[00:00:01]
WE ARE GOING ON AIR IN 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
UM, AND WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 11TH MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.
WE ALSO HAVE A FULL AGENDA AND ARE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO GET THROUGH AS MANY PROJECTS AS POSSIBLE.
UM, WE HAVE A NEW PROCEDURE, UH, ON THIS AGENDA OF A CONSENT AGENDA THAT, UH, ROGELIO WILL UPDATE US ALL.
UM, SO THE, THE CONSENT AGENDA IS A NEW PROCEDURE THAT IS, UH, BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION THAT ALL THE LAND USE BOARDS UTILIZE.
UM, AND THIS, AND THE CITY COMMISSION IS IN PROCESS OF ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE TO FORMALIZE THE PROCESS.
BUT IT IS, IT IS A PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN USED, UH, IN THE PAST.
SO WHAT THIS DOES IS WE CURRENTLY HAVE SIX ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WISH TO PULL ANY OF THE ITEMS OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO.
IF WE GET ANY SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY OF THE ITEMS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE SHOULD PULL THOSE ITEMS OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WHAT THE CONSENT AGENDA ALLOWS US TO DO IS THAT THESE, THESE ARE GENERALLY ITEMS THAT, UH, THAT WE FELT WERE NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY VARIANCES IN THIS CASE.
UM, UM, AND SO THE, THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO WAIVE ESSENTIALLY THE PRESENTATIONS AND APPROVE THEM ALL UNDER ONE MOTION.
UM, WE SENT THE STAFF REPORTS FOR THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA EARLIER THAN, AND THEN THE REST OF THEM.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE APPLICATIONS.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE PROCESS MEDAL CHAIR THROUGH THE CHAIR.
CAN I STOP YOU RIGHT THERE? 'CAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ON THAT.
WHEN YOU SAY CONSENT AGENDA, SHOULD WE NOT BE APPROVING THE AGENDA AS WELL AS THE MINUTES THAT WE'RE APPROVING TODAY OR ON THE AGENDA? SHOULD, SHOULD WE NOT HAVE AN APPROVED AGENDA? THAT'S A PROCEDURAL QUESTION I'M ASKING.
SO YOU, THERE IS AN APPROVED AGENDA, UM, AND SHOULD THE BOARD NOT VOTE ON THAT AGENDA AS BEING IT'S IT OFFICIAL AGENDA? I HAVE NE I'VE NEVER AT THE COUNTY WE DO.
UM, I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT AT THE DO PROCEDURE, BUT, AND THAT'S WHY PROCEDURALLY I, I SEE IT AS, AS, AS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
'CAUSE NOW YOU HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA.
YOU UNDERSTAND? I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE VOTING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IF YOU, BUT IF YOU GET, I'M ALREADY THERE.
ONCE YOU GET THERE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE PROCEDURALLY CORRECT AND THEN HAVE AN APPROVED AGENDA.
YOU SHOULD, AT LEAST IN MY EYES.
SO I MOTION THAT WE DO APPROVE START SINCE WE HAVE A NEW PROCEDURE THEN, AND START INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IS SELECT THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AND THEN APPROVE AND THEN AGREE THAT THE REST OF THE THINGS WILL BE ON THE STANDARD AGENDA? CORRECT.
I, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S OKAY.
THAT JUST SO EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE AND EVERYBODY DISCUSSION YES.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE TO GET, GET A SECOND, BUT I, I, THAT'S HOW I FEEL AND I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
SO AFTER, SO AFTER THE ITEMS ARE PULLED, WE WOULD HAVE A MOTION TO, FOR THE REST, TO APPROVE THE REST OF THE OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH.
[ City Attorney Updates Memorandum September 11, 2025]
SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S UPDATES? HI, UH, GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.TODAY'S MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HAS BEEN SCHEDULED IN A HYBRID FORMAT WITH A QUORUM OF THE BOARD PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT THE CITY, CITY MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL, AN APPLICANT'S STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPEARING EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY VIA THE ZOOM PLATFORM WEBINAR.
NOW, IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN TODAY'S MEETING, THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE VIA THE ZOOM PLATFORM WEBINAR MAY DIAL 8 8 8 4 7 5 4 4 9 9, AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH IS 8 2 2 7 3 9 4 1 9 2 4, OR LOG INTO THE ZOOM APP AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH AGAIN IS 8 2 2 7 3 9 4 1 9 2 4.
AN INDIVIDUAL WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEM MUST CLICK, UH, THE RAISE HAND ICON IF THEY'RE USING A ZOOM APP, OR DIAL STAR NINE IF THEY'RE PARTICIPATING BY PHONE.
NOW, BEFORE I WILL SWEAR IN EVERYONE WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING TODAY, I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE CITY'S NOTICE REGARDING LOBBYIST REGISTRATION.
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 DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST IN THREE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.
ONE, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ONLY BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND NOT ANY OTHER PARTY.
TWO, IF YOU'RE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, OR OTHER SPECIALIZED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING.
THREE, IF YOU'RE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR APPEARANCE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO ANY ITEM.
NOW, EXPERT WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UH,
[00:05:01]
HAVE TO PRIOR TO APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND THE PRINCIPLE ON WHOSE BEHALF THEIR ADVOCATING.IF YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT, ATTORNEY, OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTING AN APPLICANT OR AN OBJECTOR, YOU ALSO 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, MODIFICATION, OR DEFEAT.
NOW, UM, I WILL SWEAR IN ANYONE, UH, EVERYONE WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING TODAY.
SO PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND, UM, VISUAL SPEAKERS WILL, WILL BE SWORN IN AT THE ONE BY ONE AT THE TIME OF THEIR PRESENTATION.
NOW, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'LL BE GIVING IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
MADAM CHAIR, YOU MAY TAKE THE WHEEL.
I'M SORRY, BUT I FEEL THAT, CAN I HAVE THE FLOOR A SECOND? SURE.
IT'S NINE 11 AND IT'S ALMOST NINE.
24 YEARS AGO, SOMETHING REALLY CRAZY HAPPENED.
OUR WORLD'S TURNED TODAY SHOULD BE A HOLIDAY.
TODAY SHOULD BE A DAY OF MOURNING AS AMERICANS.
AND I FEEL MANY OF US HAD CONNECTIONS WITH NEW YORK, STILL HAVE CONNECTIONS WITH NEW YORK, OR WERE THERE THAT DAY.
FORTUNATE I WAS NOT, MY NEW YORK EXPERIENCE HAD ENDED TWO YEARS BEFORE I WAS BACK HOME.
BUT EVEN FROM DOWN HERE, I WAS THERE BECAUSE I FELT IT.
AND IT SHOULD BE A DAY OF MOURNING.
AND AFTER YESTERDAY, I FEEL WE NEED TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE, OF, OF WHATEVER, AND JUST BOW OUR HEADS.
LET US MAKE THAT OUR DECISIONS TODAY THAT WE TAKE ON THIS BOARD DO NOT IMPACT US, ANY OF US THAT ARE HERE ON THIS BOARD FOR MAKING ANY OF THOSE DECISIONS.
WE HAVE TO START LEARNING TO ACCEPT PEOPLE FOR THEIR DECISIONS, FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND FOR WHAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE AND FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE YOU SHOULD BE RESPECTED.
BUT AT THIS MOMENT, I THINK IT'S A MOMENT OF SILENCE THAT I, I ASK RIGHT NOW THAT WE TAKE FOR NOT ONLY FOR NINE 11, BUT FOR OUR BROKEN NATION AND FOR THOSE THAT WERE THERE AND EXPERIENCED IT.
[1. After Action July 10, 2025]
CONTINUE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.DOES ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 10TH, 2025 MEETING? DID WE DO THAT YET? I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. PEZ.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IS THERE ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER BUSINESS? WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS TODAY.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.HAILEY, DO YOU WANNA RUN THROUGH THIS OR HOW, UM, I GUESS FIRST, IF ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY ITEMS THAT THEY WANT TO PULL, UM, IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THOSE AND THEN I WILL READ THE REST OF THE TITLES INTO THE RECORD, UM, AND THEN WE COULD OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PULLING? SO THE IDEA WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THAT ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA GET APPROVED WITH ONE MOTION.
IF THERE IS AN ITEM THAT ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WANT TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUALLY AS THE WAY WE WOULD A NORMAL, A NORMAL ITEM, UM, YOU CAN REQUEST THAT THAT ITEM BE PULLED AND THAT ITEM WILL NO LONGER BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IT WILL MOVE TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, AND IT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE NORMAL FORMAT THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE DISCUSSED ITEMS. OKAY.
SO I MOVED TO, UM, PUT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA, THE
[00:10:01]
DRB 25 1 1 1 7 81 0 1 COLLINS AVENUE.THAT'S THE, THE NORTH BEACH LOG CABIN.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION THOUGH ABOUT DRB 25 1 1 1 5 900 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE.
SO THOSE TWO ITEMS ARE PULLED.
THE ONE THE PARK 23 PINE TREE.
DID YOU MENTION THAT ONE ALREADY? OH, I THINK THAT PARK WARRANTS, UH, REVIEW.
IT'S NOT THE PARK, IT'S JUST THAT ONE SCULPTURE.
OH, ONE SCULPTURE IN THE PARK.
AND I THINK IT'S ALREADY PRETTY IN, IN PROCESS.
UH, YEAH, THE PARK'S ABOUT TO OPEN UP ACTUALLY.
ANY OTHER CHANGES? ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS, ATTRACTIONS? THE, THE, THE PARKING ON NORTH BEACH, THE, THE ONE THAT CAME BACK, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BACK FROM LAST MEETING.
THAT ONE, WHICH WAS UP, THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THOUGH.
THAT'S, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.
THERE WAS ONE I HAD, I THINK IT WAS THERE.
IS THAT THE HOUSE? NO, NO, NO, SORRY.
THAT ONE LIKELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE CONSENT, BUT IT HAD, WE HAD IN AN, IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE INCLUDED THE WORD WAIVER IN THE TITLE.
I THINK WE SHOULD ADD THAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO THEN CAN YOU READ BACK THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? SURE.
UM, SO WE HAVE, UM, AND I GUESS I CAN GO AHEAD AND READ THE TITLES AT THIS POINT.
UM, SO WE HAVE, UH, ITEM, UH, NUMBER ONE IS DRB 25 DASH 1106.
THAT'S 1120 BAY DRIVE LOT NUMBER NINE, AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING ONE OR MORE WAIVERS AT A SITE THAT WAS SUBJECT TO A PLANNING BOARD LOT SPLIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.
NUMBER 11, AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE.
I, UM, INCLUDING ONE OR MORE WAIVERS AT A SITE SUBJECT TO A PLANNING BOARD LOT SPLIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE DRB 25 11 0 8.
THAT'S 1120 BAY DRIVE LOT NUMBER 10, AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING ONE OR MORE WAIVERS AT A SITE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD LOT SPLIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.
THEN WE HAVE NUMBER, THEN WE HAVE DRB 25 11 20, THAT'S 2300 PINE TREE DRIVE AND 27 95 PRAIRIE AVENUE.
AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC ART SCULPTURE WITHIN BAYSHORE PARK.
AND THEN WE'RE INCLUDING, UH, DRB 25 DASH 10 89.
AND THAT TITLE IS, UH, AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE STORY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING ONE OR MORE WAIVERS TO REPLACE PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.
THE NEW RESIDENCE IS LOCATED ON A SITE THAT WAS SUBJECT TO A PLANNING BOARD LOT SPLIT APPLICATION.
AND SO DO WE VOTE? SO NOW WE WOULD NEED A, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. SO MOVED.
AND SO THE ITEMS THAT WERE MOVED OFF, THE, THE ITEMS THAT WERE MOVED OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHEN IT, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THEY'RE GONNA SHOW UP? SURE.
SO THE ORDER, WE, WE, WE GENERALLY HAVE THE, UH, AGENDA IN ORDER BY FILE NUMBER.
UM, SO, UH, NUMBER FIVE, THE DRB 25, 11 15 WOULD BE, UH, WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE LAST ITEM.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE, UM, 81 0 1 COLLINS AVENUE.
ALSO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE BOTH AT THE ENDS.
THEY BOTH HAVE THE HIGHEST FILE NUMBERS.
WE NEEDED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE.
OH, UM, WE SHOULD DO THAT, UH, JUST IN CASE.
[00:15:01]
THE PUBLIC WANTS ANY OTHER ITEMS PULLED? UM, IS DO THEY HAVE, DID THE PUBLIC SELECT ITEMS PULLED OR IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON ANY OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? IF, IF THEY HAVE A COMMENT, IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR TO DECIDE IF THE COMMENT IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH WHERE IT SHOULD BE PULLED.IF IT'S JUST THEY WANT A CLARIFICATION, THEN MAYBE IT'S NOT WORTH PULLING, BUT, OKAY.
UM, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE A PUBLIC, ACTUALLY IN THE BOTTOM OF THE CAUTION, I WOULD ADVISE THAT, UM, WHENEVER WE GET ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, THE ITEM SHOULD BE PULLED OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR A FULL HEARING AND PROPER DISCUSSION.
UM, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT ANY OF THOSE? IS IT 4 1 2 3? YEAH.
FIVE ITEMS THAT WE PUT ON THE AGENDA, THE CONSENT AGENDA COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? AND COULD I, COULD I BE ADDED AS A PRESENTER ON, ON ZOOM SO THAT I CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANY HANDS RAISED? MY HAND IS RAISED AND WE HAVE NO HANDS RAISED ON THE CONSENT ITEMS. OKAY, GOOD.
NO NEED FOR A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
AND SO, AS PER GABRIEL'S REQUEST, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS NOW WE SHOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS THE AGENDA THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS CORRECT.
DO YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION? SURE.
THAT WE USE TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA AND GOING FORWARD WE PROCEED WITH THE SAME TYPE OF PROCEDURE.
IT'S JUST A, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S REALLY A PROCEDURAL LEGISL.
IT REALLY IS A LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE.
BUT I, I MOTION THAT WE DO IT FOR CLARITY PURPOSES AND FOR PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION THAT WE FOLLOW ORDER.
AND THAT IS THE ORDER OF OF THE DAY.
ANY, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
SO THEN LET'S BEGIN WITH, OH, SO THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES AND WITHDRAWALS, DO YOU WANNA READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD? UM, WE HAVE, CAN YOU READ THE TITLES OF THE NO, I HAVE 'EM HANDY.
[8. DRB25-1087 a.k.a DRB24-1026, 94 PALM AVENUE. ]
CONTINUANCES, UM, THIS IS, UH, ITEM, THE FIRST ONE IS DRB 25 DASH 10 87, UH, FORMERLY KNOWN AS DRB 24 10 26 94 PALM AVENUE.UM, THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE, AND AS A RESULT, UM, THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THE ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 23RD, 2025 MEETING.
UM, BUT GIVEN THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, WE, WE WOULD LIKE A MOTION TO, TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING.
[9. DRB25-1100, 28 VENETIAN WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.]
NEXT ONE, DRB 25 1100, UH, 1 1 0 0.THAT'S 28 VENETIAN WAY, RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, THAT IS FOR A, UM, AN, AN UPGRADE AND REHABILITATION OF THE WATER BOOSTER PUMP STATION ON BELL ISLE.
UH, PUBLIC WORKS IS WORKING ON SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, MODIFICATIONS THE DESIGN AND THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT THE ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 23RD, 2025 MEETING.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. OLI.
[10. DRB25-1112, 50 WEST DILIDO DRIVE.]
IS DRB 25 DASH 11 12 50 WEST TOLEDO DRIVE.UM, THE APPLICANT JUST, UH, REQUESTED THAT THE ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 23RD, 2025 MEETING.
UM, I'M NOT CERTAIN IF IT'S BECAUSE THEY REQUEST TO MAKE ANY CHANGES OR JUST THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA.
UM, SO, UH, STAFF, STAFF IS OKAY WITH THE CONTINUANCE.
IF WE CAN GET A MOTION IN A SECOND.
SECOND, I THINK SECOND THINK SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK.
UH, MICHAEL OPOLIS, 200 SOUTH, UH, UH, BISCAYNE BOULEVARD.
UH, WE ARE JUST, UH, REQUESTING AN A CONTINUANCE SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CONDUCT, UH, ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH.
ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
[11. DRB25-1080, 6788 COLLINS AVENUE ]
TO OPEN AND PREVIOUSLY CONTINUED ITEMS D RRB TWENTY FIVE ONE TEN EIGHT ZERO SIXTY SEVEN EIGHTY EIGHT COLLINS AVENUE.I CAN READ THIS APPLICATION HAVE BEEN FILED REQUESTING THIS SAME REVIEW APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE FACADE
[00:20:01]
OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER.SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RENOVATE THE FACADE BY RE CLADDING WITH NEW MATERIALS.
SO JUST A, A QUICK UPDATE ON THIS ITEM.
ON MAY 15TH, 2025, THE DRB APPROVED THE MODIFICATION TO THE DESIGN OF THE RETAIL BUILDING.
UM, SO THE ACTUAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING ITSELF WAS APPROVED.
HOWEVER, THE DRV CONTINUED A PORTION OF THE APPLICATION, UH, WITH DIRECTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT A LIGHTING PLAN, A LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE DRAINAGE HAS BEEN FIXED.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED THE, UH, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.
UH, THE PLANS INCLUDE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NEW LANDSCAPING ARE ON THE PERIMETER OF THAT PARKING LOT AND AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANS INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF MODERN NEW LIGHTING FIXTURES AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHANGE.
AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROVIDING SOME EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FLOODING ON THE, ON THE SITE.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT.
UH, WE SUBMITTED, UH, MIC'S ON.
WE SUBMITTED, UH, PROOF OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE DRAINAGE.
UH, YOU MENTIONED, UH, I THINK IT WAS MARIAH, YOU MENTIONED LAST TIME, UH, MARA.
LAST TIME YOU MENTIONED THAT WE HAD FLOODING THERE.
SO WE HAVE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE AND A PICTURE.
OUR ARCHITECT HASN'T SHOWED UP YET.
UM, SO MAYBE WE COULD JUST DRAW BACK MAYBE TO THE NEXT, NEXT CASE UNTIL HE SHOWS UP SHIMON THAT YOU MET WITH.
I SEE, I SEE HE'S ONLINE WITH HIS HANDS RAISED.
IF HE'S ABLE TO PARTICIPATE ON VIRTUALLY.
UM, UM, CAN WE ALLOW MR. SHIMON KY TO SPEAK? DO I JUST SWEAR HIM IN? YES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, YES, WE CAN.
UM, JUST, UH, JUST BEFORE YOU SPEAK, I JUST NEED TO, UH, SWEAR YOU IN REALLY QUICKLY.
UH, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU WILL BE GIVING IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I, I DO SWEAR.
I, UH, I'M, I'M SITTING IN TRAFFIC ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD RIGHT NOW.
I'M ASSUMING I HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES TO GET HERE.
UM, SO I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
UM, WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT'S, UM, AVAILABLE THAT WE WANTED TO SHARE.
AND, UM, IN BROAD TERMS, THE, THE MAIN THINGS WE WANNA FOCUS ON TODAY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, UM, THE LIGHTING PLAN, AND ALSO JUST DOCUMENTATION OF THE, THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAPPENED ON THE SITE.
UM, AT THE MOMENT, I CANNOT SEE THE SLIDES, SO I DO APOLOGIZE.
IT COULD JUST BE THE WAY THAT, UM, OH YES, THEY'RE PRESENT RIGHT HERE.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT I, WHAT WE WANNA POINT OUT IS THAT RIGHT NOW ON THE SITE, THERE ARE 15 EXISTING, UM, TREES.
ALL OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE MAINTAINED.
UM, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY, ANY REMOVAL OF TREES.
UM, IT, SO FROM A SITE, THIS, FROM A TREE DISPOSITION STANDPOINT, WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN ALL OF THE EXISTING VEGETATION ON THE SITE.
UM, IF WE, AND, BUT THE OTHER THING IS THERE ARE A LOT OF SHRUBS ON THE SITE THAT WE, WE PLAN TO ACTUALLY REMOVE AS PART OF THE, THE WORK THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST SHEET, THAT JUST SHOWS YOU THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE AND THE, THE PREDISPOSITION.
THE NEXT SLIDE THAT WE'VE PREPARED IS THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN.
AND THAT WOULD BE, UH, SLIDE NUMBER TWO.
AND THE, THE MAIN STRATEGY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROPOSE FOR THE SITE, ESSENTIALLY IS THE BARRIER PLANTING BETWEEN COLLINS AVENUE AND THE PARKING LOT.
UM, AND BARRIER PLANTING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LOT THAT'S, UH, SEPARATING, BASICALLY THAT KINDA LONG BUILDING FROM ITS SOUTH NEIGHBOR.
THE STRATEGY THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING RESILIENT PLANTING, UM, COMMON PLANTING TO, TO, UM, TO WHAT WE SEE IN, UH, YOU KNOW, IN IN COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE SITUATIONS ON, UH, IN, IN SOUTH FLORIDA, UM, AND DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING ESSENTIALLY IS KIND OF LIKE A THREE-TIERED PLANTING SYSTEM.
AND, UM, JUST, I DO APOLOGIZE, I'M JUST TRYING TO GRAB MY, MY NOTES HERE REAL QUICK.
AND, UH, SO AROUND THE PERIMETER, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD, UM, THESE, UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE IT DOWN CORRECTLY.
UH, THE U UH, PETAL CARPAS, AND ESSENTIALLY, AND THIS IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE BORDER
[00:25:01]
BETWEEN, UM, COLLINS AVENUE IN THE PARKING LOT, THE UTA CARPAS IS A NICE PLANT.UM, IT'S VERY HIGHLY DROUGHT TOLERANT.
THEY'RE GOING TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE LIKE A RING AROUND THAT, THAT AREA AROUND THE ISLAND.
THEY GROW TO BE ABOUT SIX FEET TALL.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO FIT IN AROUND THOSE.
SO AROUND THOSE, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS ADD, UM, ALL THE UNDER, AND ESSENTIALLY THOSE ARE GROWING TO GROW.
THOSE WILL BE GROWING TO ABOUT EIGHT FEET, AND THEIR WIDTH IS ABOUT EIGHT FEET.
SO THEY'RE KINDA SPREADING PLANTS.
UM, AND THEY KIND OF CREATE THIS ADDITIONAL VERTICAL ELEMENT IN THE LANDSCAPE.
AND THEN THROUGHOUT, YOU'RE GONNA, AS YOU KNOW THIS, WE'RE GONNA ADD ROYAL PALMS AS WELL.
SO THOSE ARE TALL AND NATIVE PLANTS, UM, AND THEY CREATE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A VERTICALITY TO THE SITE.
SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE CREATING A NICE SCREENING ELEMENT.
UM, THE CAL
UM, NOW THAT'S THE STRATEGY AROUND THE PARKING LOT AND THE, UM, COLLINS AVENUE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD, UM, TO ADD, UM, SABLE PALMS. AND YOU SEE THERE IN CLUSTERS OF THREE, SO BASICALLY THREE CLUSTERS OF THREE SABLE PALMS. THOSE ARE NICE ORNAMENTAL GROUPINGS OF PLANTS.
UM, AND KIND OF BETWEEN THOSE, WE'RE GONNA BE ADDING TWO PYGMY, UM, TWO PYGMY DAY PALMS. AND THOSE GROW TO BE ABOUT 10 FEET TALL, AND THEY'RE PRETTY NICE ORNAMENTAL KINDA SPECIMEN PLANTS.
AND, UM, ALONG THE NORTH EDGE OF THAT SOUTH PLANTING, WE'RE ALL, WE'RE ACTUALLY CONTINUING THAT U PEDO CARPUS.
SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY TAKING THAT THEME, THE, THE, THE RING THEME OF THE U AND ADDING IT TO THE NORTH END OF THAT SOUTH PLANTING.
UM, AND REALLY THE STRATEGY IS TO ACTIVATE THE ISLANDS, UM, BRINGING IN SOME ALEXANDER PALMS, ALSO KIND OF A CLUSTER SPECIMEN PLANTS.
UM, AND REALLY JUST CREATE LIKE A REALLY NICE AESTHETIC, UM, LOW MAINTENANCE CONDITION WITHIN, UH, WITHIN THE SITE AS WELL.
SO THAT'S THE PLANTING STRATEGY.
UM, FROM THE, FROM THE PLANTING STRATEGY, WE HAVE THE PLANT, UH, LIST, THE PLANT SCHEDULE THAT'S HERE FOR REFERENCE AND JUST KIND OF BREAKS DOWN, UH, THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE PLANTED.
AND THAT WOULD BE SLIDE NUMBER THREE.
NOW, AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION, WE'RE ALSO SHOWING THE IRRIGATION STRATEGY.
SO WE HAVE A COMPLETE IRRIGATION PLAN THAT THAT'S, UH, PROPOSED AS WELL.
UM, THAT WOULD BE SLIDE NUMBER FOUR.
