[Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to begin please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1 all righty love that countdown welcome and good morning welcome to the May 28th planning board meeting uh as far as attendance we are missing one member as Jonathan uh freden is not here today he got called to trial this morning so it'll be the six of us um and before we go to the City attorney I just want to have a motion to approve last month's meeting minutes motion to approve get a second I'll second okay all in favor I I any opposed great okay Mr cleris updates and swearing in thank you Mr chairman and good morning to the members of the board today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a hybrid format with the board physically present in the commission Chambers and applicants members of the public and staff appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually the public may dial 1877 853 5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 861 4342 6327 pound or log in the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 86 61 44342 6327 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raiseed hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if you're participating by phone uh next I'd like to read 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 don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific technical or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting or if you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item expert Witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose and writing to the city clerk their name address and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating if you're an architect attorney or employee representing an applicant or an objector you must register as a lobbyist these rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage defeat modification or continuance and lastly I'd like to swear in uh any members of Staff or the public will be testifying today please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth thank you thanks Nick okay the first items are requests for continuances first one is planning board file 2015 Washington Avenue for a new hotel and the applicant is requesting a continuance till the July 30th meeting I believe is the applicant here to um give the request note the request for continuance this is on okay there we go uh good morning Emily Balter bardell Fernandez Lin and tapenz offices at 200 southb K Boulevard I'm here today on behalf of the applicant respectfully requesting a continuance to the July meeting we should next take um any public comment on the request for continuance only anybody in Chambers and there's nobody online with their hand raised so can I get a motion to continue this application till the July 30th yeah can I just make one comment to the applicant um so we got a letter yesterday yesterday from the associations suggesting that this should be residential and I I think it'd be wise if you all can come back and talk about the viability of that because I've heard that it may not be so viable but I'd like to explore that so I'm sure you saw the letter okay so that'd be great my apologies again I have not seen a new letter I saw the letter that was submitted prior to the May hearing if there's a new correspondence it has not made it yesterday didn't we I did I that yeah yeah check what we got I got one yesterday but we'll hunt it down of course and and we'll be preparing just so you understand what the associations believe should be there and and I did some homework and I heard that that's questionable viability that there have been developers looking at it there's no incentive I don't know if that's true or not but it may be wise to address that so okay with that um anyone want to move to continue it motion to approve okay second second it okay all in favor anyone opposed okay see in July thank you so much okay next is planning board file 23643 122 Lincoln Road 1628 Alon Road the pedel courts and again I believe the applicants requesting a continuance till the July 30th meeting morning everybody grahe penber Howard Del fernandz Lin tapen is 200 Sou Boulevard en joining these enjoying these new microphones it's very interesting not to I've got to train myself not to lean into them I guess uh as you recall from last meeting um we we requested a continuance um because we're working with our neighbors to the West on on various issues related to the building due to our clients's unavailability um we really haven't been able to get to the Finish Line with that so we're uh rather than just ask for another 30 days we would like to request a movement to the July meeting and I cleared that with our with our neighbors so that to give us enough time to hopefully resolve all those open issues um so we would ask for that deferral into the July meeting okay Graham similarly received an email that there's been no cooperation uh so just be aware of that yeah look I I can and you I apologize for the record I the the delay is certainly not been on our on the on the neighbor side right it's been difficult our client has been out of the country for a long for lots of last month so getting the attention applied to this issue has been difficult so we are recommitting to doing it and that's part of the reason I'm asking for 60 to make sure yeah I get that but typically if they're trying to reach out at least tell them we're get we'll get to you we'll get to you it seemed like they just were ignored so just want to let you know that that's what we received not that's what we receed for the record I'm going to apologize again because I I it was uh poorly handled okay all right um anyone want to move to continue it before we um sorry before we move to um continue it we just have to open up for public comment oh I'm sorry anyone in Chambers to speak on this hi Darren spedal board president 1621 Bay Road uh I just wanted to pop in make a brief appearance and uh and just say thank you uh for your comments uh obviously I sent an email on Tuesday to you all if if none if any of you didn't receive it