Oct 16, 2026 Board of Adjustment

ONE. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 16TH ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING.

[00:00:07]

[ATTENDANCE]

I'M GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL. MISS MORELLI HERE, MISS SILVERMAN HERE.

MR. CINNAMON HERE. MR. FEELY HERE, MR. KOENIG.

YES, MR. NAGLER PRESENT. AND MR. SILVERS, WE HAVE SEVEN OF SEVEN MEMBERS.

WE HAVE PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU, MR. MADDEN. MR. CITY ATTORNEY, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR ANY UPDATES AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS AND SWEARING IN THE PUBLIC.

[SWEARING IN OF PUBLIC]

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

THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM MAY DIAL THE TOLL FREE NUMBER, WHICH IS (877) 853-5257.

AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID WHICH IS 82869615309.

POUND, OR LOG IN TO THE ZOOM APP AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH AGAIN IS 82869615309.

INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST CLICK RAISE HAND IF USING ZOOM OR DIAL STAR NINE IF PARTICIPATING BY PHONE.

BEFORE I SWEAR IN THOSE WHO ARE TESTIFYING, I WILL READ INTO THE RECORD THE CITY'S NOTICE REGARDING LOBBYIST REGISTRATION.

IF YOU ARE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS, A CORPORATION OR ANOTHER PERSON, INCLUDING AS AN ARCHITECT, ATTORNEY OR REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPLICANT OR OBJECTOR, YOU NEED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE SPEAKING TO THE BOARD. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ONLY ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF.

YOU ARE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL OR OTHER SPECIALIZED TESTIMONY, OR YOU ARE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR OR OPPOSITION TO AN ITEM.

EXPERT WITNESSES AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES SHALL, PRIOR TO APPEARING, DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK THEIR NAME, ADDRESS AND THE PRINCIPAL ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY ARE COMMUNICATING.

THESE RULES APPLY WHETHER YOU ARE APPEARING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN ITEM, OR ENCOURAGING OR ARGUING AGAINST ITS PASSAGE, DEFEAT, MODIFICATION OR CONTINUANCE. I WILL NOW SWEAR IN EVERYONE WHO IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN CHAMBERS AND INTENDS TO TESTIFY.

VIRTUAL SPEAKERS WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN ONE BY ONE BEFORE ADDRESSING THE BOARD. SO IF YOU'LL BE TESTIFYING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL BE GIVING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. CITY ATTORNEY. I HOPE EVERYONE HAD TIME TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 18TH MEETING.

[1. AFTER ACTION REPORT – SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 ]

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. MINUTES APPROVED. DO WE HAVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OH, SORRY. THANK YOU. ALL. ANY OPPOSED? MINUTES APPROVED.

DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES OR WITHDRAWALS? WE HAVE NO REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES OR WITHDRAWALS.

OKAY. SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO PREVIOUS CONTINUED ITEMS.

[2. ZBA25-0177, 3010 ALTON ROAD]

OH, OKAY. I CAN READ IT INTO THE RECORD AND THEN THEY CAN MAKE THAT REQUEST.

OKAY. OKAY. SO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE IT LISTED, IS IT ON THE AGENDA? IT IS ON THE AGENDA. YES. BUT IT'S LISTED UNDER PREVIOUSLY CONTINUED ITEMS. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR CONTINUANCE, BUT IT'S NOT JUST LISTED AS A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE.

OH OKAY. SORRY. I WAS LIKE CONFUSED. MAYBE I HAD THE WRONG AGENDA.

OKAY. SO THIS IS AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN. THIS IS ZBA 25-0177.

IT'S FOR 3010 ALTON ROAD. AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, UNIT SIZE, INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE AND ARTIFICIAL GRASS REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO LEGALIZE MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING TWO STORY HOME.

I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A BRIEF UPDATE. THIS IS AN APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN ON THE AGENDA FOR, FOR SOME TIME, FOR SOME AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES DUE TO SOME CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMITS ON THE HOUSE.

AND ALSO THE INSTALLATION OF ARTIFICIAL TURF THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY WITHOUT, WITHOUT A PERMIT.

THE APPLICANT, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY'VE SINCE PROVIDED AS OF THE, AS OF PROBABLY ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, WE RECEIVED AN ENGINEERING STUDY THAT WAS PERFORMED ON THE PROPERTY INDICATING IMPROVEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE MADE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE FLOODING AND DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED AS A RESULT OF THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF.

IT HAS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT INCLUDE REMOVAL OF SOME OF THE ARTIFICIAL TURF, CREATING SOME DEPRESSIONS ON THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR STORMWATER RETENTION TO TAKE PLACE, INSTALLATION OF SOME LANDSCAPING AND SOME OTHER THINGS.

THE. ANALYSIS LOOKS LOOKS GOOD. THE STAFF. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE ITEM BE CONTINUED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT

[00:05:07]

AND SO THAT'S, THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE REGARDING THE TURF.

THEY STILL HAVE THE ISSUE REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS DONE ON THE HOME, WHICH INCLUDED ROOMS AND CONVERSION OF AN OLD GARAGE INTO A, AN EFFICIENCY UNIT. AND FOR THAT STAFF HAS LOOKED AT OPTIONS FOR HOW TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN BECAUSE THE BOARD WAS NOT PLEASED OBVIOUSLY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT, WITHOUT A PERMIT.

NEITHER, NEITHER IS THE CITY. SO SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE LOOKED AT INCLUDED EITHER DEMOLISHING THAT EFFICIENCY UNIT THAT WAS CREATED OUT OF THE GARAGE, WHICH WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE UNIT SIZE OF THE HOME, LIKELY TO THE POINT WHERE THEY THEY WOULD COMPLY AND MAYBE WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCES ANYMORE.

AND THEN THE OTHER OPTION THAT STAFF LOOKED AT WAS RESTORING THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE HOME.

SO THE HOME WE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT SOME AN ORIGINAL PICTURE OF THE HOME, AND IT WAS DONE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL STYLE.

HAD THE OWNER KEPT THAT ORIGINAL LOOK, THEY COULD HAVE HAD THE HOME DESIGNATED AS ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AND DONE MANY OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT VARIANCES.

SO ONE OF THE OPTIONS STAFF HAS LOOKED AT IS WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO RESTORE THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN.

THAT THE HOME ONCE HAD AS A WAY TO SORT OF MITIGATE AGAINST THE VARIANCES, IT WOULD NO LONGER QUALIFY AS ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT'D BE A REINTRODUCTION OF THESE ISSUES, BUT IT WOULD MITIGATE THE, THE IMPACT OF THE VARIANCES BECAUSE IT WOULD, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY FOLLOW THE INTENT OF WHAT THE CITY WANTED TO ACHIEVE, WHICH IS TO PRESERVE THESE, THE LOOK OF THESE, THESE OLDER HOMES. SO THOSE ARE SOME OPTIONS STAFF STEPH WANTED JUST THE BOARD TO DISCUSS, TO SEE IF THERE'S A PREFERENCE, SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO PROCEED WITH ONE OPTION OR THE OTHER, OR IF THERE'S ANY OTHER IDEAS.

THE THIRD OPTION IS TO JUST APPROVE THE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE AND ALLOW THEM TO KEEP IT. BUT I DON'T, YOU KNOW, JUST BASED ON THE DISCUSSION, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S WHERE THE BOARD WANTS TO GO. SO AND WITH THAT, IF YOU WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO JUST HAVE IT, IT'S ENOUGH.

WELL, I DO HAVE TO ADD ONE IMPORTANT FACT. SO GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MICKEY MORERO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, EVERYTHING ROGELIO SAID IS IS ACCURATE. WE DID.

WE PROMISED YOU ALL IN THE SUMMER THAT WE WOULD BE DOING AN ENGINEERING REPORT. TOOK A LITTLE LONGER THAN EXPECTED. SO WE REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE LAST MONTH.

THE REPORT DID COME IN ABOUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

IT GAVE US WHAT WE NEEDED TO GO FORWARD. HOWEVER, A VERY IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT AS YOU UPDATE, AS YOU'LL RECALL FROM THE SUMMER, THERE WAS SOME TENSION HERE BETWEEN MY CLIENT AND HER NEIGHBORS, AND THAT CREATED SOME COMPLICATIONS WITH THE APPLICATION. SHE'S NOW HAS A CONTRACT PURCHASER WHO I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MULTIPLE TIMES.

SO WHEN THIS APPLICATION COMES BACK, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT APPLICANT WITH DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

SO WHILE I WAS RECOMMENDING A ONE MONTH CONTINUANCE, I THINK HE'LL BE OKAY IF I IF WE ASK FOR TWO SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THAT NEW OWNER, THEY'RE EXPECTING TO CLOSE WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, HOPEFULLY.

AND THEN THEY JUST NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH STAFF AND MAYBE MODIFY THINGS A LITTLE BIT.

AND I THINK A MONTH IS A LITTLE BIT TOO SHORT TO MAKE THAT, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST BE BACK HERE ASKING FOR ANOTHER CONTINUANCE, BUT I'VE SPOKEN TO THEM TWICE. THEY ARE UNDER CONTRACT.

AND I THINK, AND I'VE SPOKEN TO THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT IT, AND I THINK THEY WERE PLEASED THAT IT'S GOING TO BE NEW FACES ON THIS. OKAY.

AS ANYONE OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT, I HEAR ANYBODY ON LINE.

OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. ANYBODY ONLINE? IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

NOBODY ONLINE. OKAY. IS THE NEW BUYER AWARE THAT OF NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR VARIANCES, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND THE ABILITY TO GET THE VARIANCES.

YES, I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THEM TWO OCCASIONS AND YOU KNOW, THEY ULTIMATELY PROCEED.

THEY'VE ASKED THAT. I WORK WITH THEM TO FINALIZE THE APPLICATION. THAT'S WHY I SAID HOW IT'S CURRENTLY BEING PRESENTED TO YOU. THERE MAY BE CHANGES BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENT GROUP OF PEOPLE AND THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE SOPHISTICATED WITH DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK THAT THERE MAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH AND TRY AND FIND A SOLUTION THAT BRINGS US BACK IN THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY. OKAY. THEY'RE OKAY IF WE TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE PUT IN WITHOUT A PERMIT.

I MEAN, I WANT TO SIT WITH THEM AND SIT WITH STAFF.

AND OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE PRESENTED THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WILL GO. I HAVEN'T MET WITH THESE FOLKS IN PERSON, BUT I'VE SPOKEN TO THEM TWICE, HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO THEIR ARCHITECT YET. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT STRONGER. SO I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHERE IT WILL END UP. SOUNDS LIKE A LAWSUIT READY TO HAPPEN.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ARE WE SELLING PUBLIC COMMENT OR ARE WE? I CLOSED CLOSE, I DIDN'T OPEN TO THE CHAIR, BUT.

JANET STEPPED IN. SO I FEEL LIKE WE OPENED IT.

GOT IT, GOT IT. YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION TO ESTABLISH IT AS ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.

DID YOU SAY THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S AFTER THE FACT OR THEY COULD.

YEAH. THEY'VE THEY'VE ALREADY DEMOLISHED ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE IT ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT. SO THE HOMES MORE OR LESS HAS THE SAME ORIGINAL SHAPE,

[00:10:08]

SO PUTTING NEW ONES IN TO REPLICATE THAT IS TECHNICALLY NOT ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.

IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR OUR CRITERIA.

BUT IT WOULD HELP IN OUR EYES SORT OF MITIGATE SOME OF THAT, THAT IMPACT.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO OH, CLOSED.

OH. AND WE HAD, WE HAD RECOMMENDED A CONTINUANCE TO THE DECEMBER 4TH MEETING AS WELL.

OKAY. SO THAT'S PERFECT. THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADD ABOUT THAT DECEMBER 4TH MEETING IT IS THE WEEK OF ART BASEL, SO I MAY BE REACHING OUT TO EVERYBODY. WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE DATE THAT MIGHT THAT THE CHAMBERS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET TO THE CHAMBERS THAT THAT WEEK. AND BE ABLE TO PARK.

SO THAT SO I'M LOOKING, I'M LOOKING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE DATE AND I'LL BE REACHING OUT TO, TO, TO YOU ALL TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY PREFERENCE ON, ON A SPECIFIC DATE OR IF THERE'S ANY AVAILABILITY.

ALL RIGHT. I DEFINITELY AGREE TO SWITCH THE DATE.

WE ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM ON THAT AGENDA, ONE NEW APPLICATION ON THAT AGENDA.

BUT IF WE HAVE THE CONTINUED ITEM THEN THERE'LL BE TWO. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE TO THE DECEMBER MEETING.

I'LL MOVE TO CONTINUE. SORRY. YEAH. YEAH. I'LL MOVE TO CONTINUE.

PROCEDURALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. MARRERO. IF THE PROPERTY DOES SELL, THE NEW OWNERS ARE GOING TO COME IN ON JANUARY AND BE ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF'S OPINIONS, OR IS THE PETITION GOING TO BE WITHDRAWN AND REFILED BY THEM.

IT'S NOW THEIR PROPERTY. WE WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY THE APPLICATION TO MAKE THEM THE APPLICANT, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME PAPERWORK. BUT AGAIN, THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED.

WE SUBMITTED THAT ENGINEERING REPORT TWO WEEKS AGO. THIS HAPPENED AFTER THE CONTRACT.

THIS IS ALL VERY NEW. BUT THEY DID HAVE DO HAVE A CONTRACT.

I'VE SPOKEN TO THEM. SO I KNOW THAT THEY'RE ALREADY UNDER CONTRACT. I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THE PLANS YET. IT'S ALL HAPPENED VERY RECENTLY. SO IT MAY BE THAT THEIR VISION MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR CLIENT'S.

IT MAY BE, IT MAY BE, BUT IT MAY BE THAT THEY WANT TO TEAR IT DOWN.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BASED ON MY I CAN TELL YOU THAT THEY DO WANT TO KEEP THE HOME.

AND THE DETAILS ARE. THEY DON'T. I ASKED THAT QUESTION.

THEY DO WANT TO KEEP THE HOME. THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT ALL DOWN. AND THEY WANT TO WORK TO FIND A SOLUTION, BUT THEY'D LIKE TO KEEP IT UNDER THIS APPLICATION. WELL, UNDER ONE OF THOSE PROPOSALS.

PART OF IT'S DEMOLISHING THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

AND IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT, THEN THEY GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE FRONT. AND THOSE ARE THE DETAILS WE GOT TO WORK OUT.

YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE PLANS THAT ARE GOING TO BIND THEM, THAT THEY ACCEPT THAT NO, NO, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE. THAT THAT'S WHY WE NEED TWO MONTHS.

IF WE IN ONE MONTH WE'D BE CLOSING. AND THEN THE HEARING WOULD BE LIKE A FEW DAYS LATER. THAT WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH TIME. YEAH.

I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. ISN'T THE HARDSHIP APPLICATION THAT THE, THE ASTROTURF OR THE WHATEVER IT'S CALLED IS BECAUSE THERE'S A HARDSHIP TO A CURRENT OCCUPANT CHILD IN MEDICAL HARDSHIP. THE ASTROTURF.

ACTUALLY, I WASN'T EXPECTING TO GET INTO THE DETAILS THERE HAVE THEY'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE ASTROTURF. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT SAME ISSUE. THERE'S OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE APPLICATION. BUT THIS APPLICANT, I BELIEVE, IS GOING TO MOVE IT TO GRASS AND PERMEABLE SUBSTANCES NOT NOT AFTER ASTROTURF.

OKAY. SO THE ENGINEERING REPORT, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE REDESIGN IS, IS SORT OF IRRELEVANT.

NOT ENTIRELY. BECAUSE IF AGAIN, THE AT THE JUNE HEARING, THERE WERE CONCERNS BECAUSE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL MASSING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED, STAFF ALSO MENTIONED THAT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE FLOODING. SO I STILL THINK IT'S GERMANE TO THE DISCUSSION, NOT AS TO THE TURF, BUT AS TO THE ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE. YES. OKAY.

SO YEAH, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT I DIDN'T PICK UP ON.

SO DON'T WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO CONTINUE IN A SENSE, BECAUSE NO ONE'S BEING BOUND TO ANYTHING BY CONTINUING, ARE WE? IT'S SORT OF LIKE WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE NEW OWNER.

EXACTLY. I MEAN. I MEAN, LOOK, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS THAT WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE IS IF A NEW OWNER IS COMING IN TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO, WHAT THEIR POSITION IS, SO TO SPEAK.

THAT'S IF THE PETITION IS KEPT OPEN. IF THEY'RE NOT WITHDRAWING THEIR APPLICATION AND I MEAN, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE CONTINUE IT AND THEN THE NEW OWNERS DON'T WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION ANYWAY, BUT I GUESS NO HARM THEY COULD WITHDRAW THEN. YEAH. I MEAN THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF THAT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THEY'VE INDICATED TO ME THEY WANT TO CONTINUE WITH IT. I'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM. BUT AGAIN THAT MAY CHANGE.

BUT I THINK IF CONTINUING TODAY THERE'S NO HARM BECAUSE IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEY COULD WITHDRAW AT ANY TIME.

SO YOU'RE SAYING WE COULD CONTINUE IT? WE COULD LOSE TWO MONTHS.

THEN THEY WOULD DRAW IT, AND WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. WELL, IF THEY WITHDRAW IT, THEN WE NEVER HEAR IT IN JANUARY.

IF THEY WITHDRAW IT, THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE IS ISSUED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BEGIN DEMOLISHING EVERY SINGLE IMPROVEMENT THAT WAS DONE.

AND I THINK THERE'S AN UNSAFE STRUCTURES. YEAH.

THERE ARE BUILDING VIOLATIONS CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY FOR THIS WORK.

[00:15:02]

SO IF THE CONTINUANCE IS DENIED, THEN THE HEARING WOULD BE TODAY.

AND YOU COULD EITHER GRANT OR DENY THE PETITION OR THEY COULD WITHDRAW IT.

CAN IT BE TRANSFERRED TO NEW OWNERSHIP? THE PETITION? YES. YOU CAN MODIFY THE APPLICATION, THE MODIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION.

BUT AGAIN, NOT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF KNOWING WHO THESE PARTIES ARE, I DON'T THINK STAFF KNOWS WHAT THEIR TRUE INTENTIONS ARE.

IT'S JUST THE PROFFER BY MR. MARRERO THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTINUE ON ABSENT TURF MODIFICATION.

RIGHT. AND AGAIN, MY WELL, WE MENTIONED WITHDRAWAL, MY FULL EXPECTATION AFTER DISCUSSING IT WITH THESE FOLKS.

AND IT MAY BE THAT I DO REPRESENT THEM TOO. THAT'S THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE APPLICATION. I'VE EXPLAINED IT TO THEM.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE MAY BE SOME MODIFICATIONS, BUT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE WITH THE APPLICATION AND MODIFY IT AS A NEW APPLICANT. AND BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THERE ARE VIOLATIONS. WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMITS.

IT HAS TO BE RESOLVED. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE COMING INTO THIS.

AND MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY WILL KEEP THE APPLICATION MOVING FORWARD.

OKAY. BUT DON'T WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO? I MEAN, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT COMES IN JANUARY.

IF YOU CONTINUE THE MEETING OR WE MAKE A DECISION NOW BASED ON YOUR OWNERSHIP.

WHAT'S THAT LIKE ON FUTURE OWNERSHIP? YEAH. BASED ON CURRENT OWNERSHIP, IT'S LIKE SHOOTING IN THE DARK ALMOST.

IF THE. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE. THE NEW OWNER ALSO WANTED THIS CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PROCEED WITH IT.

I'M CONCERNED THAT IF NOT GRANTED, THEY WOULD THEN BE CONCERNED ABOUT EVEN STAYING ON THE CONTRACT.

THEY DO WANT TO TAKE IT OVER. THEY UNDERSTAND THE VARIANCES AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON.

I'VE DONE IT SEVERAL TIMES DURING AN APPLICATION PROCESS.

THERE'S A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. WE HAVE TO MODIFY THE APPLICATION PAGES, BUT THE APPLICATION CAN REMAIN VALID.

AND ONCE THEY CLOSE, WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS AND BE BACK BEFORE YOU.

HOPEFULLY WITH THAT NEW OWNER, POSSIBLY WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANS, THE TWO MONTHS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY DO THAT.

IF THEY WANT, THEY MAY NOT. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ALL VERY, VERY NEW.

WHEN'S CLOSING SCHEDULED FOR? THEY ENTER INTO CONTRACT ABOUT 4 OR 5 DAYS AGO THAT WE'RE TALKING SINCE LAST WEEK.

I BELIEVE THEY PLAN TO CLOSE AT THE END OF THE MONTH. ARE THE FINES FOR THE CODE VIOLATIONS BY THE EXISTING OWNER PAID IN FULL? NO, THEY THEY ARE NOT. THEY'RE ACCRUING FINES.

IF THE FINES HAVE NOT STOPPED, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DOCKET ON THOSE THINGS. BUT THAT'S ONCE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE, THEN THEY HAVE, THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR MITIGATION. NORMALLY, A CLOSING AGENT WILL ESCROW SOME FUNDS PENDING THE APPLICATION FOR MITIGATION.

SO IN ORDER FOR TITLE TO TRANSFER, THOSE FUNDS NEED TO BE PAID.

YEAH. ARE THEY. I'M ASKING KNOW THE THE LIEN THE LIENS WOULD EITHER NEED TO BE SUBORDINATED OR TAKEN CARE OF IF THEY REQUIRE FULL PAYMENT. THEN THE LIEN WOULD BE RELEASED. THE VIOLATION IS STILL OPEN.

THEY MAY NOT BE HAVING A LENDER AND THAT MAY BE THE WAY THAT THEY'RE CLOSING.

BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO LENDER AND IT'S A CASH CONTRACT, THEN LIEN JUST REMAINS IN PLACE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THROUGH AN ESCROW AGREEMENT.

SO I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE CLOSING, BUT IT JUST SEEMS THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE NEW BUYER NECESSARILY WANTS TO BE BOUND BY YOUR DECISION.

IF WE WENT FORWARD TO TODAY, OR THEY WANT TO SUBMIT THEIR OWN APPLICATION OR WITHDRAW IT.

I MEAN, IT'S ALL SPECULATIVE. THE PARTIES, NOT EVEN HERE.

RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE TALKING TO THE NEW PARTY, RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. I MEAN, LIKE JUST AS A LAWYER AND ETHICS, ETHICS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I THINK THAT THE NEW PARTY SHOULD KNOW HOW DISMAYED THIS BOARD WAS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THAT ABSENT A CONTINUANCE, THERE WAS A GOOD CHANCE THAT THIS BOARD WAS GOING TO DENY THESE REQUESTS. SO I THINK THAT IN ALL FAIRNESS, A NEW PURCHASER SHOULD BE TOLD THAT.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE BOARD? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE? YEAH, I MOVED TO I MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I'M OPPOSED. OPPOSED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT MAY BE THE LONGEST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

NEXT UP IS ZBA 260201, ALSO KNOWN AS ZBA 250191 AND ZBA

[3. ZBA26-0201, FKA ZBA25-0191 & ZBA24-0162, 1691 MICHIGAN AVENUE]

[00:20:03]

SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE FLOOR PLAN TO INCORPORATE A FULL KITCHEN IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FULL MEALS.

SO THIS IS AN APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD OF TWO PRIOR TIMES FOR EACH TIME FOR SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN FOR THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT. THIS IS ON A IN THE BUILDING THAT'S LOCATED AT 1691 MICHIGAN.

IT'S ON LAND THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY, BUT THERE IS A PRIVATE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT WITH A LONG TERM LEASE FROM THE CITY.

THIS BUILDING HAS RECENTLY BEEN REMODELED SIGNIFICANTLY.

I ACTUALLY GOT TO TOUR THE SITE ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, AND IT'S REALLY NICE WHAT THEY'VE DONE WITH THE BUILDING COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE.

THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS ALREADY OPEN AND FUNCTIONING.

THEY AS, AS JUST A, AS A BAR AND THEY ARE REQUESTING SOME MODIFICATIONS.

SO THEY HAVE AN AREA BEHIND THE BAR THAT THEY WANT TO INCORPORATE INTO THE SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADD A KITCHEN SO THAT THEY CAN ADD MEAL SERVICE.

THAT ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT REDUCES THE SCOPE OF THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT, IT BECOMES A RESTAURANT AND THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO NOT NEED THE VARIANCE FROM THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.

IT WOULD ONLY NEED THE VARIANCE FROM THE SCHOOL AS A RESTAURANT, HOWEVER THEY WANT TO KEEP THE VARIANCES SO THEY HAVE SOME OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN CASE THERE'S DAYS WHERE THE WHERE THE KITCHEN'S NOT OPERATING, BUT THEY STILL WANT TO BE ABLE TO SERVE DRINKS. SO AS A RESTAURANT, THE VARIANCE LESSENS. BUT THEY STILL WANT THAT OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY.

SO THEY WANT TO KEEP BOTH VARIANCES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED PREVIOUSLY BY THE BOARD.

THE ADDITIONALLY AND THIS WAS NOT NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THIS IS A DECISION THE APPLICANT MADE AND THEY'LL BE, THEY'LL BE PRESENTING THAT AS PART OF THEIR PRESENTATION.

THERE WAS AN EMPLOYEE LOUNGE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

THE FIRST TIME IT CAME AROUND, THEY REMOVED IT THE SECOND TIME THE APPLICATION CAME AROUND AND THEY WANT TO REINCORPORATE.

THAT THE REASON THEY WANT TO REINCORPORATE THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE IS BECAUSE THE FIRE CODE IS REQUIRING THIS LOCATION TO HAVE A SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS.

ONE OF THE MEANS OF EGRESS THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD ON THEIR PLANS ALSO INCLUDED PRIVATE LIQUOR LOCKERS FOR THE VIP.

TENANTS OF THE BUILDING. AND SO THE FIRE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW THAT TO COUNT AS AN EXIT BECAUSE LIQUOR IS FLAMMABLE.

SO THEY ARE REINTRODUCING THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE AS PART OF THEIR SITE PLAN SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE A SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

WE HAD SOME CONDITIONS IN THE ORDER ALLOWING THEM TO INCORPORATE THAT BUT NOT SELL ALCOHOL THERE.

I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SELL ALCOHOL THERE.

THE REASON WE INCLUDED THAT WAS BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS AN ISSUE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES FOR THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE, BUT NOW THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY THOSE IMPACT FEES. SO STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO INCORPORATING THAT AREA AS PART OF THE, AS PART OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT. IF YOU TOUR THE SITE, THIS IS ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE BUILDING.

THERE'S NO IMPACTS TO THE EXTERIOR. THEY, THEY'VE COMPLETED THEIR DRIVEWAY ALONG, WHICH COMES OFF OF 17TH STREET.

IT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY THE FIRST TIME I'M IMPRESSED BY A DRIVEWAY.

THE DESIGN OF IT, THE LIGHTING, AND EVERYTHING IS DONE REALLY NICELY.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT DRIVEWAY HAS A WALL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE THAT PREVENTS ANY IMPACTS TO IMPACT ANYTHING FROM IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

SO ALL THE SOUND IS CONTAINED WITHIN THAT DRIVEWAY AREA.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S NO IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS.

WITH THESE CHANGES. WE PREVIOUSLY HAD A CONDITION IN THE ORDER REQUIRING THAT DRIVEWAY TO BE COMPLETED.

AND THEY'VE DONE SO, SO, SO WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.

SO WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED. THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUGGESTING SOME OTHER CHANGES REGARDING THAT EMPLOYEE LOUNGE THAT WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THOSE CHANGES. ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. IT'S TEN MINUTES. GOOD. YEAH. THAT WORKS. SHOULD BE LESS THAN THAT. GOOD MORNING, NICHOLAS RODRIGUEZ. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

HAPPY FRIDAY. NICOLAS RODRIGUEZ. 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD.

I'M HERE JOINED BY MITCH TOLZIEN, WHO'S BEEN ASSISTING WITH THIS APPLICATION.

AND WE'RE HERE REPRESENTING THE BLACK LION RESTAURANT GROUP THAT'S A SUBSIDIARY OF RK REZVANI LLC, WHO'S THE MASTER TENANT UNDER A GROUND LEASE WITH THE CITY.

SO IMPORTANTLY, THE CITY IS THE LANDLORD HERE.

SO THE BETTER THAT THE BUILDING DOES, THE BETTER THAT THESE VENUES DO, THE MORE RENT THAT THE CITY EARNS ON THIS BUILDING.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT. SO AS ROGELIO MENTIONED, THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS TO MODIFY THE FLOOR PLAN.

IT'S REALLY TWO REASONS. THE FIRST REASON WAS ADDING THE KITCHEN AND CREATING A RESTAURANT OUT OF THIS SPEAKEASY.

IT'S A JAPANESE STYLE SPEAKEASY. IT'S CALLED BAR SHISHI.

IT'S OPEN AND OPERATING. WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO IS SERVE LIKE JAPANESE STYLE LIGHT BITES,

[00:25:03]

AND THEN THE SECOND ISSUE WAS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY RAISED AN ISSUE RIGHT BEFORE THE GRAND OPENING AS WE WERE CLOSING OUT THE LICENSES.

AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT PREVIOUSLY WASN'T PICKED UP IN PERMITTING, AND IT WAS KIND OF AN 11TH HOUR ISSUE THAT WE CAME UP WITH A TEMPORARY SOLUTION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT WE TOLD THEM WE WOULD MODIFY THE FLOOR PLAN IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERN.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, REQUESTING TO RECOMBINE THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE AND THE SPEAKEASY SPACE THAT WE'LL SHOW YOU IN A MOMENT.

IF WE COULD CALL UP THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE.

SO JUST ORIENTED TO THE PROPERTY. IT'S A 17TH STREET BETWEEN MICHIGAN AND JEFFERSON AVENUE, JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM HERE.

IT'S ZONED C THREE. IT'S THE MOST INTENSE ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY.

IT DOES PERMIT RESTAURANTS AND BARS. THE ONLY ISSUE IS THAT WE'RE RIGHT ON THE EDGE, RIGHT NEXT TO PALM VIEW, WITHIN THE DISTANCE OF THE JOSE MARTI SCHOOL AND THE SYNAGOGUE, WHO WE'VE CONSISTENTLY REACHED OUT TO.

THEY HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THIS APPLICATION. THEY HAVE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE APPLICATION, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE AT THE BUILDING AND AS WELL AS THE JEFFERSONIAN CONDO.

SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THE SPEAKEASY IS OPEN. THAT'S A RENDERING OF IT ON THE TOP RIGHT.

AND THAT'S THE VALET AREA THAT ROGELIO WAS MENTIONING ON THE LOWER RIGHT HAND SIDE.

IT IS COMPLETED AND THE JEFFERSONIAN THERE. ONE COMMENT WHEN WE GAVE THEM A HEADS UP ABOUT THIS APPLICATION WAS HOW THRILLED THEY WERE WITH THE VALLEY AREA AND HOW IT CAME OUT BECAUSE THEY. EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO BANK OPERATING IN THAT SPACE, IT WAS A DARK SPACE THAT WAS CREATING ISSUES FOR THEIR BUILDING.

SO THEY'RE REALLY HAPPY WITH THAT WATER FEATURE AND WALL THAT PREVENTS NOISE FROM, FROM SPILLING OVER.

AND THEY'RE JUST REALLY HAPPY WITH THE WAY IT CAME OUT OVERALL.

AND AS WE WERE MENTIONING, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN COMPLETELY RENOVATED.

IF YOU DRIVE BY THE BUILDING, YOU'LL SEE THIS IS A PHOTO FROM A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

IT EVEN LOOKS BETTER THAN THIS. NOW AS THEY CONTINUE TO PUT FINISHING TOUCHES ON IT, IT'S BEEN OVER $50 MILLION OF MONEY PUT INTO THIS CITY ASSET INCLUDING THE SPEAKEASY THAT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED HOW THE BUILDING LOOKS AND HOW IT FUNCTIONS AND HOW IT RELATES TO ITS NEIGHBORS.

THIS IS THE VALLEY AREA, AND IT'S A BETTER SHOT BECAUSE YOU SEE THE JEFFERSONIAN CONDO ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE THAT BUILDING IS. AND BEFORE THAT SOLID WALL WAS THERE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.

IT WAS JUST OPEN TO BALCONIES THAT WERE THERE.

SO UP TO NOW WE'VE HAD NO ISSUES WITH LATE NIGHT VALET NOISE IMPACTING THE JEFFERSONIAN.

THEY'RE REALLY HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS HAVE TURNED OUT.

THAT VALET AREA HAS MORE THAN ENOUGH QUEUING SPACE FOR FOR THE AMOUNT OF CARS THAT THEY'RE HANDLING.

AND IT HAS BEEN A PRODUCTIVE, GOOD OPERATION.

AND IF YOU SEE PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOW IT CAME OUT, EVEN I WAS IMPRESSED.

THAT'S HOW CLOSE THE ACTUAL FINISHED PRODUCT CAME TO THE RENDERINGS.

AND WELCOME TO PASS BY ANYTIME THEY'RE DOWN THE STREET.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE SPEAKEASY. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE LOOK AND FEEL, IT REALLY LOOKS A LOT LIKE THIS.

THIS IS THE SHARED CORRIDOR THAT ROGELIO WAS MENTIONING.

THIS. IF YOU TURN LEFT OFF OF THIS CORRIDOR, YOU GO INTO THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

IF YOU TURN RIGHT, YOU GO INTO THE SPEAKEASY AND THERE'S A HOSTESS STAND AT THE END OF THE CORRIDOR.