THAT WOULD BE OUR IRRIGATION STRATEGY.
SO ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING IRRIGATION TO THE MAIN ISLAND.
UM, THESE ARE DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS, BUT WE ALSO DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A MAINTENANCE STRATEGY IN PLACE AS WELL.
UM, AND THAT'S INDICATED THROUGH THE IRRIGATION.
THE NEXT SHEET OVER IS JUST PROVIDING THE IRRIGATION DETAILS.
UM, AND THOSE WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD AND ALSO SUBMIT AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PACKAGE.
UM, AND, AND THESE SLIDES ESSENTIALLY ROUND OUT THE, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE STRATEGY, THE PLANTING DESIGN.
UM, FROM THERE WE'RE ALSO SHOWING THE PHOTOMETRICS AND THE LIGHTING DESIGN STRATEGY OR CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO FROM A LIGHTING STANDPOINT, THE OBJECTIVE WAS ESSENTIALLY TO PROVIDE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LIGHTING MODALITIES.
UM, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAY 15TH DRB HEARING, WE, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO PROVIDE MORE OF A PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING IN THAT ISLAND.
UM, AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING RIGHT NOW, IN ORDER TO, TO ADDRESS THAT, THAT QUESTION OR THAT THAT DESIRE IS ESSENTIALLY THREE 12 FOOT HIGH POLES.
UM, THEY'RE ROUGHLY SPREAD OUT FROM THE, THE SOUTHERN CORNER TO THE NORTHERN CORNER, AND THEN BASICALLY AT THE MIDPOINT.
UM, AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING ROUGHLY REALLY AN AVERAGE OF, OF OVER FOUR FOOT CANDLES INTO THE PARKING AREA.
UM, SO IT'S GONNA REALLY CREATE A NICE LIGHTING EFFECT, KIND OF A ALONG COLLINS AVENUE.
[00:30:01]
AS THE ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING, WE ALSO REALLY TOOK TO HEART SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US REGARDING THE, LIKE THE TURT KIND OF CONDITIONS AND THAT, THAT KIND OF FACADE LIGHTING.AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE DECIDED TO DO IS REALLY PROVIDE, UM, MORE OF A SCALE DOWN APPROACH TO THE VIDING.
UM, WITHIN THE NEW SOFFITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CREATED, WE ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING, UM, JUST, UM, UM, UH, RECESSED FLIGHTS, ESSENTIALLY TO PROVIDE ABOUT AN AVERAGE OF ROUGHLY TWO AND A HALF FOOT CANDLES, ALMOST THREE FOOT CANDLES FOR THAT, UM, WESTERN PARKING AREA.
UM, AND THEN THAT'S ALSO GOING TO ILLUMINATE THE STOREFRONTS, UM, IN THE MORE OF A SUBTLE SORT OF WAY.
AND THEN THE THIRD LIGHTING STRATEGY IS SEVERAL WALL PACKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING ONTO THE FACE OF THE CANOPY.
AND THOSE ARE JUST ESSENTIALLY DESIGNED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ENHANCE THE FOOT CANDLES IN THE PARKING LOT, ENHANCE SAFETY.
UM, AND ARE THOSE, AND SO THOSE ARE, ARE THOSE WHAT IS BEING SHOWN ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE PRESENTATION? YES, EXACTLY.
SO AFTER SPEAKING WITH LIO, WE NOTICED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, BECAUSE THESE PLANS ARE REALLY MEANT TO BE MORE OF A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SORT OF PRESENTATION, WE DID ADD AN ADDITIONAL SLIDE, UM, THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT TO THE LIGHTING THAT'S GONNA BE SELECTED.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST SHEET, UM, WE HAVE THE EXTRA LIGHT, UH, VNTS 15 0 0 9 L, THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY GOING TO BE POLE MOUNTED, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE THREE POLES AS SHOWN ON THE, THE LIGHTING PLAN.
AND THOSE ARE THOSE, THAT'S THE LIGHTING FIXTURE THAT'S SELECTED THERE.
UM, IT'S A NICE MODERN, UH, LIGHT FIXTURE, CLEAN LINES.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BLEND IN NICELY, I BELIEVE WITH THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN.
UM, AS FAR AS THE WALL PACKS, ESSENTIALLY WE'RE USING THE SAME MANUFACTURER.
UM, SO CONTINUING KIND OF A COHESIVE LOOK FROM A LIGHTING STANDPOINT.
UM, SO, AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE, AGAIN, MOUNTED ALONG THE, UM, THE FACE OF THE SOFFIT AS SHOWN ON THE LIGHTING PLANS.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY TO SHOW WHAT THE RECESSED LIGHTINGS ARE, BUT, BUT THAT'S, UH, THAT'S A SPECIFICATION FROM THE MANUFACTURER.
UM, AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY SHOWING WHAT THE, WHAT THE DETAILS ARE GONNA BE FOR THE, FOR THE RECESS LIGHTING WITHIN THE SOFFIT.
DO YOU HAVE AN IMAGE TO SHOW US OF THIS LIGHTING ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING OR EVERYTHING THAT YOU PROVIDED IS WHAT YOU HAVE? SO, YEAH, WELL, WE PROVIDE IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
WE, WE DON'T HAVE LIKE A RENDERING UPDATED WITH THAT LIGHTING, SO WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE JUST KIND OF THE, THE IMAGE SPECIFICATION, UM, AS SHOWN IN THE LAST SHEET.
SO SARAH, I, I FEEL, FEEL THE SAME THING.
THERE'S, THERE'S THOSE BATTENS WE TALKED ABOUT AND HOW THESE SORT OF INDUSTRIAL LIGHTS GET MOUNTED TO THE FACADE.
MAKING IT NOT LIKE AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
AND ALSO COLOR TEMPERATURE OF THE RECESS VERSUS THESE AND ALSO THE SIDEWALK.
THOSE WOULD BE MY BIG CONCERNS THERE.
AND GABRIEL, AND THEN WE REALLY, WE, WE ARE, YEAH.
I, I'M SO GLAD WE, WHEN I SAW THE AGENDA AND THAT WE WERE STARTING WITH THIS ITEM, I WAS LIKE, YES.
YOU KNOW WHAT, ACTUALLY, LET ME LET THEM CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC PORTION AND THEN WE CAN OPEN THE DISCUSSION.
I KNOW, I JUST
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR I'M COMING OUT FOR THAT ONE.
WELL, UM, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? THE TIME IS UP? NO, THE, THE LAST, THE LAST ITEM I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS, UM, THERE WAS THAT DISCUSSION IN THE MAY 15TH, UM, HEARING REGARDING, UH, SITE DRAINAGE.
SO WE DID WANT TO JUST SHOW ON THE, ON THE LAST SLIDE, UM, JUST EVIDENCE OF THAT BEING RE REMEDIATED, UM, WITH, UH, WITH JUST KIND OF THE, THE PURCHASE ORDER AND THE RECEIPT TO SHOW THAT THE, THERE WAS LIKE A, A HYDRO, UH, LIKE A, A CLEANING OF THE EXISTING DRAINS ON SITE.
SO, SO THAT'S RESOLVED AT THE DRAINING ISSUES.
ARE THERE, IS THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? GOOD.
UM, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR PRESENTATION.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? ANYBODY ONLINE? I SEE NO HANDS ARE RAISED ONLINE FOR THIS ITEM.
I'M NOW CLOSING THE PUBLIC PORTION AND OPENING UP TO THE BOARD FOR COMMENT.
WOULD YOU MIND TURNING OFF THE MICROPHONE? GABRIEL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN
WHEN I SAW THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA AS THIS FIRST ONE, I SAID, WOW, GREAT.
UH, THIS IS MY ITEM AND WE'RE BACK.
AND FOR THE RECORD, I REPRESENT THE, THE RESIDENTS, EVERY BOARD MEMBER HERE, EVERY, EVERY ONE OF THEM FILL A SPECIFIC ROLE.
PROFESSIONAL IN SOME OTHER THING,
[00:35:01]
A PROFESSIONAL IN SOME OTHER THING.AND OUR MADAM QUEEN HERE, WHO WAS FORMER ASSISTANT MANAGER.
WILL YOU NOT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, ASSISTANT OKAY.
I, I I REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS.
I SEE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, UH, A FOR THE RECORD, MR. ROGELIO, DID I NOT ASK FOR THE AGENDA BACK IN AUGUST? MM-HMM
BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEE WHAT WAS ON THE RECORD AND I WANTED TO VISIT ALL THE PROPERTIES.
SORRY, I DIDN'T, BUT I DID PASS YOURS AND I STARTED WITH YOURS.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I SEE YOUR PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT ABOUT LIGHTING AND IT'S DEFINITELY NOT ABOUT IRRIGATION OR GETTING, UH, FLOODED.
SO, SO YOU DON'T LIKE THE NEW DESIGN THAT'S, I DON'T LIKE THE NEW DESIGN.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE, THAT DESIGN, IT'S ABOUT STRUCTURE.
THAT THING LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA FALL APART.
GABRIEL, WERE YOU, I CAN'T, I'M SORRY.
WERE YOU HERE WHEN WE SAW YEAH.
AND THEN, AND SO BECAUSE, BUT I VISITED, NOW I VISITED IT BECAUSE THEY, WE APPROVED AND I STARTED WITH THIS PROPERTY AND WALKED APPROVED THE REDESIGN.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I SEE THAT IT'S, WE'RE NOT GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND I SEE THAT AS ANOTHER DUVAL PEOPLE AND IT'S GONNA BE OUR NEXT HEADACHE, AND THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE GOING.
I'M JUST, I'M JUST RAISING THE RED FLAGS.
ROGELIO, CAN I ASK JUST FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECALL, WAS THE DESIGN OF THE RENOVATION OF THE STOREFRONT APPROVED OR LEFT FOR APPROVAL AT THIS MEETING? THE, THE DESIGN OF THE STOREFRONT WAS APPROVED.
WHAT WAS CONTINUED WAS, UM, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE PARKING LOT, THE LIGHTING, THE LANDSCAPING, AND THE IRRIGATION ABOUT, SO IT IS, IT, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THEN, AM I CORRECT IN THINKING THAT BECAUSE THIS BOARD ALREADY APPROVED, WE NEED TO RECONSIDER OUR VOTE THEN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S, I'M SORRY.
SO AM I CORRECT IN THINKING THAT BECAUSE THIS BOARD ALREADY APPROVED THE, UM, RENOVATION THAT THEY PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING, THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN VOTE ON TODAY IS THE ITEMS THAT WERE LEFT FOR THIS MEETING, WHICH IS THE IRRIGATION, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND DRAINAGE.
TO APPROVE, UNFORTUNATELY, THEN TO APPROVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT OR, OR TO MAKE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, LIKE TO THE FACADE IS, UM, MY CO-BOARD MEMBER HERE IS STATING IT WOULD REQUIRE FOR THIS OWNER TO COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL FOR US TO CONSIDER.
BUT WE CANNOT REQUIRE THE OWNER TO MAKE CHANGES.
SO DOES ANYBODY, OR ADAM, DID YOU WANNA MAKE A COMMENT AGAIN? YEAH, I, I, I APPRECIATE ALL AND, AND WHAT GABRIEL WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND, AND DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE, BUT I I, I KNOW THE PROCEDURE WE DID, WE DID APPROVE IT.
I'VE GOT IT, I'VE GOT IT HERE.
I LOOKED AT IT AND I DON'T, AND I'M NOT DEBATING AND I'M HOPING IT'S, IT'S GOTTA BE AN IMPROVEMENT.
I'M JUST RAISING A RED FLAG THAT WE MAY HAVE VOTED IT CORRECTLY AND, AND, YOU KNOW, BUT STICKING TO WHAT THE, THE, THE VOTE TODAY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PLANTS SEEM LIKE THEY'VE, THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THAT IN, IN LITIGATION.
BUT I, I DO BELIEVE YOU KNOW, THAT THE SLAPPING OF A, OF A, AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF LIGHT ON A BUILDING THAT YOU'RE PUTTING ALL THIS WORK INTO SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED A LITTLE BIT AND A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT PUT IN THE RENDERING I'M LOOKING AT HAS SCONCES AND, AND, AND STORE NAMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND WHAT I'VE SEEN BEFORE IS PEOPLE JUST SLAPPING ON A, A, A SORT OF CHEAP INDUSTRIAL LIGHT BECAUSE YOU'RE BUYING IT FROM THE SAME MANUFACTURER AS THE POLE LIGHT COMPANY AND IT'S A 4,000 K LIGHT, AND THEN YOU GOT WARM LIGHT BEHIND AND IT'S JUST, IT BECOMES, IT LOOKS LIKE AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
I I DON'T THINK YOU WANT THAT FOR YOUR PROPERTY.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE, THE, THE LIGHTING SHOULD, AT LEAST THE LIGHTING SURFACE SCONCES SHOULD BE LOOKED AT THE POLES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ABOUT STREET LIGHTING VERSUS PARKING LOT LIGHTING, TEMPERATURE BEING SIMILAR IN THE CITY.
LIKE THIS IS SO CLOSE TO THE BEACH.
SHOULD THIS MAY BE SAID TO BE A WARMER LIGHT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU, THAT YOU CAN COMMENT ABOUT THE TYPES OF LIGHTS SO CLOSE TO THE BEACH ON THE STREET IN THE PARKING LOT? THEY, UM, THE CITY DOES HAVE A TURTLE ORDINANCE.
UM, SO THAT LIGHTING GOING TOWARDS THE BEACH HAS TO BE LIMITED.
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE IN AN AREA THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THAT.
[00:40:01]
THING THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE IS WE HAVE REGULATIONS ON, UH, LIGHTING, ESCAPING THE PROPERTY.I'LL HAVE TO LOOK UP THE REGULATION.
BUT WE DO HAVE, UH, REGULATIONS ON THAT, THAT THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LIGHTING IS NOT, UH, SHINING OFF OF THE PROPERTY, THAT THE LIGHTING HAS TO BE CONTAINED ON SITE, UH, FOR THE MOST PART.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, UH, PROCESS.
UM, BUT NOW THE LIGHTS THEMSELVES, THAT THICK TYPES OF FIXTURES, THAT'S, THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD.
THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN THAT IT'S, YEAH, IT DOESN'T, YEAH, I, I WANNA PIGGYBACK ON THAT.
THAT WAS MY CONCERN TOO, THAT, THAT, AND IN THE MATERIALS THAT YOU'RE, YOU'VE PRESENTED, IT DOESN'T REALLY, I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THESE SCONCES ARE GONNA GO.
UM, HOW THEY'RE GONNA LOOK, IF THIS IS JUST A SHEET, YOU KNOW, I REALIZE THESE MAY BE YOUR, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BUT WE NEEDED SOME PRESENTATION MATERIALS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PURPOSES, SO WE COULD SEE WHAT THIS BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THESE NEW PROPOSED LIGHTING.
UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WENT INTO, UM, THE LANDSCAPING CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER.
I DO FIND IT INTERESTING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, YOUR ARCHITECT REPEATEDLY MENTIONED THEY LOOK FOR, FOR PLANTS THAT WERE DROUGHT TOLERANT, THAT WERE RESILIENT.
AND I WAS VERY SURPRISED TO SEE, BASED ON THAT CRITERIA, THAT SO FEW OF THE SHRUBS WERE ACTUALLY NATIVE.
AND I REALLY WANTED TO ENCOURAGE THAT TO BE EXPLORED BECAUSE NATIVE PLANTS ARE THE EASIEST TO MAINTAIN.
UM, IT'S A COMMENT THAT I'M GONNA MAKE THROUGHOUT TODAY'S PRESENTATIONS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS, IF IF STAFF TRIES TO PROMOTE THE NATIVE PLANTS.
BUT THAT WAS GONNA, THOSE WERE MY TWO MAIN COMMENTS.
I, I HAVE NO, I AGREE WITH, WITH ADAM THAT THESE LIGHTS SEEM A LITTLE TOO INDUSTRIAL, BUT IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO KNOW EITHER WAY, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE WERE GONNA GO.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GONNA INTERACT WITH ALL THE OTHER DESIGN FEATURES FOR ME.
THIS, THIS PRESENTATION SEEMS VERY INCOMPLETE.
UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR THAT I, WE HAVE A VERY FULL AGENDA, SO I WANNA KEEP THINGS MOVING THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY DIFFERENT COMMENTS? LET, LET ME PROPOSE THIS IN, IN, IN A THOUGHT OF MOVING FORWARD AND GIVING, UM, THE PRESENTER SOME DIRECTION.
DOES IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS BOARD MAYBE WANTS TO MOVE TOWARDS, UM, GIVING THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST GIVEN TO THIS PERSON SO THAT THEY CAN GO BACK AND COME BACK TO THIS BOARD AT A FUTURE MEETING WITH A FULL-BLOWN PRESENTATION AND NOT JUST THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LIGHTING COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE.
UM, IS THAT THE DESIRE OF THIS BOARD? IF SO, DO WE MAKE A MOTION TO PROCEED IN THAT? I SECOND YOU.
AND, AND THEN IN RESPONSE TO, UH, THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS COMMENT AS TO THE STRUCTURE, THE FACILITY, THE BUILDING ITSELF, THIS BOARD, NOR THE CITY, I DON'T BELIEVE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL YOU THE BUILDING REALLY NEEDS TO HAVE FAR MORE OF A RENOVATION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
WE CANNOT, BUT I THINK AS YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE LIGHTING AND THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, UM, THAT YOU ALSO CONSIDER ANY OTHER POSSIBLE CHANGES THAT COULD FIX THE STRUCTURE OF YOUR FACILITY, OF YOUR BUILDING.
SO I GUESS I WOULD MOVE TO, UM, DEFER OR, UM, CONTINUE THIS MEETING FOR THIS ITEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING OR FOR WHEN THEY WOULD BE READY TO, WHEN YOU SAY FIX, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU MEAN SPECIFICALLY? LIKE THE MAKE ACTUAL REPAIRS OR, OR MODIFY THE DESIGN? I, I CANNOT SAY WHAT STRUCTURALLY IS NEEDED ON THE FAC ON THE BUILDING ITSELF.
THAT'S UP TO THEIR STRUCTURAL EN ENGINEER AND THEIR ARCHITECT.
BUT YOU HEARD THAT THE FACILITY, THE BUILDING, UM, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN GOOD HEALTH.
SO ARE THERE OTHER THINGS BESIDES WHAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE THAT YOU CAN SUBMIT, THEN THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED ROGELIO, I'M LOOKING AT YOU MM-HMM
THEN THEY CAN POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED AT YOUR NEXT MEETING WHEN YOU COME TO US FOR APPROVAL.
CAN I ASK, IS, IS THIS A JOB THAT, THAT CAN BE APPROVED FOR PERMITS WITH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PIECES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON TO KEEP THIS PROJECT? I MEAN, WE ALREADY SORT OF PARSED IT WHERE WE APPROVE THE DESIGN, BUT NOT THE LIGHTING AND THE LANDSCAPING.
AND NOW THEY'VE COME BACK AND THE LANDSCAPING, YOU KNOW, IS BETTER, BUT THE LIGHTING ISN'T.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD KEEP PARSING IT.
I THINK THEY JUST NEED TO COME BACK WITH BETTER LIGHTING.
YOU KNOW, UM, WE'VE BEEN, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE REALLY TRIED TO HELP YOU AS MUCH AS WE CAN, AND NOW WE JUST NEED TO GET THAT BACK.
SO DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU CAN COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING OR TWO, TWO
[00:45:01]
MONTHS FROM NOW, OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER? SURE.WE ALREADY MADE RENDERINGS THAT ARE BASED OFF OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DESIGN.
AND TO, UH, TELL GABRIEL GABRIELLE, UH, REGARDING THE FACADE, THE, WE HAVE A, A 40 YEAR RE-CERTIFICATION THAT WE PASSED STRUCTURALLY IN TERMS OF ELECTRICITY, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND THE DESIGN THAT YOU APPROVED IS ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY, IT'S IN TWO PARTS OF THE BUILDING.
AND THAT HAS A FACADE THAT, THAT HAS ARMS OUT WITH, WITH ACTUAL, UH, WITH STEEL TRUSSES.
SO THE STEEL TRUSSES ARE BEING REMOVED.
THAT WHOLE FACADE COMPONENT IS BEING LIFTED OFF.
SO IT'S GONNA BE A FLAT BUILDING, AND THEN WE'RE RE REPAIRING THE FACADE.
SO WHY DON'T I, SO ALL STRUCTURAL IN TERMS OF DISCREPANCIES ARE BE TAKEN CARE OF? YES.
SO CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS PROJECT FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT YOU WILL SCHEDULE WITH, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LIGHTING AND BRINGING FORWARD A PRESENTATION SO WE CAN SEE, UM, I ALSO WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DRAINAGE, WHAT WAS DONE TO THE DRAINAGE.
AND IT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT MEETING, UM, TO IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE ON THE, THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED.
IT'S BEEN HYDRO, IT'S A NORMAL MAINTENANCE, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN MAINTAINED EXFIL.
SO OCTOBER IS GOOD, OR WOULD YOU PREFER NOVEMBER? LET'S GO FOR OCTOBER.
I THINK HE PROBABLY HAS SOME UPDATE.
YOU HAVE, I'LL, I'LL SECOND HER MOTION.
BUT, BUT LET ME ASK YOU, WHEN, WHEN WOULD HE NEED TO HAVE MATERIALS SENT IN OCT? SO FOR THE OCTOBER 23RD, WE TYPICALLY ASK FOR ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED AT LEAST THREE WEEKS PRIOR.
UM, SO WE HAVE TIME TO REVIEW IT, UPDATE THE STAFF REPORTS.
UM, SO THAT WOULD BE, UH, LIKELY THE FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER.
SO YOU TALK WITH YOUR ARCHITECT AND SEE IF YOU CAN MEET THAT SCHEDULE OCTOBER 2ND.
OTHERWISE, THEN IT'LL BE THE NOVEMBER MEETING, SO YOU CAN, THAT'S A, OKAY.
SO A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND THEN IT WAS SECONDED.
WE NEED A ROLL CALL OR, UM, JUST ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.
BUT CAN I GET BACK TO HER POINT SAYING THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT WEEK, THAT THE STATE, THAT THE, THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, BUT WE HAVE A CODE, YOU KNOW, BUT WE ALREADY, THE PROBLEM PART OF IT, WE ALREADY REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE DESIGN.
I KNOW, BUT I'M, BUT I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M COMING FROM A POINT THAT I THE FUTURE, LOOK AT THIS BEFORE THEN WE VOTE THESE DAYS.
TAKE INTO CONSIDER RAISING WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE VOTING.
ALL COMMENTS ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.
[12. DRB25-1084, 7729 CARLYLE AVENUE.]
ON THE AGENDA IS DRB 25 180 4.THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING THIS REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FOUR STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AS WELL, A REQUEST FOR ONE OR MORE DESIGN WAIVERS.
THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PROJECTION AND THE HEIGHT FOR THE STEPS AND PLATFORMS IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.
A VARIANCE REQUEST RELATED TO THE REQUIRED SITE SETBACK FOR PORTION OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE SECOND FLOOR, AND A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PROJECTION OF BALCONIES AND OVER HANGS ON THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK.
A VARIANCE REQUEST RELATED TO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT OF THE FIRST HABITABLE LEVEL, AND A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FIRST 25 FEET OF BUILDING DEPTH AS MEASURED FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FROM SETBACK.
UH, THIS APPLICATION WAS ON THE JULY 11TH, 2025 DRB, AND IT WAS CONTINUED TO THIS HEARING WITH A DIRECTION TO THAT THE APPLICANT SIMPLIFIED THE FRONT FACADE.
OKAY, SO THIS, UM, AS ALEJANDRO SAID, THANK YOU, THE, THE ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE PROVIDED SOME UPDATED PLANS.
UH, THE UPDATED PLANS REMOVE THE SIMULATED WOOD TILE FROM THE FRONT PLANE OF THE FACADE.
THE TILE IS MAINTAINED UNDERNEATH THE STEPS THAT LEAD UP TO THAT FIRST, UM, FIRST LEVEL UNIT.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT MODIFIED THE GARAGE DOOR TO BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WINDOWS OF THE FACADE.
UM, IT SEEMS THAT THE MODIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE BOARD.
UM, SO STAFF DOES, UH, RECOMMEND THAT THE, THAT THE ITEM BE APPROVED.
I BELIEVE THE ARCHITECT IS ONLINE.
UH, MR. RAMOS, IF YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND, HIS HAND IS RAISED AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO PRESENT.
[00:50:02]
HI, MR. RAMOS.CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, YES, WE DO.
UM, BEFORE YOU PRESENT, I JUST NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN REALLY QUICKLY.
CAN YOU HEAR US, MR. RAMOS? YES.
UM, MR. RAMOS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'LL BE GIVING IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? TRUTH, YES, I DO.
