May 06, 2025 Planning Board

A MOTION FROM ONE OF MY BOARD MEMBERS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.

GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.

AND AS, UH, HILS MY FAVORITE LINE.

WELCOME TO THE MAY 6TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING.

PRETTY SHORT AGENDA, SO IT SHOULD BE A QUICK DAY TODAY, BUT WE'LL START WITH, UM, UH,

[1. After Action Report – April 8, 2025 ]

ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, TURN IT OVER TO CITY ATTORNEY.

GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

TODAY'S MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID FORMAT WITH THE BOARD PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL AND APPLICANT STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPEARING EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM.

TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY THE PUBLIC MAY DIAL 1-877-853-FIVE 2 5 7 AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH IS 6 1 3 4 2 6 3 2 7 POUND OR LOG INTO THE ZOOM APP AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH AGAIN IS 8 6 1 4 3 4 2 6 3 2 7.

IF YOU'RE WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, YOU CAN CLICK THE RAISE HAND ICON IN THE ZOOM APP OR DIAL STAR NINE IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING BY PHONE.

IF YOU'RE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS, A CORPORATION, OR ANOTHER PERSON, YOU NEED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.

IF YOU HAVEN'T REGISTERED YET, YOU SHOULD REGISTER BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO THE BOARD.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ONLY ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND NOT ANY OTHER PARTY.

OR IF YOU'RE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, OR OTHER SPECIALIZED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING, OR IF YOU'RE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR APPEARANCE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT.

HOWEVER, OPPOSITION TO ANY ITEM EXPERT WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHALL PRIOR TO APPEARING DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK, THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND THE PRINCIPLE ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY'RE COMMUNICATING.

IF YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT, ATTORNEY, OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTING AN APPLICANT OR AN OBJECTOR, YOU MUST REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST.

THESE RULES APPLY WHETHER YOU'RE APPEARING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN ITEM OR ENCOURAGING OR ARGUING AGAINST ITS PASSAGE TO BE MODIFICATION OR CONTINUANCE.

UH, AND LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO SWEAR IN ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR STAFF WILL BE TESTIFYING TODAY.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

OKAY, WE'LL START WITH THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUOUS.

MICHAEL, DO WE NEED TO DO EACH LINCOLN ROAD SEPARATELY? WE CAN DO THE LINCOLN ROAD EAST AND WEST SEPARATELY.

SO WE'LL NEED TWO.

UM, ONE MOTION FOR EACH.

25 0 7 3 7 LINCOLN ROAD WEST RESIDENTIAL USE INCENTIVES AND WE'LL TAKE THAT AS WELL WITH UM, PB 24 DASH 0 7 31, THE LDR AMENDMENTS.

THE EAST AND ONE MOTION FOR THE WEST.

ALRIGHT, SO THE FIRST IS PLANNING BOARD FILED

[2. PB25-0737 Lincoln Road West Residential Use Incentives - Comprehensive Plan Amendment.]

[3. PB24-0731. Lincoln Road West Residential Use Incentives – LDR Amendments]

UM, THE REQUEST HERE IS TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING.

WE SHOULD ASK IF ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE.

THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING.

IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.

OKAY, SO WE'LL CLOSE THE, UH, YOU WANNA JUST SHARE REAL QUICK WHY THEY'RE MOVING TO CONTINUE IT? THE COMMISSION SPONSORS ARE REQUESTED THAT THESE BE CONTINUED, UM, TILL DECEMBER.

ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, THAT'S TO DECEMBER, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY, SO THAT'S ITEMS TWO AND THREE 19TH DECEMBER 9TH.

AND THAT WAS, UH, OH 7 3 7 AND OH 7 3 1, CORRECT? CORRECT.

PLANNING BOARD FILE OH 7 3 8

THE NEXT ONE IS

[4. PB25-0738. Lincoln Road East Residential Use Incentives - Comprehensive Plan Amendment]

[5. PB25-0739. Lincoln Road East Residential Use Incentives – LDR Amendments]

LINCOLN ROAD EAST RESIDENTIAL USES AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S COMPANION ROAD OH 7 3 9.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THESE ARE FOR LINCOLN ROAD EAST, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND THE LDR AMENDMENTS.

AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS CONTINUE THIS TO THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE IS NOBODY ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.

ANY QUESTIONS? WANT A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? I'LL SECOND THAT.

PLANNING BOARD FILE 25 0 7 4 7 VENDOR APPOINTMENTS TO LAND USE BOARDS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED? OKAY, THE NEXT ONE IS

[6. PB25-0747. Vendor Appointments to Land Use Boards]

I'M REQUESTING THAT THIS BE CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 10TH MEETING.

WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE ORDINANCE, SO, UM, WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM.

WAS THAT AGAIN? VENDOR APPOINTMENTS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT IT'S THIS, THIS ORDINANCE RELATES TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A VENDOR OR AN EMPLOYEE OF A CITY VENDOR TO OUR LAND USE BOARD.

OH, LIKE IS IT POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OR SOMETHING? CORRECT.

IT WOULD BE TO ADDRESS POSSIBLE CONFLICTS UP TO NOW, UP TO NOW THAT WASN'T ALLOWED.

SO YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO ADD THAT INTO, OR, UM, THERE ARE RULES AT THE, AT THE COUNTY AND STATE LEVEL THAT APPLY TO APPOINTMENTS OF VENDORS TO BOARDS AND THIS WOULD ADOPT A, A TIGHTER STANDARD

[00:05:01]

FOR THE CITY.

SO TIGHTER.

ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM.

LAST MOTION TO CONTINUE IS PLAINTIFF FOR FILE 22 0 5 3 9 6 60 WASHINGTON AVENUE, THE ANGLERS HOTEL.

SOMEONE WANNA MOVE IT? MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

A ANYONE ALL IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY.

AND THE

[7. PB22-0539. 600 - 660 Washington Ave. Angler's Hotel.]

AND ACTUALLY THIS IS JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

UM, AGAIN, THIS IS FOR PB 22 DASH 0 5 3 9 600 TO SIX 60 WASHINGTON AVENUE, THE HOTEL.

THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS APPLICATION.

WOW.

SO, UM, THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED BY THE BOARD.

WE'RE ON TO THE FIRST PROGRESS REPORT IS, UH, PLANNING BOARD FILED 22 0 5 5 3 4 55 LINCOLN ROAD.

AND BEFORE WE GET, BEFORE WE START THE PROGRESS REPORTS, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE'VE REMOVED, UM, 400 COLLINS AVENUE, THE PARKING LOT, WHICH IS PB FILE NUMBER 2046.

WE'VE REMOVED THAT FROM THE AGENDA BOARD.

MAY REMEMBER LAST MONTH IT WAS CONTINUED TILL TODAY'S DATE.

HOWEVER, IF THE APPLICANT SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS WERE IN THE LANDSCAPING AND THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, WE COULD TAKE IT OFF THE AGENDA.

UM, THEY'VE JUST, THEY JUST COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITION.

UM, YESTERDAY, SO WE'RE MOVING THE ITEM UP.

ITEM ITEM 10 MM-HMM .

[8. PB22-0553. 455 Lincoln Road]

SO JUST FOR SOME HISTORY ON THIS, UM, APPLICATION, THE BOARD APPROVED A CONDITION LEASE PERMIT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS LOCATION ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 2022.

ON OCTOBER 28TH OF LAST YEAR, BTR WAS ISSUED FOR THE RESTAURANT WITH ENTERTAINMENT AS A CONDITION OF THE OPERATION.

THE APPLICANT HAD TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A PROGRESS REPORT AFTER THE BTR WAS ISSUED.

THEY DID THAT ON FEBRUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR.

AS NOTED WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS SORTED BY THE BOARD IN FEBRUARY, THERE UM, WERE VIOLATIONS ISSUED REGARDING, UM, PERFORMERS OUTSIDE ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS FOR, UM, BENCHES AND TABLES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND AT THE LAST MEETING, THE BOARD CONTINUED THE PROGRESS REPORT TO TODAY'S DATE.

SINCE THE, UM, THE MEETING IN FEBRUARY, THERE'S BEEN ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS ISSUED AND THIS WAS FOR HAVING ENTERTAINMENT IN THE FORM OF A DJ AT THE ROOFTOP.

NOW, THE BOARD MAY REMEMBER AS INDICATED ON PAGE, UM, 18 OF THE BOARD PACKAGES, WHICH IS PAGE FOUR OF THE STAFF OF THE FINAL ORDER.

THERE ARE CLEAR CONDITIONS REGARDING OPERATIONS OF THE ROOFTOP.

THE CONDITIONS SAYING THAT THAT IN TERMS OF THE UM, ENTERTAINMENT, ENTERTAINMENT IS PROHIBITED IN ALL OUTDOOR AREAS AND ONLY BACKGROUND MUSIC IS ALLOWED ON THE ROOFTOP LEVEL.