please let me know but uh I have received uh uh the communications Wednesday afternoon that uh you know the the hope is to continue to work together and then hopefully by July we can come back to you with with something favorable so uh we'll keep our fingers cross it all works out well anyone Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay anybody else in Chambers M okay someone want to move it motion to approve okay I get a second okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay thank you see you in July thank we'll see you then okay and the last is the mandre hotel planting board file 16034 1100 West Avenue this I have an update to this agenda item this will not be heard today we had sent out a cure letter based upon additional violations however that was not sent out within the required 15-day time frame so that we cannot hear that as a progress report today however as a reminder at the April meeting the board did set a revocation modification hearing for June 21st 24 and we will proceed with without revocation modification hearing on that date and also as I mentioned at the last um hearing I would let the public know when the um special Master cases are going to be heard for the um for the appealed violations there's a special Master hearing set for um July 3rd at 9:00 a.m. as well as one on July 18th at 1:30 p.m. so again the mandrian hotel progress report will not be here today and it will be we do have the revocation modification hearing scheduled for June 25th okay thanks Michael all right next is progress reports Planning by file 2119 427 Collins Avenue parking lot and this application begins on page um 11 of the board packages so for some background on April 28th of 2015 the board granted a cup for The Limited use of the parking lot after midnight with operational conditions of those conditions require that Public Access is not allowed to the parking lot after midnight between the hours of midnight and 7: a.m. and no meter parking is permitted between midnight and 7:00 a.m. the parking lots only allowed to be used between those hours for um pre-approved users that have a remote clicker that accesses the parking lot on May 2nd of this year the plan Department sent a cure letter to both the um owner and the operator Eminem parking regarding two f viations that were issued regarding the operation of the lot both of these violation pertain to um not having the lot closed at 12: midnight and having a working parking meter pce station after 12: midnight we're recommending that the the board take um comment from the owners operators in any public testimony and continue the progress report to the June 25th meeting that'll turn it over to the um participants here l Alexander orlovski of the orlovski law firm 767 Arthur Godfrey Road Miami Beach and with me I have Andrew mermal um the principal of Eminem parking this is a lot we actually only have one Please Release the mic Please Release the mic can you hear can you hear me now there you go okay we actually only have one open violation from this year the last violation was dismissed by the special Master the issue that we're having with this lot is that people it hasn't electronic gate and people keep coming and breaking the gate and as soon as we receive a complaint we fix the gate um the complaint from this year was issued on March 18th we have a receipt that it was fixed literally the next day so what happens is that the gate closes at midnight people use it the B it's it's on it's 427 Colin so people try and cut through and then they break the gate um with the conditional use perit we don't sell parking after midnight um the gate supposed to close automatically but it's kind of we're on a reactive thing where we have to know that the gate's broken and then we fix it so this is what keeps happening and happening we had a violation in 2022 we had won in 2023 they've all been dismissed by the special Master the next one is set for hearing over the summer I don't have the exact date in front of me um I have Mr M here to answer I I have a question for St so wait you're all the all the the citations that were issued are because you saw cars going in there after midnight I me trying to understand because it they see the gate open G if the gate is open the if the gate is open you're saying it's because the gate was broken can I sure every year this happens it seems like there's another lot directly behind mine literally where the back gate for this lot is there's a gate that closes at midnight in the front and the back of this lot and if someone's inside the lot the gate in the back opens to just let you out correct in case there's an emergency if there's a resident that's using the lot and they someone who's giving birth whatever the case might be um I've gone to the lot Co has called me I go down there it's like a ghost town There's No demand for this lot after M night we never thought to open it the original point of this conditional use we never got after midnight we got that the they cited the employees of Scott Robbins were using it to clean his office which is aot block way so they were coming in with a clicker so now we have the right for them to do that that's the only thing we used a lot right but I'm asking you when it was open it's because it was broken absolutely and we have records of it all if someone I believe it's the people from the lot behind us ironically they have use after midnight so because they have storage at the China Grill garage where they have overflow cars they to to save time and cut through they'll Force our gate open I believe I've seen them do it I've seen them standing in the back of the lot yesterday I saw the back gate broken for that very reason people wanted to cut through they put a rock there do you have a camera there I have license plate readers I'm looking to put surveillance cameras I'm right fitting it out right now because we've had the last three years all in 22 23 in this year in March and it seems like it's the valet guys that are busy using valet cutting through the lot I've but your testimony that that the only reason there's the gate