THOSE ARE LOCKERS. ON THE SIDES ARE VIP ARE LIQUOR STORAGE CABINETS FOR VIP TENANTS IN THE BUILDING.

THE BUILDING IS A CLASS X OFFICE SPACE. IT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE LIKE ELEVATED AMENITIES, WHICH IS ONE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE AMENITIES THAT THEY PROVIDE.

THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE IS REALLY INTENDED AS MORE OF A SPACE, A COMMUNAL SPACE FOR THE BUILDING.

AND THE SPEAKEASY IS A COMMERCIAL BAR. BUT AS THE THE APPLICATION HAS PROGRESSED, THERE'S BEEN A DESIRE TO USE THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE AREA AS OVERFLOW, PERHAPS STORAGE FOR BACK OF HOUSE OR FOR EVENTS, BECAUSE THE SPEAKEASY IS A LITTLE BIT TIGHT.

SO THE HISTORY OF THIS IS IN 2024. THIS VARIANCE CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD.

IT WAS APPROVED ORIGINALLY WITH A FLOOR PLAN THAT INCLUDED BOTH THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE AND THE SPEAKEASY.

THEN IN 2025, WE MODIFIED THE FLOOR PLAN TO REMOVE THE THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO PAY IMPACT FEES FOR AN AREA WHERE WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE SERVING ALCOHOL OR FOOD.

IT WAS REALLY JUST A KIND OF A COMMUNAL SPACE FOR THE BUILDING. AS I MENTIONED, WE WENT THROUGH PERMITTING AND LICENSING AT THE VERY LAST MOMENT, FIRE SAYS, ACTUALLY, WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY THAT THIS THAT YOU'VE SEPARATED THESE TWO VENUES.

THEY SHARE A COMMON CORRIDOR, SO THEY NEED TO BE ALL CONSIDERED AS PART OF ONE VENUE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY TO FIX AS WELL AS ADDING THE KITCHEN.

SO THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON THE TOP, THE GREEN BOX ON THE TOP, YOU SEE THE KITCHEN, IT'S PRETTY SMALL. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE A HUGE RESTAURANT OPERATION JUST TO PREPARE KIND OF LIGHT BITES AND BAR FOOD.

AND ON THE BOTTOM GREEN BOX THAT IS THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S SEPARATED BY THAT CENTRAL CORRIDOR THAT WE SAW THE RENDERING OF.

AND WE BASICALLY ARE JUST COMBINING IT ALL AS ONE VENUE SPACE.

WE'RE REQUESTING MODIFICATIONS OF THE CONDITIONS TO REFLECT THE TOTAL SEAT COUNT, WHICH IS 128 SEATS AND AN OCCUPANCY OF 171 PERSONS.

JUST SO YOU SEE THE KIND OF THE EVOLUTION, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.

[00:30:01]

ORIGINALLY WE HAD PROPOSED 97 SEATS FOR BOTH SPACES.

IT TURNS OUT A FEW MORE SEATS ACTUALLY FIT IN THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

SO WE'RE UPDATING THAT SEAT COUNT. THEN IN 2025, WE COMPLETELY REMOVED THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT SHARED CORRIDOR IS PART OF THE SPEAKEASY.

AND THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PICKED UP ON.

THEY DIDN'T WANT THE, THE THE HALLWAY TO BE SHARED BETWEEN THE TWO SPACES, BUT THEN BE CONSIDERED SEPARATE SPACES.

AND THEN THIS IS THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE WITH TODAY'S ORDER.

IT HAS 128 SEATS. YOU SEE THE KITCHEN ON THE TOP OF THE IMAGE, THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE WITH THE CORRECT LABELING OF THE NUMBER OF SEATS THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THERE. IT'S FULLY BUILT. IT'S ALREADY THERE. IT WASN'T DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.

IT WAS DONE COMPLETELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PERMITS. IT'S JUST HOW THE SEATS ACTUALLY LAID OUT WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY PUT THE FURNITURE. SO IN TERMS OF MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS, WE HAVE A HANDOUT TO MAKE IT EASY, BUT IT'S CONDITION TWO SETS FORTH THE OCCUPANT CONTENT AND THE SEAT COUNT.

SO WE'RE JUST UPDATING THAT TO REFLECT THE FLOOR PLAN AS IT'S ACTUALLY BUILT.

WE'RE REQUESTING TO STRIKE CONDITION THREE, WHICH WAS THE CONDITION THAT PROHIBITED ALCOHOL AND FOOD SERVICE IN THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

AGAIN, THEY'D LIKE TO USE THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY THEIR INTENT TO USE IT REGULARLY, BUT THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO USE IT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PAY IMPACT FEES FOR IT. AND THEN THE THIRD THING IS JUST WE'D LIKE TO SWAP IN THE NEW FLOOR PLAN AS THE CONTROLLING FLOOR PLAN, ATTACH IT TO TODAY'S ORDER, JUST TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AS TO WHICH FLOOR PLAN SINCE THERE'S BEEN SO MANY IN THE RECORD NOW.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL. I'D LIKE TO OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE OR ON ZOOM? IS ANYONE ON ZOOM? IF YOU'RE ONLINE AND YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ARE THERE ANY DISCLOSURES? DISCLOSURES. NO THANK YOU. NO HANDS RAISED ON ZOOM.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN TO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

I HAVE A QUESTION. SO THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE PART IS ACTUALLY ALMOST AS LARGE AS THE.

YES. IT'S ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THE ACTUAL SPEAKEASY.

CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO AND THAT'S MEANT TO BE AN AMENITY, PRIMARILY AN AMENITY FOR THE BUILDING.

CORRECT. BUT IN YOUR APPLICATION NOW YOU'RE YOU ARE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PART OF THE ACTUAL ORDER, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE POTENTIALLY GOING TO USE THAT FOR PUBLIC, NOT JUST PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE BUILDING.

CORRECT. AFTER HOURS WHEN THE AFTER OFFICE HOURS, WHEN THE OFFICE COMPONENT IS NOT TYPICALLY OPERATING, ISN'T THAT WHEN THE SPEAKEASY IS MOSTLY OPERATING, WHEN THE SPEAKEASY IS OPERATING, THEN THEY'D BE ABLE TO USE THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE AS OVERFLOW. WOULD THAT CHANGE ANYTHING? LIKE IF IF THIS WAS AN ENTIRE WHATEVER IT IS, 3500FT² OF OF JUST SPEAKEASY AS OPPOSED TO BROKEN UP INTO TWO SPACES. WOULD THAT CHANGE ANYTHING AS PART OF THE VARIANCES THAT ARE NECESSARY? IT JUST CHANGES THE OVERALL OCCUPANCY. THE VARIANCE STILL HAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, WHICH REQUIRES IT BETWEEN 8 A.M.

AND 5:59 P.M. SALES OF ALCOHOL ARE ONLY PERMITTED FOR FOR TENANTS OF THE BUILDING AND THEIR INVITED GUESTS.

SO PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COME INTO THE ESTABLISHMENT DURING DAYTIME HOURS WHEN SCHOOL COULD THEORETICALLY IS IN SESSION.

WE TRY TO AVOID ALCOHOL SALES DURING SCHOOL HOURS.

AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC BETWEEN 6 P.M.

AND 2 A.M. SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND 6 P.M.

AND 2:30 A.M. ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS. OKAY.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE IN THE CODE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD SAY THAT IF THE SCHOOL WASN'T THERE AND THEY DIDN'T NEED ANY VARIANCES, IF THEY JUST HAD A 4000 SQUARE FOOT SPEAKEASY ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF AN OFFICE BUILDING, THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE IT WOULD HAVING A LOT OF ISSUES, RIGHT? YEAH. AS LONG AS YOUR OCCUPANCY IS BELOW 199 PEOPLE, YOU CAN GO BY, RIGHT AND HAVE ENTERTAINMENT AND ALCOHOL SOLD BY RIGHT.

AND THEY STILL DO BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR 170, 171.

CORRECT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. NAGLER? YEAH. TWO QUESTIONS. WE'RE EVEN THOUGH WE'RE CALLING IT AN EMPLOYEE LOUNGE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS DURING THE DAY. IT'S SPEAKEASY AT NIGHT.

IT'S IT LOOKS IF YOU GO THERE, IT LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE SPEAKEASY AREA.

BUT YEAH, IT'S AT NIGHT. IT WOULD BE PART OF THE SPEAKEASY.

IT'S FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED.

THE ALCOHOL PROVIDED EVERYTHING. IT IS THE SPEAKEASY.

CORRECT. SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY MORE THAN DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE SPEAKEASY.

WE'RE DOUBLING IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BACK IN 2024.

IT INCLUDED THAT AREA. AND WHAT WAS, IF YOU COULD REMIND ME, WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF NUMBER THREE,

[00:35:03]

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE REMOVED THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE AREA.

BUT SINCE THEY'RE OKAY PAYING THE IMPACT FEES NOW THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE THE CONDITION THERE.

OKAY. PAYING THE IMPACT FEES BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE THAN DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THEIR PART.

CORRECT. WE CHARGE WE CHARGE BY SQUARE FOOT AND IT'S FOR, FOR A BAR, THE FEE IS PRETTY HIGH AND THEY WANT TO, TO AVOID THAT. BUT NOW IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE OKAY PAYING THE FEE, THEN WE HAVE NO ISSUE ALLOWING THEM TO INCLUDE THAT AREA AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY JUST CLARIFY, IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT SPACE AND IT'S NOT REALLY INTENDED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PACK BOTH SPACES.

THEY REALLY JUST, THEY'RE HAVING TROUBLE STORING SOME OF THEIR MATERIALS AS BACK OF HOUSE WITHIN THE TIGHT SPEAKEASY.

AND THEN SOMETIMES THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE EVENTS AND THINGS, BUT THEY'RE NOT. THEIR INTENT REALLY ISN'T TO FILL IT BOTH SPACES UP BECAUSE THAT WOULD CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE. IT'S REALLY NICE, AND THEY DON'T WANT THEIR EMPLOYEE LOUNGE TO BASICALLY TURN INTO A BAR. I GET THAT, BUT BUT YOU COULD, THEY COULD, THEY COULD IF THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND, LET'S SAY TRUE.

OKAY. YEAH. IF YOU GO THERE NOW, THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED, IT'S CLEARLY AN EMPLOYEE LOUNGE.

IT LOOKS THE, THE, THE DECOR IS NOT AS ELEVATED AS THE SPEAKEASY AREA ITSELF.

SO I JUST FROM LOOKING AT IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WANT TO KEEP IT LIKE AN EMPLOYEE LOUNGE, BUT THEY COULD ALWAYS REDECORATE.

YOU KNOW. YEAH, YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. YOU CAN GO FIRST. JUST GO AHEAD. IF I MAY SUGGEST YOUR DOORWAY GOING FROM THE LIVING ROOM TO THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE VESTIBULE AND FROM THE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE VESTIBULE TO THE FOYER MAY HAVE TO SWING OUT FOR FIRE CODE REGULATIONS. SO FOR THE FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE, YOU MAY WANT TO ASK ABOUT.

DOORS HAVE TO SWING OUT SO PEOPLE CAN GET OUT OF THAT AREA IN CASE OF A FIRE.