IT ALSO SAYS THAT A DJ OR LIVE PERFORMANCE IS ONLY ALLOWED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE RESTAURANT ONLY, AND THE SOUND FROM THE INTERIOR SHALL NOT BE AUDIBLE AT ANY TIME FROM THE EXTERIOR.

IN THIS CASE, THEY HAD A DJ THAT WAS EVEN, THAT WAS LOUDER THAN AMBIENT LEVEL ON THE ROOFTOP AND THAT'S WHY THE VIOLATION WAS ISSUED.

AND BECAUSE OF THIS AS WELL AS THE VIOLATIONS THAT WAS ISSUED IN FEBRUARY, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD SET A REVOCATION, UM, MODIFICATION HEARING FOR THE JULY 1ST PLANNING BOARD MEETING.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR RESPONSE.

WHICH WE KNOW IS AN AS AS A TIME OF INCREASED ACTIVITY, UM, AN OUTDOOR MUSIC ACROSS THE AREA.

'CAUSE I REMEMBER THE LAST VIOLATIONS WEREN'T SO BAD AND THERE WAS CORRECTIVE ACTION.

AND DISAPPOINTING TO HEAR THERE WAS A DJ OUTSIDE, BUT LET'S HEAR IT.

SO, GOOD MORNING.

MICHAEL OPOLIS, UH, 200 SACA BOULEVARD.

JOINED TODAY BY MY COLLEAGUES, UH, MICHAEL LARKIN AND EMILY BALTER.

WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY, UH, JOSE AKE, HE'S THE VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE RESTAURANT.

AND, UH, ALAN ARI, THE OWNER.

UM, WE WERE BEFORE YOU ON MARCH 4TH, UH, TO DISCUSS THIS.

AND AS YOU GUYS MENTIONED, THERE WERE, UH, MINOR INCIDENTS WHICH HAD SINCE BEEN RESOLVED.

UH, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH A QUICK PRESENTATION.

I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH, UH, THE HISTORY OR ANYTHING.

I JUST WANT TO, UM, SHOW YOU WHAT THE ROOFTOP LOOKS LIKE.

UH, THIS IS THE ROOFTOP TERRACE.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THE BAR STRATEGICALLY LOCATED AGAINST AND POSITION NEAR THE ENTRANCE OF THE ROOFTOP TO KEEP NOISE DOWN.

UH, THE REMAINDER OF THE ROOFTOP IS DEDICATED TO, UH, SEATING, OFFERING GUESTS, UH, UNOBSTRUCTED PANORAMIC VIEWS OF THE WONDERFUL CITY ON LINCOLN ROAD.

HERE ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT THE ROOFTOP LOOKS LIKE TODAY.

AGAIN, IT'S VERY FESTIVE.

UM, THESE ARE ACTUAL PHOTOS SHOWING A, A SHOWCASING A LIVELY ATMOSPHERE, UM, AND AN AN IDEAL SETTING TO ENJOY LUNCH, DINNER WITH A FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

HERE ON THE SCREEN IS THE OPERATIONS PLAN.

UM, THE RESTAURANT IS CLOSED MONDAY, TUESDAY, AND WEDNESDAY, BUT THE SCHEDULE CHANGES, BUT THEY ARE, DURING THE WEEK, THEY'RE, UH, OCCUPYING ABOUT 40 TO 50%.

AND ON THE WEEKENDS THEY'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT OCCUPIED, WHICH BRINGS IN A LOT OF, UH, VISITORS INTO, INTO, UH, LINCOLN ROAD AND THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.

NOW, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE VIOLATION.

UM, THEY DID HAVE A LIVE MUSIC DJ, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY THEY RECEIVED A VIOLATION.

UM, THIS NOTABLY WAS ON MARCH 27TH, WHICH IS THE SAME WEEK AS, UH, MIAMI MUSIC WEEK,

[00:10:01]

UH, THE VIOLATION STEMMED FROM AN HONEST MISUNDERSTANDING BECAUSE OF OTHER VENUES IN THE AREA WERE HOSTING EVENTS AND DOING THINGS WITH LIVE MUSIC.

THEY MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THIS.

UM, AS SOON AS THE INSPECTOR CAME IN AND NOTIFIED THEM THAT THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE CUP, THEY IMMEDIATELY STOPPED ALL MUSIC.

UM, SO THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY TOOK IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION.

THEY, THE FINE WAS PROMPTLY PAID, UH, SO INDICATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY AND NO FURTHER VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, UH, SINCE, UM, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE INCIDENT WAS ISOLATED AND UNINTENTIONAL.

UH, THE RESTAURANT HAS SHOWN A, A, UH, CLEAR COMMITMENT TO COMPLIANCE THEY HAVE WITH JOSE HERE.

HE'S, UM, WE'VE CREATED A SHEET.

SO HE'S GONE AND GIVEN ONE TO, UH, EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE OF THE RESTAURANT.

SO EVERYBODY'S VERY AWARE OF ALL THE CONDITIONS IN THE CUP WHEN MUSIC CAN BE PLAYED, WHEN MUSIC CAN'T BE PLAYED, UH, WHERE IT CAN BE PLAYED AND WHERE IT CAN'T BE PLAYED BEYOND AMBIENT LEVELS.

AND SO WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER WITH STAFF, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING ELSE AND NO FURTHER INSTANCES ARISE FROM THIS.

UM, MICHAEL, THIS IS ME SPEAKING FOR ONE PERSON, BUT, UM, YOU RECOMMEND A VACATE.

CAN WE DO, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SET UP ANOTHER PROGRESS REPORT? WELL, WE'RE RECRE THAT AN OPTION DOESN'T.

I KNOW YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, I'M ASKING IF THE BOARD DECIDES IT'S ON ANOTHER PROGRESS REPORT.

YEAH, IF THE BOARD COULD JUST, UM, CONTINUE IT AND HAVE ANOTHER PROGRESS REPORT.

ALL ALRIGHT.

I JUST HAD A QUE OKAY.

ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS IN THE CHAMBER? ANYONE ON ZOOM? SO IF, IF I MAKE, I CAN INTRODUCE JOSE.

OH, SURE.

IT'S GIMME GIMME ONE SECOND.

THERE'S NOBODY ANSWER WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.

GO AHEAD SIR.

HI, HOW ARE YOU? UM, I'M JUST HERE TO CONFIRM THAT THE TEAM AND THE RESTAURANT IS NOW IN FULL COMPLIANCE ON THE COP AND WE ARE WORKING ON GETTING EVERYTHING CLEARED AND US ON THIS MISTAKE ON OUR PART.

IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN.

I'M JUST GONNA GIVE YOU MY THOUGHT.

LISTEN, I, I KNOW THIS RESTAURANT WELL, I'VE BEEN TO IT IN COLUMBIA MANY TIMES.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT ADDITION TO LINCOLN ROAD.

WE WANT YOU TO SURVIVE.

OKAY? WE WANT, I DON'T WANT TO CLOSE YOU DOWN.

I DON'T WANNA TAKE AWAY YOUR ENTERTAINMENT.

JUST, I, THIS IS JUST ME SPEAKING.

WE'LL LET EVERYONE ELSE SPEAK.

I DON'T WANT A REVOCATION HEARING.

I WANT ANOTHER PROGRESS REPORT, BUT YOU REALLY GOT IT.

MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO MORE VIOLATIONS.

THAT'S JUST MY VIEW.

ALRIGHT? OKAY.

BECAUSE AGAIN, I KNOW HOW TOUGH IT IS IN THIS ENVIRONMENT TO MAKE IT, THERE'S A MILLION RESTAURANTS OPENING ALL OVER THE CITY.

THIS IS A GREAT ADDITION TO LINCOLN ROAD.

I THINK I'VE BEEN THERE AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT VENUE.

AND I REALLY WANT YOU TO SUCCEED, BUT YOU REALLY GOTTA BEHAVE.

AND, AND I, I, I BELIEVE YOU'RE SINCERE IN, IN FIXING IT, BUT I JUST WANT, THAT'S MY VIEWPOINT.

'CAUSE I, I WANT TO GIVE YOU EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SAYS ONLY INSIDE.

I, I UNDERSTAND IF IT WAS MUSIC WEEK, BUT I, I THINK YOU, ANYTHING WHERE YOU DEVIATE FROM YOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, YOU'VE GOTTA EITHER GET PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OR SOMEBODY, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST ASSUME THAT YOU CAN VIOLATE IT FOR A A GIVEN EVENT.

WE'LL START WITH KEITH AT THE END.

WELL, AS A, UH, RESIDENT WHO LIVES ACROSS FROM A ROOFTOP AT, UH, CATCH IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

I, I ASSUME WE CAN ASSUME IT WAS A MISTAKE.