is open is because it's been broken by somebody correct in fact I've seen one guy doing it I called the cops on them I went to the hotel next door nobody really seemed to want to solve this crime they laughed at me kind of okay anything else before questions no all right before Matthew any anyone here in the chambers is speak on on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay Matthew hi good morning can you help me out here this is the corner of Fourth Street and Collins Avenue correct not exactly on the corner of Fourth Street and Collins is 441 Collins okay and across from that the City National Bank which is also a parking lot that happens to have after midnight um it's AC it's across the street from the City National Bank and to the east of it on oan Drive there's another parking lot that is literally when you go out the back gate so the people wanting to cut through from Collins the valet guys who Park cars in Washington on the corner of fourth in Washington wanting to cut through I believe are the ones doing this forcing the gate open and then we have to fix it we've done it each year once okay so you're this little tiny single aisle lot off of colins at yes and we have no desire we never tried to open after midnight we have a gate that closes at both the front and the back of our lot at 11:00 p.m. just to be safe we shut it at 11: each night so in terms of the violation are these initiated by residents or are these self initiated by Code Compliance or does anyone code enforcement has failed to convict us as far as I can tell I was told by my attorney that they say that we have two convictions in 18 and 19 no but he's asking is is it just code driving by and seeing the gate open or Is Res I would think it's codes just are driving by I mean is that reflected in the uh in the violation it's not but we have Manny Valar here from Code Compliance if he has some more information on this item and the violation is that the gates open it's not that there's noise going on or parties in there or whatever correct okay all right it's just the Genesis of the is it just a a driver driving by seeing the gate open and let's use the citation or the Genesis of the of the complaint good morning good morning ladies and gentlemen uh it's it's both we we have received complaints on this l in the past and our officers also proactively uh inspect uh parking lots as well but we have received complaints in the past uh for noise uh things like us in the police department for noise and things of that nature in the parking lot uh late into the evening on occasions okay anything recent not this particular one uh I'd have to look but I can tell you that the violation this violation code violation zv 2020 2 45211 was issued in March 15 of 2024 uh usually during the spring break period and other high impact periods like Memorial uh is when we received complaints on this lot when there's high demand and a lot of people visiting the beach and South Beach specifically uh for this particular violation our officers noted did follow up inspections on April 11th 24 2024 and notice the gate open at 12:05 a.m. April 12th 2024 notice the gate open at 12:09 a.m. April 13th 2024 the gate was open at 12:20 a.m. April 14th and May 23rd April 14th uh when we inspected this past weekend we noted that the gate was closed at 1216 a.m. okay so those are driveby by code these are driveby followup inspections and and proactive inspections yes I could respond to the ones in April there was a part that we had to order and it took about a week or two for the part to come in someone like literally wedged something in there and destroyed the motor it was going and going until it burned out so I could show that we well again you're under oath and your testimony is every time it's been open it's because it's been broken absolutely it's set on a timer to close at 11:00 p.m. all right I'm not sure what you do about that I mean it doesn't sound like it's your fault but yet it's technically a violation as soon as it happens we repair it as no I get it that's what's happening then I they have the receipts feel bad substantiating that yeah yeah I get chair ask ask have you considered a different type of gate um we've improved the gate we paid for a much more expensive gate and why is the working why is the parking meter pay station working at all if someone comes in there that's already parked there's no you're allowed in the you're not allowed to come in or out after midnight let's say a person paid and wanted to extend you know they could do that and like let's say you happen to buy 12 hours and decided you want to stay for four more days it rarely happens we've noted in our two special Master hearings there's been no time that they've come and checked that there's ever been a transaction but it's just in the odd event because you shouldn't be able to if the gate's closed you can't use the meter anyway but if you parked there and you wanted to extend and pay why what's the harm in that and so you have but but you just said what's the harm in that but you're not supposed to have access after midnight after midnight that means you cannot come in or out if you already parked and you want to walk in and pay for the parking few more days you decided but it's never happened it's it's just if the gate's locked you should not be able to use the meter and no one did do we demonstrated in our special Master hearing on every one of these violations that no one did use the meter it's there's an electronic thing that we brought records and showed it and won both times up recently okay do you have any reason to doubt that the gate is open because it's broken no I don't have any reason to doubt it but the gate is broken quite frequently uh that is an issue ongoing issue that's been going on for the past couple of years and we've been going back and forth with this and we contact Mr merell and he does have it repaired eventually but right but I guess the key is that when when all these dry buys you know code sees it open um and they're simply giving a citation because it's open that's one thing but if they're