OKAY. WE'LL WE'LL NOTE THAT ON THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE TO RUN THIS THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH US VERY CLOSELY ON, ON DEVELOPING THIS AND MAY HAVE JUST BEEN ONE THING THAT WE DIDN'T CATCH, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT. MR.. DO YOU WANT TO. SURE.

I THINK JUST WHAT EVERYONE'S BASICALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS AS OF RIGHT, THIS IS WHAT ORIGINALLY THE PLAN WAS, THEY'RE REVERTING TO THAT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE. AND AS FAR AS THE KITCHEN, THAT'S ALSO THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY WHAT'S THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING AS FAR AS THE KITCHEN IS CONCERNED, WE'RE JUST STRIKING IT FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION OF NOT HAVING FOOD.

YOU'RE NOT ADDING A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE KITCHEN.

IT'S MODIFYING THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. SO BY ADDING AN ADDITIONAL AREA, THEY'RE MODIFYING THEIR THEIR SITE PLAN AND BECAUSE THEY'RE MODIFYING THE SITE PLAN, THAT HAS TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. OKAY. THE IMPACT OBVIOUSLY WILL BE A LOT MORE SIGNIFICANT BY HAVING A KITCHEN AND SERVING FOOD.

BUT FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, IT'S WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO DO THAT EITHER WAY.

YES, THEY COULD, THEY COULD. IT'S THAT THEY'RE ADDING AN AREA TO THE, TO THE, TO THE, TO.

THEY'RE ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE AREA THAT THE VARIANCE ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED TO SELL ALCOHOL.

SO BY ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE THEIR SITE PLAN IS BEING MODIFIED.

THEY NEEDED TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO, TO MODIFY THAT SITE PLAN.

THE KITCHEN ACTUALLY LESSENS THE IMPACT OF THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE CODE ONLY ONLY REQUIRES THAT DISTANCE SEPARATION FROM FOR RESTAURANTS, FROM SCHOOLS. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SAME DISTANCE SEPARATION FROM RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

SO ACROSS THE STREET THEY HAVE THE CUBAN HEBREW SYNAGOGUE.

AND SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE DISTANCE SEPARATION FROM THE SYNAGOGUE AS A RESTAURANT, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S TIMES WHEN THEY MAY NOT BE SERVING FOOD, THEY WANT TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. KOENIG. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. HAVE A VERY GOOD WEEKEND. I LOOK FORWARD TO LOOKING AT COMING TO CHECK OUT YOUR VENUE.

IT'S VERY NICE. YOU SHOULD CHECK IT OUT. IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL. MOVING ON TO NEW APPLICATIONS.

[4. ZBA26-0207, 5801 ALTON ROAD]

JUST NORTH OF 50 ON THE CORNER PROPERTY LOCATED ON 58TH AND ALTON ROAD.

[00:40:02]

IT'S A LOT SIZE. THAT'S 14,556FT². AND IT HAS A LOT WIDTH OF 116FT AND A LOT DEPTH OF 125FT.

THE LOT IS SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR WHICH, WHICH CREATES A HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT.

IT'S NOT A PERFECT SQUARE. IT HAS AN ANGLE THAT THAT, THAT CAUSES THE FRONT THE LOT TO BE WIDER IN THE FRONT THAN IT IS IN THE REAR.

IT'S NARROWER IN THE REAR, WHICH CREATES SOME DIFFICULTIES FOR THEM AND JUSTIFIES ONE OF THE HARDSHIPS THAT THEY'RE ONE OF THE VARIANCES THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.

SO THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO READ THE THREE. IT'S THE FIRST ONE IS THE SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE. IT'S A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 7223 B ONE.

TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE SECOND FLOOR TO HAVE A FRONT SETBACK OF APPROXIMATELY 30FT WHERE 40FT IS REQUIRED.

AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS RELATED. IT'S THE SECOND FLOOR FRONT ELEVATION SETBACK VARIANCE.

IT'S A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 7223B2B FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST 35% OF THE SECOND FLOOR FRONT ELEVATION BE SET BACK AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK. SO THIS THIS APPLICATION, IT'S IT'S A TWO STORY HOME, BUT THEY ARE BUILDING A SMALL SECOND STORY.

IT'S NOT A VERY LARGE SECOND STORY LIKE WE WOULD TYPICALLY SEE.

AND ONLY A PORTION OF THAT SECOND STORY IS ENCROACHING INTO THE IS IS ENCROACHING BEYOND THE 40 FOOT SETBACK LINE.

SO THE CODE PROVIDES THAT WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST FLOOR AT 20FT, YOUR SECOND FLOOR HAS TO BE SET BACK TO 40FT, A PORTION OF THEIR SECOND FLOOR, I BELIEVE IT'S A STAIRCASE IS ENCROACHING INTO THAT INTO THAT SETBACK AREA.

AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THAT. THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP AND THAT IT'S ONLY IT'S A IT'S A SMALL ELEMENT.

GIVEN THE SITE PLAN AND THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO PROVIDE THAT STAIRCASE ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE SITE PLAN.

SO THEY ARE, THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND ARE JUSTIFYING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND HARDSHIP GIVEN THE, THE, THE SHAPE OF THE LOT. THE OTHER VARIANTS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT 35% OF THE SECOND FLOOR FRONT ELEVATION BE SET BACK AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK. SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE 35FT OF THAT TWO STORY OF THE SECOND FLOOR PART TO BE SET BACK TO 45FT.

GIVEN THAT IT'S SUCH A SMALL SECOND FLOOR, REQUIRING 35% OF THAT TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT.

THE INTENT OF THIS CODE REQUIREMENT IS WHEN YOU HAVE A FULL SECOND FLOOR THAT GOES FROM END TO END, THAT 35% OF THAT BE SET BACK AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A GIANT FLAT FACADE HOME.

YOU HAVE A HOME THAT HAS A FACADE, THAT HAS SOME MOVEMENT, AND THEY COMPLY WITH THE INTENT OF THAT.

GIVEN THAT IT IS SUCH A SMALL SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, IT DOES NOT COVER THE WHOLE WIDTH OF THAT OF THAT FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THAT HOME.

SO STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE GRANTING OF THAT VARIANCE. THE NEXT ONE IS FOR A SIDE FACING A STREET SETBACK VARIANCE.

IT'S A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 7223 B1 FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE FACING A STREET SETBACK TO ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 79FT² OF AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK.

SO THEY HAVE A STAIRCASE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO GO TO THAT SECOND LEVEL.

GIVEN THE SHAPE OF THE OF THE LOT, THE END OF THAT STAIRCASE ENCROACHES INTO THE 15 FOOT SETBACK.

IT'S A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE, AS I SAID, THE LOT IS WIDER IN THE FRONT THAN IT IS IN THE BACK.

SO ONLY A REALLY SMALL PORTION IS ENCROACHING INTO THAT 15 FOOT SIDE FACING A STREET SETBACK.

SO THAT DOES CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT.

THE, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A CORNER LOT, IT'S ON A STREET END.

IT DOESN'T IMPACT ANY NEIGHBORS. THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO PROPERTIES THAT HAVE A ENCROACHMENT THAT BRINGS THE, THE, THE, THE, THE STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THEIR HOME.

IT'S NOT A FULL ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. IT'S JUST AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE.

AND SO THEY DO HAVE A HARDSHIP. THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

SO STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE GRANTING OF THAT VARIANCE AS WELL. SO WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE BEFORE WE START ANY DISCLOSURES.

THANKS FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. IT'S TEN MINUTES.

GOOD. YES THANK YOU. STATE YOUR NAME AND. SURE.

GOOD MORNING. MATT BURKE, HOWARD L FERNANDEZ LARKIN AND OFFICES AT 200 SOUTH BOULEVARD IN MIAMI HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE BRADLEY CARLSON REVOCABLE TRUST. AND I ACTUALLY HAVE THE OWNERS ARE BRAD AND TROY.

WE HAVE OUR ARCHITECT FROM STRANG BLANCA MARTINEZ, AND HAVE BEEN ASSISTED BY MY COLLEAGUE ZACH BENJELLOUN, WHO HANDED OUT OUR NEIGHBOR SUPPORT. WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION, IF WE CAN CALL THAT UP, PLEASE.

SO YEAH, THIS PROPERTY IS ON UPPER ALTON ROAD.

IT'S VERY UNIQUELY SITUATED. BESIDES, AS ROGELIO MENTIONED, THE THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT.

[00:45:06]

THERE'S ALTON ROAD AT THE FRONT, WHICH IS A VERY WIDE OVER 100 FOOT YOU KNOW, MEDIAN BOULEVARD.

AND THEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE IS AGAIN, A STREET END.

AND BEHIND IS OBVIOUSLY THE, THE GOLF COURSE ITSELF.

SO REALLY THERE'S ONLY ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

AND AS WE HAVE HANDED OUT AND SHOW HERE BRAD AND TROY MET WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS THESE ARE THE MOST AFFECTED NEIGHBORS AND EXPLAINED THE SITUATION.

AND WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THEM. WE HAVE A THIRD LETTER.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER UP THE BLOCK TO THE NORTH. SO I DIDN'T PUT IT ON THE MAP, BUT IT'S IN YOUR HANDOUT.

AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPPOSITION YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE AWARE OF.

AND YOU KNOW, THIS SITUATION IS IS ALSO A PLACE WHERE THIS IS AN END USER.

YOU KNOW, BRAD AND TROY HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH BLANCA TO COME UP WITH THE RIGHT DESIGN FOR THIS NEW HOME.

THE EXISTING HOME, AS YOU SAW THERE AND ALSO HERE IN THE, IN THE SURVEY IS IS MUCH LONGER DUE TO ITS OLDER AGE WAS MUCH CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH.

AND SO THAT HAS ALL BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO BLANCA.

HELLO. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS BLANCA MARTINEZ.

MATTHEW MENTIONED, AND I WORK AS FRANK DESIGN.

I AM THE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR THIS NEW HOME.

AS MATTHEW MENTIONED, THE SURVEY SHOWS THE LOT IS AN IRREGULAR SHAPE AND IT HAS AN EXISTING PROPERTY THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.

THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN ILLUSTRATES HOW THE HOME HAS BEEN DESIGNED PRIMARILY AS A ONE STORY STRUCTURE, WITH A SMALL SECOND FLOOR VOLUME PUSHED TOWARDS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS PLACEMENT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL DISTANCE FROM THE NORTHERN NEIGHBOR. WHILE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR IS LOCATED FURTHER ACROSS 58TH STREET.

OUR GOAL WITH THE DESIGN IS TO PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A HOME THAT MEETS THEIR NEEDS, WHILE BEING MINDFUL WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. RATHER THAN MAXIMIZING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF THE HOME. WE HAVE KEPT THE RESIDENCE RELATIVELY RELATIVELY MODEST IN SCALE, PROVIDING SPACES THAT OWNERS NEED WHILE MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF LAWN AND OPEN GREEN AREA SPACE THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. THIS FROM RENDERING FROM ALTON ROAD ILLUSTRATES HOW THE HOME IS PRIMARILY A ONE STORY STRUCTURE AND WITH A SMALL SECOND FLOOR BEDROOM.

THE HOUSE IS THE PRIMARY BEDROOM OF THE OF THE OWNERS.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THE STAIR VOLUME FOR WHICH WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE.