UH, I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULDN'T REVOKE IMMEDIATELY, BUT, UM, I THINK THIS IS A CASE, NOT OF THREE STRIKES, BUT ONE, STRIKE IT, IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

I MEAN, WE PUT CONTROLS ON ROOFTOPS.

NORMALLY IT SHOULD BE, IF YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW ANY MUSIC, IT'S GOTTA BE BACKGROUND AMBIENT.

AND, UM, AND DEFINITELY TRY TO CONTROL THE INSIDE TOO.

'CAUSE I NOTICED YOU HAD A VIOLATION ON 2 22, WHERE EVEN ON THE INSIDE IT WAS TOO LOUD.

UM, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION, BUT I ASSUME THERE ARE NEIGHBORS AND YOU JUST HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE, YOU'RE NOT OUT IN A, IN A FIELD, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A INDUSTRIAL AREA.

THERE'S, THERE'S RESIDENTS AROUND THERE AND JUST BE RESPECTFUL, BUT HAVE FUN.

AND, UH, WE HAVE LOTS OF RESTAURANTS WITH ROOFTOPS THAT, THAT OPERATE FINE.

SO JUST KNOW YOUR CUP AND, UH, DON'T DO IT AGAIN.

YES.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE DID HEAR WHEN YOU WERE HERE IN MARCH THAT, AND WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU SAID IN MARCH.

YOU WEREN'T, YOU KNEW AND WEREN'T TOTALLY, UM, UP ON ALL THE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COP AND, AND WE'RE JUST HEARING THAT AGAIN TODAY.

SO, UM, KEITH, YOU MENTIONED STRIKE ONE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY STRIKE TWO.

UM, I DO THINK WE SHOULD KEEP IT ON OUR RADAR.

UM, SO I MEAN, BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF, OF A, UM, SETTING A REVOCATION HEARING.

YOU'RE STILL A NEW, A NEW OPERATOR.

UM, SO,

[00:15:01]

UM, YOU'LL BE BACK FOR ANOTHER PROGRESS REPORT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S MORE OTHER VIOLATIONS, THAT'S, I THINK AT THAT POINT THIS BOARD'S GONNA TAKE A MORE SEVERE ACTION THAN WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA TAKE TODAY.

SO JUST BE CAREFUL GOING FORWARD.

UM, I JUST, REAL QUICK, I I ECHO WHAT BRIAN SAID.

UH, YOU TOOK MY IDEA, WHICH WAS TO COME UP WITH A SHEET AND GIVE IT ALL OUT TO ALL YOUR STAFF.

SO I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.

I'M GLAD YOU GUYS DID IT.

THE ONLY THING I'LL CAUTION YOU ON IS BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN THIS IN THE PAST, WHICH IS WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT.

SO IF YOU WERE TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE TO A DIFFERENT POST WITH THE RESTAURANT GROUP AND SOMEBODY ELSE CAME IN FOR THE SUMMER, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION IN THE SUMMER, IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE THAT THE NEW MANAGER WASN'T HERE EARLIER.

AND, AND SO JUST KEEP IN MIND, YOU KNOW, KEEP CONTINUOUSLY UPDATE YOUR STAFF BECAUSE THIS RECORD OF THIS, THESE VIOLATIONS, THEY, THEY STAY ON THE RECORD.

AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF STRIKES, NOT BASED ON THE PARTICULAR MANAGER, THE STAFF THAT THEY HAD AT THE TIME.

SO JUST KEEP IN MIND, MOVING FORWARD WHEN THERE IS A TRANSITION, IS THAT, 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE NEW IN MIAMI BEACH, BUT VERY EXPERIENCED ELSEWHERE.

UH, JUST, JUST MAKE SURE TO EDUCATE THE FUTURE STAFF COMING IN.

NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

I'M IN FAVOR OF, UH, A PROGRESS REPORT, NOT A REVOCATION.

UH, JUST ONE MORE THING.

THE IGNORANCE EXCUSE CAN ONLY BE USED SO MANY TIMES.

SO JUST PLEASE, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THIS HAS NOT BECOME A PATTERN, ALYSSA.

UM, JUST LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK THE REVOCATION IS TOO MUCH.

I SHOULD THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD BE GETTING, UM, SOME CLARITY HERE ON HOW WE NEED TO BEHAVE.

UH, LAST TIME WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

YOU GUYS HAD SOMEONE STANDING OUTSIDE, I THINK WITH SOME PROMOTIONAL STUFF.

I CAN SEE THAT BEING AN HONEST MISTAKE.

HAVING A DJ ON A ROOFTOP IS A LITTLE BIT, OR RAISE MY EYEBROWS A LITTLE BIT THAT YOU GUYS DID NOT KNOW.

BUT, UM, JUST LIKE MY COLLEAGUES WANNA SEE YOU SUCCEED AND, UH, WE'LL HOPEFULLY SEE YOU GUYS IN A COUPLE MONTHS WITH NO OTHER ISSUES.

I CONCUR WITH THEM.

UM, I JUST SEE THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF VIOLATIONS PRIOR TO THIS ONE IN MARCH AND THEY WERE, THERE WAS IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO NOT SEE CONTINUOUS VIOLATIONS AT ALL.

UM, 'CAUSE THESE ARE CONDITIONAL PERMITS, BUT I LOVE THE RESTAURANT, SO THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I THINK YOU HEAR THE MESSAGE WE WANT YOU TO DO.

WELL, WE WANT YOU TO FUND JUST PLEASE, WE DON'T, YOU'RE GONNA COME, WE'RE GONNA BRING YOU BACK JUST TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY MORE VIOLATIONS.

UM, GO AHEAD.

THAT'S WHY, UH, ACTUALLY I'M, AS I'M ONE OF THE VPS OF THE COMPANY.

THAT'S WHY I GOT TRANSFERRED TO MIAMI, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND WE ARE DOING THE THINGS RIGHT.

JUST TO ASSURE THAT.

AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU ASK YOUR ATTORNEYS ABOUT THE, UH, I CALL HIM ALL THE TIME.

SO WE'LL WANNA MOVE WHAT I, I THINK THE MOTION IF I'M HEARING PROPERLY IS THAT WE'LL MOVE IT FOR A PROGRESS REPORT.

AND IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT A MONTH OR TWO MONTHS OUT.

I WOULD SAY TWO MONTHS.

TWO MONTHS.

SO WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU TWO MONTHS AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL COME BACK AND THE LAWYER WILL SAY, WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS. OKAY.

SO JONATHAN, YOU WANNA MOVE IT? UH, YEAH, MOVE, UH, MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PROGRESS REPORT FOR 60 DAYS OR FOR THE, FOR TWO PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS FROM NOW.

SO BE APRIL 2ND.

IT'D BE A CONTINUANCE OF JULY 1ST PLANNING BOARD.

SURE.

WE HAVE A SECOND FROM YOUR SHIELD.

SO, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY.

OF 2201 COLLINS PROPCO, LLC AS STAFF INDICATED, UM, OUR CLIENT RECENTLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT.

ALRIGHT, NEXT, UH, STATUS

[9. PB24-0680. 2201 Collins Avenue – The W Condo Hotel.]

REPORT.

PROGRESS REPORT.

UM, PLANNING BOARD FILED 28 46 400 COLLINS AVENUE, OH, I'M SORRY, 20 24 0 6, 8 0 22 0 1 COLLINS AVENUE, THE W HOTEL.

AND THIS PROGRESS REPORT BEGINS ON PAGE 31 OF THE BOARD PACKAGES.

UM, THE BOARD MAY REMEMBER THAT ON JULY 30TH OF LAST YEAR, THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED A MODIFICATION TO THE CUP TO ALLOW ANY FUTURE CHANGE OF OWNERS OR OPERATES TO, TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT.

THAT AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED FOR A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ON NOVEMBER 25TH OF LAST YEAR.

AND THAT REQUIRES THAT THE APPLICANT COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THE NEW OWNER FOR A PROGRESS REPORT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME.

THAT'S WHY THE, UM, APPLICANT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY FOR A PROGRESS REPORT BASED UPON THIS, UM, CHANGE OF, UM, OWNERSHIP.

HOWEVER, WE DID NOTE THAT THERE WAS A NOISE COMPLAINT REGARD RELATED TO A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT REGARDING LOUD NOISE THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE, UM, SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT ON, UM, ON DECEMBER 8TH OF LAST YEAR.

BECAUSE THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD HERE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC, AND CONTINUE THIS AS A PROGRESS REPORT TO THE JUNE 10TH MEETING.

MR. CHAIR, DISTINGUISHED BOARD MEMBERS JAMES RA WITH GREENFIELD MAR OFFICES AT 600 BROOK AVENUE HERE WITH MY CO-COUNSEL, ALFREDO GONZALEZ GREENBURG CHARTER.