giving citations cuz there's like noise in there apart you're saying a majority of all of April March those were just the fact it was open for this particular violation but I believe the case that was issued last year uh that he mentioned was dismissed at special magistrate there was evidence of people in the lot and but that's rare I'm trying to understand is it primarily because it's open it is rare this is a very small parking lot also I believe it's only he can he can say better but probably less than 20 spaces it's a very small parking lot uh it's only it's about 20 spaces yeah a very small parking lot any other questions or what are our options here Michael or or Nick was that I mean you heard what the yeah I think we're recommending that the board continue the progress report either to June and July just to monitor we're not recommending a revocation or modification hearing we just want to have this in front of the board for the board board's attention Okay can I point out something want it's I think it's important that this lot like many Lots on Miami Beach if we didn't go for a conditional use we would have the right to use it till midnight but that's all we're using it for so the conditional use is actually harming us I've been to the board I've been to special all why did you seek a cup then it's for Scott Robbins to be able to have his cleaning staff that's what we were originally cited for a cleaning staff member using a clicker to come into a private lot that's why that's all we use it for still and yet I'm coming here and we're not using it after midnight we're not attempting to to pay your legal that's the whole point but that's the whole point of going for a conditional use is to as a parking lot guy is to use it after midnight we're not attempting to use it after midnight it seems like it's punitive on the applicant on me to continue to have to monitor conditional use that we're just our goal is to have a gate that's working and if we didn't have a conditional use we'd still have a right to use it till midnight only right that's the irony here hold on Scott go ahead uh you may have answered um my question but is it used at all after midnight only by the cleaning staff for SRC which is a block away and are do you believe they're the ones that are maybe pushing the gate open breaking it not at all no they have a clicker to get in so I guess my my the the the maybe solution I have is maybe you can talk with them or maybe your people can do it because you said one reason the the the motor or whatever keeps breaking people push the gate open they run into it or the valet guys from it's obvious when they're doing it they have no regard I've seen them doing it one time I walk and that's that's while they're using the lot they're just through our lot to get to save time to instead of having to walk around not after midnight or before most of the time before I actually saw that going on yesterday and I repaired it during the day it never got to after midnight I could say for the amount of times they've come the amount of times we fix it is very frequent we we fix it probably four times the amount of times but we understand I was just thinking if if the problem was after midnight perhaps you can have somebody chain it so it can't be used period after midnight um and would prevent any but but if it's it's two weeks in the month of March each year the rest of the year not a problem we've had three violations in March of 22 23 and now in 24 what about security have you gotten security during that month at all ever we're not even open after a minute we just have a gate that closes I mean if you're having those problems during M during March seems like maybe that it's economically not feasible the cost of security is like $25 an hour you would just stick them there at night for the month of March this parking lot has like 10 spaces the it would basically that amount that cost would be what it makes in a year I think thank you Whata no I was just going to say it's too bad that we don't have a a system with code compliance when we have an issue like this that there's not like a a an initial warning and and to give them the benefit of the doubt of doing the repairs within the next three couple days or so because of just the amount of money spent on legal fees your time and of us dealing with something that um is there no you know just like if your headlights burnt out is there's no like addressing the issue of of of let getting them a warning to them and them responding within the next two days of of some sort of repair system in place well te technically uh since it is a violation of the cup uh we I'm not going to say we're forced but uh we we're compelled to to kind of follow this route but we do work with him uh and we we advise him of the issue uh as he mentioned uh past two or three years we've issued violations and and he's corrected them and we've worked it out uh but when you have that cup in place you guys have to follow by those rules well it's good to hear that you guys are actually communicating first before making an run out there after midnight I've seen it they've called me on my cell and I've picked up and I've gone down there well um I think it's pretty straightforward that is not ill intended and and leaving this gate open um but for your own benefit you might want to get some cameras so you can start charging your neighbor for the damage they're doing right yeah all right yeah I was going to say it seems like you should just be a little bit I've ordered them already more proactive in in in maintenance and and um keeping the the gate and good repair instead of relying on COD compliance to tell you that's all we're going to have full surveillance by soon all right so I have a question in light of what you all have heard is there any um inclination to dismiss it or do you want to bring them back in July in light of what you've heard I would make a motion to dismiss I'll second especially considering okay the feedback from code and the fact that there are no residents who have voiced any type of I'm glad you're getting some cameras