when Whitney spoke, he spoke at
the beginning during at the beginning, item number three, public comment. >> Okay. Okay. >> We didn't have public comment when we called 5.2. >> Madam Clerk. >> The mayor commissioner of the city of North Miami Beach has opened the floor
for public comment. >> After this we'll come >> time, please speak only on the the subject matter. If anyone would like to come forward, you have 3 minutes to speak. No one has come forward. >> But now we did it with the right way. That was important.
>> Madam Clerk, can we do it real quick? Thank you. >> Commissioner Sherman off. >> Gladly, yes. >> Commissioner Jean. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Smakler. No. Commissioner Sue? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor McKenzie Fleurimond?
>> Yes. >> Mayor Michael Joseph? >> Yes. >> It passes 6-1. >> City Attorney, two more items so we can Yeah, the other item is a pretty pro forma item. We discussed it the other night. We've since distributed this to everybody.
Law firm has brought suit against the state over the property tax thing. They've invited our city to join in unlike previous requests where they say you have to ante up and pay 5,000 or 10,000. They've invited us to join free of charge. >> Move to approve.
>> Second. >> All right. >> to place on the record the odds. There is a slight chance there could be a judgment for costs if it failed completely. It's very unlikely and our share of costs would be very low. >> Commissioner Sue?
>> Thank you. Um I think that uh we're moving the homestead uh property taxes. Um I'm actually for. I think that we have so many
expenses in terms of um our homeowners insurance, the cost of construction and whatnot. Um since we have had the situation with 1451, I see how creative we can get about how we can generate more money in the city through various
other avenues that actually are effective in long term. Uh we just haven't done that. And we all know it's not about an income issue. I think it's about a To me it I think it's an expense issue. If we can, you know,
hold our hold our breath like and do how we manage our own money like in our in our own home when we're choosing between groceries and you know, gas to go to work or etc. I think that we would be more efficient. Like right now, I
wouldn't I wouldn't prioritize luxury goods over food if I was running out of money. I think that I would probably decide to do things a different way. Now, the way that the city has been run, I feel like if we do tighten our belts a
little bit, I see the managers doing a great job with like cutting down expenses that are completely unnecessary. Um I know that I you know, there's there are some things in here that have are changing drastically. But for me, I am not supporting this
lawsuit against the state. I do want that relief to come to the residents and to the people of Florida, especially those that are homesteaded. Now, for those people who are have second homes here and you know, come by three times a
year, if they want to pay full taxes, I'm good with that, too. So, those are the people who can afford it. It's the everyday Floridians. It's the everyday North Miami Beachers that are living here, own property. When they bought it, it was 10, 20 thousand dollars. Today,
it's worth like 7, 800 thousand dollars and they're taxed on that assessed rate. So, when we look at that, I think it's better to give the relief where we can and if the government's willing to give up their money so that you could have
more, like I'll say have at it. But um that's my stand. >> Okay, we've got a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Next. >> Oppose. >> Okay, one oppose. >> The record should show one oppose, Mayor. That's all. >> All right. Motion to adjourn.
>> So moved. >> All in favor say I. I. Thank you. >> Mayor, I think the city manager's office had an announcement to make. >> Oh, you can have that announcement. Whatever that >> Sorry. >> Uh okay. >> Good evening, honorable mayor and commissioners
and public honorable city manager. I'm Greg Williams, public. I am the chief communication officer for the great city of North Miami Beach. I'm honored to be before you tonight. Uh, we're excited because Washington Park is
moving forward with the official demolition that will be happening Wednesday, June the 24th at 10:00 a.m. We're honored uh everyone to come out to see us continuously move forward with Washington Park. Yay! >> Yay! >> [applause]
>> And I think those are the sentiments of the sentiments of our great residents of that great community. Also, safety first town hall, Allen Park edition, will be happening June 25th uh which will be happening this coming Thursday at Allen
Park Community Center. On June 26th, we have the senior luncheon that will be happening at McDonald Center from 1 p- 1 a- from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. And last but not least, the Centennial edition neighborhood, Winwood June the
28th, this coming Sunday um it will be the block party in Winwood at Milton Lipman Park, 600 Northeast Miami Gardens Drive. We're inviting everybody to come out this coming Sunday. >> And that's it? >> All right, thank you so very much. >> Excuse me one second.
>> I thought we got something that it was canceled. >> It was a I think there was an issue regarding the calendar, but there it's still going on. So, yeah. >> And could I just say one thing real quick? >> Yes, ma'am. >> On the communications, those that did not come out
to see the Brazil Haitian soccer game, I just want to commemorate and commemorate I want to just want to thank the staff and the administration. That was an amazing, amazing, amazing
event. And And events are over. So, if you didn't get to see it, you didn't get to enjoy our best. >> All right. Thank you. >> Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I just want to There will be a recap video. We had over 700 residents to come out. And the beautiful
part about it was the diversity of the community. We had Brazilian, we had Hispanic, we had the Asian, we had the total community. It was phenomenal. >> All right. Thank >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> We adjourn? All right. Thank you. >> Mhm.