WE ARE HERE ON BEHALF

[00:20:01]

UH, WE SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED TRANSFER AFFIDAVIT, UH, FOLLOWING THE CLOSING OF THAT TRANSACTION.

AND WE'RE HERE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION TWO OF THE CUP TO PRESENT A PROGRESS REPORT.

YOU MAY HAVE READ ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE MEDIA, A SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTION, AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY THAT, UM, OUR CLIENT MADE THAT INVESTMENT IN MIAMI BEACH.

UM, AS THE STAFF REPORT INDICATES, UM, THEY'VE IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WAS, UH, A NOISE WARNING, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SPECIAL EVENT.

UM, IT WAS ISSUED TO THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

UM, THERE'VE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS ISSUED TO THIS OWNER.

AND SO THAT PREDATED THE ACQUISITION.

IT DID NOT PREDATE THE ACQUISITION, IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE ISSUED TO THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

UM, SO IN THIS CASE, UH, WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE CUP AT THIS POINT.

AND, UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO, OF COURSE, HAPPY TO COME BACK IF THERE WERE A VIOLATION ISSUED, UM, GOING FORWARD.

UM, BUT AT THIS POINT WE JUST ASK THAT, UH, THAT THEY ONLY BE REQUIRED TO RETURN FOR A PROGRESS REPORT IF THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION ISSUED.

AND, UM, RIGHT, SO THIS, THE REQUIRED CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP COME FOR A FIRST PROGRESS REPORT? YES, SIR.

YES, SIR.

WE'RE, WE'RE JUST MEETING THE, UH, REQUIREMENT CONDITION TWO TO HAVE A PROGRESS REPORT FOLLOWING THE, UH, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION.

UM, AND AS ALFREDO WILL WILL EXPLAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SINCE THE ACQUISITION, THERE'S BEEN NO VIOLATIONS ISSUED TO THE OWNER, THE NEW OWNERS.

IS THAT JUST TO THE, TO THE HOTEL MANAGE MANAGEMENT COMPANY COMPANY.

BUT THAT, THAT WAS AFTER THE TRANSAC, AFTER THE TRANSACTION, THERE WAS A VIOLATION ISSUED TO THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT VIOLATION.

UM, BUT, AND THERE WAS A NOISE WARNING, UM, ALSO ISSUED TO THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

UM, AND AS ALFREDO CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU, UM, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH YOU'D LIKE TO GET INTO IT, THIS WHAT IS A LITTLE, I HATE TO BRING YOU BACK.

WE DON'T HAVE TO, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT EXACTLY.

GO AHEAD, ALFREDO.

AND GOOD MORNING ALFRED GONZALEZ FOR THE RECORD.

UM, AND I COULD TALK ABOUT THESE, THE NOISE WARNINGS THAT WERE ISSUED AND THE SPECIAL EVENT VIOLATION AS A RESULT OF HAVING NOISE WARNING THAT WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER, BEGINNING OF DECEMBER, THE PROPERTY HAD CHANGED HANDS.

THE CITY CITED THE OPERATOR, THE MARRIOTT, WHO HAS BEEN OPERATING THE PROPERTY FOR THE LAST 14 YEARS, STILL OPERATING IT TODAY, UH, AND ISSUED IT TO THE OLD OWNER.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT WHEN THEY LOOKED AT PROPERTY APPRAISER, THEY, THEY LOOKED AT THE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE UPDATED INFORMATION.

UM, BUT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT, AND THAT NOISE WARNING WAS ISSUED AS PART OF A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NOT HAVING TO DO WITH THE, THE RIGHTS PRIVILEGES THAT THIS BOARD IS GIVEN AS PART OF THE CUP.

UM, THE SPECIAL EVENT VIOLATION HAS, IS UNDER APPEAL.

UM, I REPRESENT THE OWNERS AS WELL.

AND, AND WE FILED AN APPEAL BECAUSE WE CANNOT APPEAL TODAY THE NOISE WARNING AND HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS OF THAT, IF IT, IF IT WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT.

BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD APPEAL THE NOISE WARNING IS IF OUR CLIENT GETS A NOISE VIOLATION.

THAT GIVES ME THEN THE, THE STANDING TO APPEAL, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DEFER A RULING ON THE, UM, SPECIAL EVENT VIOLATION TILL NEXT DECEMBER TO SEE EVEN BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT DECEMBER, MY, THE HOTEL'S ISSUED A VIOLATION AND THEN THERE'S AN ABILITY TO APPEAL.

UM, BUT ALL THAT OCCURRED AS PART OF A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT.

AND IT WAS ACTUALLY EARLY IN THE EVENING, NOT THEIR NORMAL OPERATION, NOT THEIR NOR NOT, NOT, NOT NOT PART OF THE HOTEL ACTIVITY OR CEP.

THEY HAD A ISSUED, UH, SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT.

THAT COULD OPERATE TILL 1130.

THEY ACTUALLY FINISHED THE EVENT AT 10 45, I GUESS AS CODE WAS ARRIVED.

THAT WAS DECEMBER.

NOW WE'RE FIVE MINUTES LATER AND NOTHING'S HAPPENING.

NO PROBLEMS. THAT WAS, UM, THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY IN THE MIDST OF, WE'RE MEETING WITH MICHAEL AND OTHER PLANNING STAFF FOR RENOVATIONS.

THERE'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A MODIFICATION TO THE CUP COMING WITH ENHANCEMENTS, UM, LATER.

BUT YOU HAVE TO COME BEFORE US, BEFORE YOU, BEFORE THIS BOARD AND BEFORE HPB.

SO, AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THAT THE DOLEY HOTEL IN THE 14 YEARS HAVE HAD THE CUP.

THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'RE YOUR MODEL CASE.

WE'VE NEVER HAD TO, I I REPRESENTED 'EM SINCE THE ORIGINAL CUP.

FOLLOWING AND DILIGENT FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES.

JUST THAT ONE ISSUE.

AND THEY'VE NEVER HAD A REVOCATION HEARING IN OVER 14 YEARS.

SO THEY'VE BEEN

[00:25:01]

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING THAT WE WERE, WE HAD TO COME IN FOR THE PRIOR REPORT 'CAUSE THE CHANGE OF OWNERS OR THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANOTHER PROXY REPORT UNLESS GOD FORBID THERE WAS SOME KIND OF VIOLATION THEN YES.

BUT THEN YOU'LL BE BACK WITH A MODIFIED TO UP REQUEST LATE YES.

I GOT IT.

SO YOU'LL SEE IT EITHER WAY.

ANYBODY ELSE IN HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION JUST IN TERMS OF THE VIOLATION.

SURE.

JUST READING PLAINLY FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE, OF THE CUP, IT SAYS, UM, A WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM MICHAEL? THIS IS UNDER NUMBER 10 32 I THINK.

VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 46.

ARTICLE FOUR.

NOISE OF THE CITY CODE OF MIAMI BEACH MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME.

THAT'S A D INCLUSIVE OF VI INCLUSIVE VIOLATIONS, WHICH OCCURRED DURING EITHER CITY APPROVED SPECIAL EVENTS OR PRIVATE EVENTS SLASH FUNCTIONS SHALL BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

SO I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT A VIOLATION OF THE, OF THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF CEP AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I, I JUST WAS CORRECTING SOMETHING THAT ALFREDO STATED.

OH, OKAY.

BUT WE HAVE NO OBJECTION IF, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO DONE IN THE PAST, SAY, PROVIDED THAT NO VIOLATION IS ISSUED BETWEEN NOW AND SAY JULY, THAT WE TAKE THIS OFF THE AGENDA AS THAT'S WHAT I WANNA RECOMMEND THAT WE DO.

BUT I'LL MAKE SURE EVERYONE ELSE IS ANY, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, DOES ANYBODY AGREE WITH THAT, THAT WE CAN MOVE IT TO JULY AND AND IF THERE'S NO VIOLATION CASE? MY PREFERENCE.

IF THERE'S ANY VIOLATION AGAIN, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THEY, THEY WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF US ANYWAYS.

CAN I ASK, I, I MEAN, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BE, I MEAN, YOU'VE HAD PLENTY OF PARTIES THERE SPECIAL EVENTS THERE IN THE PAST.

LIKE WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, WITH THIS ONE? WHY THERE WAS A, YOU KNOW, THE LOUD MUSIC, QUITE FRANKLY, IN WORKING WITH THE, THE OPERATORS, IT WAS, UH, ONE OF THE ART BASEL, UH, BONVOY, UH, ART AMEX EVENT THAT WAS HAPPENING.

UH, THEY WERE MONITORING, 'CAUSE THEY, THEY ACTUALLY, WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM ON OTHER EVENTS WHERE THEY WENT OFF SITE AND THEY MADE SURE THEY THOUGHT THE MUSIC WAS TOO LOUD.

THEY KEPT LOWERING IT.