THIS PORTION OF THE HOME WAS DESIGNED WITH TRANSPARENCY IN MIND, ALLOWING VIEWS THROUGH THE SPACES AND CREATING LAYERING EFFECTS WITH THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE. NOW IN THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE SAME RENDERING WITH THE STREET TREES HIDDEN FROM IT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOME, AS WELL AS THE TRANSPARENCY THAT WE TRY TO ACHIEVE WITH THE DESIGN.

AND OUR INTENT IS TO KEEP THE STAIR VOLUME AS VISUALLY LIGHT AS POSSIBLE, WHILE ALLOWING VIEWS THROUGH THE SPACE AND CREATING A LAYERING EFFECT WITH THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE. WE ARE REQUESTING THAT TWO, THREE VARIANCES FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGN, BOTH OF WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED IN THIS DIAGRAM, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH ONE AT A TIME.

AND WE'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND EACH ONE. STARTING WITH THE FIRST VARIANCE, WE'RE REQUESTING TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE SECOND FLOOR TO EXTEND INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK WHILE KEEPING THIS VOLUME PUSHED AWAY FROM THE NORTHERN NEIGHBOR, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED SECOND FLOOR VOLUME THAT MEETS THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE CODE BY PRESENTING A SETBACK, CREATING SEPARATE PLANES FOR THE SECOND FLOOR VOLUME, BREAKING UP THE ALREADY SMALL FRONT FRONTAGE.

LOOKING AT THE BUILDING ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE STAIR VOLUME EXTENDS LESS THAN SIX FEET FROM THE BEYOND THE MAXIMUM THRESHOLD OF WHAT THE CITY WOULD CATEGORIZE AS A ONE STORY STRUCTURE. THIS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED HEAD CLEARANCE FOR THE STAIRS TO FUNCTION PROPERLY.

NOW, LOOKING AT THE SOUTH ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE HOW SMALL THE PORTION OF THE SECOND FLOOR VOLUME EXTENDING TO THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK ACTUALLY IS.

TO FURTHER EXPLAIN THE FIRST VARIANCE, WE HAVE PREPARED A COMPARISON SHOWING WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS VERSUS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

THE CODE ALLOWS FOR THE SECOND FLOOR FRONTAGE TO BE UP TO 8489FT, FOUR INCHES AND A HALF AT ITS WIDEST POINT,

[00:50:05]

IN COMPARISON, OUR PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR IS ONLY 38FT FOUR INCHES.

IT IS WIDEST POINT, AND THE PORTION EXTENDING INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK IS LIMITED TO 20FT, 11IN AND A HALF, WITH A APPROXIMATELY NINE FEET IN DEPTH.

THE DEPTH VARIES. AN ENCROACHMENT BECAUSE OF THE CURVED NATURE OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

OVERALL, THE PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR IS SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWER THAN THE CODE ALLOWS AND THE 40 FOOT SETBACK LINE ON THE.

WE ALSO PREPARED A DIAGRAM SHOWING WHAT IS EXISTING VERSUS NEW AND THIS ONE.

YOU CAN SEE A DIFFERENCE IN HOW LARGE THE EXISTING SECOND FLOOR IS, AND THE SMALL SIZE AND WIDTH OF THE SECOND FLOOR.

VOLUME FOR THE PROPOSED HOME. NOW GOING INTO THE STAIRCASE VARIANCE, SAME THING. WE WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU THE TWO LOCATIONS FOR THE VARIANCES AND NOW SUBMITTED INTO THIS INTO THE STAIR LOCATION. THIS ONE DUE TO THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT.

AND IT, IT CREATED AN UNUSUAL SHAPE BUILDABLE AREA, MAKING IT MORE CHALLENGING TO ACCOMMODATE THE HOME'S LAYOUT COMPARED TO A TYPICAL RECTANGULAR LOT. WITH THIS SECOND VARIANCE, WE'RE REQUESTING TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE EXTERIOR STAIRCASE TO EXTEND INTO THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT SETBACK.

LOOKING ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE THE. THE. THE WIDTH OF THE STAIRS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE.

BUT IF YOU REMEMBER FROM THE PLAN, THE ACTUAL AREA THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS VERY SMALL.

WHICH AREA? AND THEN THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN ALSO PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN ADDRESSING THE VARIANCE.

THE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN STRATEGICALLY PLACED PLACED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY TO HELP SCREEN THE EXTERIOR STAIRCASE.

LOOKING MORE CLOSELY AT THE LANDSCAPE AROUND THE STAIRCASE, SEVERAL LARGE TREES HAVE BEEN STRATEGICALLY PLACED TO HELP SCREEN THE STAIRS FROM THE STREET. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THEY INCLUDE GUMBO LIMBO SCREW, A RELOCATED SCREW PINE, A SILVER WOOTTEN WOOD, A BRIDAL VEIL TREE, TO NAME A FEW, AND THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE STREET TREES.

FROM THE RENDERING, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE LANDSCAPE THAT WE HAVE SPECIFIED AND PLACED STRATEGICALLY ARE SCREENING THAT STAIRS AND THE SCREEN AROUND THE STAIR ITSELF.

AND ALSO IN THIS ONE, WE HAVE OMITTED TO SHOW THE STREET TREES FOR YOU TO SEE HOW THE.

THE LANDSCAPE WITHIN THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY SCREENING THE SPACE.

TO SUMMARIZE, TO SUMMARIZE THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.

WE HAVE PREPARED THIS DIAGRAM SHOWING THE DISTANCES FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WE HAVE INTENTIONALLY, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, WE HAVE INTENTIONALLY POSITIONED THE HOME, THE SECOND FLOOR VOLUME, SORRY, TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT, PROVIDING AN APPROXIMATELY 69FT, SEVEN INCHES OF SEPARATION FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY.

HOME 116FT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND 163FT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.

THESE DISTANCES, ALONG WITH THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SECOND FLOOR VOLUME, DEMONSTRATE HOW THE PROPOSED DESIGN MAINTAINS INSTEAD THE INTENT OF THE CODE, WHILE HAVING NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. REGARDING THE SECOND VARIANCE, THE ENCROACHMENT IS LIMITED TO A SMALL, WEDGE SHAPED PORTION OF THE OPEN AIR EXTERIOR STAIRS, WITH LANDSCAPING PLACED AROUND TO HELP SCREEN IT FROM THE STREET AND THE NEIGHBORS.

OVERALL, BOTH VARIANCES ARE PART OF A CAREFULLY CONSIDERED DESIGN THAT RESPONDS TO THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE LOT AND RESPECTS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND MAINTAINS INTENT OF THE CODE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MATT.

THANKS. ARE YOU DONE? YOU WANT SOME MORE TIME? JUST ONE MORE MINUTE AND I'LL JUST CONCLUDE A MINUTE.

THANK YOU. SO THIS IS AGAIN, A NEW HOME FOR BRAD AND TROY.

IT IS VERY LOW SCALE. NOT ONLY IS THE SECOND FLOOR VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT, BUT THE HOUSE IS ONLY 35% UNIT SIZE, SO IT COULD BE UP TO 50. IT COULD BE A MUCH LARGER, A MUCH TALLER HOME.

BY COMPARISON, THE PROPERTY THAT IS TO THE SOUTH ACROSS THE STREET AND THAT WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM, THEY'RE DEVELOPING A NEW UNDERSTORY HOME THAT WILL BE MUCH, MUCH TALLER.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A. BEING SENSITIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MEET THE THESE OWNERS NEEDS.

IT'S REALLY OUR VARIANCES ARE ALL ABOUT THE STAIRS RIGHT AT THE FRONT.

IT'S JUST THIS SMALL STAIR THAT MEETS THE TWO STORY SETBACK OF 30FT.

PLUS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT IT'S VERY TRANSPARENT.

AGAIN, IT'S LOW SCALE. THE HOME DOES MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE BY HAVING THAT FURTHER MORE THAN FIVE FOOT PUSHBACK.

AND THEN THE STAIRS THAT ARE ON THE SOUTH, AGAIN, THE WEDGE SHAPE OF THAT PROPERTY IRREGULAR IS CREATING THAT HARDSHIP.

[00:55:06]

WE DO AGREE WITH ALL OF STAFF'S CONDITIONS IN THE DRAFT ORDER.

AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT OR ANYONE ON ZOOM.

ANYONE ON ZOOM? IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. NOBODY ON ZOOM.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

YOU. OH, MR. NAGLER, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. LETTERS. MR. SENATOR. I JUST ONE QUESTION. DO YOU ALL GET FLOODING FROM THE GOLF COURSE? SO I NOTICE ON PAGE A 400 YOU HAVE A WALL ON THREE SIDES AND YOU'RE OPEN ON THE GOLF COURSE.

HOW ABOUT A 400. OH WELL. WE ARE RAISING OUR OUR SIDE YARDS TO THE MAXIMUM TO THE MAXIMUM THAT THE CITY ALLOWS.

SO I WOULDN'T EXPECT FOR IT TO GET FLOODED. I'M SORRY.

THE REASON I ASK IS LAST MONTH WE HAD A. A PROPERTY THAT WAS GETTING FLOODED BY THE GOLF COURSE.

BY THE GOLF COURSE. THE OWNERS JUST MENTIONED THAT THE GOLF COURSE HAS A RETAINING WALL.

SO SO RETAINING WALL. YEAH. YEAH YEAH. THE CODE WILL REQUIRE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO RAISE THE YARD TO WHAT WE CALL THE FUTURE ADJUSTED GRADE.

SO THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE, I WOULD SAY TWO FEET 2.5FT HIGHER THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL RETAINING WALLS ON THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT THEIR STORMWATER DOESN'T GO ONTO THE GOLF COURSE.

AND THE GOLF COURSE IS STORMWATER DOESN'T GO ONTO THEIR PROPERTY. SO CORRECT.

WE'RE CURRENTLY 3.5FT. THE NEW YARD IS GOING TO BE 3.5FT ABOVE EXISTING.

AND THEN BEYOND THAT, AT LEAST ON THE REAR YARD, WHICH IS BEHIND IN FRONT OF THE GOLF COURSE IS GOING TO BE FOUR FOOT TALL FROM ADJUSTED GRADE. SO WE'LL HAVE A SEPARATION. DEFINITELY THE EXISTING HOMES.

THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WATER GOES ON TO THEM. ALL RIGHT, MR. FELLER. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB ON THE DESIGN.

I THINK YOU TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE NEIGHBORS. AND I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH YOUR CALCULATIONS.

SO GREAT JOB. THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME.

IT'S VERY, VERY THOROUGH AND BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU.

WORK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAKE A MOTION. VARIANCES BE APPROVED.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. MADAM CHAIR, MAY I MAY I JUST ASK A QUICK, QUICK REQUEST ON THE LAST ITEM THAT WAS HEARD REGARDING THE SPEAKEASY. THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE.

BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY, IS THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED BY BY THE APPLICANT.

THAT WAS ON THE HANDOUT WHERE CONDITION THREE WAS STRICKEN.

YES. THAT WAS MY THAT WAS MY MOTION IMPLIED. YEAH.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S WHAT WE VOTED. WHAT YOU GUYS VOTED ON. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU GUYS. ZBA 26020866 50 AND

[5. ZBA26-0208, 6640 & 6650 ALLISON ROAD]

OKAY. ZBA 260208 IS RELATED TO 6640 AND 6650 ALLISON ROAD.

IT'S AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE SUM OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO THESE ARE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSOLIDATE TWO LOTS TO COMBINE TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH END OF ALLISON ISLAND.