AND, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, SINCE WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA, WE USUALLY HAVE A 10 MINUTE, UM, TIME LIMIT FOR A PRESENTATION, AND I'LL BE ENFORCING IT, BUT, UM, IF AN APPLICANT DESIRES MORE TIME, THEY CAN, UM, ALWAYS ASK THE CHAIR TO EXTEND IT.
UM, YES, THE, UH, PRESENTATION INCLUDES QUITE A FEW, UH, DRAWINGS, AND IF YOU CAN, UH, GO TO SAVE TIME, GO TO SHEET 12.
YEAH, THIS, THIS IS THE ACTUAL, UH, ELEVATION AND, AND, AND RENDERINGS THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND THERE WAS A QUESTION, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE MY, CAN YOU SEE AN ARROW? WE DO NOT SEE AN ARROW.
THAT WHAT, UH, WHAT WAS ASKED WAS TO SIMPLIFY THE FRONT ELEVATION AND POSSIBLY, UH, DO SOMETHING WITH THE TILE THAT CAME UP ON THE FRONT WALL, UH, UP TO THE AREA OF WHERE THE, UH, THE BIG GLASS ELEMENT, UH, IS ABOVE.
UH, ALSO THE, UH, NUMBER TWO WAS THE CORNER WINDOW.
THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THAT CORNER WINDOW ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ELEVATION, UH, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A CORNER WINDOW OF, UH, OF THE KITCHEN WHERE THE WINDOW SITS BETWEEN THE COUNTER AND THE UPS, UH, AND THE, THE CABINETS ABOVE.
UH, AND THEN ALSO THE, UH, THE MATERIAL OF THE OVERHEAD DOOR, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THERE IN THE, UH, IN THE FRONT ELEVATION.
IF WE GO TO, UH, SHEET 12, THE NEXT PAGE, I MEAN SHEET, UH, 13.
THIS, THIS, IN THIS ELEVATION, WE ADJUSTED THE, UH, MATERIAL THAT WAS COMING UP THE FRONT WALL.
UH, THESE ARE THE STREET RENDERINGS THAT WAS COMING UP, THE FRONT WALL WHERE THE, UH, STAIR GOES UP TO THE ENTRANCE.
UH, AND WE KEPT THE MATERIAL AT THE BASE OF THE STEPS THAT COME INTO THE FIRST UNIT, WHICH KIND OF MATCHES THE, UH, AND TIES INTO THE MATERIAL THAT GOES ON THE SIDE ELEVATION ON THE SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND ALSO, UH, WE, UH, YOU CAN SEE PARTIALLY ON THE, UH, THE ACTUAL GLASS, UH, OVERHEAD DOOR.
SO WE'RE PROVIDING A, A GLASS OVERHEAD DOOR, AND THE, UH, THE GLASS COULD EITHER BE CLEAR, FROSTED OR TINTED, AND IT'S GONNA BE ALUMINUM.
AND THE, UH, ALSO IN, IN OUR, WE HAVE TWO, TWO, UH, TWO CHOICES.
WE'RE, WE'RE IN OUR CHOICE, WE'RE KEEPING THE CORNER WINDOW ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT, UH, ELEVATION, WHICH IS THE WINDOW THAT FACES THE, UH, THE STREET AND THEN FACES NORTH FROM THE KITCHEN IN ORDER TO BRING LIGHT.
UH, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO SEE THE NEXT, UH, NUMBER 14.
SO THIS IS OUR PRIMARY CHOICE AGAIN HERE.
IT SHOWS THE, UH, THE GLASS OVERHEAD DOOR, THE, UH, MATERIAL UNDER THE STEPS THAT COMES AROUND ALL THE WAY TO THE OTHER SIDE, TO THE SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION AND THE CORNER WINDOW.
THESE ARE THE STREET RENDERINGS.
THIS IS A MORE SIMPLIFIED VERSION WITHOUT THE LANDSCAPING, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE MATERIAL WRAPPING AROUND, UH, FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT, UNDER THE BASE, UH, OF THE STEPS THAT COME UP TO THE, UH, TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE FIRST UNIT.
AND YOU SEE THE, UH, GLASS OVERHEAD DOOR ON THE LEFT AND THE CORNER WINDOW ON THE LEFT.
AND IF YOU KEEP GOING TO NUMBER 16, THEN YOU'LL SEE THE, UH, THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE BUILDING AND HOW IT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE, UH, THE, THE QUESTION OF THE MATERIAL, UH, THE, UH, TILE MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE ON THE, ON THE BUILDING, YOU CAN KEEP GOING AGAIN, BUT
[00:55:01]
IT'S JUST DIFFERENT VIEWS OF, OF HOW THE MATERIAL WRAPS AROUND THE, THE, THE BUILDING FOR THE 19.THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION, UH, SHOWING WHERE THE MATERIAL, UH, IS ON THE, ON THE FACADE.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER CORNER WINDOW, WHICH IS ON THE, ON THE KITCHEN.
ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE ELEVATION IS THE OTHER CORNER WINDOW THAT MATCHES THE, THE CORNER WINDOW FROM THE FRONT FOR THE, UH, FOR THAT KITCHEN THERE, WHICH ALSO LOOKS TO THE, TO THE EAST NEXT.
AND HERE'S, UH, UH, THE CORNER WINDOW, ALSO MORE ACCENTED WHERE THE, UH, THE KITCHEN'S GONNA BE, WHICH IS THE SAME AS IT IS IN THE FRONT.
AND IT'S WRAPPING AROUND, UH, THE FRONT ELEVATION.
NEXT, THIS SHOWS YOU THE, UH, ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE CORNER WINDOW, AND ON THE LEFT SIDE, THE CORNER WINDOW WHERE THE, WHERE THE KITCHENS ARE LOCATED.
AGAIN, THE, THE CORNER WINDOWS ARE FROM THE COUNTERTOP TO THE, THE UNDERSIDE OF THE CABINETS IN THE WINDOW.
NEXT, THIS WOULD BE FROM THE FRONT NEXT.
THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE FRONT NEXT.
UH, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT IT, WE SHOULD LOOK AT TRYING TO REMOVE THAT CORNER WINDOW.
SO THIS, THIS VERSION OF THE ELEVATION IS REMOVING THE CORNER WINDOW.
AGAIN, WE'RE KEEPING THE MATERIAL UNDER.
WE REMOVE THE MATERIAL FROM THE FACADE NEXT TO THE ENTRANCE TO THE, UH, TO THE, TO THE STEPS.
KIND OF LIKE TO CREATE MORE OF A, A, A, A VOLUME OF, OF THE SAME MATERIAL COMING DOWN FROM THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR.
UH, NEXT, THIS IS THE RENDERING, SHOWING THE, UH, THE FRONT FACADE WITHOUT THAT CORNER WINDOW.
NEXT, THIS IS THE REAR ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD SHOW, UH, ON ONE SIDE TO THE RIGHT SIDE WOULD BE THE, THE WINDOW THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING AS A CORNER WINDOW, WHICH FACES NORTH.
AND THEN ON THE LEFT SIDE, WE HAVE THE CORNER WINDOW FOR THAT KITCHEN.
NEXT, UH, HERE'S THE FRONT ELEVATION WITHOUT THE CORNER WINDOW, JUST TO THE WINDOW FACING TO THE SOUTH.
UH, AND WE FEEL, YOU KNOW, STRONGLY THAT WE'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT CORNER WINDOW, UH, BASED ON THE, THE CONTINUITY OF THE DESIGN OF ALL THE WINDOWS IN THE, IN THE KITCHEN.
WE ALSO WANT THE PEOPLE IN THE KITCHEN TO BE ABLE TO LOOK TOWARDS THE STREET.
SO IN THIS CASE, THEY'D BE LOOKING JUST STRAIGHT NORTH.
AND, AND ARCHITECTURALLY, I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE LIKED THE, THE FIRST VERSION THAT WE ORIGINALLY, UH, CREATED NEXT.
AND HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF THE, OF THAT, UH, FACADE WITHOUT THE CORNER WINDOW TO SEE.
IF YOU GO TO, IF YOU GO TO PAGE, UH, 34, THAT'S IT.
THIS IS KIND OF LIKE, UH, WHAT, UH, WE'RE THINKING THAT THE, UH, THE OVERHEAD DOOR COULD BE THE MATERIALS.
THE, THE ISSUE WITH BEING CLEAR IS THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE ALL THE PLUMBING IN THE CEILING FROM, FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, FROM THE, THE, UH, SIDEWALK IN THE FRONT.
SO WE'D EITHER MAKE, UH, TINTED OR, UM, PROFIT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE, UH, THE BOARD SEEMS TO THINK.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK AND CHAMBERS ARE ONLINE? NO HANDS RAISED ONLINE.
I'M NOW CLOSING THE PRESENTATION AND OPENING IT UP, OR CLOSING THE PUBLIC PORTION, OPENING IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR COMMENT.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA BEGIN? YES.
OH, WELL, HELIO, CAN I, NO, WAIT, I'M SORRY.
UM, ON THE PAGE, UM, THE VARIANCE
[01:00:01]
THAT'S BEING REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE 3.6 TO REDUCE BY THREE FEET, SIX INCHES, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK, IS THAT 3.3 FEET, SIX INCHES, OR SHOULD IT BE THREE FEET, TWO INCHES? THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 20 SETBACK, 10 ON EACH, 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE.AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES ON EACH SIDE.
IF, IF I'M THINKING THIS, YES.
THE, THE 10 FEET OR 10%, YOU READ THAT ONE INTERIOR SETBACK AT 10 FEET TO REDUCE BY THREE FEET, SIX INCHES.
AND JUST THINK ABOUT IT AS, AS WE'RE TALKING YEAH, YOUR MATH IS, THE MATH IS OFF THERE.
IT SHOULD BE TO REDUCE BY, LET ME MAKE SURE THAT, LEMME MAKE SURE.
BUT I BELIEVE IT'S REDUCED BY ONE FOOT SIX INCHES WHEN THE MATH, SO WE GO WITH HER MATH.
LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK THE PLANS BEFORE I TELL YOU.
IF YOU COULD, THE, THE SUBTRACTION IS WRONG.
JUST DOUBLE CHECK WHILE WE'RE TALKING.
LEMME JUST DOUBLE CHECK THE PLANS.
THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT, UM, BUILDING DEPTH SETBACK, UM, WHERE IT'S NORMALLY 32, WHERE, WHERE IT'S NORMALLY, UM, THEY'RE REDUCING IT TO 15 FEET, EIGHT INCHES, RIGHT? THAT'S THE UP AND THE UPPER LEVEL.
SO THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF NINE FEET, TWO INCHES VARIANCE INSTEAD OF, I BELIEVE NINE FEET, FOUR INCHES.
SO IF YOU CAN ALSO CHECK THAT ONE AS WE WILL DO, DISCUSS THE PROJECT.
THE, I, I'M VERY PLEASED
I KNOW I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAD MANY COMMENTS ON THE LAST, UM, AT THE LAST MEETING WITH THIS ONE.
UM, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO US AND GIVING US SOME OPTIONS.
AND, UM, AND JUST TAKING OUR, OUR SUGGESTIONS, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU DID IS WERE LITTLE TINY TWEAKS, BUT THEY REALLY MAKE THE PROJECT, UM, SO MUCH BETTER.
AND I THINK FROM THE STREET VIEW, THIS IS, THIS IS JUST A BETTER PROJECT FOR IT, UM, WITH SPECIFICS.
UM, I NEVER ACTUALLY HAD A PROBLEM WITH OR WITHOUT THE WINDOW.
SO LIKE, I, I'LL, I'LL DE, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'LL DEFER TO YOU ON WHICH OF THOSE OPTIONS WITH, WITH OR WITHOUT THE WINDOW YOU PREFER.
UM, I, I TEND TO LIKE THE THIRD ONE WITH THE LITTLE EYEBROW.
I THINK THAT THAT'S MY FAVORITE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE A STRONG PREFERENCE EITHER WAY.
UM, ONE OR I GUESS TWO THINGS THAT JUST I WOULD SUGGEST FOR YOU TO DO AND CAN MAYBE CONSIDER WITH STAFF.
UM, THE FIRST RENDERING FOR, OR YOUR VERSION ONE RENDERING HAD A COUPLE BULBUS PALMS IN THE FRONT OF THAT LITTLE LANDSCAPING AREA RIGHT BY THE FRONT DOOR.
I WOULD SUGGEST INCORPORATING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN WHATEVER VERSION YOU CHOOSE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUST THE RENDERING ONLY BEING ON VERSION ONE, BUT IT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON TWO OR THREE.
UM, I DO THINK THAT HAVING SOME ELEMENT OF VERTICAL LANDSCAPING THERE, IN ADDITION TO THE SHRUBS IS SOMETHING TO, TO DO.
UM, AND THEN ONE DESIGN COMMENT, I'M NOT GONNA DIE ON THIS HILL, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT WOOD CLADDING IS NOW JUST ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE IT DOESN'T GO WITH THE REST OF THE PROJECT.
AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO NOT SEE IT ON THE FRONT FACADE.
BUT MAYBE IF THERE'S A WAY TO CONSIDER USING THAT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE BUILDING THAT'S NOT SUCH A BIG PIECE AS IT WAS LAST TIME.
COULD BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, JUST TO BRING THAT THROUGHOUT, PERHAPS MAYBE ON THE INSIDE OF THE GARAGE DOOR WALL OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, JUST TO BRING IT TO ANOTHER PIECE OF THE FACADE.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, I'M NOT WHAT ABOUT ALONG OR, YEAH, ALONG THE OTHER, ALONG THE, UH, IS THAT THE, THE EASTERN SIDE OR, UM, JUST THE OTHER SIDE.
UM, JUST, JUST SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST SOLELY ON THE ONE SIDE IS, IS MY ONLY COMMENT.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE GARAGE DOOR.
I THINK THAT THAT MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE AS WELL.
UM, SO I'M, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, MR. RE WISE.
OH, AND THEN TO CLARIFY, CAN YOU BRING UP, UM, PAGE 30 OF THE PRESENTATION? BECAUSE ACTUALLY ON PAGE 30 IT DOES SHOW THAT THERE IS SOME MORE OH, YEAH.
SO WHICH ONE IS CORRECT? 'CAUSE SOME OF THE RENDERINGS HAVE IT AND SOME OF THEM DON'T.
AND BY THE WAY, THERE IS BOTTLE PALMS ON THE, ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
[01:05:05]
LIO CAN, YES, I APOLOGIZE.DOES HE HAVE ACCESS THE MR. RAMOS, ARE YOU THERE? HIS HAND IS RAISED AGAIN, SO HE'S NOT ON DO I NEED TO TURN THIS? OKAY, WE GOT IT.
YOU SHOULD BE, UH, WHICH, WHICH AREA ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT? THE, SO HERE, CAN YOU SEE THE, THE, THE RENDERING THAT WE'RE SHOWING RIGHT NOW? PAGE 30? YES.
DOES THE, UM, THE MATERIAL, THE TILE ON SOME OF THE DRAWINGS, YOU HAVE IT ON THIS FACADE AND ON OTHERS YOU DON'T.
WHAT ARE, WHICH ONE ARE YOU PROPOSING? NO, NO.
THE, THE, UH, THEY ALL HAVE IT ON THIS FACADE.
NO, I THINK, I THINK IT IS ALL ON THAT ONE SIDE, BUT I WAS JUST SAYING, I, I LIKE THE FRONT FACADE LARGELY AS IT IS.
AND I, I'M HAPPY TO SEE IT NOT JUST ON THE FIRST FLOOR BOTTOM, BUT MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO CONSIDER BRINGING THAT THROUGH IN OTHER PIECES.
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS IMAGE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT SIDE WALL TO WHERE THE GARAGE DOOR IS ON THE LEFT.
MAYBE IT'S JUST ON THE INSIDE PART OF THAT WALL OR SOMETHING, JUST TO BRING SOME CONTINUITY TO THAT, THAT MATERIAL.
UM, BUT REALLY OTHERWISE, I'M, I'M VERY HAPPY, UM, WITH HOW, HOW THIS HAS COME OUT.
I SECOND WHAT, WHAT I'VE JUST SAID BEFORE ME.
UM, THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF BOARD WORKING WITH COMMUNITY AND, AND EVERYBODY WORKING TOGETHER.
AND YOU TOOK THE ADVICE OF THESE BOARD MEMBERS LAST TIME TO NOW, AND YOU'VE PRODUCED A WONDERFUL ITEM.
UH, IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, BUT NOW SERVING ON THIS BOARD, I LOOK OUT FOR EYE.
EYEBROWS, EYEBROWS, EYEBROWS, HONEY.
THAT'S WHY I, I'M NOW LOOKING FOR EYEBROWS.
SO THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE CAN DO HERE WITH YOU WORKING TOGETHER JUST AS SUGGESTIONS.
I, I ALSO APPRECIATE THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE, AND I THINK IT WAS VERY THOUGHTFUL TO INCLUDE THESE VARIATIONS SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
UM, ADAM, DID YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS? NO, I'M ALL, ARE YOU GOOD, SCOTT? YEP.
YOU GOOD? I WAS GOOD WITH THE WINDOWS IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO.
YEAH, I THINK I WAS, I, I, UM, I THINK I, I WAS THE, THE WINDOW PERSON.
UM, I WANNA, I, I HAVE A CLARIFICATION.
WELL, QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE GARAGE DOOR IS BECAUSE YOU SHOWED US TWO DIFFERENT IMAGES, ARE YOU PROPOSING IT TO BE FROSTED OR CLEAR? THE QUESTION WOULD BE, SINCE, SINCE THE, UH, THE ELEVATION OF THE FLOOR OF THE GARAGE IS SO HIGH, IT'S ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF FEET OFF THE SIDEWALK, THAT WHEN YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE SIDEWALK AND YOU LOOK THROUGH THE GARAGE DOOR, THE ANGLE THAT YOU WOULD SEE, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE PLUMBING.
UH, ON THAT'S COMING DOWN AND THEN DISSIPATING TO COLUMNS AND THEN GOING DOWN.
SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE, IF, IF WE MAKE IT EITHER FROSTED OR, OR, UH, OR, UH, TINTED, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE SO MUCH OF THE PLUMBING, YOU KNOW? BECAUSE IF, IF, IF THE ELEVATION OF THE DOOR WAS, WAS AT AN ELEVATION WHERE YOU WOULD LOOK STRAIGHT IN, YES.
BUT SINCE, SINCE THE, THE, UH, SIDEWALK IS, IS A LOT LOWER BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD CONDITION.
AND YOU'D BE LOOKING UP IN THE CEILING.
I'M GLAD THAT THAT'S YOUR RESPONSE.
'CAUSE I WAS GONNA RECOMMEND THAT MY PREFERENCE IS FOR FROSTED.
UM, I ALSO, I DON'T THINK THAT THE FACADE NEEDS ANY MORE OF THE, UM, OF THE TILE ANYWHERE.
I JUST LIKE IT ALONG THAT CORNER AND THEN ALONG THE SIDE THAT FOLLOWS IT.
UM, AND I DO AGREE, I DO LIKE THE FAC THE FRONT FACADE WITHOUT THAT CORNER WINDOW.
HOWEVER, UM, MY SECOND CHOICE AND THE ONE THAT I'D BE WILLING TO SUPPORT, UM, IS THE ONE THAT LAURA MENTIONED AT FIRST, THE CORNER WINDOW WITH THE EYEBROW ON IT.
UM, SO I, I THINK THIS IS GREAT.
I THANK YOU FOR, UM, THE CHANGES THAT YOU'VE MADE.
UM, AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PASS A MOTION, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CONSENSUS I'LL SUPPORT HERE.
I'LL SUPPORT YOU FOR PROCEDURAL.
SO, VARIANCE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FROSTED THAT WE APPROVE, THAT WE APPROVE FROST.
THE VARIANCE FOR THE FROSTED WINDOW.
SO TO SUM UP, WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ENCOURAGING THE APPLICANT TO USE A FROSTED WINDOW ON THE GARAGE TO HAVE
[01:10:01]
THE CORNER WINDOW WITH THE EYEBROW? AND, UM, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE, SO I, I LIKE THE TILE AS PLACED.LAURA RECOMMENDED MAYBE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT WHERE IT SHOULD GO? YEAH, THAT'S JUST TO WORK WITH STAFF.
AND THEN WITH THE RECOMMENDATION YEAH.
TO, TO SEE IF IT WOULD LOOK OKAY.
SORT OF ON THE INSIDE OF THE WALL LEADING INTO THE GARAGE, BUT IT'S NOT A CONDITION.
SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH THE FROSTED GLASS ON THE GARAGE DOOR AND WITH THE WINDOW THAT HAS THE EYEBROW CORNER WINDOW WITH THE EYEBROW, AND THAT THEY EXPLORE IF THE TILE, UM, CAN BE LOCATED ELSEWHERE ON THE PROJECT.
TO DO THAT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.
I SECOND MAY, MAY I MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION WITH, UH, IN REGARDS TO MS. ALI'S COMMENT ON THE VARIANCE FOR VARIANCE NUMBER TWO.
THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE REDUCED BY ONE FOOT EIGHT INCHES.
WE WERE LOOKING ON THE PLANS 'CAUSE THEY HAD A FEW PROJECTIONS, UM, THAT ENCROACHED INTO THE SETBACK.
THOSE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS VARIANCE.
SO THE, SO IT, SO THE REDUCTION IS ONE FOOT EIGHT INCHES.
SO WE WILL REVISE THAT IN THE, IN THE, IN THE ORDER.
AND YOU WANT, AND WE HA AND WE VOTE ON THE VARIANCES SEPARATELY, WHICH VARIANCE YOU CAN, OR YOU CAN INCORPORATE THE VARIANCES INTO YOUR MOTION.
WHICH OF THE VARIANCES ARE REFERRING TO? THAT'S VARIANCE NUMBER TWO.
SO REDUCING THE THREE POINT, THE THREE FEET, SIX INCHES TO ONE FOOT EIGHT INCHES, CORRECT? MM-HMM
AND HOW ABOUT VARIANCE NUMBER FIVE? NUMBER FIVE IS CORRECT.
WE CHECKED THE MATH AND THAT ONE'S CORRECT.
SO THE NINE FEET, FOUR INCHES IS CORRECT? MM-HMM
AND, AND THE, YOUR MOTION INCLUDES THE VARIANCES? YES.
WITH THE CORRECTION AS STATED FOR VARIANCE NUMBER TWO, THAT IT BE REDUCED TO ONE FOOT EIGHT INCHES.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA TAKE LIKE A I'M OKAY.
[13. DRB25-1095, 6 & 7 FARREY LANE.]
UM, ITEM IS D RRB 25 1 0 9, 5 6, AND SEVEN FERRY LANE.THIS APPLICATION HAVE BEEN FILED, HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE STORY RESIDENCE ON TWO LOTS TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, INCLUDING A CONNECTION THROUGH AN AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT ABOVE A PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO FERRY LANE.
THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIRED FROM YARD SETBACKS FOR SIX FERRY LANE AND SEVEN FERRY LANE, AND ONE OR MORE WAIVERS.
THE DRB DISCUSSED THE ITEM AND CONTINUE TO, TO TODAY'S, UH, HEARING.
SO THE, UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, RECEIVED SOME GUIDANCE FROM THE DRB REGARDING SOME PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS THAT, UH, THAT THEY SHOULD CONSIDER.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE SUBMITTED SOME REVISED PLANS.
THESE PLANS, UH, INCLUDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS REGARDING THE MATERIALS, WHICH WAS A COMMENT THAT STAFF HAD.
SO THEY'RE PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL MATERIALS PAGE THAT CLARIFIES, UH, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT STAFF HAD REGARDING THE TYPES OF MATERIALS THAT WERE BEING UTILIZED.
UM, THE, UM, THE APPLICANT ALSO SIMPLIFIED SEVERAL OF THE DESIGN ELEMENTS ON THE FACADE.
UH, THEY PROPOSED SIMPLIFYING THE EASTERN FACADE BY REMOVING THE VERTICAL SLATS OR LOUVERS.
UM, ALONG THE, ALONG THAT FACADE ON THE WATER FACING SIDE, THE, THE APPLICANT SIMPLIFIED THE BALCONIES AND ROOF OVERHANG BY DESIGNING THEM PARALLEL TO THE FACADE.
PREVIOUSLY THEY HAD, UH, THEY HAD AN ANGLE TO THEM.
UM, AND THEN, UM, AND SO THESE ARE THE PRIMARY CHANGES.
UM, STAFF BELIEVES THE CHANGES ARE CONS ARE AN IMPROVEMENT AND, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE CHANGES.
UM, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR EASEMENT, UM, OVER, OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, THAT EASEMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSIONER AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024.
UM, THEY HAD A PRIOR FIRST READING ON OCTOBER 30TH, 2024.
AND THEN IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, UH, IN MONTHS PRIOR.
AND THEY HAD HAD MULTIPLE HEARINGS AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REGARDING THIS ITEM SO THAT THE, THE, THE EASEMENT WAS GRANTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
UM, SO IT'S PART OF THE, THE PROJECT THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER, UH, BEFORE US TODAY.