SO WE DON'T UNDERSTAND, UM, AS THE EVENT WAS SHUTTING DOWN.

'CAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIMING, THE OFFICER SHOWED UP AT 10 26.

IT WASN'T UNTIL 10 45 THAT HE CAME IN TO SAY, YEAH, I, I I THINK YOUR, YOUR MUSIC IS TOO LOUD.

THE EVENT WAS OVER.

SO HE ACTUALLY ASKED THE OPERATOR, COULD YOU RESTART THE PARTY SO I COULD, YOU KNOW, SHOW YOU AND EVALUATE.

BUT, BUT THE PARTY WAS OVER.

SO COULD HAVE IN THE, IN THE PROCESS OF SHUTTING DOWN IT SPIKED OR SOMETHING.

I, I, I DON'T KNOW.

WE HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY GO BACK AND FORTH ON THAT ISSUE.

SO YOU'RE APPEALING THAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE GOING TO, I I GUESS IT'LL BE ON THE AGENDA, BUT IF YOU HAVE NO VIOLATIONS BY JULY, THEN THEY'LL REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA.

AND CAN I, CAN I JUST ASK THOUGH, THE, IS THERE ANY ISSUE? I'M, I'M COOL WITH THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE, THE ISSUE, THE FACT THAT THE SPECIAL EVENT WAS ISSUED TO THE OPERATOR, RIGHT? NOT THE, THE CUP HOLDER.

THAT'S A TECHNICALITY.

I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS USED AT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO, UM, VOID A AND I'M WHAT I'M CITATION, AND WE'VE HEARD THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE.

AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS MOVING FORWARD, HOW DO WE FIX THAT IN CS SO THAT THERE'S NO ISSUE THERE? YOU, WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS 'CAUSE THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ISSUED LIKE A WEEK OR SO BEFORE THE VIOLATION OCCURRED.

SO THERE WAS THAT RIGHT.

THEY WOULD'VE GIVEN IT TO THE, THE, THE CUP HOLDER.

THEY JUST GAVE IT TO THE WRONG ENTITY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT HAD BEEN SOLD.

AND THE REASON THE CODE, IT WAS, BUT IT WAS ON CODE COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO THE CUPA.

ABSOLUTELY.

IT, IT, SO THAT WAS LIKE A CODE MISTAKE, I GUESS.

MM-HMM .

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT DON'T, DON'T ANSWER THAT.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE BASIS FOR THE APPEAL, RIGHT? NO, NO, I, THAT'S OKAY.

I, BUT I, I CAN CLARIFY FOR YOU.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS MARRIOTT, WHO IS THE OPERATOR OF THE HOTEL, THE ENTIRE PARTY FOR THE W HAS BEEN FOR 14 YEARS.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT APPLIED FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT.

SO ALL THE SPECIAL, IF YOU WERE, I HAVE A COPY OF THE SPECIAL EVENT FROM THAT NIGHT, IT WAS APPLIED FOR BY THE MAYOR.

BUT TO JONATHAN'S POINT, WE DON'T CARE IF IT'S A VIOLATION OF VIOLATION.

BUT I, I'M JUST GOING WAY BACK TO LIKE MY FIRST YEAR ON THE PLANNING BOARD WHEN WE HAD LIKE THE MA OR ESME, THE, OH, IT WAS THE ROOFTOP.

ACTUALLY YOUR OTHER CLIENT, YOU THE OPERATOR AND THE OWNER.

DON'T REMIND ME ABOUT THAT ONE.

I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD WE'VE FIXED THAT, THE ISSUE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD.

ALRIGHT, ONTO NEW COMPREHENSIVE

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SOMEONE WANNA MOVE IT? AND, AND THE MOTION WOULD BE TO KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA, BUT IF THERE'S NO VIOLATION, IT'S THROUGH JULY, THEY'LL REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA.

ANYONE OPPOSED? SORRY.

AND IF THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS LIKE THE OTHER, THEY'LL REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA.

BUT WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA IN CASE THERE'S A VIOLATION.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

[11. PB25-0752. Land Use Incentives for Schools and Educational Facilities.]

[12. PB25-0761. Comprehensive Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Incentives]

PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS FILE PLANNING BOARD FILE

[00:30:01]

25 0 7 5 2 LAND USE INCENTIVES FOR SCHOOL AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

WE'RE GONNA TAKE THIS, UM, IN COMPANIONSHIP WITH PB 25 DASH 0 7 6 1, WHICH IS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FLOOR AREA RATIO INCENTIVES.

AND THE STAFF REPORT BEGINS ON PAGE ON 47 OF THE BOARD PACKAGES.

AND BY JUST SOME WAY OF HISTORY, UM, THE LAND USE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THE ORDINANCES ON JANUARY 16TH OF THIS YEAR AND RECOMMENDED THAT HE BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

AND ON MARCH 19TH, THE CITY COMMISSION REFERRED THESE ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

SO CURRENTLY, UM, EDUCATION USES ARE PERMITTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

UM, IN RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAND USE SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE, THESE ATTACHED ORDINANCE PROVIDE SOME INCENTIVES TO REMOVE THE BARRIERS FOR EXPANSION OR FOR THE CREATION OF NEW SCHOOLS.

THIS INCLUDES, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SUBJECT TO STAFF REVIEW PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING, UM, THRESHOLDS ARE MET.

FIRST WOULD BE, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTIONS NOT EXCEEDING.

25,000 SQUARE FEET COULD BE APPROVED AT STAFF LEVEL, PROVIDED THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE UNDERLYING, UM, FAR FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT.

SECOND, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT COULD NOT EXCEED 50 FEET OR THE UNDERLYING HEIGHT FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT.

UM, IT ALSO WOULD STILL REQUIRE THAT WHEN ANY DEMOLITION IS INVOLVED WOULD REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE SOIL PRESERVATION BOARD FOR ANY DEMOLITION.

IT ALSO ALLOWS, UM, FOR SUCH FACILITIES TO REQUEST THROUGH A COMMISSION WARRANT PROCESS AN ADDITIONAL FAR.

THAT'S THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLAN AMENDMENT THAT'S ATTACHED, IS TO ALLOW THE CITY COMMISSION TO GRANT A FAR, UM, UM, BONUS OF UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET, NOT TO EXCEED 10% THROUGH THAT COMMISSION WARRANT PROCESS.

UM, IT ALSO ALLOWS THROUGH THAT COMMISSION WARRANT PROCESS, A REDUCTION IN THE, UM, REQUIRED, UM, SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS THAT ALSO ALLOWS, UM, UM, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES THAT MAY BE A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT NOT TO REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL.

IF THEY, UM, ARE LESS THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET.

THAT ALSO WILL ALLOW, WOULD, UM, REMOVE THE, THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

WOULD ALSO ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE, UM, PARKING WITHOUT, UM, PENALIZING THEM IN THE FAR.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH AN INTENTION TO, UM, UM, FOSTER, UM, EDUCATION, FACILIT EXPANSION AND NEW EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ON THE BEACH THROUGHOUT RECOMMENDING THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSMIT BOTH THESE ORDINANCES TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.

NOW, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE, UM, THE LDR TEXT AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS PB 24 DASH 0 7 5 2, THIS IS, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR SCHOOLS.

THE, OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE INCREASE OF FAR THAT WOULD ALLOW NOT ONLY SCHOOLS, BUT THROUGH WHATEVER, WHATEVER, UM, THE COMMISSION FELT WAS, UM, UM, APPROPRIATE, WOULD ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO, TO ALLOW, UM, INCREASE THE FAR UP TO 10%, NOT TO EXCEED 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL.

FOR ANY USE FOR WHAT? FOR ANY USE FOR WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE PROCESS THE COMMISSION DEEMED WAS APPROPRIATE WOULD ALLOW THE, THEM, THE CITY COMMISSION TO EXPAND THE FAR UP TO 10%, NOT TO EXCEED 5,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT APPLIED FOR ANY USE, NOT EDUCATION UP TO FILL EDUCATION BILL OR, OR, OR ANY TYPE, ANY USE THAT THE COMMISSION, UM, WILL DETERMINED WAS DETERMINED, RIGHT.

THAT WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE, WITH THE, UM, SCHOOL INCENTIVES IN MIND, BUT IT WAS DEVELOPED AS A MORE BROADER, UM, INCENTIVE FOR OTHER USES AS WELL.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WOULD ALWAYS CONTROL, I THINK THE IDEA IS TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN ONCE AND CORRECT.

ANYONE IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.

UM, AND I'M JUST THINKING HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT, UM, NEIGHBORS.

BOARD QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I COME, UM, JUST ONE CONCERN.

UM, NO, I I'M GENERALLY IN FAVOR, UH, OF THE IDEA AND, AND, AND THE SORT OF THE, THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS, UM, OR THE, UM, THE WAY IT'S WORDED.