THE NORTH END OF ALLISON ISLAND HAS A CUL DE SAC.

AND SO THE PROPERTIES ARE ALL, ALL HAVE A ROUNDED FRONT PROPERTY, A CURVED FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

AND THEY FAN. SO THEY'RE MUCH NARROWER IN THE FRONT THAN THEY ARE IN THE BACK AS THEY GO TOWARDS THE WATERFRONT.

SO THEY FAN OUTWARD. THIS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO KEEP THE HOME ON THE EASTERNMOST LOT, DEMOLISH THE HOME ON THE WESTERNMOST LOT, AND ESSENTIALLY CREATE AN ADDITION TO THAT TO THE, TO THE EXISTING HOME. DO, DO A, DO AN ADDITION TO THAT EXISTING HOME.

THE EXISTING HOME PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BACK IN 2016 WHICH INCLUDED A VARIANCE OF THE INTERIOR SIDE AND SOME OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. SO THAT HOME HAS A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF TEN FEET WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN WHAT WE WOULD REQUIRE IF YOU WERE

[01:00:08]

WITH HAVING ONE SIDE THAT'S ONLY TEN FEET ON A, ON A LOT THAT IS SO WIDE.

SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE SUM OF THE SIDE YARDS, WHICH IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 7223 B ONE TO ALLOW SOME OF THE YARD SIDE SETBACKS, SOME OF SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF 33FT WHERE 57FT 57.07FT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THAT TWO STORY ADDITION. SO BECAUSE THE LOT IS BECOMING SO MUCH WIDER, THE SOME OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS GROWS BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED TO BE 25% OF THE LOT WIDTH.

SO BY DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THAT THAT 25% SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES.

AND GIVEN THAT YOU HAVE AN EXISTING SETBACK OF TEN FEET, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SETBACK OF 57FT ON ONE SIDE, WHICH IS WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT WOULD BASICALLY MAKE A BIG CHUNK OF THAT LOT UNUSABLE.

SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.

THE VARIANCE THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING, THE SETBACK THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SIDE SETBACK, JUST NOT THE SUM OF THE SIDE SETBACKS. GIVEN THAT ONE SIDE IS SO MUCH SMALLER THAN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TODAY.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ON THAT PROPERTY LINE SO IT WON'T AFFECT THE NEIGHBOR.

THERE'S STILL A VERY LARGE SETBACK OF 33FT. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE HOME IS GOING TO BE UP AGAINST THAT PROPERTY LINE.

AND SO THE STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY DISCLOSURES. IS TEN MINUTES.

OKAY. WE GET TO SEE YOU ALL DAY. GOOD MORNING ONCE AGAIN.

MATT AMSTER AT BURKE HOWARD FERNANDEZ LARKIN AND TAPANES 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD IN MIAMI.

HERE TODAY REPRESENTING REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS.

WHICH IS ACTUALLY LENA AND LINO SAPUTO. AND I KNOW THAT THESE OWNERS ARE WATCHING ON ZOOM.

COULDN'T COULDN'T MAKE IT HERE PHYSICALLY, BUT DEFINITELY ARE THE OWNERS TODAY AND LOOKING TO EXPAND THEIR HOME FOR YEARS TO COME.

WE HAVE JASON AGOPIAN FROM NOUVEAU ARCHITECTS AND BEEN ASSISTED BY ZACH AT OUR FIRM, WHO PASSED OUT, AS WE DID WITH THE OTHER ONE. OUR NEIGHBOR SUPPORT.

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION, IF YOU COULD CALL THAT UP, PLEASE.

SO I THINK YOU EXPLAINED IT WELL. YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT THIS ESSENTIALLY THE CUL DE SAC, THE CURVED STREET END.

YOU CAN SEE OUR FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS NOT ONLY VERY CURVED, BUT ALSO EXTREMELY NARROW.

AND THEN THIS ONE OPPOSITE THE OTHER ONE WIDENS AS IT GOES OUT TO THE WATER.

AND YET IS THE AVERAGE OF THE FRONT AND THE REAR THAT CREATE THE LOT WIDTH FOR WHICH WE HAVE TO DO THESE SIDE SETBACKS.

HERE'S A BASICALLY THE HOME ON THE, THE RIGHT SIDE, WHICH IS TO THE NORTH IS THE ONE THAT THEY'VE BEEN LIVING IN.

AND THEY HAVE ALREADY NOT JUST PURCHASED BUT DEMOLISHED THE PRIOR HOME ON THE SOUTH.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE ADDITION IS GOING TO BE MADE.

YOU KNOW, THAT IRREGULAR LOT WIDTH IS IS ESSENTIALLY CREATED BY PLAT AND THAT'S CREATING THE HARDSHIP.

BUT JASON HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF AGAIN, MEETING HERE THESE OWNERS NEEDS AND GO AHEAD, JASON, WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN THE PROJECT? SURE. JASON HAGOPIAN NOUVEAU ARCHITECTS, 1512 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD, FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. SO GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.

BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

I JUST THOUGHT MAYBE I'D GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO CALL A FAMILY HOME.

I STARTED WORKING WITH LINO'S COMPANY HEADQUARTER RELOCATION PROBABLY TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY PURCHASED THIS HOUSE, WHICH WAS IN 2020. AT THAT TIME IT WAS ALSO VERY KIND OF A STRANGE COINCIDENCE.

I WAS ACTUALLY LIVING ON A HOME FOUR HOUSES DOWN FROM THE HOME THAT MY CLIENTS PURCHASED ON ALLISON ISLAND.

SO I NOT ONLY WAS THEIR ARCHITECT, BUT THEN I KIND OF QUICKLY BECAME THEIR NEIGHBOR.

AND OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING ON TWO OFFICE PROJECT RELOCATIONS WITH LINO INTO MIAMI, AND THEN FORT LAUDERDALE DESIGNED SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR CURRENT HOME AT 6006 50.

OVER THE YEARS, AND IT BECAME A A FRIEND OF THE FAMILY CELEBRATING WITH THEM THEIR SON'S MARRIAGES AND BIRTH OF THEIR GRANDCHILDREN, AND EVEN HELPED SAVE A CHRISTMAS DINNER.

WHEN I LIVED ON ALLISON ISLAND, WHEN THEIR GAS WENT OUT IN THEIR HOME THREE DAYS BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS.

[01:05:01]

SO THEY SPEND A LOT OF TIME DOWN HERE. IT'S REALLY A FAMILY HOME.

THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY LIKES TO COME TOGETHER FOR THE HOLIDAYS, AND THIS ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME WILL ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

SO IN THIS SHOT, YOU DO SEE KIND OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW.

THEIR EXISTING HOME IS 6650 IS ON THE RIGHT. AND THEN THE ADDITION CONNECTED BY A GLASS BRIDGE IS ON THE LEFT.

YEAH, WE ARE KEEPING THE EXISTING HOME. THIS IS JUST AN ADDITION.

THEY HAVE, THEY ARE COMBINING THE PROPERTIES.

WE'RE NOT TEARING DOWN AND STARTING OVER. WE'RE GROWING THE HOUSE THAT THEY ALREADY LIVE IN.

HERE'S THE COMBINED SITE, THE EXISTING ONE STORY.

AND, AND IT'S ACTUALLY A ONE STORY AND TWO STORY.

SO THE WHOLE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOME IS ONE STORY. TWO STORY. HOME STAYS EXACTLY WHERE IT IS AT THE NORTH.

AND THE ADDITION SITS ON THE FORM OF 6640 LOT AT THE SOUTH.

IT WILL ACCOMMODATE SOME GUEST SUITES FOR THE TWO SONS FAMILIES, THE CHILDREN'S PLAYROOM, FAMILY OFFICE, A GYM AND A GARAGE. AND NOTICE THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY.

OBVIOUSLY TOGETHER THE TWO LOTS FORM A PIE SLICE, NOW VERY NARROW AT THE CUL DE SAC AND FANNING OUT TOWARDS BISCAYNE BAY.

THAT GEOMETRY IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. IN THIS VARIOUS DIAGRAM.

WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE ONE VARIANCE. THE TWO SIDE YARDS TOGETHER MUST EQUAL 25% OF THE LOT WIDTH MEASURED ACROSS THIS WITH FANNED OUT.

THAT'S A TOTAL OF 57.07FT. SO THE EXISTING HOME, WHICH THE BOARD APPROVED IN 2016, SITS ABOUT TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO THIS IS KIND OF THE THE THE PINK HATCH THAT YOU SEE RUNNING VERTICALLY ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

AND THAT REALLY IS ONLY WHERE THE FRONT ONE STORY GARAGE TOUCHES IS ONLY A SMALL WEDGE.

THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING HOME IS ACTUALLY 16FT 7.5IN AWAY FROM THE LOT.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE AS, MATT HAD STATED, WE WOULD NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THE WHOLE REMAINING 47FT ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING A 23 FOOT SETBACK. THAT'S MORE THAN THE 22.83FT MINIMUM INDIVIDUAL SIDE SETBACK.

THE VARIANCE IS ONLY THE SUM. AND I'LL ZOOM IN TO THE NEXT ONE.

HERE YOU CAN SEE. SO THE DASHED RED LINE RUNNING HORIZONTALLY REPRESENTS THE 47FT SEVEN INCHES.

AND THEN THE BLUE AREA REPRESENTS THE 23FT THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR.

AND NOTE THAT ONLY ABOUT 37.5FT OF THE ADDITION ACTUALLY IS AT THE 23.

AND THE REST OF THE HOME IS EVEN FURTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DESIGNATION TO SEE HERE.

OKAY, SO I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THIS AS A QUICK BY RIGHT ANALYSIS.

IF WE WERE ACTUALLY TO KEEP THE TWO LOTS SEPARATE AS TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

BY RIGHT THE SETBACKS COULD BE. WE'RE SHOWING AN EXAMPLE HERE, BUT DOWN TO 15 FOOT.

15.5FT AT THE SOUTH AND TEN FEET. 10.5FT TO THE NORTH.

OR WE COULD EVEN INVERSE THOSE SO IT COULD EVEN BE CLOSER.

SO WE FEEL THE 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST IS IS REASONABLE.

AND I JUST WANT TO SHOW THIS QUICK DIAGRAM. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT IS OUR PROPOSED GARAGE THAT YOU SAW ON THE PLAN.

YOU ARE SEEING THE 23 FOOT SETBACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND THEN ON THE LEFT IS WHAT COULD BE BUILT ON THE LOT ADJACENT TO US.

RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT THERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE, AT MINIMUM, THE CUMULATIVE SETBACK HERE BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES WOULD BE 38FT.

SO WE KNOW THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCERN HERE.

SO WE'VE TREATED THIS EDGE WITH, WITH A LOT OF CARE.

AND BY THAT, I LIKE TO SAY A LOT OF A BIG, A VERY SUBSTANTIAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

WE HAVE LAYERS OF TREES, PALMS, BOTH EXISTING AND NEW SHRUBS, HEDGES.

AND OUR GOAL IS THAT THAT WE WON'T SEE THEIR HOME AND THEY WON'T SEE US.

THE TWO, THESE RENDERINGS HERE SHOW YOU WHAT THE SOUTH EDGE WILL LOOK LIKE AND FEEL LIKE AT EYE LEVEL.