SO, UH, WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED WITH THE, WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS THAT THEY'LL DESCRIBE TO YOU.
JOSEPH PARDO, 1205 LINCOLN ROAD.
I WANT TO REINTRODUCE TO THE BOARD JAMES MCDONALD,
[01:15:01]
ROYAL PALM COMPANIES, OUR PRINCIPAL DESIGNER, ANDREAS HOLMAN, OUR PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT.AND MR. HAWLEY IS OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF RECORD.
MADAM CHAIR CHAIRWOMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE'RE GONNA HAVE MR. MCDONALD RUN THROUGH THE DESIGN FOR THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WHO WEREN'T PRESENT AT THE LAST HEARING, BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE PROCESS MATTERS.
SO I WANT TO TAKE A FEW MORE MOMENTS AND ELABORATE THE PROCESS FOR HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED THE TWO PROPERTIES IN 2021, UH, MARKET CONDITIONS AND THE, UH, CREATIVE DESIGNING, UH, ENCOURAGED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A UNIFIED SITE PLAN THAT TRAVERSED OVER THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, AND ULTIMATELY A LAND USE ITEM WAS PRESENTED FROM COMMISSION TO THE LAND USE COMMITTEE TO EXPLORE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LAND USE COMMITTEE WAS TO COMMISSION AN APPRAISAL.
AND, UH, AT THAT POINT, CITY STAFF AND THE PROPERTY OWNER NEGOTIATED A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE PROPERTY OWNER COMMISSIONED THE APPRAISAL FOR WHAT THE VALUE OF THOSE AIR RIGHTS OVER THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE.
UH, THAT RECOMMENDATION WENT BACK TO COMMISSION, WHICH REFERRED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
UH, AT THE TIME, THERE WAS A, A DOWN ZONING THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE AREA.
THIS WOULD'VE BEEN, ASIDE FROM THAT, A STANDALONE LAND USE BOARD APPLICATION.
UH, COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE SPONSORED THAT ITEM IN THE FERC COMMITTEE.
AND AT THE FIRST FERC COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ ENCOURAGED US TO REACH OUT TO THE BUREAU ORGANIZATION, UH, FOR INPUT, NOT FOR DIRECTION, BUT FOR INPUT.
I REACHED OUT TO THE BUREAU BOARD AND THEY ENCOURAGED US TO, UH, NOT TAKE A POSITION BUT TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY AND AT THAT TIME, TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, HOW THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THOSE MONIES THAT WOULD BE USED TO, TO, TO TRANSACT THE EASEMENT, UH, AIR RIGHTS, HOW THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY WAS, IF THESE MONIES ARE GIVEN TO THE CITY, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT TO BELL ISLE AND FERRY LANE.
AND SO THE FERC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO THE COMMISSION THAT, UH, THE APPRAISED VALUE, WHICH WAS SEPARATELY NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY AT A 50% PREMIUM ABOVE APPRAISED VALUE, UH, BE ALLOCATED TO BELL ISLAND FERRY LANE.
WE WENT TO THE FIRST COMMISSION READING, WE EXPLAINED THE PROCESS AGAIN, AND COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ AT THE TIME SUGGESTED, AGAIN, IT WASN'T A MANDATE, BUT A SUGGESTION THAT OF THE $800,000 PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WAS BEING ALLOCATED TO THE CITY, THAT 300,000 GO TOWARDS BELL ISLE.
UM, AT, AT WHICH POINT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS THAT THE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC BENEFIT WOULD BE USED TO IMPROVE VERY LATE.
THAT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY FROM BOTH FERC AND CITY COMMISSION, UH, AT TWO READINGS.
SO THAT'S THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT HERE.
UH, ALONG THE WAY, WE WERE IN ACTIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY FOR THE AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT AND WHAT THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES WOULD BE.
THAT AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED.
TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO PROCESS, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN APPROVED DESIGN BEFORE ANY, ANY MONEY, TRADES, HANDS.
WE NEED TO KNOW THAT THE, UH, CITY IS OKAY WITH THE DESIGN AND WE HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT APPROVED AND PROCESSED BEFORE ANY MONEY TRANSACTS, UH, BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
SO THAT'S THE LONG-WINDED PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT HERE TODAY, FOR YOU TO NOW JUST CONSIDER THE DESIGN ELEMENT OF THIS PROJECT THAT WE BELIEVE, UM, IS BEAUTIFUL AND, AND WONDERFUL FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT JAMES IS GONNA EXPLAIN.
UM, AND, AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM.
UH, 3 33 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 3000.
ARE WE SHARING THE SCREEN? SO HERE'S OUR HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE SEVEN AND SIX FERRY LANE.
WATERFRONT VIEW TO THE LEFT OF OUR HOUSE IS, UH, OUR NEIGHBOR, WHICH WAS APPROVED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW.
AND TO THE RIGHT IS THE FUTURE STANDARD HOTEL.
UH, SIX FERRY LANE IS A LANDLOCKED LOT, WHICH IS 2,800, APPROXIMATELY 2,800 SQUARE FEET AND SEVEN FERRY LANE, WHICH IS A WATERFRONT PROPERTY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 4,200 SQUARE FEET WITH A TOTAL FAR OF 8,800 SQUARE FEET.
THERE'S A DEAD END LANE, AS WE KNOW IN BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES.
SO WE PROPOSE A DESIGN TO BRIDGE OVER THAT DEAD END STREET.
AND THE FIRST ELEVATED LEVEL OF THE HOME WAS SPECIFICALLY, UH, LOCATED IN THE HEIGHT THAT IT IS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN FPL TRANSFORMER BOX AT THE END OF THIS LANE, WHICH WE'RE STILL GRANTING ACCESS TO, UH, WITH THE PROPER HEIGHTS UNDERNEATH, WHICH IS 17 FEET.
HERE'S THE TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED IN A SITE PLAN HERE.
AND IN CONTEXT, HERE'S THE OVERALL MASS OF THE HOUSE.
UH, IN CONTEXT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO THAT HOUSE.
[01:20:01]
A FEW FEET BELOW.LOOKING AT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE, THE SIDE OF THE ISLAND, WE ARE ALSO ASKING FOR A VARIANCE IN SETBACKS AT THE GROUND LEVEL, UH, TO BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, UH, AS WELL AS FOR TWO STRUCTURAL COLUMNS WITHIN SEVEN FERRY LANES, 20 FOOT, UH, FRONT SETBACK.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE BETWEEN SETBACK TO SETBACK, WE HAVE JUST UNDER 50 FEET, AND THAT'S QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO BRIDGE.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE, UH, UH, THE AMOUNT OF STRUCTURE NEEDED BY ADDING THESE TWO COLUMNS WITHIN THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK AT A GROUND LEVEL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE HOME.
UM, ON THE LEFT SIDE HERE IS SIX FERRY LANE WITH A TWO CAR GARAGE SERVICE ELEVATOR AND STAIRS.
AND ON THE RIGHT WE HAVE AN OPEN AIR COVERED PARKING, UH, WITH AN OPEN AIR UNDERSTORY WITH THE, UH, PRIMARY FOYER TO THE HOUSE AND A A SMALL POOL IN JACUZZI.
IF WE GO UP TO THE FIRST LIVING LEVEL OF THE HOME, WE HAVE A DOUBLE HIKED LIVING ROOM WITH A KITCHEN AND A CHEF'S KITCHEN.
AND THEN WE HAVE TWO GUEST SUITES AND A LAUNDRY ROOM.
THE NEXT LEVEL UP WE HAVE AN ENTERTAINMENT SPACE AND MOVIE THEATER WITH THREE ADDITIONAL GUEST BEDROOMS. AND ON THE LAST LEVEL WE HAVE A MASTER SUITE ON ONE SIDE FACING THE OCEAN, UM, WITH A ROOF TERRACE IN BETWEEN WITH A LAP POOL AND A SPA, UH, ABOVE SIX FERRY LANE.
AND ABOVE THE DECK OF THE MASTER SUITE, WE HAVE A SMALL TERRACE WITH A A PLUNGE POOL AND A GRILL AREA.
NOW, UH, JOE MENTIONED THAT, UH, WITH THE AIR RIGHTS, UH, THAT WAS ABOUT 36,000 CUBIC FEET.
OF THAT 36,000 CUBIC FEET WE'RE ONLY OCCUPYING 33% OF WHAT WE'VE PURCHASED IN AC SPACE.
THIS PLAN HIGHLIGHTS, UH, THE, UH, SPACE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURAL COLUMN THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WITH THE SETBACK WAIVER, UH, REDUCING OUR SPAN FROM JUST UNDER 50 FEET TO UM, 38 FEET.
HERE'S A SECTION OF THE HOME THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE OCCUPIABLE SPACE ABOVE THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THE MIDDLE HERE, AND A FLOOR PLAN DIAGRAM HIGHLIGHTING THE USED SPACE OVER THIS BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, WHICH IS OCCUPIABLE.
AND THEN FOR THE MATERIALS OF THE HOME, WERE CONSISTED OF FOUR GENERAL MATERIALS, WHICH IS STUCCO, A LIGHT WOOD OR WHITE, UH, OAK DETAIL TRAVERTINE, AND A BLACK DARK METAL, WHICH IS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE HOME FOR LANDSCAPING.
WE WANT THIS HOME TO FEEL NESTLED WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE.
SO A LOT OF LUSH TROPICAL PLANTS.
WE'RE ALSO USING PLANTERS THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE FOR PRIVACY AND TO GIVE THE HOUSE A GENTLER FEEL, UH, WITH ITS SURROUNDING CONTEXT.
AGAIN, HERE'S AN OCEAN VIEW TO REMIND YOU.
WE'RE THREE FEET BELOW, UH, THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITH THE HOME FROM A STREET VIEW ON FERRY LANE.
THIS IS LOOKING AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE AND THE DEAD END, UH, LANE BETWEEN WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A, A PORTAL OR ENTRY OR A FRONT LIKE FEEL TO THE HOME AND TO THE RIGHT OF US, THERE IS, UM, A 3D MODEL OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND APPROVED.
AND I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THIS SLIDE REALLY QUICKLY.
THE LAST TIME WE PRESENTED, WE WERE PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF VERTICAL WOOD LOUVERS.
AND, UH, IT WAS THE OPINION THAT IT WAS CREATING TOO MUCH, UM, MOTION OR JUST WASN'T FITTING WITH THE, UH, REMAINING ELEVATIONS OF THE HOME.
SO WE'VE REMOVED THOSE AND WE'VE ACTUALLY EXTENDED SOME OF THE HORIZONTAL FEATURE, UH, IN FRONT OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE THERE OF EIGHT FERRY LANE.
HERE'S SOME ELEVATIONS DEPICTING THE MATERIAL PALETTE OF THE HOME.
AGAIN, IT'S JUST FOUR GENERAL MATERIALS, WHITE STUCCO, THE LIGHT WOOD, THE BLACK, UH, METAL FRAMES.
UM, AND THEN HERE'S A BACKSIDE ELEVATION, WHICH YOU GUYS WERE, UM, WERE ASKING FOR IN THE LAST MEETING.
A SIDE ELEVATION HERE YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE'VE REMOVED THOSE LOUVERS AS WELL AS ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF SIX FERRY LANE.
AND WE'VE EXTENDED THE HORIZONTALITY OF THOSE PLANTERS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS ELEVATION, UH, TO, TO BLEND IN WITH THIS SURROUNDING, UH, OTHER ELEVATIONS OF THE HOUSE.
HERE'S A PERSPECTIVE RENDERING OF THAT SAME ELEVATION.
YOU NEED TWO MORE MINUTES? 30 SECONDS.
[01:25:03]
AND AGAIN, FROM A LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS HOUSE FEEL NESTLED WITHIN THE PROPERTY.AND JOE HAD MENTIONED SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS.
PERHAPS THIS IS NOT A DESIGN PROPOSAL, BUT JUST MAYBE A, A WHAT IF FOUR FERRY LANE WE'RE THINKING OF MAYBE REPAVING THE STREETS AND REPLACING THAT WITH PAVERS.
AND BECAUSE OF THE HOTEL NEXT DOOR, PERHAPS ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, SECURITY TO THAT ROAD TO JUST PREVENT HOTEL GUESTS FROM COMING DOWN.
UM, AND THEN COMING CLOSER TO THE HOME ON THAT STREET WE'VE RENDERED IN HERE, THE HOUSE AND HOW REALLY IT IS NESTLED WITHIN THAT LANDSCAPE AND, UM, FITS WITHIN ITS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
ARE THERE ANY, UM, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK? ANYBODY ONLINE? RAISE YOUR HAND PLEASE.
I'M NOW CLOSING THE PUBLIC PORTION AND OPENING IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN? CAN I START? YES, PLEASE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PRESENTATION.
UM, I HAD TO PREPARE A STATEMENT BECAUSE I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS ITEM AND I JUST HAVE TO SPEAK MY MIND.
SO I WROTE THIS DOWN SO I WOULDN'T FORGET ANYTHING.
UH, THIS PROJECT IS IN FRONT OF US ONLY BECAUSE IT REQUIRES TWO VARIANCES, BOTH OF WHICH ARE NEEDED BECAUSE OF THE AIR RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE CITY.
THERE'S SO MUCH HISTORY OF HOW BELL ISLE GOT TO HOMES LIKE THIS BEING DEVELOPED, AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO GO INTO THAT IN DETAIL ON ANOTHER DAY.
BUT I KNOW WE'RE ON A TIGHT SCHEDULE, BUT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH PROCESS AND I HAVE MORE HISTORY THAN ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM, I WOULD GUARANTEE.
UM, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ISSUE WITH THE FEEL FREE TO SAY WHAT TO MAKE YOUR POINT.
I WILL JUST, I'M GONNA GO OFF SCRIPT FOR ONE MINUTE.
THE CONTEXT OF THAT HOUSE, UM, THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT OF IT, TO THE EAST OF IT, IS BEING BUILT BY A PERSON THAT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ORIGINAL 40 STORY, FOUR STORY, EXCUSE ME, THREE STORY HOUSE THAT WAS GONNA BE DEVELOPED ON FERRY LANE NEXT DOOR TO IT.
ALL THE NEIGHBORS OPPOSED IT, BUT IT WAS AN UNDERSTORY AND STAFF PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
MANY OF YOU WHO ARE NOT HERE WENT NUTS OVER IT.
IT WAS THE FIRST UNDERSTORY PROPOSAL.
UM, NATURALLY IT NEVER GOT BUILT, BUT IT SET A PRECEDENT.
AND IF THREE STORIES WAS THE FIRST ONE, BY THE WAY, PEOPLE USED TO NOT EVEN TRY TO BUILD TWO STORIES THERE.
AND THESE APPLICANTS LATER BOUGHT THIS LAND THAT HE PAID 1 4, 1 0.4 MILLION.
THEY PAID 5.7 JUST FOR THE WATERFRONT LAND.
SO LET ME GO BACK TO THE BACKGROUND OF THIS 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA GO.
I ASKED TO DEFER THIS ITEM LAST TIME SO THAT I COULD DO SOME RESEARCH.
I, UM, I HAD NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
AND SO I, I MET WITH FIVE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THIS.
I SPOKE TO JOE THAT THE NEW ATTORNEY, WHO I GOTTA SAY HE'S A DELIGHTFUL GUY.
I HOLD NONE OF HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY OF THIS.
I SPOKE TO BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY WHO TAKES THE MINUTES AT BELAU RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS A LOT OF RESIDENTS WHO I SPEAK TO ALL THE TIME.
WHAT I DISCOVERED IS THAT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE BY THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS.
AND FROM WHAT I COULD GATHER, THERE WAS ZERO PUBLIC COMMENT AT ANY OF THE TIMES THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES OR COMMISSION MEETINGS.
EVERYTHING JUST KIND OF SAILED THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AS JOE SAID, IT WENT FROM COMMISSION TO FINANCE AND FINANCE, FIGURED OUT WHAT THIS WOULD COST.
UM, AND THEN IT WENT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR A SECOND READING AFTER BEING BE ISLE RESIDENCE BEING TOLD.
AND IT REALLY NEVER WENT TO A LAND USE KIND OF THING OR HAD ANY PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT THE ACTUAL BRIDGE IN AIR RIGHTS.
SO TO MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I SPOKE TO FIVE COMMISSIONERS.
BY THE WAY, THE ONE I DID NOT SPEAK TO WAS COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE.
I HAD REACHED OUT TO HIM THREE TIMES.
HE ACTUALLY CALLED ME AT 10 O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT AND TEXTED ME THIS MORNING ON MY WAY.
I, I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO HIM, BUT I STARTED OVER A MONTH AGO TO SPEAK TO HIM.
UM, SO I'M NOT, AND AND AGAIN, I HOLD NOBODY INDIVIDUALLY AT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, BUT THE COMMISSIONERS I SPOKE TO REMEMBER A DISCUSSION JUST REFERRING IT TO FINANCE TO GET A VALUE FOR THE AIR RIGHTS.
THERE SEEMED TO BE NO DISCUSSION, THE IMPLICATIONS OF PRECEDENT.
THE, THEY DIDN'T EVEN REALLY, A LOT OF THEM DIDN'T EVEN REMEMBER THAT THIS BEING A BIG DEAL AT ALL.
SO THE ONES THAT DID REMEMBER THE ITEM WERE TOLD THAT PRECEDENT HAD ALREADY BEEN SET BY THE BUILDING OF TWO OTHER AREAS FOR THE, UH, OVER
[01:30:01]
ROADS FOR THE BETSY HOTEL IN TRADER JOE'S.IN FACT, THE RESOLUTION THAT THE COMMISSION PASSED ON JUNE 28TH AT THE COMMISSION MEETING, ONE OF THOSE WHEREASES STATED, WHEREAS THE CITY HAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CONNECTOR PROJECTS SUCH AS THE CONNECTORS FOR THE TIDES IN BETSY HOTEL.
HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE GRANTEES WILL BE DEVELOPING THREE LEVELS OF HABITABLE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE SKYBRIDGE CONNECTOR, HAVING A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 1,841 I THINK SQUARE FEET, WHICH WILL INCLUDE A PRIVATE BALCONY, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
THERE IS NO MENTION FROM WHAT I GATHERED IN MY MEETINGS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THIS HAD EVER BEEN DONE OVER A RE, THAT THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE OVER A RESIDENTIAL STREET, AND THAT IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT, PARTICULARLY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH FERRY AND CENTURY LANES, WHICH HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF JUST INSANE AMOUNTS OF GIGANTIC PROJECTS BEING PROPOSED THAT WOULD NEVER FLY ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY.
ALTHOUGH THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN ALL DOCUMENTATION THAT THIS IS A REQUIRED RESIDENCE RIGHT TO NO ITEM.
APPARENTLY THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN BROKEN FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW AND THE RESIDENTS AREN'T GETTING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT RESIDENTS RIGHT TO KNOW.
I KNOW THAT I AM ON THE RESIDENTS RIGHT TO KNOW AND I NEVER RECEIVED A THING ABOUT IT.
I HAVE FERRY LANE, CENTURY LANE, BELL ISLE DEVELOPMENT, EVERYTHING YOU COULD THINK OF THAT WOULD TRIGGER IT.
I NEVER RECEIVED A WORD ABOUT IT.
UM, I ACTUALLY SEARCHED FOR ALL MY EMAIL LOOKING FOR FERRY LANE, AIR RIGHTS, BELL ISLE, ET CETERA.
THERE WAS NOTHING FROM THE BELL ISLE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, NOTHING FROM RESIDENCE RIGHT TO KNOW, UH, NOTHING.
SO IN IN FACT THOUGH, THE REASON I KNEW ABOUT THE GUY BEING OPPOSED TO IT NEXT DOOR, I HAD EMAILS FROM 2012 ABOUT PEOPLE FIGHTING THIS DEVELOPMENT ON, ON ON FERRY LANE AND CENTURY LANE AND TALKING ABOUT HOW IT WOULD FOREVER CHANGE THE CHARACTER WHEN 40 FEET WAS PROPOSED.
UM, THIS ITEM WAS NEVER ON A BUREAU AGENDA.
IT WAS DISCUSSED CASUALLY IN A MEETING.
BASICALLY, THEY WERE TOLD IT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY FINANCE AND THE CITY WOULD USE THE 300,000 TO GO TOWARDS THE DOG PARK IF IT GOT APPROVED.
THEY FIGURED QUITE RIGHTLY IT WAS A DONE DEAL.
AND HISTORICALLY, THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO STOP ANY OTHER LARGE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THE YEARS.
THEY NEVER SENT ANY TYPE OF COMMUNICATION TO RESIDENTS REGARDING THIS.
UM, AGAIN, I DON'T BLAME THEM.
THEY'VE HAD SOME DRAMA WITH THE STANDARD.
THEY'RE PROBABLY A LITTLE GUN SHY RIGHT NOW, BUT IT, IT'S JUST BEEN NOT A VERY COMMUNICATIVE ORGANIZATION FOR A COUPLE YEARS.
NOW, BESIDES THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT KNOWN TO ANY RESIDENTS THAT I COULD TALK TO, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, OH, EXCUSE ME.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CLEARLY COMMUNICATED THE IMPLICATIONS TO COMMISSIONERS OR TO THE DRB OF APPROVING THIS.
THERE SEEMS TO BE NO REFERENCE THAT THIS WAS GONNA CREATE A PRECEDENT IN A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
WHEN I BROUGHT THIS UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS I DID SPEAK TO, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS SETTING OF PRECEDENTS.
SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY OFFERED TO MEET WITH ME SEPARATELY TO DISCUSS DRAFTING LEGISLATION TO PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS GOING FORWARD.
NOW LET'S GET BACK TO THE VARIANCES IN QUESTION.
THE VARIANCES ARE BOTH NEEDED TO BUILD STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO MAKE THE BRIDGE WORK.
THAT WAS ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS GRANTED AIR RIGHTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT.
GIVEN THE NECESSITY TO CONNECT TO THE EASEMENT OF THIS PORTION OF THE LOT, THE REQUIRED SETBACK DOES PRESENT A HARDSHIP AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY DUE TO THE HARDSHIP AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IDENTIFIED STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
ADDITIONALLY, STAFF HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION COMPLY WITH FOLLOWING THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA AS THEY RELATE TO REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2.83 IN MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE.
AND BASED ON THAT, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT.
SO THIS IS WHERE MY PROBLEM MA REMAINS WITH STAFF, AND NOT NECESSARILY YOU, BUT IN GENERAL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US THAT AN APPLICANT HAS ALTERED THE LAND AND THEN MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE DRB AND CLAIMED A HARDSHIP WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S AGREEMENT BASED ON CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT.
SO IF THIS HAD NEVER BEEN REQUESTED, THIS APPLICANT WOULD NEVER, THIS, THIS VARIANCE WOULD NEVER BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE THEY COULD NEVER BUILD THIS.
THERE'VE BEEN OTHER INSTANCES IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF GREEN LIGHTING PROJECTS AND ADVOCATING FOR US TO GRANT VARIANCES THAT SET PRECEDENT.
BUT THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION OF THE PRECEDENT.
SOME OF THESE PRECEDENTS HAVE PERMANENTLY
[01:35:01]
CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROMPTED THREATS OF LAWSUITS IF SIMILAR VARIANCES ARE NOT GRANTED ON SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS.SOMETIMES THESE VARIANCES HAVE OCCURRED WITH STRONG OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMUNITY AND IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, PARTICULARLY ON BELL ISLE, ALTHOUGH NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN MY TIME ON THE DRB GOING ON SIX YEARS NOW.
I SAW THIS WITH A LOT SPLIT ON HIBISCUS ISLAND WHEN AN APPLICATION WENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND GOT PERMISSION WITH STAFF'S ADVOCACY TO SPLIT ONE LOT INTO THREE.
THAT LATER APPLICANT CAME TO THE DRB WITH A PROPOSAL TO BUILD THREE HOMES ON THOSE LOTS, ALL OF WHICH NEEDED UP TO 11 VARIANCES TO BUILD, CLAIMING A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE SHAPES OF THE LOT THAT THEY SPLIT WERE IRREGULAR AND DIFFICULT TO BUILD ON THAT.
I THINK MY QUOTE WAS THAT REALLY P****S ME OFF AND I DIDN'T THINK I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT VOTED NO ON IT, ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD ISSU.
WE RECENTLY SAW A PROPOSAL ON CENTURY LANE TO AGGREGATE THREE LOTS TO BUILD A MASSIVE FIVE STORY TALL SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH WAS AN ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTE GUT PUNCH TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE DESIGN ELEMENTS, THEY DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AGGREGATION OF THREE LOTS, EVEN THOUGH COLD SPECIFICALLY STATES ONLY ALLOW, YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO AGGREGATE TWO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE THAT DAY, PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF A VERY AGGRESSIVE LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY.