BUT MY CONCERN IS IT, BECAUSE IT APPLIES EVERYWHERE, IT ALL OR ANYWHERE IN COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

I'M THINKING OF THE R ONE DISTRICT, WHICH, AND I'M THINKING SPECIFICALLY FLAMINGO PARK, BUT THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER LARGE RM ONE DISTRICT UP IN NORTH BEACH, AND I'M JUST ENVISIONING THIS, UM, LET'S JUST SOMETHING ON MAYBE A PROPERTY ON MERIDIAN OR EUCLID RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NI OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, THERE'S AN OLD BUILDING AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUY THAT AND THEY WANT TO PUT A SCHOOL THERE.

UM, THEY CAN ADD TO THE BUILDING.

UM, THEY COULD TAKE AWAY A LOT OF GREEN SPACE.

THEY CAN PUT A MUCH MORE INTENSE USE THERE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PARKING.

[00:35:02]

UM, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S PUTTING A, UH, IT'S IN INCENTIVIZING A RATHER INTENSE USE IN THE MIDDLE OF A, UM, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN EXEMPT RM ONE FROM, FROM, UM, THIS, I, I I WOULD GO WITH ALL RESIDENTIAL RM TWO AS AND THREE.

IT'S PRETTY, I MEAN, I, I LOOKED AT THE ZONING MAP.

YOU ARE, I MEAN, I'M, AGAIN, I WAS FOCUSING MORE ON FLAMINGO PARK.

I THINK THERE'S ONLY A TINY TWO OR THREE BLOCK SECTION OF RM TWO, BUT I MEAN, WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AS WELL.

BUT I, I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I LIKE THE IDEA, I LIKE HOW THEY'RE INCENTIVIZING, UM, SCHOOLS.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, DE DECREASING SETBACKS, DECREASING OPEN SPACE, UM, NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

BUT AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THOSE, THOSE, UM, REDUCTION WOULD BE THROUGH THE COMMISSION WARRANT PROCESS.

THERE STILL WOULD BE A, A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.

BUT IT, IT'S, I MEAN, I, IT STILL COULD HAPPEN IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

AND I'M JUST ENVISIONING WORST CASE SCENARIO IN THE MIDDLE OF A, OF AN RM ONE DISTRICT OR POSSIBLY AN RM TWO DISTRICT AND THREE, WHICH IS ALMOST THE WHOLE, WOULD, WOULD THEY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL? I MEAN, FROM EITHER PLANNING BOARD TO, TO PUT OPEN UP A SCHOOL? NO.

SO ANY SORT OF APPROVAL? I MEAN, 'CAUSE I GUESS THIS, I'M, I'M WONDERING WHETHER THERE'S AN GONNA BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR NEIGHBORS TO OBJECT.

IT WOULD ONLY BE IF THEY GO THROUGH THE COMMISSION WARRANT PROCESS AND ARE ASKING FOR REDUCTION IN SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT IF THEY COMPLIED WITH, WITH THE CODE AND DIDN'T ASK FOR ADDITIONAL RELAXATION IN THE SETBACKS, THEN POTENTIALLY AN EXPANSION OR A NEW CONSTRUCTION COULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

AND REMEMBER WE CAN SEND IT FAVORABLY WITH A SEPARATE MOTION SUGGESTING OR RECOMMENDING, YOU KNOW, THAT IT EXCLUDE, I LIKE AT THE VERY MINIMUM TO TAKE OUT THE RM ONE DISTRICT.

AND WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT, MICHAEL? I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.

THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE THE, THE BIGGEST IMPACT IS IN THE, UM, RM ONE, LOW INTENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

WE'LL TAKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UH, IS THERE A CERTAIN PROJECT THAT'S PUSHING FOR THIS OR, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PARTICULAR PROJECT.

I THINK THIS WAS THOUGHT OF AS, UM, COMPREHENSIVE.

IT'S NOT FOCUSED ON ONE PARTICULAR DISTRICT.

SO PURELY JUST TO INCENTIVIZE, I GUESS ADDITIONAL EDUCATION BUILD OUT, CORRECT? YES.

SO WHAT SCHOOL, SO WHAT'S THE REASON FOR, I GUESS ALSO INCLUDING IN HERE AS PART OF, YOU KNOW, THE COMPANION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE FAR ELSEWHERE? RIGHT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE, THOUGH I THINK JUST BECAUSE WE'RE FOR AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT'S DOING IT ONE TIME VERSUS HAVING TO COME BACK TO AMEND IT FOR THEN, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER USE.

OH.

WHEREAS IF, IF WE SPECIFY THAT THIS WAS JUST FOR EDUCATION USE, THEN IT WOULD APPLY ANY EDUCATION THAT COULD BE A RECOMMENDATION.

GOT IT.

I MEAN, I, I I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S ANY USE IN ALL AREAS.

I, I MEAN, AS FAR AS I KNOW IN R THREE AND IN A LOT OF ARM TWO, THERE'S, THERE'S WHERE DO WE HAVE SCHOOLS? I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAME FROM THE LAND USE COMMITTEE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING THEM, YOU KNOW, TO YOU THAT'S WHAT THE COMMITTEE HAD RECOMMENDED IN TERMS OF THE, UM, REMOVING THE BARRIERS.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEM.

, I'M ALL FOR EDUCATION.

I'M JUST NOT SURE ABOUT, I UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S ENCOMPASSING BASICALLY THE ENTIRE CITY.

SO I I I THINK WE SHOULD, I MEAN, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION FAVORABLY, BUT THEN MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGING THAT THEY ELIMINATE CERTAIN, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU GUYS? RESIDENTIAL? I THINK, I THINK THAT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

YOU, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANNA RECOMMEND IN FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT THE, YOU WANNA LIMIT THE INCENTIVES TO NOT INCLUDE AT LEAST THE RM ONE DISTRICT.

IF YOU WANNA EXPAND IT TO RM TWO R THREE, I THINK.

SO YOU CAN LET ME KNOW.

AND THEN YOU WANNA MAKE THE, UM, THE, UM, THE ADDITIONAL FAR FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WARRANT PROCESS, UM, AMENDMENT ONLY APPLICABLE TO, UM, EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION.

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD MOTION, MICHAEL .

BUT NOW THE, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE ANALYSIS AS LIKE SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION USES ARE PERMITTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN ALL MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL THAT'S CURRENTLY CURRENTLY, RIGHT.

CURRENTLY.

SO WE'RE TAKING OUT THAT CUP CORRECT.

AND THEN ADDING OTHER BENEFITS.

TO ME, I DON'T LIKE CARVING OUT INDIVIDUAL ZONES BECAUSE THERE COULD BE, THERE COULD BE A SCHOOL WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

SO I MEAN, I GUESS I'M, I'M WONDERING WHETHER A WAY TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS IS TO LEAVE IN THE CUP ELEMENT OF IT.

UH, BUT WHILE ALSO GIVING THEM THESE OTHER BENEFITS, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, INCREASED HEIGHT AND SPACE, , WHATEVER.

I THINK THAT TO ME,

[00:40:01]

COULD BE, YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU.

IF COULD LEAVE IT WITH EXISTING SCHOOLS, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST, IT'S ENCOMPASSING EVERYTHING, ISN'T IT? IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY GIVING THEM CARTE BLANCHE TO DO IT.

IT'S GIVING 'EM A LOT OF, OF NEW ABILITIES, I GUESS.

AND I THINK THERE'S, I DON'T THINK THAT REQUIRING THEM TO STILL GET A CUP WOULD DISINCENTIVIZE THEM, YOU KNOW, SCHOOLS OR WHATEVER, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ALL THESE BENEFITS.

I THINK JUST LEAVING IT TO SCHOOLS, KEEP IN MIND RIGHT NOW, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, E EVEN IF, IF, IF THIS PASSES, PASSES WITH AN R ONE EXEMPTION, UM, A SCHOOL STILL COULD GO INTO THE R ONE DISTRICT.

OH, I'M JUST SAYING WE WANT TO NOT SORT OF INCENTIVIZE THAT BY GIVING THEM THESE, THESE INCENTIVES.

UM, SO IT COULD STILL HAPPEN.

UM, WELL THERE, THERE MIGHT BE AN AREA IN AN R ONE DISTRICT THAT YOU WANT A SCHOOL, BUT THE KEY TO ME IS MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S THE OVERSIGHT OF THE LOCATION, THE PLANNING, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS.

WELL JUST BE SCHOOLS, YOU KNOW, THE TRAFFIC, THE, THAT'S HOW WE'RE GONNA REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS BY HAVING THE CUP PROCESS IN, IN PLACE.

I, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T, I'M NOT AGAINST CARVING OUT THE R ONE.

I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE COULD BE EQUAL APPLICABILITY TO, OR APPLICABILITY TO ANOTHER AREA.

UM, THAT'S EQUALLY A PROBLEM.