which is sort of security all right so we have a motion in a second can we do a roll call so that would be a motion to suspend progress reports at this time um Miss Bey yes Mr cement yes Miss Lori Lon Lon sorry yes Mr gof just one question though if there were a future violation it could return yeah we would issue a new your letter and bring back yes Mr needleman yes and Mr Elias yes the motion passes 6 yeah you're in a unique situation so we're not going to make you come back but you know obviously if there's any way you can try to monitor that Dam I'm going to put in the surveillance sorry for your attorney though thanks thank you everybody thank you all right next is planning board file 16075 revocation modification hearing for the good time so the next item is pb1 16- 0075 the continuation of the replication modification hearing for the good time Hotel this was last heard by the board on April of this year where the board did modify the cup we did pass around an updated staff report compared to the one that was published and a reason for this update was that um you may remember last month there was an issue with the last violation that was issued in March there are some conflicting information in the Code Compliance report it indicated that the violation occurred at 1:00 in the morning it actually occurred at 7:10 p.m. so we updated the staff report to reflect the actual time of violation and modify the report accordingly um And to clarify as of yesterday there have been no new violations on this property since the last violation that was issued on March 24th of 2024 for the referenced um um case at 7:10 p.m. now we did note that after further review of our um of the cup we noticed there were a couple conditions that were conflicting based upon some previous modifications have been made and I don't think the applicant would object to these modifications which would be conditions at 10v and 10. X II regarding the um the speaker system and sound there was a condition 10 VII that said that the system shall prevent sound from being audible from nearby residential buildings that was reflective of an earlier um cup that had the requirement since then the board had modified the conditions and instituted the the um requirement that the sound not be unreasonably um loud so we believe that that condition should that portion of the condition that said and prevent sound from being audible from nearby residential buildings should be stricken and condition 10. XI the part of that condition that says um the sound from any outdoor areas is not audible anywhere west of Washington Avenue and that that portion of the report should be stricken based upon updates to the cup we are recommending though as part of this um continuation of the revocation modification hearing that we go back to staff's recommendation from the April meeting and recommending that noise from the outdoor sound system not be plainly audible at a distance of 100 ft or more from the subject properties West property line and now we did update and include in the updated staff report the conditions that the board modified to the C on April 25th you'll find that at the end of the updated report that was sent out today notably the board had recommended that um entertainment level music only be allowed two weekends per month and it also would reduce the time for the entertainment reduce the time from the prior approval which was 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. the board reduced that to 1 1 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that would be for um um two weekends a month that we all recommend the board modify the cup to include the language I referenced earlier that sound not be plainly audible at a distance of 100 ft from um washingt from the property and also to modify the two conditions that I referenced previously conditions a second 10v and 10x II that'll turn it over to the applicant um for their presentation Sor just before they start quick question Michael so if they didn't have any violations from last time to this time and I don't know if there will be feedback or not why the request to revert back to the original staff recommendation because we still believe that the the condition that says um not be unreasonably loud is is subjective and hard to enforce okay good morning Mr chair members of the board staff Micky morrera once again here on behalf of the good time Hotel um with me today is my partner Matt amster and Tomas meding the general manager of the good time uh so just to C catch up on a couple things so as Michael said there have been no violations since going back all the way to that March incident um not only have there been no violations we've been checking vigorously there have been no complaints filed in the system so there you know as we talked last month there have been some operational changes uh Tomas will maybe address some of those shortly but thankfully we're in a position now where we feel things are working in the right in in the right Manner and every everything seems to be operating smoothly and we're happy to report that um as to uh what Mr cement pointed out we're also we were also surprised to see that there was a that there was a discussion in the staff report about reverting back especially since been you know things have been working well there have not been not only again no violations but no complaints which I think is important I want to just put on the record um and one of the requirements from the last meeting was that we have our sound engineer go to the site and confirm and and do a a a test confirming that the speakers are operating at the intended uh mechanics that has occurred a report will be uh submitted to the city soon for the sound for the city's peer-reviewer to review but that report was that that that test was done so we can supped with that request as well um I'm going to have Tomas come up here in a few minutes but what I'd like to what what I'd like to ask is there was confusion um between us and staff and we had multiple discussions as they're aware what we interpreted the motion that was made at the