IT'S LUSH AND PRIVATE, WITH MATURE PALMS AND LAYERED PLANTINGS ALONG A GARDEN PATH.

SO AND JUST A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL, THE SCREENING WE'RE, WE'RE MAINTAINING ABOUT 28 PALM TREES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY NOW, AS WELL AS PROVIDING 19 MORE PALM TREES, OVER 145 COCOPLUM AND SMALL LEAF CLUSIUS PLANTED AT 36 INCH

[01:10:07]

SO A REALLY NICE DENSE BUFFER ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOME.

THIS IS JUST KIND OF A SLIDE I LIKE TO SHOW LIKE WHAT, WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH A COMBINED SITE.

AND IF, YOU KNOW, IF THE WHOLE HOME WERE TO BE TORN DOWN OR SOMEBODY WOULD COME AND BUILD SOMETHING NEW IS THAT WE WOULD BE BUILDING THIS.

LIKE YOU COULD BUILD A VERY MASSIVE HOME IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY.

AND WE FEEL LIKE OUR APPROACH, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT, SORT OF CREATES THESE, THIS MORE OF AN OPEN, MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL FEEL THAT I THINK IS MUCH MORE IS SENSITIVE TO WHAT'S HAPPENING ON ALLISON AND A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CONCERNED AND SENSITIVE TYPE OF A PROJECT. AND I LIKE TO SHOW THIS IMAGE.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF THAT BRIDGE THAT'S GOING TO CONNECT ON THE RIGHT, THE EXISTING HOME TO OUR ADDITION THAT IS ON ON THE LEFT.

YOU CAN LOOK STRAIGHT THROUGH AND YOU CAN WALK UNDER THE BRIDGE.

YOU CAN LOOK THROUGH THE BRIDGE. SO YES, IT'S IT'S AND WE HAVE LEFT A BUFFER SPACE IN BETWEEN BECAUSE OF COURSE WE HAVE, WE HAVE OUR HOMES, OUR, OUR HOME ON ONE SIDE, THE ADDITION ON THE OTHER, AND THEY FACE EACH OTHER.

AND THIS VIEW IS FROM ALLISON FROM THE CUL DE SAC.

THE ORIGINAL HOME, WHICH WAS ON THE RIGHT, WAS BUILT IN 2017.

AND ON THE LEFT IS OUR NEW ADDITION. SO THERE'S WE REALLY LIKE HOW WE'VE KIND OF CREATED THESE DIFFERENT VOLUMES.

OUR NEW ADDITION IS SET WAY BACK FROM THE STREET OVER EXCEEDING THE FRONT SETBACK OF 40FT.

SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY KIND OF IN SUMMARY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE FAMILY ADDING ON TO THE HOME THAT THEY BOUGHT IN 2020.

THE HARDSHIP IS THAT WE HAVE A PIE SHAPED LOT THAT AND WHICH, YOU KNOW, WAS THERE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT.

THE REQUEST. MORE TIME. JUST ONE MORE MINUTE.

JUST ONE MINUTE. YEAH, MAYBE I'LL LET I'LL LET MATT KIND OF CONCLUDE.

AND I DO HAVE LINO AND LEAH ARE WATCHING. SO IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR FROM THEM, THEY, THEY CAN CHIME IN. YEAH. NO, I THINK THE DESIGN IS DOING, YOU KNOW, THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF ADDRESSING THIS IRREGULAR LOT.

AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE MEET THE FULL SETBACK REQUIRED FOR COMBINING THESE TWO PROPERTIES TOGETHER ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, LUSHLY LANDSCAPED TO BE, AGAIN, SENSITIVE TO THE NEIGHBOR.

AND THEN THAT THE LAYOUT IS ALSO WITH THE GLASS BRIDGE IN THE MIDDLE, KEEPING THE SAME CONTEXT AS IF THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE HOMES LIKE THERE HAVE BEEN.

AND THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD LAYOUT.

SO WE AGREE WITH ALL OF STAFF'S CONDITIONS AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.

WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

I DON'T RECALL IF I ASKED FOR ANY DISCLOSURES, SO I'M GOING TO JUST ASK AGAIN, IF NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT OR ANYONE ON ZOOM, IF THE OWNERS WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, ANYONE ON ZOOM? IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. NO HANDS RAISED.

I DO SEE GUILLERMO AND LINA, BUT NO HANDS RAISED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

THEN. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU. THAT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE.

JUST FOR. JUST FOR THE. THAT WAS IMPRESSIVE. YEAH.

WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BUILD IT AS QUICK AS WE CAN. LOOK FORWARD TO THE GRANDKIDS ARE GETTING OLDER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. I KNOW THAT YOU WANT IT TO BE CALLED SOONER.

ZBA 260209424. EAST TOLEDO DRIVE. OKAY, SO THIS IS AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED

[6. ZBA26-0209, 424 E DI LIDO DRIVE]

THIS IS AN EXISTING AS I SAID, IT'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A CORNER LOT ON THE LIDO ISLAND.

WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A POOL IS TECHNICALLY THE FRONT YARD.

BECAUSE THE FRONT YARD IS THE NARROWEST SIDE FACING THE STREET.

HOWEVER, THE HOME'S ENTRANCE IS ON THE SIDE. AND SO WHAT IS THE FRONT YARD REALLY FUNCTIONS AS ITS BACKYARD.

THIS IS THIS IS WHERE THEY HANG OUT. THIS IS THIS IS REALLY THE ONLY LOCATION THEY HAVE WHERE A POOL COULD GO.

SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION SEVEN TWO, 23B12P AND SECTION 7223 B ONE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO SEVEN FEET SIX INCHES TO THE WATER'S EDGE.

[01:15:02]

SO THE THE CODE REQUIRES THAT IN YOUR FRONT YARD.

IF YOU WANT TO PUT A POOL, IT HAS TO BE SET BACK TO THE MAIN REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK, WHICH WOULD BE 20FT.

GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE ONLY LOCATION WHERE THE APPLICANT CAN HAVE A POOL.

IT IS TREATED AS A, AS A BACKYARD. THE APPLICANT HAS THIS AREA FENCED OFF.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE FROM THE STREET.

THERE IS LANDSCAPING THERE. IT'S BEEN FUNCTIONING AS THEIR, AS THEIR OPEN SPACE.

IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THE POOL THERE. AND THEY DO HAVE A HARDSHIP GIVEN THAT THE EXISTING HOMES FRONT FACES THE, THE, WHAT WE CONSIDER THE SIDE FACING THE STREET.

SO THIS IS THEIR FUNCTIONAL BACKYARD. THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

ADDING DISCLOSURES. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND HI.

YES, MY NAME IS GONZALO MUNOZ AND SUSANA CORREA.

WE ARE REPRESENTING THE OWNER. I THINK WE DON'T HAVE TO TOO MUCH TO ADD JUST TO SAY THANK YOU TO ROGELIO FOR ALL THE PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN SHOW YOU THE THE SITE PLAN.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. YES. SO AS YOU CAN AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ONLY BIG OPEN AREA THAT WE HAVE IN THIS HOUSE IS IN THE FRONT YARD.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE CAN PUT THE, THE, THE SWIMMING POOL.

SO THIS IS THE, THE, SOME EXISTING PICTURES OF THE AREA THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

THE POOL. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE ON THIS SIDE THERE IS A WOOD FENCE AND A LOT OF HEDGES, SO THERE IS NO VIEW FROM THE STREET. SO THIS IS THE THE EXISTING SITE PLAN WITH THE IN RED YOU HAVE THE THE THE. THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.

AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL. IT'S A VERY SMALL SWIMMING POOL.

AND YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE TO, TO LOCATE THE POOL.

WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE AREA.

WE ARE IN THE 70, 76% OF OPEN SPACE. AND THIS IS SOME RENDERINGS FOR THE FOR THE POOL. AND THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. YEAH. ONE THING I FORGOT TO MENTION.

THEIR FRONT YARD FACES THE CAUSEWAY. SO IT'S THEY DON'T HAVE ANY NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THEM.

THEY'RE PRETTY SPREAD OUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE CAUSEWAY IN BETWEEN WHICH IS A HIGH TRAFFIC ROADWAY. SO REALLY THERE'S GOING TO BE NO VISIBILITY ON THIS.

THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, BUT I'LL OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT OR ANYONE ON ZOOM.

ANYONE ON ZOOM? IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

OH, WE HAVE ONE PERSON, GUILLERMO SPEARMAN, SIR.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF YOU IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF. OH, HAND WENT DOWN. SO I GUESS IT WAS A MISTAKE.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THE UNMUTE. UNMUTE. UNMUTE.

HELLO? NEVER MIND. BACK UP. HELLO? HELLO. WE CAN HEAR YOU.

OKAY, GOOD. I AM HERE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

I DO. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. HI, MR. RAMOS. I AM THEIR NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH AT 400 EAST TOLEDO DRIVE.

AND I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT OF OF THE WAIVER. AND THEY'RE GREAT NEIGHBORS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY A BACKYARD AND NOT A FRONT YARD ACTING AS A BACKYARD, WHAT WOULD THE SETBACK TO THE WATER'S EDGE BE? AND WOULD THIS BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT? IT WOULD.

YES, YES, IT WOULD BE SEVEN FEET, SIX INCHES, WHICH IS WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD REQUIRE IF THEY IF IT WERE AN ACTUAL BACKYARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER. MR. NAGLER? IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? NO. ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE VARIANCES.

I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO.

MOTION GRANTED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

[01:20:02]

WE HAVE NONE. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND PROGRESS REPORTS.

WE HAVE NO PROGRESS REPORTS OR DISCUSSION ITEMS. FUTURE MEETING DATE REMINDER, NOVEMBER 6TH. DO WE KNOW HOW MANY ITEMS ARE ON THERE?

[FUTURE MEETING DATE REMINDER: November 06, 2026]

LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK THAT. I'LL BE ABSENT FROM THE NOVEMBER MEETING ME AS WELL.

OH, OKAY. 2ND NOVEMBER SIXTH. OKAY. SO THAT LEAVES US WITH FIVE.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO ADVISE THE APPLICANTS AND THEY MAY REQUEST A CONTINUANCE AND I'LL LET I'LL LET THE REST OF THE MEMBERS KNOW.

OKAY. AND THEN WE YOU MAY WANT TO COME UP WITH A DATE FOR DECEMBER BEFORE THAT.

SO WE KNOW WHAT THEY CAN CONTINUE. OKAY. WE'LL REACH OUT.

OKAY. SO WE'LL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU IF IF WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

AND IF AND ABOUT MOVING THE DATES FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING.

YEAH. IF THEY MOVE TO DECEMBER, THEN WE DEFINITELY WANT TO NOT HAVE THIS BASEL TRAFFIC GOING ON.

HONESTLY, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I LIVE ON THE BEACH.

IT'S PRETTY, IT'S PRETTY. WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET HER AT 9 A.M..

SO IF IT I DON'T MIND. YEAH. BUT IF THERE'S BECAUSE LATER IN THE MONTH GETS BUSIER I THINK FOR EVERYONE.

YEAH, YEAH. FRIDAY, FRIDAY. AND THEN WE CAN WALK OVER TO THE CONVENTION CENTER.

I WALK HERE, SO IT'S NO PROBLEM FOR ME. OKAY.

SO MAYBE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT CONCLUDES OUR OCTOBER 16TH MEETING.

DO I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. GREAT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU EVERYONE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.