I, I STILL, I JUST THINK THAT THE WAY TO FIX THE WHOLE THING IS TO LEAVE THE CUP ELEMENT.

BUT I AGREE, YOU KNOW, LET'S INCENTIVIZE THESE PLACES.

IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS AND THE, AND THE COMMUNITY WANTS, GREAT.

BUT WITHIN REASON, BECAUSE WHAT IF THERE'S A HUGE TRAFFIC IMPACT? I AGREE.

YOU KNOW WHAT, IF THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, OUTDOOR FIELD, THAT, THAT HAS WHISTLES BLOWING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOTTA BE TIMEFRAMES, TIME RESTRICTIONS WAIT, NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED AGAIN.

IT ALSO COULD RECOMMEND THAT, UM, YOU, YOU KEEP THE CP PROCESS ALONG WITH THE INCENTIVES.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE CP PROCESS, THEN IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND, AND YOU'RE MORE, AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT, I THINK THE SCHOOLS, THE WAY THE CITY'S GOING, WE HAVE A LACK OF SCHOOLS RIGHT NOW, SO WE DO NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO SEE SOME EXPANSION ON THIS, THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE CITY.

BUT, UM, IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS THEY'RE PROBABLY WELCOMING, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT.

AND SO I THINK YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS STRONG, JONATHAN.

I THINK IF WE, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP THE CUP, UH, AS A RECOMME PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, I THINK THAT COULD BE, UH, PREVENTED.

AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIMIT THE AREAS, RIGHT? I WANNA LIMIT TO EDUCATION SINCE THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT.

RIGHT? NO, I, I AGREE.

AND IN OUR, UH, SOUTH OF FIFTH AREA, WE HAVE A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND HE'S BUILDING ANOTHER ONE, AND HE WENT THROUGH INTENSIVE, UH, PROCESSES, INCLUDING HERE.

I UNDERSTAND THE INCENTIVES, BUT I DO AGREE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHORTCUT THE PROCESSES, THE PROCESSES, MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY RIGHT, IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE LOCATION.

WE'RE IN A HIGH USE COMMERCIAL MULTIM MIX RESIDENTIAL ZONE, BUT THEY PUT A SCHOOL THAT EVERYONE LIKES, BUT IT HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCESSES.

SO, AND HARD TO THINK THAT HAVING KEEPING THE CUP WOULD DESENSITIZE HIS SCHOOLS.

AND HE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

HE MAY WANT TO PUT A, A 50 FOOT FACILITY AND, AND GET EXTRA FAR RIGHT NEXT TO ONE OF THE TWO SCHOOLS THAT HE'S BUILDING, BUT HE SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME NORMAL PROCESSES.

COMMUNITY.

SO I GUESS THE, THE QUESTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY'S SORT OF GENERALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

THE QUESTION IS, IS ARE WE COMFORTABLE SENDING IT WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION AND THEN HOPING THAT THE COMMISSION WILL ACCEPT OUR SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO LEAVE IN THE, UH, CUP ELEMENTS OF IT? OR DO WE SEND IT WITH AN UNFAVORABLE FOR THESE REASONS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO RE-IMPLEMENT THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, REDO IT, WRITE IT.

IT'S A FUNNY QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF THE SAME THING.

IT'S JUST WHETHER IT'S, IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE SEND IT FAVORABLY WITH A RECOMMENDATION, THEY DON'T ELIMINATE THE CUP PROCESS VERSUS AN UNFAVORABLE UNLESS THEY INCLUDE THE CUP PROCESS.

DOES THAT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR OPINION? I, I THINK YOU COULD MAKE, IF SINCE THE, YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THE BASIS FOR THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND DO IT AS ONE, DO IT AS ONE MOTION.

I KNOW, BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS IT, DOES IT MATTER WHETHER WE SAY FAVORABLE, BUT WE WANT THE CUP PROCESS OR UNFAVORABLE, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR DOES NOT REALLY REQUIRE MAJOR SURGERY.

SO I THINK IT COULD BE FAVORABLE WITH THESE CHANGES FAVORABLE WITH THESE CHANGES FAVORABLE, PROVIDED THAT THE CP PROCESS STILL EVER KNOW WHEN WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT OR NOT.

EXCEPT ON THE CONDITION THAT WE, UH, THEY KEEP THE CUP UH, PROCESS FOR ALL DISTRICTS, RIGHT? AND THAT IT'S LIMITED TO ONLY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

SO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION, JONATHAN, UH, TO PASS THIS WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION

[00:45:02]

YEAH, THAT'LL, I WOULD MAKE THAT, UM, MOTION REGARDING LIMITATION FOR THE, UM, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE.

THAT WILL TAKE A SEPARATE MOTION ON NEXT.

ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY.

AND THAT'S FOR BOTH OF THE AMENDMENTS, CORRECT SIR? THAT THAT'LL BE FOR, NO, THAT'LL BE JUST BEFORE THE, UM, PB 25 0 72 5 2.

AND ON THE, UM, SECOND ONE, WHICH IS PB 25 DASH 0 7 6 1, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR AREA RATIO INCENTIVES, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE POSITIVE, PROVIDED THAT THE INCENTIVES ARE ONLY FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, CORRECT? YES.

SO WE CAN MAKE ANOTHER, ANOTHER MOTION ON THAT.

I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION THAT IT'S LIMITED TO EDUCATION ONLY.

ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, UNANIMOUSLY PASSES.

DO WE, DO WE LEAVE IN THE CP THING OR? YEAH, THAT'S THAT.

IT ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AYE.

FILED 25 0 7 6 OH MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME RENOVATIONS EXCEEDING THE 50% RULE.

PLANNING BOARD

[13. PB25-0760. Minimum Landscape Requirements for Single Family Home Renovations Exceeding the 50% Rule.]

AND THIS 10TH REPORT BEGINS ON PAGE, UM, 69 OF THE BOARD PACKAGES.

AND THIS ORDINANCE WAS REFERRED TO THE CITY COM PLANNING BOARD ON MARCH 19TH.

AND THE LAND USE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THE ORDINANCE ON FEBRUARY 20TH OF THIS YEAR.

WHAT THIS, SO CURRENTLY THE CITY, THE CITY ORDINANCE REGARDING LANDSCAPING IS MORE INTENSIVE OR MORE HAS MORE STRICTER THAN THE, THE COUNTY CODE IN CAR.

IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

WHEN YOU'RE EXCEEDING, UM, RENOVATIONS THAT EXCEED THE 50% VALUE OF YOUR HOUSE, WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS, IS ROLL BACK THE REQUIREMENTS TO THE, TO MEET THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS.

SO IF YOU'RE DOING A RENOVATION EXCEEDING 50%, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE STRICTER INCENTIVES, THE STRICTER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE, BUT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS.

UM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSMIT THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.

NOW, THIS WOULDN'T APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.

NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE STILL HAVE TO MEET THE, THE STRICTER LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

THIS WOULD BE SOMEBODY WHO'S DOING A RENOVATION THAT DOES EXCEED 50% VALUE.

'CAUSE ESPECIALLY WITH, UH, THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION COST DOING, I'VE SEEN CASES WHERE SOMEONE'S JUST RENOVATING THEIR HOUSE OR REMOVING, YOU KNOW, OLD ADDITIONS THAT SEE THAT THEY EXCEED THAT 50% VALUE AND THEN ARE SUBJECT TO THE, UM, THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS IF THEY'RE DOING A BRAND NEW HOUSE.

SO IF THEY DON'T EXCEED THE 50%, THEN DO THEY HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO LANDSCAPING? IT'S A MUCH, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE SAME, UM, STRICT REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK THIS IS GREAT.

ANYONE HERE, ANYONE IN CHAMBER TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE, POSITIVE ONE.

YEAH, I, I THINK THERE'S ULTIMATELY GOOD THINGS FOR HAVING, LIVING IN AN AREA WITH SO MUCH CONSTRUCTION, ANYTHING TO KIND OF MINIMIZE SOME OF THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO MOTION TO APPROVE.

AYE.

ITEM, DON'T PLAN ANY MORE.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, UNANIMOUS.

[14. PB25-0762. Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations]

FILE 25 0 7 6 TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND, UH, DEBORAH TACKETT, OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, MAY BE COMING UP TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, BUT I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE HISTORY AND WHAT THE, WHAT THE SUMMARY OF THIS ORDINANCE IS.

SO, UM, LET'S SEE.

JUST GIMME A SECOND.

AND THIS STAFF REPORT BEGINS ON PAGE 77 OF THE BOARD PACKAGES.

SO LAST YEAR AN AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS, UM, TASKED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW CRITERIA, AS WELL AS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING IMPROVING AND STREAMLINING THE REVIEW PROCESS.