April meeting to mean was it was sort of a compromise there was this pulling back and forth between unreasonably loud and plainly Audible and a compromise was proposed and that compromise was you would have at your option at our option two weekends and it would only be Saturday and Sunday not Fridays two weekends a month where you would operate at unreasonably Louge still and again they've done that and there haven't been problems this month and then the other two or three depending on how many days there are in that month the remaining weekends you would remain at what staff recommended that's what the motion said which we interpreted to mean plainly audible uh that's what we expected to see what came back was the unreasonably allowed for two weekends that's clear but then the remaining weekends it says and and in our understanding and I think the general understanding ambient is based on the source meaning if it's ambient I might not be able to hear on the other side of the room because ambient means conversation can carry on uninterrupted even with the music in the background plainly audible still protects you know anybody outside the building so for purposes of those experiencing the noise outside of the pool deck there's no difference the difference is if if somebody was to come up to the pool deck and say you're supposed to be ambient that's almost like very very light sound it really no pool no pool party can succeed on ambient noise so we wanted really not a change we just see it as a clarification of that motion we believe and our whole team believes and understands that that that that was unreasonably loud for two weekends which could give us a little bit of of wiggle room and then uh plainly audible the balance of the weekends we wanted if possible for you all to discuss that to clarify what was intended so that we us and staff can be on the same page again again from the purpose point of view of the folks outside of the pool deck I don't think they'll hear a difference plainly audible at 100 ft is a pretty tough standard for those P of those weekends uh but it's it matters what happens on the pool deck and it's an operational issue that we want to just clear up today um and again we're very very happy to report that and again just going back a little bit there was a couple violations back in November nothing up until that one incident in March which we've addressed and there have been no complaints since so thankfully we feel like we're here in good in a good posture uh if Mr Med can come up for a few minutes I don't he wanted to speak to you know how he's how he's managing the situation at the pool deck and then obviously hopefully you all can discuss that clarification and and Mr chairman if you'd like me to do it now I can do it now if not I can do it after the presentation but um we'd like to respond about you know what what exactly what action the board took uh last month because you know we've gone over the tape and we discussed with with Mickey morero um and Michael and I have spoken internally and um and we think the the board's motion is accurately reflected in this order you had an extensive discussion about whether to change the noise standard from unreasonably loud which is the standard in the noise ordinance to plainly audible which is a uh stricter standard um and ultimately the board decided to keep the unreasonably loud standard on the issue of entertainment which is a question of of use more than than noise uh you you you the consensus was to allow entertainment level music including DJs up to two weekends a month and that on other weekends that the uh entertainment was was allowable but at an ambient volume level which means at a level that does not interfere with normal conversation now this is this hearing has been noticed as modification verification hearing so you can um make changes right you're just reminding us I just want to remind you what you did last month thank you for that Mr chairman members of the board staff um Thomas M good time motel and just really going back to what Mickey just had mentioned I'm sorry what's your role there are you the I'm the general manager okay thank you so I've been since coming on board in late January we have worked with this team um the staff the DJs anybody that's supporting up the partners to really ensure that the community is a being heard and we're really doing our best to mitigate any potential noise penetration you know west of Washington Avenue where the issues most likely have stemed from from um the team I'm on property most of the weekends if not you know definitely Friday Saturday sometimes Sunday as well just to really working with the team in its entirety security the servers everybody else to really ensure there's a very very clear understanding on what it means um to have a good vibe a good party but then also being cognizant of our neighbors and the community as a whole so we have done that and I think we've been quite successful um with all of this being said will we ever be perfect hopefully at one point in time but you know just really want to give the board the assurance that we continue to work with everybody listening to the community I'm in touch with Mark anine who is one of the Hy presidents across the street um we continue having the dialogue I would like to go back to the community and start having dialogue with some other individuals as well who unfortunately have fell silent and I completely understand why but really rest assured that we continue to operate the way we have over the past few months really mitigating any attention noise penetration west of Washington Avenue okay thank you thank you toas and just just want to remind uh you all again we we passed out to uh the proposed clarifications that we're seeking um again just I guess a difference of opinion but we thought it was pretty clear from the motion that plainly audible was the standard again because plainly Audible and unreasonably loud are the same language they're two different ways that the noise ordinances in all the municipalities are are characterized entertainment ambient that's