ULTIMATELY THE DRB DENIED THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE LOT AGGREGATION EVEN BEFORE MUCH OF THE DESIGN WAS DISCUSSED, THAT APPLICANT HAS NOW PUT THOSE PROPERTIES THEIR FOREVER HOME ON THE MARKET FOR $14 MILLION COMPLETE WITH A PICTURE OF THE PROJECT THAT WAS DENIED ALONG WITH TEXT IN THE DESCRIPTION THAT READS THREE PARCELS OFFERING UNMATCHED FLEXIBILITY WITH A FIVE STORY BUILD HEIGHT, ALLOWING FOR UP TO 14 LUXURY UNITS OR A GRAND PRIVATE ESTATE.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE IMPLICATION OF GRANTING VARIANCES, WHICH SET PRECEDENT IS ENORMOUS.
THE TYPES OF HOME THAT ARE HOMES THAT ARE DEVELOPED DEPEND ON WHAT IS ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY BE BUILT.
SINCE NEW WATERFRONT HOMES COMMAND OVER $6,000 PER FOOT IN THIS MARKET, AND DRY LOT HOMES MAX OUT AT 3000 PER SQUARE FOOT, LESS THAN HALF, YOU CAN IMAGINE THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO DO THIS GOING FORWARD AND TO LAWYER UP TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE BECAUSE PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET THE PRECEDENT THAT AIR RIGHTS CONNECTING WATERFRONT WITH NON WATERFRONT LOTS OVER PUBLIC STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS HAS NOT BEEN DONE.
AND THE PRESS, IT'S ENORMOUS FOR THE, AND IT'S ENORMOUS.
AND SO AGAIN, I I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE DESIGN.
I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DESIGN.
I THINK IT FITS IN WITH WHAT OTHER THINGS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
BY THE WAY, THE STANDARD, IT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, BUT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT TOUCHED IT UNTIL AFTER THIS ELECTION.
IT'S VERY CONTROVERSIAL AS WE'VE ALL HEARD.
SO THAT'S NOT A DONE DEAL YET.
AND I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, SO THE PRECEDENCE BACK TO THAT, THE CONNECTING AIR RIGHTS WITH WATERFRONT, WITH NON WATERFRONT LOTS OVER PUBLIC STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IS THE REASON THAT I CANNOT VOTE FOR THIS.
UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THERE IS A REASON VARIANCES REQUIRE A VOTE OF THIS BOARD.
AND I BELIEVE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT HOW THEY DEAL WITH THESE REQUESTS.
UM, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S AT STAKE, THE ATTORNEYS AND THE SKILL THAT ARE BEING HIRED.
I WILL BE SPEAKING WITH COMMISSIONERS GOING FORWARD ABOUT THIS, AND I WILL ASK TIME TO DISCUSS THIS ON THE AGENDA IN A FUTURE MEETING.
SO THAT IS WHERE I STAND AND I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND, BUT I HAVE LOST COUNTLESS HOURS OF SLEEP AND YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW MANY HOURS IT TOOK ME TO PIECE THIS TOGETHER.
IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE AND THERE'S A LOT MORE COMING.
SO I'M VOTING NO, I'M ASKING MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.
AND UH, THERE'S ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SAY.
IN NOVEMBER, EARLY NOVEMBER OF 2024, THE CITY, THE VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED THAT NO CITY LAND OR RIGHTS TO CITY LAND CAN BE PASSED WITHOUT A REFERENDUM.
THIS HAD A SECOND READING AFTER THAT VOTE WAS PASSED.
I DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITY OF THAT.
I'M NOT HERE TO START A LAWSUIT AND THIS IS NOT MY BIG ISSUE.
I'M NOT ON YOUR ISSUE, BUT I AM ON THE, THE CONNECTING WATERFRONT WITH WHAT NON WATERFRONT OVER PUBLIC LANDS.
UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST, I CAN'T DO IT.
[01:40:01]
SORRY FOR TAKING SO MUCH TIME, THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY INFORMATIVE STATEMENT.UM, WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW? UM, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE PRESENTERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY, BUT I MOST LIKE TO THANK SCOTT FOR HIS TIME AND THE RESEARCH AND THE BACKGROUND AND THE INFORMATION THAT HE'S AFFORDED THIS BOARD.
THIS EASEMENT THAT IS BEING BRIDGED OVER, IS IT A UTILITY EASEMENT? WHAT IS ON THAT STREET? THERE CURRENTLY IS NO EASEMENT IN PLACE.
AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WITH AS MUCH BRAVADO AS I CAN, THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE OWNER HAVE NEGOTIATED TERMS ON WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO THE COMMISSION.
THE COMMISSION THEN CONSIDERED THOSE ECONOMIC TERMS, WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO THE DESIGN THAT WAS BEING SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION.
THE SAME DESIGN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE, THE FERC COMMITTEE, THAT IS THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE YOU.
AND SO THE FORM OF THAT EASEMENT, WHICH IS TO BUILD OVER THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO LET, LET'S GO AWAY FROM THE WORD EASEMENT.
DOES IT HAVE ANY UTILITIES? THE STREET ITSELF DOESN'T HAVE UTILITIES, BUT IN BETWEEN FERRY LANE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE STANDARD IS A UTILITY VAULT THAT'S ACCESSIBLE ON THE ONE SIDE FROM THE STANDARD SIDE.
BUT IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, IN THE EVENT THAT A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SITE WOULD NOT ALLOW A TRUCK TO GET THROUGH WHATEVER FUTURE ROAD MIGHT BE ON THAT SIDE, WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH HEIGHT O UNDER WHICH AN F WHAT IS THE HEIGHT? 17 FEET.
UM, THERE'S ALSO A PICTURE THAT YOU ALL PROPOSED AS A POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING THAT COULD, UH, BE DONE WITH THE MONEY GRANTED TO THE CITY FOR THIS AIR.
AND IT'S A, UH, STREET CLOSURE SO THAT PEOPLE FROM THE STANDARD DO NOT GO DOWN THAT STREET.
IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY, RIGHT.
ON HOW THEY MIGHT ALLOCATE THE FUNDS CONCEPTUALLY.
UNDERSTAND THAT STREETS ARE PUBLIC LAND AND TO CLOSE THEM OFF TO ANY RESIDENT WISHING TO ENTER, UM, IS, IS WRONG.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT ALSO CREATES AN AMBIENCE THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY.
SO NOT ONLY ARE YOU BLOCKING THE STREET THAT GOES WITH THAT PROPOSAL AND IT'S, I UNDERSTAND IT'S ONLY A PROPOSAL, NOT ONLY IS THE STREET BEING BLOCKED, BUT THE AT THE OTHER STREET, UM, IS BEING BLOCKED AS WELL, THE ONE THAT IS WITH THE BRIDGE.
SO I WOULD NOW GUYS, SUNSET H EXCUSE ME, SUNSET ISLAND, 1, 2, 3, 4, PALM, HIBISCUS STAR.
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A GATE, IT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE.
DO YOU HAVE A GUARD GATE? AND, AND FOR THAT, AND IT PAYS FOR THAT GUARD GATE.
UH, EVERYTHING HERE IS A PUBLIC ROAD.
AND THERE IS A GUARD GATE AND IT'S PAID BY THE HOMEOWNERS.
UM, SO I, UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AS TO WHAT THEY, AND THESE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS.
I'M NOT SPEAKING AS TO DESIGN.
I THINK THERE'S BIGGER ISSUES HERE BEFORE WE EVEN CONSIDER DESIGN.
UM, SO I LEAVE IT TO THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TO DISCUSS.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE, GABRIEL? I'VE SPOKEN, I'VE, I'VE SPOKEN ENOUGH, SO I'M GONNA LET MY COLLEAGUES SPEAK.
YEAH, I MEAN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
I AGREE THE DESIGN IS, IS GREAT.
I APPRECIATE THE, THE, THE CHANGES YOU MADE TO ADD THE HORIZONTAL PLANNERS.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY CONCERNS WITH SPEAKING ON DESIGN AT LEAST WAS IT LOOKED TOO MUCH LIKE A HOTEL BEFORE.
I THINK THAT THIS REALLY HELPED WITH THAT.
UM, BUT YEAH, SCOTT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UM, RESEARCH AND REACH OUT AND REACHING OUT TO ALL THE MEMBERS IN THE HISTORY HERE.
UM, I GUESS WHERE I'M MAYBE NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORY HERE, UM, THE PROJECT TO THE EAST THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED TO ME LOOKS VERY SIMILAR IN STYLE AND CHARACTER TO THEIR HOUSE.
AND I REALIZE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME, UM, EASEMENT ISSUE HERE.
UM, LIKE I, I DON'T KNOW IF IS ARE, IS THE, IS YOUR ISSUE WITH THE ACTUAL EASEMENT LIKE THE BRIDGE OVER? OR IS IT, IS IT, THAT'S ENTIRELY MY ISSUE.
THE CHARACTER OF THE, THE ONE AND THE HEIGHT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE ONE NEXT DOOR AFTER INITIALLY OPPOSING WHAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN AND SAYING THEY WERE GONNA MOVE BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY NEVER,
[01:45:01]
THEY, THEY PROPOSED A THREE STORY HOUSE, THEN THEY WITHDREW AND ADDED A FOUR STORY HOUSE.THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO CROSS A STREET.
IT'S A T THAT KIND OF ENDS ON THAT.
AND SO THEY'RE TINY LOTS, LET'S FACE IT.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL DESIGN OR HEIGHT ON THIS CASE.
IT IS CROSSING A PUBLIC STREET, WHICH I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER.
IF THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC STREET TO COMBINE LOTS, LIKE IT'S, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE, BUT IT'S A PUBLIC STREET AND YOU'RE COMBINING WATERFRONT WITH NON WATERFRONT.
CLEARLY THERE WERE TWO HOUSES BUILT ON THOSE SEPARATE LOTS BEFORE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A 30 PLUS MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE.
SO AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA GET OFF TRACK, BUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS SETS TO CONNECT WATERFRONT WITH NON WATERFRONT DOUBLES, THE CO THE DOUBLES, THE THE SALE PRICE.
SO ONCE AGAIN, HOW MANY OF US ARE ABLE TO AFFORD A $30 MILLION HOUSE? AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
WE, WE OPPOSE, WE, WE, WE DO THEM ALL THE TIME.
WHETHER I AGREE WITH 'EM OR NOT, I I VOTE FOR THEM ALL THE TIME.
SO THIS IS THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND AGAIN, I DO NOT FEEL LIKE ANY COMMISSIONER REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS.
IT, IT EVEN SAYS IN THE AIR RIGHTS, IF THIS IS NOT GRANTED BY THE DRB, IT GOES AWAY.
AND SO I HATE TO HOLD YOU HOSTAGE.
YOU ARE THE, YOUR, YOUR DESIGN IS BEAUTIFUL.
THIS IS A PRECEDENT AND I WILL NOT BE PART OF IT.
I, YOU I'VE SAID MY PEACE, I WILL SLEEP.
NOW, NO MATTER HOW ANYBODY MATTERS, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, IF I MAY, I AM GONNA PUSH BACK RESPECTFULLY.
AND AND THAT IS NOT TO, UM, DISSUADE THE VERY PASSIONATE COMMENTS YOU'VE MADE.
OR THE FACTUAL HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT.
THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW IS NOT ECONOMICS AND IT'S NOT, UH, THE, THE EASEMENT, THE POLICY, THE PUBLIC POLICY AND THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THAT EASEMENT WOULD BE APPROVED WAS ADDRESSED LAND USE, FERC COMMISSION, COMMISSION UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
AND SO IF I MAY, THIS BOARD MAY NOT CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT AN EASEMENT IS A GOOD IDEA FROM A PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE.
YOUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE DESIGN.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AS YOU VOTE ON THIS MATTER, TO CONSIDER THE DESIGN.
THANK YOU MR. DENDVER FOR CONFIRMING YOU LOVE THE DESIGN.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIR AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
UM, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY AND IT'S WHY I WROTE AND DIDN'T WANNA DISCUSS BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GO ON A TANGENT OR GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT AFFECT OUR PURVIEW.
SO I WILL GO BACK TO THE PURVIEW.
I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH STAFF CALLING THIS A HARDSHIP THAT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT WHEN INDEED THE HARDSHIP IS THE RESULT OF A BRIDGE THAT WAS GOTTEN.
AND I DON'T THINK IT WENT THROUGH PROPER PUBLIC DISCOURSE.
SO IF THE BRIDGE WASN'T THERE, YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE.
IF YOU DIDN'T NEED A VARIANCE, YOU WOULDN'T COME TO US.
SO YOU NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD IT BECAUSE OF THE BRIDGE THAT YOU ASKED FOR.
IT WAS NOT THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
SO I WILL RESPECTFULLY AND VERY RESPECTFULLY, BECAUSE I REALLY LIKE YOU, PUSH BACK AND I DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY.
AND IF I WAS, I WOULD'VE MADE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THIS LITTLE CASE.
SO
SO THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THAT.
IT IT, THIS IS WHY I AM P****D WITH STAFF.
AND IT'S NOT YOU GUYS, IT'S, IT'S WHOEVER.
WHEN YOU, YOU DIVIDE A LOT OR YOU COMBINE A LOT, YOU HAVE CREATED THE DIFFICULTIES IN NEEDING A VARIANCE.
IF YOU DIDN'T NEED ANY VARIANCES, BUILD IT.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME TO ME.
I AM P****D AT THIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROCESS.
I I DO THINK TOO THAT THE, THE WAY THAT THE LOTS ARE SET UP WITH THE, THE PUBLIC LAND BIFURCATING, THE TWO PRIVATE LOTS IS ALMOST AKIN TO THE THREE LOT AGGREGATION THAT WE JUST SAW ON THE CENTURY LANE.
UM, IT'S MAYBE GIVING, IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY EQUATING TO THREE LOTS, UM, WHERE WE, WHERE WE CLEARLY DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE APPROVAL AND I, I, I DON'T KNOW THE CODE WELL ENOUGH TO, YOU KNOW, REFERENCE THAT, BUT THAT, THAT'S MAYBE CAUSING SOME HARDSHIP WITH HOW THE MASSING IS LOOKING FOR THIS WELL BUILDING.
I, I DON'T THINK WE APPROVED THAT.
UM, I WOULD SAY, ADAM, DO YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS? YEAH, I THANK EVERYBODY.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO PUT ON MY HEAD HERE IN MY HAT TO TALK ABOUT SETBACKS AND STRUCTURE, WHICH IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE IN THE DIAGRAM AND KEEPING THIS, UM, ABOUT THE DRAWINGS AND ABOUT WHAT IS, WHAT IS LISTED HERE.
[01:50:01]
I'M NOT TRYING TO LOOK AT THE HARDSHIPS, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT THE STRUCTURE THAT IS REQUESTED TO BE IN THE SETBACK VERSUS THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT IS IN AND, AND WHAT EXERCISES IF HAPPEN TO REDUCE THOSE AMOUNTS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE AS MANY VARIANCES YOU WERE LOOKING FOR.AND, AND WHAT I CAN SEE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE CAR CAN'T PARK IN THE GARAGE ON, ON ONE LOT POTENTIALLY.
AND THIS IS WHERE MY HEAD IS GOING, IS THE POOL CAUSING SO MUCH WEIGHT THAT, THAT THE, THE, THE SPAN OF 38 FEET IS, IS SO MUCH CONCRETE AND STEEL THAT, THAT, THAT WASN'T THERE.
WOULD, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO PUSH THE COLUMN LINE BACK? LET ME, AND IF, AND IF WE HAD MAYBE A, A ONE LESS GUEST ROOM, WE COULD, IF THE, THE MASSING OF THE WATERFRONT HOUSE WAS PUSHED.
I'M TRYING TO SEE LIKE YEAH, HOW TO, HOW TO, HOW TO MODIFY THIS POTENTIALLY TO NOT COME HERE ASKING FOR THINGS TO, TRYING TO BE, TRYING TO MAKE SOME PEOPLE HAPPY AND, AND TRY TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION GO THIS WAY.
LET ME ANSWER IT IT THIS WAY, WHICH IS THE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED CONCEPTUALLY THE POLICY OF AN AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT PURSUANT TO THE DESIGN THAT WE PROPOSED.
THAT DESIGN, WHICH INCLUDES THE SKYBRIDGE FUNDAMENTALLY REQUIRES STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.
IT'S, IT'S A STRETCH OVER THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND IT DOES REQUIRE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.
AND THE ONLY PLACE FOR THAT STRUCTURAL SUPPORT IS UP AGAINST THE SETBACK.
THAT IS WHAT REQUIRES THE EASEMENT.
NOW IF I HEAR YOU BOARD MEMBER MESH BERG, YOU'RE ASKING IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, WHICH ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR THE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE EASEMENT.
WOULD THAT PASS MUSTER, UH, ACCORDING TO MR. DIFFENDERFER, I DON'T KNOW.
UH, OUR POSITION WOULD BE THEN WE WOULD REMOVE THE NEED FOR VARIANCE ALTOGETHER, AND WE'RE LOOKING STRICTLY AT THE DESIGN.
SO IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION THAT THIS BOARD WOULD LIKE US TO EXPLORE RATHER THAN, UM, AN ALTERNATIVE, THEN WE WOULD EXPLORE THAT.
UM, I WOULD SAY, I, I FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH SCOTT, FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK AND YOUR RESEARCH AND, UM, THANK YOU.
UM, AND I ALSO, I WAS THINKING TOO, THE POINT THAT YOU MADE ABOUT SORT OF WHAT OUR PURVIEW IS AND ISN'T, AND I WOULD SAY THAT, AND I SHOULD ALSO SAY TOO, THAT NONE OF US ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK WITH ONE ANOTHER BEFORE IN BETWEEN MEETINGS ABOUT THESE BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC PROCESS.
SO CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE INDEPENDENTLY.
UM, I'M VERY GLAD THAT SCOTT DID WHAT HE DID AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT HE DID.
I ALSO FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SELLING OF AIRWAYS OF REPUBLIC PROPERTY.
UM, I'M ALSO EXTREMELY CONCERNED, AS WAS MYRA ABOUT GATING OFF FERRY LANE, WHICH PLEASE DON'T PROPOSE THAT ONE
UM, SO, BUT HOWEVER, WE ARE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.
AND SO THAT ACTUALLY IS PART OF MY, MY OBJECTION IN STAYING IN MY DESIGN LANE IS THIS IDEA THAT STRUCTURES STRADDLING STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, FROM AN URBAN IS JUST TOO MUCH DENSITY.
THIS TYPE OF DESIGN IS WRONG FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT IN A COMMERCIAL AREA, UM, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT AND YOU KNOW, A SMALL ALLEY WHERE THERE'S A BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO SMALL HOTELS.
UM, THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THROUGHOUT THE GREATER AREA THAT YOU HAVE STRUCTURED STRADDLING STREETS AND IT WORKS FANTASTIC.
I'M THINKING OF, UM, BRICKELL CITY CENTER.
IT'S GREAT, IT'S A GREAT URBAN GESTURE.
AND TO PUT THIS MULTI-STORY PRIVATE SPACE ON TOP OF STRADDLING A PUBLIC STREET IS FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, WAY TOO DENSE FOR WHAT OUR STRUCTURES ARE FOR WHERE OUR COMMUNITY IS.
UM, IT, IT'S, IT'S THE WRONG GESTURE, I THINK FOR MIAMI BEACH TALKING ABOUT PRECEDENT.
WHAT MY CONCERN IS AS WELL IS IT'S NOT JUST THESE PUBLIC, OUR CITY IS RIFE WITH RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT HAVE STREETS THAT DEAD END.
AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A SMALL STREET THERE, AND I DON'T WANNA SET THE PRECEDENT WHERE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS ARE COMING IN AND WANTING TO CREATE HOMES THAT STRADDLE THESE STREETS AS WELL.
AND SCOTT'S POINT ABOUT THE, UM, THE MARKET IS JUST THERE TO PROVE THAT THIS IS GONNA KEEP HAPPENING.
I DON'T THINK THAT MIAMI BEACH SH FROM A DESIGN, FROM AN URBAN PLANNING PERSPECTIVE SHOULD BE FULL OF
[01:55:01]
HOMES THAT STRADDLE OUR STREETS.THAT IS JUST NOT THE RIGHT GESTURE.
AND SO, UM, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS AS A CONCEPT FROM A DESIGN AND URBAN PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE PURVIEW OF THE DRB.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO INTERJECT SINCE, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN THE USAGE OF THE WORD PRECEDENT SEVERAL TIMES BY THE MEMBERS, UM, AND THE APPLICANT.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THAT A BOARD'S DECISION IS BINDING ONLY ON A SPECIFIC APPLICATION.
AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S BINDING, IT DOES NOT, UM, IT DOES NOT SET LEGAL PRECEDENT.
ONLY COURTS ARE, UH, CAN SET A LEGAL BINDING PRECEDENT, BUT YOU ARE HERE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY.
UM, BUT I MEAN, AT THE SAME TIME, THE BOARD DOES HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO REMAIN CONSISTENT ON THE APPLICATION THAT IT RECEIVES, BUT YOUR DECISION SHOULD BE TIED TO THE SPECIFIC, UM, FACTS THAT ARE LAID OUT ON THIS APPLICATION.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.
AND I, I HOPE THAT WHEN OTHER LOBBYISTS COME FORWARD AND THEY START TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT TO US TO PASS SOMETHING BASED ON PRECEDENT, THAT YOU BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT TENDS TO HAPPEN.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT SCOTT AND I ARE MM-HMM
YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE THE MOST EXPERIENCED PEOPLE ON THE BOARD AND IT COMES AND THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, IF WE LOOK AT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROJECT, THE UNIQUE PROCESS THAT THIS PROJECT HAS GONE THROUGH, THE UNIQUE POSTURE THAT THIS PROCESS IS IN, THE FACT THAT OUR CLIENTS CAME IN AFTER THE FACT THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS AS BEST WE COULD, AND THAT WE'RE NESTLED IN THE CORNER AWAY FROM A, AN ALDEN ROAD, UH, SORT OF PUBLIC STREET AWAY, WE WOULD IMPLORE UPON YOU JUST THIS PROJECT, JUST THIS DESIGN, JUST THIS APPLICATION AS YOU MAKE YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
YOU KNOW WHAT I WISH I COULD, BUT THERE ARE, THIS SORT OF SETUP IS THROUGHOUT VENETIAN ISLANDS, IT'S ALL OVER NORTH BAY ROAD.
THERE ARE SO MANY SITUATIONS, IT'S IN NORMANDY AISLE.
THERE ARE SO MANY SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE TWO HOMES AND THEN A DEAD END STREET WHERE I CAN FORESEE THIS HAPPENING THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY.
SO AS MUCH AS I WANNA TREAT YOUR PROJECT UNIQUELY, LIKE IT DESERVES TO BE, UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS THE FIRST OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN.
AND IT'S HARD NOT TO, THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE SITUATION THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, YOU'RE NOT GONNA FOLLOW YOUR CITY ATTORNEY'S GUIDANCE AND YOU'RE CONSIDER THIS AS PRECEDENT FOR OTHER PROJECTS, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IT CONCERNS ME TO DO THIS ONCE TO THEN HAVE OTHER LOBBYISTS COME THROUGH TO SAY, HEY, YOU DID THIS ALREADY.
OR TO THEN LOBBY THE COMMISSIONERS TO BE LIKE, HEY, THERE'S PRECEDENT.
THE DRB APPROVED THIS OVER HERE.
SO WHETHER YOU CALL A PRESIDENT WITH PRES PRESIDENT, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR IT'S NOT, I'M NOT A LAWYER, IT'S NOT MY JOB TO PARSE LANGUAGE.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT AND IT IS GONNA BE, IT IS GONNA BECOME A MODEL FOR OTHER PROJECTS.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A CONCEPTUAL MISTAKE THAT THE CITY COULD MAKE.
AND SO I, I DON'T AGREE, AND I, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT HAS GONE INTO YOUR DESIGN.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU INCORPORATED THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE HAD TO MAKE.
UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S THE DESIGN STRADDLING A STREET IS WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.
SO, HOWEVER, IT, THAT BEING SAID, THIS COMMITTEE WILL VOTE ON THIS PROJECT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BASED ON ITS DESIGN.
AND THE WORD, UH, DENSITY, UH, WAS USED.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, THE SIZE OF STRUCTURE WAS USED BEFORE.
UM, WHICH IS MORE OF A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
UM, SO THE COMMISSION APPROVED THIS, UM, SALE OF THE AIR RIGHTS ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024.
AT THAT POINT, THE COMMISSION WAS AWARE OF THE VOTE FROM MIAMI BEACH VOTERS THAT THEY WANTED ANY SALE OF LAND TO GO TO REFERENDUM.
UM, BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED, I BELIEVE, SCOTT, YOU WOULD KNOW THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER, 2024.