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE HELD, UM, FIVE PUBLIC MEETINGS BETWEEN JUNE 27TH OF LAST YEAR AND OCTOBER 24 50 OF LAST YEAR, AND CONSIDERED EXPENSIVE, UM, COMMON AND PUBLIC FROM UM, CITY STAFF.

ALL MEETINGS WERE NOTICED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND OCCURRED AFTER 5:00 PM TO ALLOW EXPANDED, UM, PARTICIPATION.

NOW THIS ORDINANCE, UM, IS COMPREHENSIVE AND DOES MANY THINGS.

I'M GONNA GO THROUGH JUST A QUICK SUMMARY.

SO CURRENTLY THE CITY HAS SOME OF THE MOST EXTENSIVE, UM, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE REVIEW CRITERIA OF ANY CITY, YOU KNOW, IN THE COUNTRY WITH OVER 50 REVIEW CRITERIA.

UM, WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES AS BASED UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS STREAMLINES AND REVISE THE CRITERIA, REMOVING OR, UM, UM, REMOVING OR, UM, CONSOLIDATING REDUNDANT CRITERIA.

AND, UM, AND CLARIFYING THE ROLE OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.

IT, UM, ALLOWS STAFF TO REVIEW ADDITIONAL MINOR IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS,

[00:50:01]

UM, SUSTAINABLE ROOFS, UM, FENCES AND RAILINGS.

A LOT OF THESE WERE DONE SORT OF, UM, WITHOUT EXPRESSLY BEING INDICATED IN THE CODE.

THIS SORT OF, UM, DOES ESTABLISH THAT AS, UM, BEING EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR STAFF REVIEW.

IT DOES, UM, CLARIFY AND DEFINE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY CONCEPT AND DETAIL APPROVALS.

IT DOES RAISE THE THRESHOLD FOR A TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FROM 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 50,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET TO EASE THE BURDENS ON, UH, BURDENS ON SMALLER PROJECTS.

IT DOES ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR LARGER ADDITIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM A RUNAWAY WITH NEIGHBOR, WITH NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION.

IT DOES ALLOW FOR, UM, WHEN, UM, APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE STROKE PRESERVATION BOARD ARE CONTINUED, IT NO LONGER REQUIRES A REDUNDANT NEWSPAPER NOTICE FOR CONTINUED, UM, HPV ITEMS. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LANGUAGE BOARD APPLICATIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF A APPLICATION COMES TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THEREFORE CONTINUES IT FOR A MONTH OR TWO, IT DOESN'T THEN REQUIRE ANOTHER NEWSPAPER NOTICE.

THIS WOULD APPLY THE SAME PROCESS TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW.

UM, IT DOES ALLOW A FORMAL PROCESS FOR REMOVING HISTORIC STATUS PER THE COUNTY STANDARDS REGARDING, UM, INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

IT EXPANDS THE AOR TAX EXEMPTION ELIGIBILITY FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO ALSO INCLUDE HISTORIC, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

AND, UM, IT DOES EX EXTEND THE ZONING INCENTIVES THAT ARE AFFORDED FOR ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOMES THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE EXTENDED TO, UM, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ADD ON TO THEIR HISTORIC HOME OR ARCHITECTURE, SIGNIFICANT HOME, THEY CAN GET A RELAXATION IN TERMS OF THE SETBACKS AND, UM, THINGS LIKE LOT COVERAGE AND UNIT SIZE.

WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I CAN, WE HAVE, UM, DEBORAH TACKETT, OUR PRESERVATION OFFICER, WHO WAS PART OF THAT COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF STAFF AND CAN ANSWER ANY, ANY DETAILED QUESTIONS.

ANYONE IN HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? AND THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.

WE'RE ENCOURAGING INSTEAD OF DISCOURAGING.

YOU WANNA SPEAK ? UM, UH, I HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN.

DO I HAVE TO BE SWORN THIS, YOU'RE, THIS IS LEGISLATIVE, SO YOU'RE GOOD.

OKAY, EXCELLENT.

UM, UH, GOOD MORNING.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

UM, MICHAEL SUMMARIZED THE ORDINANCE, UH, VERY WELL.

UH, THE COMMITTEE DID MEET, UM, FOR MANY MONTHS AND I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE, UM, THAT ALL OF OUR, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WERE UNANIMOUS.

SO IT WAS, UM, BROADLY SUPPORTED AT THE COMMITTEE.

UM, ALL OF THE CHANGES, UH, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE REALLY THE AVALOR TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM EXPANSION AND, UM, SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT SIGNIFICANT SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE COULD APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY, I THINK THOSE TWO ARE PROBABLY THE MOST, UM, SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF THE CHANGES.

A LOT OF THIS IS ALSO JUST CLEANUP, UM, REMOVING REDUNDANCIES, REMOVING ERRONEOUS CRITERIA.

I DON'T KNOW IF MICHAEL SAID THAT WE, WE ALSO ARE INCLUDING A PROVISION TO REMOVE HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS.

I SAW THAT THAT IS REQUIRED BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY.

SO, UH, WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW, THERE ARE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR OUR, EXCUSE ME, HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.

AND WE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE COUNTY THAT THAT WAS ONE AREA, ALTHOUGH WE ARE IN VERY GOOD STANDING.

UM, THAT WAS ONE AREA THAT WE WERE NOT COMPLIANT WITH.

I, I'VE NOTICED THAT AND I WAS GONNA ASK THAT QUESTION, SO THANK YOU.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS, KEITH? SO IN SUMMARY, IT'S TO STREAMLINE WHAT CAN BE QUITE ARDUOUS TO GET RID OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE FALLING APART, THAT REALLY AREN'T, THAT ARE BORDERLINE HISTORIC AND CLEANING UP SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE HOOPS JUST TO YES, THE, I MEAN, THE IDEA WOULD THE BUILDING ENCOURAGE RENOVATION? YEAH.

I, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.

I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES IS EXPANDING OUR ABILITY TO REVIEW CHANGES TO RAILINGS.

UM, SO WE HAVE A LOT OF, AND WE SEE THAT ALL THE TIME.

THERE'S SO MANY PERMITS FOR RAILINGS.

AND SO I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST THING, ONE OF THE, UM, ELEMENTS THAT AFFECTS MORE BUILDINGS THAN ANY OTHER ELEMENT.

BUILDINGS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS CAN BE QUITE STRESSFUL.

ESPECIALLY WE'RE SEEING GOING THROUGH THE 40 YEAR OR 50 YEAR RECERTIFICATION PROCESS, UM, SOME OF THE OLDER BUILDINGS, PARTICULARLY FROM THE 1960S THROUGH THE EARLY 1980S HAVE, YOU KNOW, VERY HEAVY MASONRY RAILINGS.

AND MOST OF THOSE, UM, ARE HAVING STRUCTURAL ISSUES.

AND WE'RE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, TAKING THOSE THROUGH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PROCESS WHERE FOR SOME CONDOMINIUM

[00:55:01]

YES.

YEAH, I, I SAT ON THE COMMITTEE, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S MAYBE SOMEWHAT MINOR, BUT I THINK THE, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE DID WAS ELIMINATE, UM, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MUST GO IN FRONT OF THE HVV AND GIVING STAFF, UM, THE ABILITY TO APPROVE A LOT MORE THINGS, UM, UM, AT STAFF LEVEL.

UM, 'CAUSE I REMEMBER I THINK ONE OF OUR FIRST MEETINGS YOU HAD SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD KIND OF TALK TO PEOPLE AFTER THEY READ THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA AND THEY'RE LIKE, WHOA.

IT'S LIKE THEY'RE READING A NOVEL.

UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST SO MUCH, IT'S OVERWHELMING.

UM, SO WE DID TRY TO CLEAN THAT UP A BIT JUST TO MAKE IT SO WHEN SOMEBODY COMES INTO THE CITY AND WANTS TO DO SOMETHING AND THEY, THEY LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, THEY THINK, OKAY, WE CAN MANAGE THAT.

AND WE ALSO TRY TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER, UM, MOVING FORWARD FOR, FOR YOU KNOW, SMALL PROJECTS AND BIG PROJECTS.

I KNOW YOU WERE ON THE COMMITTEE.

VERY COOL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR SOMEONE WANNA MOVE IT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION, I'LL MOVE IT.

THANKS FOR COMING IN.

ALRIGHT, SO, UH, ELIZABETH MOVED IT.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANYONE OPPOSED? NOPE.

WELL THAT MUST BE A RECORD.

I TOLD YOU AN HOUR.

WE'RE GOOD.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I HAVE TIME EXACTLY.

10 O'CLOCK, HUH? REALLY? EXACTLY.

10 O'CLOCK.

THAT'S INCREDIBLE.

OUR NEXT MEETING IS JUNE 10TH.

HOW'S THAT? HOW'S THAT AGENDA LOOKING BAD? IT SHOULD BE A SHORT AGENDA AS WELL.