that's a different discussion on use so we're asking the board to clarify what the intent of that motion was I think I think we have it right you know Matt and I have talked about at nauseum um but again we we're here in a positive light today without any issues and hope that we stay at the courts with you all um and the ship has been writed here to answer any questions and there may be some folks on Zoom Matt Tomas and I are here and uh with that we'll stop thank you Mr chair um I I have a question why do you say that unreasonably loud and plainly audible are the same when they're clearly not no no they're not the same they're the same language meaning when you look at all these noise ordinances the standards are unreasonably out at certain hours plainly audible so they're two types of Standards but they're noise ordinance standards ambient entertainment is a different discussion it's a use based discussion on the source of the noise so to have them be what two weekends you're this and the others are you're that they're not the same language sure they mean different things they're different standards for sure but we thought the board's intent and again I'm asking you all we thought the board's intent was unreasonably allow for two weekends plainly audible the balance that's what we that that's what seemed to make the most sense and that certainly clarifies the ability to operate and again I'll reiterate from per from the point of view of the resident or a neighbor they're not going to hear a difference plainly audible is very strong so the only difference is the balance of those weekends that's all thank you okay before I have questions uh let's go to the public hearing is there anyone in Chambers speak on this okay I assume there are people on zoom and there's nobody with our hand raised on Zoom none no wow good job guys okay we'll close the public hearing questions I could just say something first I think sure um the board may remember the board did discuss clearly modifying the hours of entertainment that was very um and reducing those hours of entertainment and so our our modified cup that the board that the board modified include a reduction in hours and we talked about having entertainment two weekends a month and that is exactly reflective what we have in the in the modified cup what the applicant is suggesting is that they can have Music Entertainment level music every weekend of month and they're suggesting that as long as it's not plainly audible off the property then that would not be a violation and we're saying what the board what the board did say is that that entertainment level music was only allowed two weekends a month within that 1: p.m. to 6 p.m. time frame well I think I think I remember well the issue that the residents are having are with the events is that not correct I don't think that we had necessarily A A violations or complaints about the rest of the time I think it was directly linked to these weekend events that you guys were having that the residents were complaining is that correct yeah there haven't been any violations other at any other time it's been most it was perod okay so so so the other part of the time was not an issue so um I I think we I think we continue in the direction that we decided on last month I think we we you know you guys are on probation obviously and we we keep going with with that direction if if if there hasn't been any um you know any changes since we had the meeting last time and the decisions we made with last time but how how sorry anyone so I guess have you been operating under which standard I I could say that when I made the motion and I which might have not been clear my intention was that it was you know plainly audible because I thought that the ambient would essentially get them back here every month right every month if if you set the standard ambient they're back here because anyone could hear anything and then you know there's a violation so my intention was that the standard was plainly audible but how have you guys been operating over the past month well I you know just confirm with the G I'll be I'll be I'll be honest just so that hopefully this isn't result in a violation but we didn't understand it so the two we advised the code in advance that the two weekends that we would be doing unreasonably loud would be Memorial Day this past weekend and the weekend just prior the the what it was 18th 17th uh we advised them in advance so they would know that that was the standard again I don't think anybody noticed a difference the other weekends we did operate as we had been operating plainly Audible and it created no issues and no complaints um we just operating ambient no entertainment basically you know shut down the pull deck because no it doesn't it's just not a worthwhile uh I want to say the word Vibe you know pool pool it's just the Goodtime hotel's whole operations plan is based on the activity of that pool deck now the scope of that activity the sound of that activity has been discussed at nauseum here I think we have it in a good place but if we can't operate at least at plainly audible you could literally be going to the bathroom in the pool deck of our own pool deck and not hear the music and just no one's going to go to that I mean just be honest it's just not if we're really forced to operate a pool event at ambient it's like you're at a Courtyard marri pool deck which I stay at those all the time they're wonderful but they're not really the vibe that we're seeking to create okay but beyond beyond you guys a plainly audible is not is not a is not an issue with the neighbors so far it it hasn't been for this past two months and I think unreasonably loud gives them just they can sort of up the events a little bit so there's a little whimper of noise but but it's it works the what the the compromise that you all came up with works we just think it was meant to be plainly Audible and the motion maker clarified that's what he meant as well we just we're not asking for a change we're asking to clarify what you voted on which we thought to us was pretty clear Mr chair