AM I RIGHT IN MY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS OR, UM, I CAN'T REALLY, UH, I'M NOT REALLY SUPER AWARE OF THE ACTUAL TIMELINE, BUT, UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU TRYING TO DISCERN WHETHER, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD AN ELECTION BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER, CORRECT? UM, USUALLY THE FIRST WEEK OF NOVEMBER, THE FIRST TUESDAY OF NOVEMBER OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE.
AND THEN WE HAD ON NOVEMBER 20TH A COMMISSION MEETING, UM, AND BY THEN THE VOTES WERE ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION AT A PREVIOUS MEETING MM-HMM
WHICH USUALLY TAKES PLACE AFTER THE ELECTION.
SO BY NOVEMBER 20TH WHEN THEY APPROVED THE SALE OF THESE AIR RIGHTS, THEY WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT RESIDENTS OR VOTERS DID NOT WANT SALE OF PUBLIC LAND, WHICH INCLUDES AIR RIGHTS
[02:00:02]
UNLESS THERE WAS A REFERENDUM.SO IF YOU COULD JUST GET BACK TO THIS BOARD JUST AS A, A MATTER OF KNOWLEDGE, A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, WHICH WHETHER IT WAS APPROVED PROPERLY OR NOT, DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE WE'RE HERE TO APPROVE A DESIGN AND, AND NO MORE, NO LESS THAN A DESIGN.
BUT I JUST HAVE THAT QUESTION BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY THAT APPROVAL IS WHAT BRINGS THIS PROJECT TO THIS BOARD TODAY.
MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, THERE'S NO SALE OF AIR RIGHTS GOING ON.
THERE IS A CONTRACTUAL EASEMENT.
WHICH IS A TRADE OF RESPONSIBILITIES.
UNDER WHICH OUR USE OF THE AIR RIGHTS NOT SALE, OUR USE OF THE AIR RIGHTS.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THE, THE REFERENDUM WAS.
AND I, I'LL JUST, UH, ALSO FOLLOW UP AND SAY THAT, UM, IT HAD ITS INITIAL APPROVAL BEFORE THE REFERENDUM, UM, IN THE REFERENDUM LANGUAGE, UH, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY, UM, EXEMPTED PROJECTS THAT WERE AWARDED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.
BUT THE COMMISSION MEETING THAT FINALLY APPROVED IT WAS ON NOVEMBER 20TH.
BUT, UM, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PRIOR, UM, THERE'S A, THERE WAS A PRIOR APPROVAL FOR THAT.
SO WHY COME ON NOVEMBER 20TH, SECOND READING, SECOND READING, BECAUSE THE SECOND READING, THE SECOND READING WAS ON THE 20.
BY THE TIME SECOND READING OCCURS, THE VOTE, THE ELECTION HAD ALREADY OCCURRED.
SO THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED IT AT SECOND READING.
AND I, IF YOU COULD JUST LOOK INTO THAT FOR US, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY IT IS THAT ACTION THAT BRINGS THIS PROJECT TO US AND TO US AS A BOARD.
WE LOOK AT IT NOT WHETHER THE COMMISSION DID OR DID NOT DO THE RIGHT THING, WHETHER AN EASEMENT IS THE THING TO DO OVER A PUBLIC STREET, UM, THAT'S NOT FOR THIS BOARD TO DECIDE WHAT THIS BOARD IS DECIDING IS ON THE DESIGN AND THE DENSITY OF THIS DESIGN.
AND I THINK THEY ALL THINK THE DESIGN IS BEAUTIFUL, HOWEVER, IT IS, IT, IT IS A BIG STRUCTURE.
UH, AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S OVER THREE LOTS.
UM, BUT IT DOES, UH, IF I MAY APPEAR AS A BIG STRUCTURE AND, UM, IT DOES CREATE DENSITY, UH, ON WHAT COULD BE SOMETHING LESS DENSE, IF I MAY.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR BOARD MEMBER THAT BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF THE POOL AND THE WEIGHT OF THE POOL.
AND DOES THAT REQUIRE YOU TO THEN BRING AND REQUIRE THESE VARIANCES TO BRING THE, UM, STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THE STREET WITHOUT HAVING THE REQUIRED SETBACKS? SO, I, I, UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT WISH TO SPEAK.
UM, I'LL ALSO SAY TOO, 'CAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP THE OTHER THREE LOT COMBINED THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE BIG ISSUE.
WITHOUT ONE, IT WAS JUST TOO DENSE IN THIS SMALL STREET, THE DESIGN.
AND I'M REALLY TRYING TO STICK TO DESIGN ISSUES HERE AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
LAURA, WERE YOU GONNA ADD SOME MORE? NO, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST REALLY, I THINK THE ISSUE I'M SEEING WITH IT, IT'S ALMOST LIKE GETTING THIS EASEMENT GRANT ADDED ANOTHER LOT.
GRANTED, YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR FIRST FLOOR AND YOU HAVE 17 FEET OF OPEN SPACE, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THIS MASSING ISSUE.
UM, AND, AND I KNOW WE CLEARLY HAVE PURVIEW OF A THREE LOT SUBMITTAL, UM, ORDINARILY.
UM, SO I THINK THAT MAY, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M, I'M SEEING, I'M SEEING SOME STRIFE, BUT, UM, THAT, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE ROGELIO.
IT'S, UM, SCOTT MENTIONED, AND I WANT YOU TO CONFIRM THAT IN THIS AREA, THE, UM, ACCUMULATION OF MORE THAN TWO LOTS IS NOT ALLOWED.
YOU CANNOT COMBINE MORE THAN TWO LOTS.
AND IF YOU DO, DOES IT NEED TO THEN GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD? IS THIS CONSIDERED A COMBINATION OF MORE THAN TWO LOTS? SO THAT'S CORRECT.
MORE THAN TWO LOTS IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE CODE.
THAT IF, THE ONLY WAY AROUND THAT WOULD BE BY THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE BY THIS BOARD.
IS THIS THEN CONSIDERED A ACCUMULATION OF MORE THAN TWO LOTS? IT'S, IT'S TECHNICALLY TWO LOTS THERE.
THE, THE, THE MIDDLE IS NOT TECHNICALLY A LOT.
SO IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A LOT PER, EVEN THOUGH, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S BRIDGE ON THE AIR RIDES.
AND THIS WAS ED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT EVEN AN AGGREGATION OF TWO LOTS BECAUSE THE TWO LOTS DON'T TOUCH, UM, FOR AN AGGREGATION OF LOTS THEY HAVE TO BE TOUCHING.
SO THEY'RE DON'T, THEY'RE TOUCH WITH THE BRIDGE, ESSENTIALLY TWO INDEPENDENT LOTS, UM, THAT DO HAVE AN AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT TOUCHING, BUT THEIR LOT LINE, THEY DON'T HAVE A SHARED LOT.
LINE WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALLOWABLE, SORRY, WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALLOWABLE AIR WITHIN THE FAR LIMIT.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A SQUARE, A SINGLE SQUARE
[02:05:01]
FOOT, MORE HEIGHT DENSITY, NOTHING MORE THAN WE WOULD OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED ON THE TWO SEPARATE.SO THE, THE TWO FLOORS THAT ARE BRIDGING ARE THREE FLOORS THAT ARE BRIDGING, COULD BE ON CORRECT.
COULD, COULD BE TWO, TWO TALL BUILDINGS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
UM, I'M GOING BACK TO THE SETBACKS.
I'M TRYING, I'M TRYING TO GO BACK THERE.
THERE'S THAT IS THERE, THERE'S, IT'S, I'M GOING, I'M CIRCLING BACK TO WHAT LAURA WAS SAYING WITH THE, WITH THE THREE LOTS, BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE LIKE, WE'RE, WE'RE CROSSING OVER.
THERE'S NO SETBACKS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OR THE THIRD FLOOR.
AND WE'RE, WE ARE A LOT LINE BUILT ON THERE.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND AROUND THE WHAT, WHAT THE, THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED FOR.
AND I'M, AND I'M LOOKING AT IT IN SECTION AND IT'S THE COLUMN THAT HAS TO SIT ON THE LOT LINE TO SUPPORT THE SKYBRIDGE ACROSS.
AND THE FACT, AND THE SKYBRIDGE ITSELF, THIS, WELL, THE SKYBRIDGE ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT THAT THE CITY IS COSIGNED.
BUT YES, THE, THE SKYBRIDGE DOES CROSS OVER AND UP TO THE, THE LOT LINE ITSELF BY NECESSITY FROM SETBACK TO SETBACK, IT'S NEARLY 50 FEET.
I'M ALSO GONNA MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE DESIGN IS PART OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS.
AND THE CONCEPT THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING TO US INVOLVES A SKY BRIDGE ACROSS A PUBLIC STREET.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CONTEXT.
AND WE MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON CONTEXT.
SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DESIGN FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER POINTS.
WOULD THE BOARD FEEL DIFFERENTLY? I, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M, I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY TIME TO DO THIS.
THE, WE HAVE ALL THE TIME TO DISCUSS THE ED.
WOULD THE BOARD FEEL DIFFERENTLY IF THIS WAS A BRIDGE AND NOT FOUR BEDROOMS AND A POOL? I'M JUST, I'M ASKING EVERYBODY HERE.
LIKE IT IS TRULY, IT IS TRULY WHAT IT IS.
I, I WOULD WANT MY GARAGE AND MY GUEST ROOMS ON ONE ONE LOT AND I WANT MY MAIN LIVING QUARTERS AND I WOULD WANT THEM CONNECTED.
I WOULD NOT WANT TO CROSS THE STREET IF THIS WAS MY, MY, UH, SWEET SPOT.
UM, WOULD THE, WOULD THE BOARD FEEL DIFFERENTLY IF IT WASN'T BRIDGE? A REAL BRIDGE, A CONNECTION? NOT, NOT A HABITABLE.
I, ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.
ROGELIO, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE LOTS.
WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM UNIT AND LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED ON EACH OF THESE? LOTS? SO, UM, THE MAXIMUM, THESE, THESE ARE, THIS IS THE R ONE DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
SO THAT WOULD BE, UH, 35, 46 35, WHICH IS BIGGER THAN THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
AND THE SAME THING WITH LOT SEVEN.
HOWEVER, THERE, SO ONLY, THE ONLY WAY YOU, THE ONLY LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM FAR.
AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET TO THE MAXIMUM FAR IS IF YOU BUILD UP, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IN WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN THIS CASE, BUT THEY'RE NOT BUILDING TO THE MAXIMUM THAT THEY CAN BUILD.
THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THIS DISTRICT.
AND IF IT WERE E EVEN IF IT WERE TREATED AS TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES, WHICH THEY ARE, UH, WITH TWO SEPARATE HOMES, YOU STILL WOULD GO WITH FAR NOT UNIT AND LOT COVERAGE.
EVEN THOUGH IT IS A RESIDENTIAL HOME.
THE PRIMARY USE IS RESIDENTIAL, CORRECT.
NOT MULTIFAMILY OR BECAUSE OF THE RM ONE.
UM, I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO ADAM, YOUR QUESTION.
LIKE I WAS, I WAS, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING MYSELF TOO.
LIKE, I, I FEEL LIKE IF IF THE BRIDGE WAS THERE AND IT WASN'T USE OF AN EASEMENT FOR AN EXTRA LOT, UM, I, I THINK THAT WOULD LARGELY ADDRESS MY CONCERNS WITH IT AS IT IS.
WOULD THAT LOOK GOOD THOUGH? FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE? I'M NOT SO SURE.
THAT'S, WE CAN WE CONSIDER REMOVING THE SKY BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES? IF YOU REMOVE THE SKYBRIDGE, YOU HAVE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS.
[02:10:01]
YEAH.BUT, BUT MAKING IT EXCLUSIVELY A BRIDGE AND NOT A COUPLE GUEST SUITES, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOW UNWINDING THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF THE LAND USE FERC AND COMMISSION APPROVAL.
YOU'RE GOING BACK TO ECONOMIC TERMS, YOU'RE REVISITING POLICY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CO CONCEPTUALLY ACTUALLY, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP YOU
I, I'M, I'M TRYING, I'M LIKE, IF YOU CAME TO US WITH, WITH A VARIANCE TO SORT OF SAY, HEY, I WANNA MAX OUT MY LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE I WANNA SIZE DOWN THE BRIDGE AND NOT MAKE IT A THREE STORY STRUCTURE OVER THE ROAD.
I FEEL LIKE WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION POTENTIALLY.
AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED ABOUT THE BRIDGE.
LIKE I KNOW IT'S SKINNY AND IT MAYBE IT'S ONE STORY OR IT'S TWO STORIES AND IT MAYBE STILL CAN HAVE A LOT PULL ON TOP OF IT, BUT IT'S CIRCULATION VERSUS THE BEDROOMS AND THE, AND THE MASS OF IT.
DID YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS? NO, ACTUALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM DESIGN.
SO I ACTUALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE DESIGN AND THE, THE FAR RIGHT DON'T REALLY SEEM, NO, IT'S PRECEDENT, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO, UH, I DON'T FEEL AS STRONGLY AS ABOUT SOME OTHERS, BUT, UH, I'LL WAIT TILL WE VOTE.
I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE SOON ABOUT IT.
DOES SOMEBODY WANNA TRY TO MAKE A MOTION? THERE ARE NO WRONG ANSWERS HERE.
WELL, UM, BE BEFORE THE BOARD VOTES.
I JUST, AGAIN, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, UM, THE APPLICATION IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD.
UH, SO WHETHER YOU VOTE TO APPROVE OR DENY IT, UM, JUST AS LONG AS IT'S CONFINED WITHIN THE DESIGN CRITERIA THAT IS SET BEFORE YOU AS WELL.
AS LONG AS WHAT? OH, AS LONG AS, AS LONG AS YOUR, UM, VOTING DECISION IS, UH, CONFINED WITHIN DESIGN CRITERIA.
BASICALLY MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE VARIANCES, WHICH IS BASED, WHICH IS FOR DESIGN, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK WE'VE BEEN CLEAR WITH THAT, BUT THANK YOU FOR ROSHA.
I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT ONE SECOND BECAUSE ADAM JUST STEPPED AWAY.
I THINK WE NEED EVERYBODY'S, ADAM STEPPED AWAY FOR A SEC.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS WHILE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION.
I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
AND THE ONLY REASON I AM DENYING THE VARIANCE ON THIS IS BECAUSE VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF HARDSHIPS, THE FOLLOWING HARDSHIP CRITERIA BASED ON, UH, HARDSHIPS AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IDENTIFIED.
AND THAT IS BASED ON THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT.
THIS VARIANCE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAD THE ACTION OF PURCHASING TWO SEPARATE POT PLOTS OF LAND AND THEN WENT TO TRY TO COMBINE THEM WITH AIR RIGHTS.
SO THAT WAS CREATED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THAT IS WHY I'M DENYING THE VARIANCE FARRO.
IS THAT LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TO DENY IT ON BASED ON THAT BEFORE WE MAKE A A VOTE? YEAH, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.
WELL, HARDSHIP IS PART OF THE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA.
SO IF SCOTT IS FINDING THAT THERE'S NOT, THE HARDSHIP HAS TO, I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND.
HAS, HAS NOT BE PART, HAS HAS TO NOT BE ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
AND IT ISN'T, IT, IT'S, IT ISN'T JUST UP TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND AND DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO UP TO THE, THIS BOARD TO DECIDE IF THERE IS TRULY A HARDSHIP OR NOT.
SO WE ARE IN OUR RIGHTS TO SAY YES.
YES, IT IS UP TO YOU TO MAKE THAT THANK, THANK YOU.
I SECOND THIS MOTION TO DENY THERE'S TWO VARIANCES.
SO THIS WOULD BE INCLUDE BOTH, BOTH VARIANCES.
BOTH VARIANCES ARE FOR THE SAME REASON.
SO WE NEED A MOTION ON THE PROJECT AS WELL.
UM, THERE SHOULD BE ONE ON THE PROJECT PROJECT ESSENTIALLY MOOT, BUT, BUT IT WOULD BE BEST THE RECORD.
DON'T, THERE IS NO PROJECT IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
I WOULD SUGGEST AND LET YOUR CITY ATTORNEY CONFIRM THAT ONCE YOU'VE DENIED THE VARIANCE, THE PROJECT IS MOOT.
AND WE'LL, WE'LL LEAVE IT TO THE VARIANCE ISSUE THAT'S BEEN RAISED BY THE MOTION, WHICH SHOULD BE SOME CONCLUSION OF THE ITEM.
[02:15:01]
SHOULD BE DENY THE, DENY THE DESIGN.SHOULD THE, I, THERE, THERE SHOULD BE A CONCLUSION TO THE, TO THE DESIGN.
'CAUSE THAT, THAT WAS JUST THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE'S TWO PRO, THERE'S TWO ISSUES.
THERE'S THE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND THE VARIANCE.
THE MOTION WAS SPECIFIC TO THE VARIANCE.
SO THERE SHOULD BE A CONCLUSION ON THE DESIGN.
EITHER, UH, WITH, YOU KNOW, UH, DENY THE APPLICATION ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE THE, DOES ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION RELATED MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION? I SECOND.
I HEARD, I HEARD A MOTION BY MS. OLI THE SECOND.
[14. DRB25-1086 FKA DRB24-1015, 1801 ALTON ROAD.]
IS DRB 25 1 0 8 6, FORMERLY KNOWN AS DRB TWO FOUR DASH 115 18 0 1 ALTON ROAD.THIS APPLICATION IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT THAT CONSISTED OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF, OF A NEW ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING, INCLUDING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT, BORDERING A TEMPORARY PROVISIONAL SURFACE PARKING LOT DURING A PROPERTY LINE, A STREET OR SIDEWALK, AND ONE OR MORE WAIVERS REPLACING AN EXISTING TO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RETAIN THE EXISTING TO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHTING TO MAINTAIN EXISTING ASPHALT HARDSCAPE AND MAINTAINING EXISTING LANDSCAPE BORDERS AROUND THE PARKING AREAS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING TO INCLUDE AN ELEVATOR AND A STAIRCASE TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE ROOF DECK AND, UH, AND A GREEN ROOF.
OKAY, SO THIS, THIS, UM, APPLICATION, UH, THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION.
THE APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY BECAME, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
IT WAS A, A, A CHASE BANK BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF THE, OF THE SITE.
THE APPLICANT WAS AT THAT TIME PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT'S EXISTING.
NOW, THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR A MODIFICATION.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO STILL BUILD THAT ONE STORY STRUCTURE, BUT THEY WANT TO KEEP THE, THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE SITE AND CONNECT THE TWO AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
THEY'D BE, THEY'D BE, UH, BUILDING A GREEN ROOF DECK ON THE ONE STORY BUILDING THAT IN THE BUILDING WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING TWO STORY STRUCTURE.
SO THEY WOULD SORT, THEY WOULD SORT OF BE INTEGRATED.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO KEEP THE EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT'S ON THE SITE.
UM, SO THE TWO, THE, THE VARIANCES ARE THE FOLLOWING.
THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, A VARIANCE REGARDING THE MINIMUM ILLUMINATION LEVELS FOR PARKING STRUCTURES.
UM, THE CODE REQUIRES, UH, A SPECIFIC MINIMUM ILLUMINATION.
UH, THE, THE LOT ALREADY HAS EXISTING LIGHTING.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO KEEP THAT EXISTING LIGHTING.
THEY, THEY DON'T WANNA INCLUDE A NEW LIGHTS AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION.
UM, AT SOME POINT THEY PROPOSE THEY'RE GONNA BE PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP THE REST OF THE SITE AND REMOVE THAT EXISTING BUILDING.
BUT FOR THEM IN THE MEANTIME, THEY JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT PARKING LOT AS IT IS.
UM, THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE.
UM, REGARDING THE DESIGN SURFACE PARKING LOTS.
UM, THE CODE REQUIRES OPEN AIR PARKING LOTS, UH, TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH EITHER A HIGH ALBEDO SURFACE OR A POROUS, UH, PAVEMENT.
UM, AGAIN, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP THE EXISTING ASPHALT, SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE COMPLYING WITH THOSE, WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND THEN ANOTHER VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPED AREAS IN PERMANENT PARKING LOTS.
UM, THEY WANT TO PROPOSE KEEPING THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING THAT'S ON THAT PARKING LOT AND NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE THE NEW LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR A NEW PARKING LOT.
UM, GIVEN THAT THIS LOT IS EXISTING, UH, THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO RECONFIGURE THE SITE IN THESE AREAS WHERE THE PARKING LOT IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
UM, THAT DOES PRESENT, UH, THE, THE CODE REQUIREMENTS DO PRESENT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO THE APPLICANT, UM, AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE GRANTING OF THOSE VARIANCES.
UM, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE ATTACHED DRAFT ORDER.
OKAY, GOOD MORNING BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, MY NAME IS KENDRICK B JR ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, SANTA ELENA HOLDINGS, LLC.
MY ADDRESS IS 3,800 NORTHEAST FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 200 IN THE CITY OF MIAMI.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING STAFF FOR THEIR PRESENTATION AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
AND ON BEHALF OF THE, THE APPLICANT, WE ACCEPT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE DRAFT ORDER.
UM, SO JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF ALTON ROAD AND DADE BOULEVARD.
UM, SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL THAT LAST YEAR YOU APPROVED AN APPLICATION TO BUILD A TWO STORY, OR EXCUSE ME, A ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND TWO, DEMOLISH THE EXISTING TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY.
SINCE THEN, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS CONSULTED WITH THEIR TENANTS AND DECIDED THAT THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD IS TO RETAIN THE EXISTING TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING, UM, WHILE STILL CONSTRUCTING THE ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING, WHICH BRINGS ME BEFORE YOU TODAY.
[02:20:01]
IS APPROXIMATELY, IF I COULD GET MY PRESENTATION.UH, AND THERE'S THE DIAGRAM OF THE PROPOSAL.
THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE IN SIZE, UH, IN IS ZONE CD ONE.
YOU CAN SEE IT HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW HERE.
UM, THE PROPERTY, AGAIN, IS IMPROVED BY A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1982.
UM, IT'S GONE THROUGH SEVERAL INTERNAL RENOVATIONS OVER THE YEARS, BUT ITS USE AS AN OFFICE BUILDING HAS ALWAYS REMAINED THE SAME.
UM, SOME OF YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY.
UM, IT SITS AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO KEY COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS.
AGAIN, DATE BOULEVARD AND ALTON ROAD.
SO TO THE WEST YOU HAVE A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER TO THE NORTH, YOU HAVE A WALGREENS.
UH, TO THE EAST YOU HAVE PUBLIX.
AND NEARBY CONSTRUCTION HAS BEGUN ON THE WHOLE FOODS FOR ALTON ROAD.
UM, SO THIS IS AN AREA WHERE RESIDENTS DO THEIR DAILY ERRANDS, WHETHER THAT BE SHOPPING, BANKING, BUYING GROCERIES, AND THE APPLICANT IS MINDFUL OF THIS, UH, PROPERTY'S ROLE, UH, ROLE WITHIN THAT CONTEXT.
SO, AS I MENTIONED IN 2024, THIS BOARD APPROVED AN APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
THAT APPROVAL HAD APPROVAL INCLUDED SEVERAL VARIANCES IN WAIVERS, UM, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE, UH, UH, PROJECT, UM, STAFF REQUESTED THAT WE RETURN TO AMEND THE PRIOR APPROVAL.
SO THIS APPLICATION SEEKS TO AMEND THE 2024 APPROVAL BY RETAINING THE TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING WHILE CONTINUING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND SUBSTITUTING THE VARIANCES AND WAIVERS APPROVED IN 2024 WITH THE FOLLOWING UPDATED REQUESTS, A VARIANCE TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING PARKING LOT, LIGHTING A VARIANCE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING ASPHALT, PAVING A VARIANCE TO RETAIN, UH, TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BORDERS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND A WAIVER OF THE CODE'S PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ZONE REQUIREMENT, UH, WHICH REQUIRES, UH, AGAIN, A PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ZONE ALONG FRONTAGE IS GREATER THAN 150 FEET.
SO THIS IS, UH, A RENDERING OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED.
AND AGAIN, UH, JUST DEMONSTRATING THE RETENTION OF THE TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
UM, STAFF HAS NOTED THAT THIS ITERATION, UH, PRODUCES A BETTER DESIGN OUTCOME THAN WHAT, THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2024.
AND WE AGREE, UM, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE, UH, LAST YEAR'S APPROVAL WOULD'VE, UH, EFFECTIVELY REPLACED THE OFFICE BUILDING THAT YOU SEE HERE WITH AN EMPTY PARKING LOT.
SO, UH, THE DESIGN OF THE ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING REMAINS LARGELY, UH, THE SAME.
I THINK MY MIC JUST TURNED OFF.
UH, SO THE DESIGN OF THE ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING REMAINS LARGELY UNCHANGED FROM THE 2024 APPROVAL ON THE ONLY MODIFICATION THAT STAFF MENTIONED IS A STAIRWELL AND ELEVATOR, UH, LIFT TO GET TO THE, THE, UH, GREEN ROOFTOP DECK.
AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
UM, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THOSE MINOR CHANGES DON'T, UH, UH, DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL DESIGN INTENT.
SO SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDE, UH, NEW 10 FOOT SIDEWALKS ALONG MOST OF THE FRONTAGE.
UM, A GREEN ROOFTOP ON THE ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN HERE.
UM, AND FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING TO SOFTEN THE SITE'S APPEARANCE.
AND IT'S OUR HOPE THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS WILL ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE BETWEEN SUNSET HARBOR, PALM VIEW, AND LINCOLN ROAD.
UM, IN CONCLUSION, THIS PROJECT BUILT IN THE VISION APPROVED IN 2024, UM, BY PRESERVING, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S COMMERCIAL CHARACTER, IMPROVING WALKABILITY AND ENHANCING A KEY COMMERCIAL INTERSECTION.
AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
AND THE DESIGN TEAM IS HERE ON ZOOM.
ZOOM, IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UH, THE PLANTS.
DO THEY WANNA PRESENT ANYTHING OR YOU'RE DONE? UM, IF THEY'RE NOT RAISING THEIR HAND NOW, I IMAGINE WE'RE OKAY.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK? ANY OTHER HANDS? ANYBODY WITH YOUR HANDS RAISED? ANYBODY? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
I'M NOW CLOSING THE PUBLIC PORTION AND OPENING UP TO THE BOARD FOR COMMENT.
AND ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE FOR THE DESIGN TEAM.
ONE OF THE, I SHOULD SAY, I CAN SEE WHY THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT.
UM, ONE OF THE, THE MAIN QUESTIONS I HAD WAS THE SECTION ALONG DAD BOULEVARD WHERE THE OLD BUILDING MEETS THE NEW BUILDING.
WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A VERY GOOD IMAGE OF THAT.
AND WHAT WE DO, IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD.
IT'S, IT'S NOT EVEN IN THE PRESENTATION.
UM, I THINK KIND OF LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN FRONT OF IT.
I THINK IF YOU GO, IT'S IN THE, IN THE PLANS, ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
UM, ON PAGE 27 IS A RENDERING.
COULD YOU BRING THAT UP? UM, SO THIS IS AS PROPOSED, UM, BUT IF IT'S ON PAGE 27 OF THE PLANS
[02:25:01]
YEAH.UH, I THINK OUR ARCHITECT IS ON ZOOM.
RENEE, DO, CAN YOU BRING UP THOSE PLANS? THAT PAGE OF THE PLANS? I SEE, I SEE GONZALEZ ARCHITECTURE WITH THE HANDS RAISED.
UM, BEFORE YOU PRESENT, I WOULD LIKE TO SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'LL BE GIVING IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO.
I'M ACTUALLY PULLING UP THE PLANS AS WE SPEAK.
THERE'S A RENDERING ON 27, AND THEN THERE'S AN ELEVATION ON PAGE 43, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO YEAH, PAGE 27 IS, UH, THE SAME AS, UH, I THINK PAGE SEVEN OF THE POWERPOINT.
UM, SO IF YOU WANNA PULL THAT UP, UM, OH, THE, THE, MAYBE I'M THINKING OF THE ELEVATION ON PAGE FOUR.
SO, WELL, THE IMAGE ON 27, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE WHERE THE TWO BUILDINGS MEET, UM, THAT, THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHICH I THINK WE ALREADY APPROVED THE DESIGN OF THE NEW BUILDING.
SO I REALLY THINK THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, TO SEE HOW IS THE NEWGEN INTERACT WITH THE EXISTING, UM MM-HMM
SO IF YOU COULD BRING UP PAGE 43, I GUESS IT'S JUST A, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A RENDERING FROM DADE BOULEVARD, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM THERE'S A, WHERE IT SAYS PROPOSED COMPARISON ELEVATION.
UNLESS KENDRICK HAD UPLOADED INTO THE CITY FOR THE PRESENTATION, I, I CAN'T, CAN I SHARE, UM, ON ZOOM? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
UM, SO YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SHEET A 4 0 5 IS BASICALLY, I CAN'T WE BRING UP THE MAT? IT'S ON IT'S AVAILABLE PUBLIC ONLINE.
PJ, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO IF WE SEND YOU A PDF? YEAH, IT'S RIGHT.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE, UM, IT'S THE COM IT'S THE COMPARISON ELEVATION, IT'S THE A 4 0 5 IS IS THE ONE ELEVATION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OF HOW IT IT JOINS IN? YEAH, YEAH.
UM, SEE, YEAH, IT'S THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
YOU KNOW, AND I JUST WANNA CLARIFY BECAUSE THIS IS YOU, I MEAN, ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING ARE PRETTY PROMINENT, BUT THIS SIDE, SO IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE, RIGHT THERE, THERE, THAT'S, THIS SEEMS TO BE THE REALLY, THE MAIN THING THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED SHOWING US THE VIEW FROM DADE BOULEVARD, RIGHT.
SO THE, THE ELEVATION IS TAKEN LIKE DEAD ON.
AND AS YOU, AS YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE TWO ANGLES TO, TO THE PLAN.
SO WE HAVE A PLAN VIEW AND, AND THE ELEVATION VIEW.
UH, SO IT'S A LITTLE DECEIVING AS, AS TO THAT LITTLE CORNER.
IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE IT JUST FLATTENS OUT AND SMUSHES TOGETHER.
BUT, UH, IN REALITY, IT ACTUALLY TURNS FROM THE ANGLED PART OF DADE BOULEVARD, I GUESS THE, THE, THE PART OF THE INTERSECTION THAT, THAT ANGLES TO LIKE GO ON TO ALTON GOING NORTH, UM, THAT IS DEAD ON.
AND, AND, AND IT ACTUALLY TURNS AT A 90 DEGREE DIRECTLY BACK TOWARDS THE, THE ELEVATION THAT IS ALSO ANGLED, UH, OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO IT HAS A, I GUESS A MORE CLEAN, UH, ELEVATION THAN, THAN THE ACTUAL KIND OF THE VIEW THAT WE'RE HAVING THAT IS DIRECTLY FROM DADE BOULEVARD LOOKING DIRECTLY NORTH AND WHERE THE ANGLES DON'T HA HAVE, UM, ANY DEPTH TO THEM.
UM, AND WE TOOK SOME SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AT THE DATU FOR THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, WINDOW LINE, UH, TO KIND OF MARK THAT, UH, DEMARCATION TO WHERE WE HAVE THAT NEW BUILDING ROOF LINE SO THAT THEY HAD SOME SORT OF, KIND OF INVERSE RELATIONSHIP, UH, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT SOLID PIECE OF THE PARAPET WAS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, IN LINE WITH THE, THE WINDOW LINE OF, OF, OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
AND THEN IS, I GUESS I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE, AT THE, THE FLOOR PLAN AS CAREFULLY.
SO, BUT THE BUILD THE NEW BUILDING, YOU CAN'T GO INTO THE
[02:30:01]
NEW BUILDING AND THEN CONNECT TO THE OLD BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT? OR, OR THAT IS CORRECT.IT, AND IF THE, ON PJ, IF YOU CAN JUST LIKE PAN DOWN THE SHEET SO YOU CAN SEE BOTH TOGETHER.
YOU KIND OF LIKE, SO WHERE A 4 0 5 IS AT THE BOTTOM THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN JUST, NO, NO, YEAH, SCROLL DOWN THE OTHER WAY.
SO YOU SEE HOW THE PLAN AND ON THAT PARTICULAR SHEET, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, SO THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT BOTH THE SAME TIME.
UM, BUT YEAH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONNECT.
AND I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THE PRIMARY REASON LIKE WE WERE PRESENTING ON THE LAST DRB WAS THAT, UH, IN ORDER TO REALLY MAKE THIS WORK AND, YOU KNOW, FINANCIALLY, UH, LEGALLY WITH LEASES AND TENANTS AND AND WHATNOT, WE HAVE A LONG TERM TENANT WITH CHASE.
UM, WE, WE HAVE TO KEEP THEM OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL WHILE WE BUILD THIS BUILDING.
UM, AND THAT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, THE WAY EVERYTHING PLAYED OUT, WE, WE HAD MENTIONED THAT IN THE LAST ERB, SO NOW THAT WE ARE REALLY GOING FORWARD WITH THIS AND WE WANT TO BUILD THIS, YOU KNOW, WHERE DOES CHASE GO IF WE WERE TO DEMO THE BUILDING AND THERE WAS THAT QUESTION OF IF WE HAVE THIS IN THE DRB THAT THAT BUILDING IS GONE, THEN HOW DO YOU DO THE MAIN PERMIT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO GET EVERYTHING DONE? AND THEN HOW DO YOU CLOSE IT OUT IF, IF THE BUILDING IS NEVER DEMOED AND YOU KNOW, CHASE IS STILL THERE UNTIL THEY CAN TRANSITION INTO THE NEW BUILDING.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE, THE IMPETUS FOR, FOR KEEPING THE EXISTING BUILDING AND, AND JUST MAINTAINING, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE AN ADAPTIVE REUSE.
HOWEVER, THE, THE TWO STRUCTURES ARE SEPARATE.
UH, THEY'RE, THEY DON'T INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER IN, IN TERMS OF THAT.
SO WE DO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, AN EGRESS STARE HERE AT THAT, AT THAT CORNER OF DAD, BUT IT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MEANT TO LOOK INTEGRATED AND NOT AS, AS, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S SEPARATE.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND, BUT THE, THE INTENT IS THAT THE ENTRANCES ACTUALLY HAPPEN ON ALTON AND THE MAIN ENTRANCES, UM, FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY FROM THE PARKING LOT, UH, TO THE NORTH.
SO IF WE CAN MAYBE SCROLL TO, UH, A 100 OR A, SORRY, A 32, WHICH IS JUST RIGHT ABOVE A 100, I GUESS PAGE 34 OF THE PDF SHOULD BE EIGHTH, THE NEXT PAGE, HA 32.
SO THIS SHOWS THE CONDITION, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE NOT INCORPORATING THE, THE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT, UH, WHICH, WHICH WAS REALLY THE BASIS OF A LOT OF COMMENTS, UH, ON THE PREVIOUS SUB, UH, SUBMITTAL.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO IN THIS CASE WE'RE, WE'RE KEEPING THE EXISTING BUILDING AND YOU KNOW, THE SHAPE MAINTAINS LARGELY THE SAME.
UH, WHERE WE HAD A UTILITY ROOM IS, IS WHERE THE TOWER MAINTAINS, UH, THAT'S IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
IF YOU REMEMBER THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW FROM THIS VIEW, UH, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING HAS A TOWER WHERE THE, THE, THE CHASE INSIGNIA IS MOUNTED.
UH, AND WE MAINTAIN THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR UTILITY ROOM USED TO BE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF PRIMARILY THE BIGGEST PLAN CHANGE.
UH, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINED THE SAME BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE THE ARCHITECTURE WAS ALREADY IN LINE WITH, UM, THE PREVIOUS EXISTING BUILDING.
AND CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ELEMENTS THAT YOU'RE USING TO MAKE THIS SEEM COHESIVE? THE OLD AND THE NEW? YEAH, I MEAN THE, I MEAN, BEFORE WE, I GUESS THIS WAS ALSO A, AN, AN ITERATION WE HAD PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE, THE SUBMITTAL WITH THE PARKING LOT.
UM, SO WE WERE USING THESE ELEMENTS OF, UH, THE TEXTURED CONCRETE, UH, YOU KNOW, TO BE, UH, AN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF AN ADAPTATION OF, OF THE EXISTING, UH, STRUCTURE, WHICH IS LIKE PURE CONCRETE, UM, PANELS.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO SOFTEN UP, AT LEAST GIVE AN ELEMENT FOR THAT, UH, FRONTAGE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SOFTER, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WOOD ELEMENTS, THE LOUVERS, UH, THAN BEFORE, UH, WHERE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS LIKE A BRUTALIST VERY, VERY HARD STRUCTURE.
SO IN TERMS OF, WE DO HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE, AND VINCENT ZI DID A GREAT JOB IN TERMS OF THE LANDSCAPE.
SO IN ORDER TO SOFTEN UP THE EXISTING BUILDING, WE'RE COMPLETELY RENOVATING THAT WHOLE AREA THAT YOU SEE IN GREEN ALONG THE EXISTING BUILDING.
UM, AND I BELIEVE SCOTT HAD A QUESTION ON WHY COULDN'T WE MAINTAIN THE CODE OF, YOU KNOW, THE 10 FOOT PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, WHICH WE ARE.
UH, SO WE'RE IMPLEMENTING ALL OF THOSE FRONTAGE, UM, DESIGN CRITERIA BY THE, YOU KNOW, THE NEW ZONING CODE OF THE RESILIENCE CODE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IN, IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION MORE ACCEPTABLE AND THEN WITH THE VARIANCES,
[02:35:01]
THESE ELEMENTS ARE JUST NON-CONFORMING, BUT THEY'RE THERE AND YOU DON'T WANNA HAVE TO REDO THEM.IT'S, YEAH, IT'S THE PARKING LOT.
IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANNA REPAVE THE WHOLE ASPHALT PARKING LOT AND YOU KNOW, HAVE TO INTRODUCE THE TWO FOOT OF PERVIOUS, UH, AREA WITHIN EACH PARKING SPACE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANNA KEEP THE, THE LOT AS IS KEEP IT FUNCTIONING AS IS KEEP CHASE AND SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, FUNCTIONING AS IS.
AND THAT'S WHERE I WAS GETTING TO.
YEAH, THE ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING IS ALWAYS UP FOR THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, ALWAYS MAINTAINING THE SAME, SO THAT THAT'S ON THAT NORTH SIDE WHERE YOU SEE THAT STAIR, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE HANDICAPPED PARKING LOT, UH, PARKING AREA IS LOCATED.
PARKING SPACE IS LOCATED, I SHOULD SAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, I HAD A QUESTION.
SO WHAT ARE THE REPAIRS PLANNED FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING FACADE? I DON'T, I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR A CLEAR ANSWER.
I SEE, I SEE THE TEXTURED CONCRETE OF THE NEW STRUCTURE.
I SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE LOOKS NICE IN ORDER TO SORT OF BLEND THESE TOGETHER AND NOT LOOK LIKE IT'S COMPLETELY A NEW ADDITION.
ARE YOU PLANNING TO TRY TO DO ANYTHING TO THE NEW PAINT OR ANYTHING TO, TO BLEND A LITTLE BIT? UH, AT THE MOMENT FOR THIS DRB, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KEEPING THE EXISTING BUILDING AS IS.
I MEAN, THERE, THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME REPAIRS, UH, AS SOON AS THE TENANTS MOVE OUT, UM, YOU KNOW, REGARDING, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT THAT IS, UH, IN DISREPAIR WE WOULD FIX AND AND CLEAN UP THERE BE, WILL THERE BE AN EXPANSION JOINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT THE YES.
UM, AND THE, THE NEW, THE, THE SYSTEM BUILDING WILL BE DEMOED EVENTUALLY.
IS THAT THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS CORRECT.
I MEAN THAT, I MEAN, THE IDEA IS THAT, UH, YES, THE WHOLE, UH, THE REST OF THE LOT WOULD BE, UH, DEVELOPED AND THIS WOULD BE, THIS WOULD MAINTAIN THIS STRUCTURE HERE.
THE SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE WOULD MAINTAIN WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL LOOK LIKE THE NEW STRUCTURE GOING IN.
I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T DESIGNED IT YET, BUT YES, IT, YEAH, IT, IT WOULD BE THE, UH, THE STARTING POINT FOR SURE.
AND IT WOULD BE, YEAH, DEFINITELY MORE INTEGRATED.
IS THERE AN INCREASE IN NON-CONFORMITY OF PARKING SPOTS BY ADDING BUILD THE NEW BUILDING ADDITION? OR IS EVERYTHING COMPLY WITH WHAT'S EXISTING THERE? THEY, THEY COMPLY WITH THE PARKING.
THEY HAD, UM, I BELIEVE THEY HAD SOME EXIT SPACES.
AND THEY'RE ALSO PROVIDING, UM, THE CODE ALLOWS YOU, UH, THE ABILITY FOR ALTERNATIVE PARKING INCENTIVES WHERE SOME OF THE PARKING CAN BE PROVIDED BY BICYCLE PARKING, SCOOTER PARKING, MOPED PARKING, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE PROVIDING SOME OF THAT.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE'RE BE A LITTLE ATTENTION TAKEN TO THE EXISTING BUILDING TOO, SO THAT THEY, THEY MATCH AND THAT'S DAMAGE HAPPENS TO THE BUILDING WHEN THEY APPROACH IT.
AND I DUNNO, MAYBE A PAINT COLOR OR SOMETHING TO REFRESH.
SO IT'S WELL HELIO, CAN WE A LITTLE MORE COHESIVE, CAN WE MAKE THAT PART OF THE VOTE THAT, UH, ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED WITH THE ENHANCEMENT IN THE FRONT, THE EXPANSION THAT'S BE FOR US TODAY, THAT THEY, UM, PRESSURE CLEAN AND PAINT OR DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT REMAINS SO THAT IT BLENDS WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE.
WELL, I ALSO THINK ADAM'S ALSO TALKING ABOUT OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS, NOT JUST CLEANING IT, BUT JUST MAKING THE TWO STRUCTURES SEEM COHESIVE TO NOT COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE NEW ONE AS PART OF THE CON MAYBE AS PART OF THE CONDITION TO SAY WORK WITH STAFF TO EXAMINE WAYS, EXPLORE WAYS TO MAKE THE BUILDINGS, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.
IS THE NEW BUILDING GONNA BE KEPT WHEN THE OLD BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED AT SOME POINT? OR IS THIS JUST LIKE A TEMPORARY BUILDING? THIS UH, WELL, I'M NOT QUITE SURE.
YEAH, IT, IT WOULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED.
THIS, YEAH, I MEAN, AND THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF ASSURED BY, UM, THE LEGAL REASONS, WHICH ARE REALLY JUST, UH, TENANT LEASE, UH, CONTRACTS.
UM, THERE IS A, I BELIEVE IT'S A 20 YEAR LEASE, UH, THAT'S IN PLAY RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBERS, DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT FOR SURE.
BUT, UH, IT IS A LONG-TERM LEASE THAT, THAT, AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE, I MEAN, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, YOU KNOW, JUMPING THROUGH SOME HOOPS TO, TO PUT BACK THE EXISTING BUILDING FROM THE PREVIOUS DRB.
UM, SO YOU KNOW, THE IDEA IS WHEN THE REST OF THE LOT IS DEVELOPED, THIS, THIS BUILDING WILL STAY.
SO IT IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND
[02:40:01]
WE'VE GOT 20 YEARS ON THIS, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO WORK WITH STAFF TO, TO BLEND THESE TWO.SO THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SOMEONE MESSED UP.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, THINGS THEY COULD EXPLORE? YOU DON'T NEED TO, BUT I WOULD DO A COLOR STUDY, UM, ON THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
UM, AND WOULD YOU NOT, CAN I JUST ASK 'CAUSE I'M NOT THE ARCHITECT HERE BECAUSE ME, IT'S THE OPPOSITE.
THESE BUILDINGS REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER, AND THAT'S TO NONE YOUR FAULT.
AND I THINK TRYING TO COMBINE THEM IS KIND OF STUPID.
I THINK THAT IF YOU JUST ACTUALLY CONTRAST THEM MORE SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO BE LOOK LIKE EACH OTHER.
'CAUSE WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DUMB DOWN THE NEW ONE TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE BRUTALIST AND UGLY THEN TO MATCH THE OLD ONE? I, I, I WOULD ACTUALLY DO COMPLETE OPPOSITE AND, AND JUXTAPOSE THEM.
BUT THAT'S NON-ARCHITECT SPEAKING.
YEAH, IT WAS, IT WAS APPROVED ALREADY, SO I DIDN'T WANNA MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON THE, THE, THE NEW BUILDING.
SO I WAS FOCUSING, I WAS FOCUSING ON THE OLD, BUT THAT IS ONE APPROACH, RIGHT? THERE'S THE APPROACH OF CO COMBINING AND, AND, AND MAKING IT COHESIVE OR SEP SEPARATING IT.
BUT FROM THE ELEVATIONS AND WHAT THE ARCHITECT SAID, HE SAID HE WAS TRYING TO BLEND IT AND, AND, AND HAVE DATA LINE WELL THINGS WELL AND, AND MATERIALITY.
ALONE, NOT, NOT NECESSARILY IN DESIGN AESTHETIC.
I MEAN, I THINK SCOTT IS MORE SPOT ON IN, IN THE SENSE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THEM DIFFERENT.
UH, BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS ARCHITECTURE, I THINK IS, IS UNANIMOUSLY NOT PREFERRED.
UM, AND WE, AND I DO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND WITH THE LANDSCAPING I THINK IS GONNA TREMENDOUSLY HELP THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, FROM WAY THE WAY IT CURRENTLY LOOKS.
THE MATERIALITY OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS A, YOU KNOW, UH, A PRECAST CONCRETE PANELING SYSTEM.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T INTEND TO PAINT IT IN ANY WAY WE CAN.
WE CAN DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, UH, SPRAY WASH IT, YOU KNOW, TRY TO MAKE THE, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR HOW IT'S AGED TO BE IN A MORE NEW FASHION.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, UH, DEFINITELY ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WINDOWS AND THE MULIAN AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND, AND REPAIR THEM SO THAT THEY'RE LIKE NEW.
UM, THERE ARE SOME METAL WORK THAT'S PART OF THIS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE RENDERING, I GUESS ON PAGE 27 OF THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE OR THERE, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT.
BUT THERE WERE THESE WALLS THAT WERE THAT, THAT ARE THERE THAT HAD THIS METAL WORK.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE IT WHEN YOU DRIVE BY AFTER THE, AFTER THE HEARING, UH, THAT THAT CAN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE BE INTRODUCED AND HAVE SOME, SOME SIMILAR WOOD ELEMENT, UH, VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THAT MATCHES OUR NEW STRUCTURE VERSUS THESE, UH, BLACK METAL, UH, 1970S, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, ELEMENTS.
UM, SO, AND, AND EVENTUALLY THIS IS GONNA BE DEMOLISHED, RIGHT? THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME WHEN CHASE CAN TRANSITION SAFELY, UH, TO THE NEW STRUCTURE, UM, AND THE, AND THE NEW DESIGNS IN PLACE, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS EXISTING BUILDING WILL WILL BE REPLACED.
SO IT SEEMS RIGHT NOW HOW YOU, HOW YOU HAVE IT, AND I THINK WHY IT'S CREATING THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE GOT THESE TWOISM AND I MUSH 'EM TOGETHER.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A DIRECTION OF EITHER MAKE IT VERY DIFFERENT OR MAKE IT MORE SIMILAR, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE NOT REALLY ACHIEVING ONE OR THE OTHER.
UM, SO DO WE BRING THEM BACK ON THAT ISSUE, APPROVE WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY, AND HAVE THEM COME BACK OR HAVE THEM WORK WITH STAFF ON? WELL, IT DOES HAVE TO COME BACK WHEN WE DO A NEW DESIGN.
I MEAN, WE'LL HAVE TO CO-ED, WE'RE CONCERNED WITH WHAT THIS IS GONNA, IF WE WERE TO PASS APPROVE THIS TODAY, I, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
THE, THE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, RIGHT? NOT THE FUTURE, WHENEVER THAT IS.
SO I'M ACTUALLY, THE QUESTION IS MORE FOR THE BOARD.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IT AGAIN, YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT AGAIN WITH THE DIRECTION OF IF LIKE, MAKE IT DIFFERENT, DON'T TRY TO BLEND THEM.
PICK, PICK A, PICK A DIRECTION, PICK A DIRECTION.
THIS IS DEFINITELY, IF I MAY, I, THIS DEFINITELY, I THINK THE GENTLEMAN WANTS TO SPEAK.
THIS IS DEFINITELY WORTH A LONGER CONVERSATION WITH STAFF.
UM, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THE EXISTING TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING IS ONLY TEMPORARY.
SO AT SOME POINT, AGAIN, I IMAGINE WHEN THIS ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE TENANTS INTO THAT BUILDING AND PERHAPS A PROPERTY OWNER WILL DO SOMETHING WITH THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING.
BUT, UM, IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
OF COURSE, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DEFER, COME BACK.
[02:45:01]
IS A 20 YEAR LEASE, RIGHT, RENEE? SO, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IN THE LONG TERM LEASE.YEAH, I'M NOT SURE, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY LIKE 15, 15 TO 20 YEARS.
SO I, ME AS ONE MEMBER, I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN APPROVING WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR TODAY AND ASK THAT THEY COME BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING, BE IT OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AFTER HAVING WORKED WITH STAFF AS TO HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BLEND OR PULL APART, YOU KNOW, THE DESIGN AND THE VISUAL OF THE TWO STRUCTURES.
SO YOU WANNA CONTINUE? I WANNA, I THINK I WOULD APPROVE WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY SO THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THAT AT LEAST, UH, BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME AND THEN THEY CAN TAKES TIME AND MONEY
BUT TO COME BACK WITH HOW THEY PROPOSE AFTER WORKING WITH STAFF, BLENDING OR NOT BLENDING THE TWO STRUCTURES JUST ON THAT ISSUE, COME BACK BUT APPROVE WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY SO THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THAT.
'CAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANNA SEE THE CHANGES, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE THE DESIGN, BUT YOU ALSO WANNA APPROVE THE DESIGN.
AM I WRONG? THE ONLY CHANGES ARE GONNA BE STRUCTURE APPROVING THE FACT THAT THEY CAN KEEP THE, RETAIN THE RIGHT EXISTING BUILDING AND, AND THEY CAN PROBABLY START PERMITTING THE, THE, THE NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
'CAUSE THAT LIKELY IS NOT GONNA BE CHANGING, BUT THEN CONTINUE, UM, THE DETAILS OF THE FACADE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND HOW THAT'S GONNA BE TREATED IS WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M GATHERING.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A POTENTIAL TO HAVE A LOT OF, THERE'S NOT MUCH TO THIS BUILDING BESIDES, BESIDES MM-HMM
AND SO APPROVING STUFF SO PIECEMEAL, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REALLY GONNA SAVE YOU GUYS TIME.
I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCES AND WAIVERS BEFORE YOU TODAY.
UM, AND AGAIN, UH, JUST GIVEN THE FLUIDITY OF THE SITUATION AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE PROPERTY OWNER JUST HAVING WHATEVER OPTIONS THEY WANT TO USE THEIR PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE, UM, I THINK IT'S OKAY IF WE APPROVE THE VARIANCES OF WAIVERS WORK WITH STAFF, UM, TO PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, HARMONIZE THE DESIGN BETWEEN THESE EXISTING BUILDING AND THE NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
UM, I, BUT OF COURSE, WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO RETURN.
UM, AGAIN, I HOPE YOU TRUST HALF'S JUDGMENT AND YOU HOPE YOU TRUST MY WORD THAT, UH, WE'LL WORK TO AGAIN HARMONIZE THE TWO, UH, PARTS OF THE SITE.
HARMONIZE OR NOT HARMONIZED, HARMONIZING, NOT HARMONIZE.
AGAIN, AGAIN, IT'S WORTH A LONGER CONVERSATION.
I DON'T, WE'RE APPROVING TODAY ARE THE VARIANCES IN THE, AND THE WAIVER TO KEEP WHAT IS CURRENTLY EXISTING.
IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING WITH THIS.
UM, WHAT THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH IN THE FUTURE AFTER WORKING WITH STAFF.
IT'S HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BLEND OR NOT BLEND THE TWO STRUCTURES, THE ONE THAT'S BEING BUILT AND THE ONE THAT IS STAYING.
BUT AT LEAST IT GETS THEM A GO TO START WITH SOMETHING.
DO WE CALL IT, DO WE CALL IT A FACADE STUDY? THAT WILL BE JUST, WE PROVE IT AND THEN WE'D JUST LIKE TO SEE A FACADE STUDY THAT'S WORKED ON WITH STAFF AND FOR THE FINAL DESIGN? OR IS THAT, IS THAT BREAKING IT INTO PIECES? UH, YEAH, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LET US JUST FIGURE THIS OUT.
UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE REWORKING OF THE FACADE.
SO YES, I, I THINK FOR A WAIVER, IF I'M NOT CORRECT, THAT'S PART OF THE DESIGN.
SO YOU CAN'T APPROVE, APPROVE THE WAIVER GOES WITH THE DESIGN.
SO EITHER WE APPROVE OR WE CONTINUE THE DESIGN AND THEN THE VARIANCES ARE SEPARATE.
IF WE APPROVE THE VARIANCES, DOES THAT HELP MOVE THE PROJECT ALONG OR DOES IT NOT MATTER? BECAUSE IT'S REALLY THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING.
THE ONLY ISSUE IF WE DON'T HAVE A FULL BOARD NEXT MONTH, UM, OH, OKAY.
YOU KNOW, THE VARIANCE, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES TODAY.
BECAUSE IT REQUIRES FIVE VOTES.
UH, THE DESIGN ONLY REQUIRES FOUR, SO THAT'S GOOD.
'CAUSE THE VARIANCES REALLY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE INTEGRATION OF THE TWO BUILDINGS THERE OTHER STUFF.
UM, SO DOES ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES, BUT THEN CONTINUE THE DESIGN? I'LL JUST, I'M JUST GONNA SAY LIKE, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THE DESIGN.
UM, JUST AS, JUST TO GIVE, TO BE DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF MY BOARD MEMBERS HERE.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENTIRELY NECESSARY.
I THINK THE MATERIALS HERE HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT ENOUGH AND THE LANDSCAPING IS BLENDING THE BUILDING.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I'D BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE EVERYTHING.
I DON'T KNOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM SOUND LIKE THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
I, UM, ONE THING I WILL SAY, AND THIS CAN JUST BE A, A STAFF THING.
I THINK I'VE MENTIONED THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME,
[02:50:01]
LANDSCAPING AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE USING A LOT OF EXISTING TREES THAT, SO THAT'S GREAT.UM, JUST ENSURING THAT THE NEW PLANTINGS ARE OF MATURE HEIGHT THAT CAN START GIVING SOME SHADE TO THAT INTERSECTION, I THINK IS VERY CRITICAL.
UM, SO I, I WILL MAKE, I ACTUALLY HAVE A COMMENT RELATED TO THAT.
I'M GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.
UM, SORRY, I FORGOT TO ASK ABOUT, YOU'RE NOW HAVING A ROOF DECK.
THERE'S ACCESS TO THE ROOF YES.
SO, AND THEN THE ELEVATOR, SO YOU, IT'S NOT PICTURED IN ANY OF THE RENDERINGS.
THERE'S, WELL, THE ELEVATOR, YOU KNOW, BEYOND THE ROOF TO GET UP THERE.
THAT'S EITHER RENEE OR VINCENT, OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
WELL, IN TER, IN TERMS OF THE LANDSCAPING, YEAH.
EVERYTHING IS, UH, AT THE FRONT EDGE OF THE, THE STRUCTURE.
SO IF WE GO TO, I GUESS, UH, UH, 37 OF THE PDFA 1 0 1, UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ELEVATOR'S PUSHED BACK ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER.
IT JUST WORKS OUT IN ELEVATION WHERE WE DON'T TOUCH THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE THE, THE SINGLE STAIR ALSO GOES DOWN TO THE FIRST LEVEL.
AND THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY SORT OF SHADE STRUCTURE.
THERE'S, YOU'RE NOT PLANNING ANYTHING FOR, TO ACTIVATE THE ROOF.
NO, YES, IT'S ACCESSIBLE AT THIS POINT.
UM, NOTHING IS PROPOSED TO BE NO UMBRELLAS, NO STRUCTURES, NO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE DO HAVE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MECHANICAL SCREEN, WHICH WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED BY OUR ZONING CODE AND HAS BEEN LATELY ENFORCED, UH, YOU KNOW, ON A LOT OF PROJECTS, EVEN EXISTING PROJECTS.
UM, SO THAT MECHANICAL SCREEN IS THERE, BUT IT'S ALSO SET BACK A GOOD 20 FEET.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO MOST OF THE LANDSCAPING IS, IS, IS RIGHT AT THE EDGE AND IT PUSHES BACK, YOU KNOW, IN A, IN A, IN A WAVE FORM, ANYWHERE FROM 25 FEET TO, TO 15 FEET.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND WHERE WE HAVE JUST, YOU KNOW, EITHER UNOCCUPIED ROOF DECK BECAUSE WE HAD A 50% REQUIREMENT, UM, AND WHERE WE HAVE JUST ROOF SCREENING, YOU KNOW, JUST TO KIND OF PUSH EVERYTHING TOWARDS THE EXISTING BUILDING AND AWAY FROM THE STREET EDGE.
YEAH, NO, AND I APPRECIATE THE GREEN ROOF.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, TO LAURA'S POINT TOO, ABOUT IT BEING SO SUNNY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE ROOF DECK DOES DECIDE TO BECOME ACTIVATED, YOU'RE DEFINITELY GONNA NEED SHEET.
DO WE HAVE A, DOES SOMEBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION? I'LL, I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN AND THE VARIANCES.
UM, WOULD YOU WANT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO SEE BY THE INTEGRATING OR YOU'RE HAPPY WITH HOW IT CONNECTS? I, I WOULD DO, I WOULD SUGGEST WORKING WITH STAFF TO, YOU KNOW, PRESSURE WASH YOU, YOU KNOW, CLEANING UP THE BUILDING.
I AM, AS FAR AS THE DESIGN CONSISTENCY, OVERALL, I THINK IT'S FINE.
I, I WOULDN'T SUGGEST, YOU KNOW, I'M WORRIED THAT THEY'RE GONNA LIKE SLAP SOME WOOD CLADDING ON AREAS AND IT MIGHT JUST LOOK WORSE.
UM, AND THAT'S, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD WORK WITH STAFF TO DO THAT.
YEAH, I, I THINK IT'S FINE AS IS.
IF JUST DOING REGULAR MAINTENANCE MAY, IF THAT'S NEEDED, UM, THAT, THAT, THAT'D BE THE EXTENT OF MY SUGGESTION THERE.
SO THAT'S MY MOTION IF ANYONE WILL, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? NO, NO, THAT'S FINE.
UH, AND SHOULD WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE VARIANCES? THE, HER MOTION INCLUDED? OH, IT INCLUDED THEM.
UM, SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO ONE MORE AND THEN TAKE A LUNCH BREAK? IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY.
THE NEXT ONE SHOULD BE A QUICK ONE.
[15. DRB25-1094 FKA DRB22-0825, 1311 15 TERRACE.]
ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, DRB 25 109 4 AK OR FORMERLY KNOWN AS DRB 22 DASH 0 8 25 11 13 11 15TH TERRACE.THIS APPLICATION IS REQUESTING OUR APPLICATION TO A PREVIOUS DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A NEW FOUR STORY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A TRANSFORMER WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.
SO AS, SO THIS IS A, A PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED, UM, AFTER
[02:55:01]
THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED, FPL UH, REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALL A TRANSFORMER.TYPICALLY THESE GET WORKED INTO THE GROUND FLOOR.
UM, THEY DO HAVE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN TYPES OF ACCESS AT THIS POINT, UM, THE DESIGN IS SO ADVANCED THAT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VERY PRETTY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PUT THE TRANSFORMER AND INTEGRATE IT INTO THE STRUCTURE.
UM, SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE SO THAT THE, THE, UH, THE TRANSFORMER CAN BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT SETBACK.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SETBACK OF 10 FEET, SIX INCHES.
UH, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE TRANSFORMER STRUCTURE WILL BE SCREENED WITH THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING, UH, MINIMIZING ITS VISUAL IMPACT.
UM, SO THEY DO HAVE A HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE REQUIREMENT FROM FPL.
UM, THEY ARE PROPOSING TO SCREEN IT.
IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT THE OVERALL DESIGN TOO SIGNIFICANTLY.
UM, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
UM, YEAH, HOPEFULLY THIS IS, THIS IS A QUICK ONE.
UH, TONY LEON THREE DESIGN ARCHITECTURE.
THIS IS A PROJECT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE START, WE ALWAYS KIND OF TRY TO DO ALL THESE DUE DILIGENCE AND WE REACH OUT TO FPL AND WE DO A ELECTRICAL LOAD CALCULATION FOR SIX UNITS.
AND WE SEND IT IN AND THEY KIND OF GIVE US THE OKAY THAT, YEAH, THERE'S A TRANSFORMER IN THE BACK AND THEN AS YOU GO, TWO AND A HALF, THREE YEARS LATER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE RIGHT AT THE END AND, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT, OH YEAH, YOU NEED A TRANSFORMER.
'CAUSE THE WOOD POLE IN THE BACK CAN'T HANDLE THE SIZE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE.
SO IT JUST KIND OF CAME UP VERY LAST MINUTE.
IT'S THE ONLY DEPARTMENT WE'RE IN PERMITTING.
WE'VE BEEN PERMITTING FOR OVER A YEAR, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF I THINK.
AND, UH, WE'RE, EVERYTHING'S APPROVED.
WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE TRANSFORMER? UH, THEY'RE ABOUT FOUR FEET, UH, WIDE AND ABOUT FOUR FEET TALL.
UH, BUT THEY HAVE SOME CLEARANCES AROUND IT, SO WE'RE LANDSCAPING IT, UH, TO DEATH.
WE KNOW THAT IF IT EVER NEEDS TO HAVE ANY ACCESS TO IT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL LOSE THE LANDSCAPING, BUT IT'S A SMALL PRICE TO PAY.
UM, SO, WE'LL, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE LABOR THIS.
OR MY ONLY QUESTION WAS, IS DID YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE GONNA, UM, YEAH, LET'S SEE IF I CAN, THERE'S A RENDERING I THINK WITH THE, UH, THAT THEY'RE DISCOVERING.
SO THE TOP, TOP LEFT CORNER, IT'S KIND OF HIT AGAIN.
THERE'S A LOT OF LANDSCAPING AND THIS IS PROBABLY NOT, UM, UH, TOO FAR FROM REALITY.
UH, THERE'S A, THERE'S A RECTANGLE AROUND IT.
YOU CAN JUST KIND OF BARELY SEE IT.
AND THEN THE VIEW ON THE RIGHT ALSO KIND OF SHOWS IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAT THAT WHOLE VIEW IS CLOUDED.
IT'S, IT'S IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER.
JUST HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE, UM, STREET, FROM THE, AND A HALF FEET FRONT FROM THE SIDEWALK.
UM, THIS WOULD ALLOW, THIS TRANSFORMER WOULD ALLOW WHAT? THE ELECTRICITY FOR THE BUILDING AT WHAT LEVEL? UH, IT'S A THREE PHASE.
UH, UH, UH, I FORGET WHAT IT IS.
YEAH, IT'S 'CAUSE OF, IT'S 'CAUSE OF AN ELEVATOR.
I THINK THAT MAY HAVE PUT IT UP.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE, UM, VARIANCE.
TO ALLOW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE FPL TRANSFORMER.
AND I'D LIKE TO ADD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THIS IS ALWAYS COVERED WITH, YOU KNOW, SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPING AND IF THERE'S A STORM OR THEY HAVE TO, THE LANDSCAPING IS PUT BACK AS A CONDITION.
THIS IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPER, SO HE'S HERE.
I'M SURE YOU WANNA MAKE IT AS NICE AS POSSIBLE.
SO JUST FOR FUTURE, NOT JUST NOW, BUT MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW.
DOES ANYBODY MADE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
I KNOW YOU SAID YOU WERE GONNA TAKE A LUNCH BREAK, UH, THE STAR ISLAND PROJECT.
YEAH, I THINK YOU'VE PROBABLY ALL SEEN IT.
WE HAVE A MODEL TO SHOW, BUT WE'RE GONNA BE REALLY QUICK.
IF YOU MIGHT CONSIDER TAKING US BEFORE, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG YOUR LUNCH BREAK IS INTENDED TO BE, BUT WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR THREE HOURS AND WE WOULD LOVE TO GET OUT OF YOUR WAY.
CAN YOU GIVE US FIVE? HUH? I MEAN, I PERSONALLY HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
EVERYBODY ELSE SAID, BUT LOOKING AT THE MODEL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I, I HAD A FEW QUESTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY ELSE.
I UNDERSTAND WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR THREE HOURS TODAY.
WE HAVE A WHOLE DESIGN TEAM WHO'S HERE,
[03:00:01]
UM, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND YOU WANT, I MEAN, HOW LONG ARE YOU ENVISIONING? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I WE CAN, WE COULD PROCEED.WHAT DOES EVERYBODY WANNA DO? DO YOU WANNA IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE WHAT, ANOTHER 30 MINUTES? ANOTHER 30 MINUTES BEFORE WE 30, YOU KNOW.
OH, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND THEN, YOU KNOW, INTO REAL QUICK 30 MINUTES.
I, I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE 30 MINUTES, BUT MAYBE WE WILL.
WELL, BUT JUST PLANNING ONE, UM, I MEAN, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH IT.
IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH DOING IT? SURE, SURE.
[16. DRB25-1105, F.K.A. DRB22-0859, 4-6 STAR ISLAND DRIVE.]
UP ITEM, UH, DRB 25 11 0 5, WHICH IS THE, THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH ANOTHER STORY INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCES.SPECIFICALLY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SOME MODIFIC MODIFICATION, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AS OF RIGHT PER RECENTLY APPROVED AMENDMENT TO THE RESILIENCY CODE AND THREE NEW VARIANCES.
A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR A ONE STORE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A VARIANCE FOR A, UH, FOR THE DRIVEWAY MATERIAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD, AND THE VARIANCE TO THE UNDERSTORY MATERIAL FOR THE NON-AIR CONDITIONER AREAS, INCLUDING ONE OR MORE WAIVERS TO REPLACE AN EXISTING PRE 1942 RESIDENCE.
OKAY, SO THIS IS, UH, THIS IS A HOME THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS, UH, REQUESTING SOME MODIFICATIONS SO THAT PREVIOUS APPROVAL, UM, THE CHANGES DO RESULT IN A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN THE UNIT SIZE OF THE HOME.
UH, BUT THE HOME OVERALL FOLLOWS THE SAME DESIGN INTENT AS WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
UM, THE CODE, SINCE ITS ORIGINAL APPROVAL, THE CODE HAS CHANGED.
UM, WE HAVE THE NEW UNDERSTORY REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE THAT, THAT, UH, THAT MODIFY SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS FOR THE, FOR THE UNDERSTORY AREAS.
SO THEY ARE REQUESTING SOME VARIANCES, UM, AND A, AND A WAIVER.
SO THE FIRST WAIVER THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS FOR HEIGHT.
UM, AS PART OF THE UNDERSTORY ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED, THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT IF YOU, UM, WANNA SEEK EXTRA HEIGHT, THAT IS DONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF A WAIVER.
SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER OF, UH, FOR THREE FEET OF EXTRA HEIGHT, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY THE CODE FOR THE DRB TO ISSUE.
UM, SO THAT WOULD INCREASE, UM, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 34 FEET.
FOR, FOR THIS PROPERTY, SINCE IT'S AN UNDERSTORY HOME, UH, GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE LOT, IT'S LOCATION, UM, IT'S, IT'S AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THOSE EXTRA THREE FEET.
UM, AND THAT THEY'RE VERY LARGE SETBACKS.
SO NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ARE EXPECTED, UM, AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE GRANTING OF THAT WAIVER.
UM, THE NEXT VARIANCE, THE NEXT, THE THING THAT THEY'RE SEEKING THERE, THE CHANGES THAT THEY'RE SEEKING ARE VARIANCES.
UM, THE FIRST IS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
UM, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF THE HEIGHT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
UM, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE'S IN THE REAR YARD.
UM, THE CODE PROVIDES THAT, UM, UH, ONE STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 12 FEET.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS, WAS SEEKING A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FOR, FOR THE HEIGHT OF THAT STRUCTURE.
UH, THE CODE ONLY ALLOWS FOR HEIGHT VARIANCES TO BE UP TO THREE FEET.
SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT, THAT, THAT BE LIMITED TO THREE FEET.
GIVEN THE SCALE OF THE PROPERTY, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, UM, IT, IT WOULD LOOK OUT OF SCALE TO HAVE, UH, THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 12 FEET.
AND SO STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE, OF THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE.
AND ALSO THEY, IF IT WERE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE, UM, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE, UH, A MUCH TALLER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SO EVEN, EVEN WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE, IT'S LOWER THAN WHAT THEY COULD DO, UM, PER CODE.
THE NEXT VARIANCE IS, UM, IS REQUIRED, IS REGARDING, UM, REQUIRING, UM, PAVERS NOT SET IN STAMP SAND REQUIRED IN THE FRONT YARD.
UM, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS THE CODE REQUIRES FOR UNDERSTORY HOMES THAT ALL ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR WALKWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT AND SIDE STREET YARDS SHALL CONSIST OF PAVER SET IN SAND OR OTHER SE, SEMI PERVIOUS MAT PERVIOUS MATERIALS.
UM, AND THEN THE SAME FOR THE UNDERSTORY AREA, THAT ALL PORTIONS OF THE UNDERSTORY AREA THAT ARE NOT COVERED OR AIR CONDITIONS SHALL CONSIST OF PERVIOUS OR SEMI SEMI PERVIOUS MATERIALS SUCH AS WOOD DECK, GRAVEL, PAVER, SET, AND STAND.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IN BOTH OF THESE AREAS, UM, A CORAL STONE PAVING, UM, AND BE, IT'S A VERY LARGE SIZE CORAL STONE PAVING.
AND THIS DOES REQUIRE THAT THERE BE SOME STRUCTURE BE BENEATH IT.
UM, SO THEY'RE PROPOSING A CONCRETE GRID IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THAT STRUCTURE.
THE GRID IS OPEN, IT IS POROUS.
IT COMPLIES WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE, WHICH IS TO ALLOW WATER TO DRAIN, BUT THE CODE PROHIBITS THE CONCRETE IN THE UNDERSTORY AREA.
UM, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THESE, THESE, THESE PAVERS, THEY, THEY, THEY, THE APPLICANT HAS, IS, UH, INDICATING THAT IT DOES REQUIRE THIS CONCRETE, BUT THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH THE INTENT, WHICH IS TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE.
UM, SO GIVEN, UM, THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THE QUALITY OF THE PAVING MATERIALS THAT THEY WANT TO USE, UH, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE GRANTING OF THESE VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THIS
[03:05:01]
CASE.UM, SO WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CHANGES BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE ATTACHED DRAFT ORDER.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME'S CARTER MCDOWELL, UM, BILL IN SUNBURG, 1450 BRICKELL AVENUE.
I'M HERE WITH MY AS ASSOCIATE NICK, NICK NOTTO.
UM, OUR DESIGN ARCHITECT FROM DOMO IS HERE.
UM, OUR, OUR ARCHITECT OF RECORD CO IS HERE, AND RAYMOND JUNGLES IS HERE, OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
AS YOU'VE SEEN AND HEARD, THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO.
THIS IS AN EVOLUTION OF WHAT WAS APPROVED BASED ON CONTINUED DESIGN WORK, WHICH HAPPENS WITH EVERY PROJECT.
UM, THE CODE CHANGED IN THE INTERIM TO ALLOW US TO ASK FOR 30, THE WAIVER TO 34 FEET.
WE WERE AT 31 FEET WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL.
UM, THIS LOT IS 300 FEET WIDE AND 400 FEET DEEP.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, IT'S ON STAR ISLAND.
ALL OF THE RESIDENCES ON STAR ISLAND ARE PRETTY EXCEPTIONAL.
AND THE, AND HISTORICALLY THE BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED THAT.
AND INDEED WE HAVE A MUCH LARGER PROJECT TO OUR NORTH, UM, THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED.
UH, IT'S REALLY A VERY SIMPLE THING, AND I HAVE AN MAYBE AN ODD QUESTION.
WE'RE PREPARED TO MAKE A FULL PRESENTATION GO THROUGH.
ALL OF IT INVITES YOU TO COME DOWN, LOOK AT THE MODEL.
THE MODEL REFLECTS THE CURRENT DESIGN.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW DESIGN ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS SINCE WE FILED IN OUR FINAL FILING, WHICH WE'VE HANDED OUT TO YOU.
THERE'S NOTHING, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE TWO PLANS TOGETHER, YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CHANGES.
WE TALKED WITH STAFF, STAFF, STAFF SAID IN ABUNDANCE OF QUESTIONS, SHOULD PROBABLY PRESENT AT LEAST PRESENT COPIES OF THE PLANS TO THE, THE BOARD.
UM, WE PROBABLY COULD DO ALL OF THAT UNDER SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE ANYWAY.
BUT I'VE, WE'VE GIVEN YOU AND THE REP, THE MODEL DOES REFLECT WHAT WE HANDED OUT TO YOU.
WE'RE PREPARED TO MAKE A FULL PRESENTATION OR NO PRESENTATION AND JUST ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
'CAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE AGENDA AND WE'D LIKE TO GET OUTTA YOUR WAY.
IT'S TRULY AN EXTRAORDINARY PROJECT, AS YOU CAN SEE.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE WENT TO A LOT OF TROUBLE TO PROVIDE THE MODEL AND ALL OF THE PLANS AND RENDERINGS.
UM, WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT SHOWS YOU BEFORE AND AFTER RENDERINGS ON ALL OF IT, BUT WHAT DOES EVERYBODY WANT? I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE HARDSHIPS ARE THAT GRANT, UM, THE APPROVAL OF THESE THREE VARIANCES.