yep um I'm I'm inclined to go with what staff has recommended um to to clarify everything and keep a keep what we have uh uh previously decided as a board which is the two weekends a month modified hours and um I don't think that it's just the the events that have been issues um I know that I know that that in some instances there have been issues with events but that's not been my experience um I don't think that that I think that you know when I just left Las Vegas and just as an experiment I decided to pull out my little DB uh decel level meter on my phone um 75 to 80 is around plainly Audible and conversational level any y'all have requested and have been turned down to 93 that's concert level and I just I'm I'm inclined to go with what staff is recommending and keep keep and move forward from there okay Scott yeah um I let them pay attention Okay um wouldn't want to change what we you know we had a long discussion last month um and I'm not willing to change that right now but just a question for staff and this is kind of kind of kind of go the opposite of my thinking on this but um if I mean I understand what the applicant wants but would staff be amenable to um if they agree to basically something in the cup that says um noise from the good time Hotel cannot be plainly audible across Washington Avenue at any time um that's what we that's what we are recommending that's what you're recommending but I mean if you do that then um and and they agree to it are you amenable to um allowing the applicant to do what they want which is maybe three weekends a year or something to have more I you want to have the um maybe I misunderstood you I think you okay do you want me to clarify go ahead were we what the vote was was a sort of a compromise vote which we we thought was a good compromise in that unreasonably loud gives us a little bit more flexibility again even on the unreasonably weekend which were the last two weekends zero complaints but it gave the operation a little bit more flexibility maybe you hire the DJ that's just a little bit more exciting those days still managing the volume still managing control still not creating problems for the residents on the two or three weekends that were proposing to be plainly audible you know you again you're managing it the same way it's really a a minimal difference but it can make a big impact um operationally so plainly audible is the standard that they're proposing all the time we think that should be the balance weekends not the two that's think that's what was intended that's what we understood so it's just those weekends that you that not um unreasonably loud unreason loud again just for those few hours and it's now been restricted the hours want I'm not going to go where I was going to go before okay Melissa Matthew it's been about a month and I'm a little hesitant to to do anything that could perceivably loosen what took us years this board years to get this under control and also as we know many of our residential neighborhoods are are somewhat seasonal so uh there may be less people who are also living right now full-time in in those residential units across Washington Avenue I'd be more inclined to go with staff's recommendation on plainly audible uh but I'm a little more hesitant again to do anything that could perceivably loosen this and and open us back up to the same situation I think we need to see more time as to how this works out yeah we're not asking to appreciate that we're not asking for the be loosen we're just asking for clarification of what was already voted on you know I and and it's really two months since there's been a violation at the plainly audible but again you know leing it to you all we certainly don't think it should be further restricted based on good performance and for the last two months when there's been no complaints and I'm really shocked there's no one speaking on this so that's a good sign um that's how you've been operating yeah plainly audible well unreasonably loud was up until that April meeting which is a month ago so we had it unreasonably loud but unreasonably loud if managed well right I just hit the mic if managed well um which we've now got gotten right certainly seems that way uh can can can function fine plainly audible is a little more restrictive but it's still working fine so that's why we we wanted that clarified again you know there's really no discernable difference the perfect solution is that you're able to have your pool parties you're able to you know be successful without disrupting the the public I mean that's at the end of the day and I know that's not an easy thing to achieve um but you know that's the goal and I hope you understand that's all of our goals We Want You To Survive we want you to do well we want you to succeed and we want the neighbors not to complain which again the fact there's no one Speaking is a great sign so and um quite honestly on those weekends where it's not the standards not unreasonably or unreasonably loud or excessive if the music if you do Turn Up the Music a little bit more and it's not heard from across the street it's not bothering anybody I don't think anybody's going to call Cod compliance I don't think you're going to have a problem so you know it's something that I think we I'm I'm not inclined to change right now but I'm basically saying that yeah you you're you're going to go up a little bit of noise and again as long as that's not disturbing Neighbors which according to you it won't um you're not going to have a problem I mean unless code um Pro proactively goes to the roof deck or the pool deck and and checks it out but I don't think they're going to do that I think they're there too often they don't want to go anymore so I think it's I think it's a you know what we did last month is good um I think we should keep it and um you know you'll you'll do what you're going to do there um and hopefully uh not not cause any problem more problems for the for their surrounding neighborhood can I had a comment um if you look on page of our staff report in the updated report that I sent to you you'll see that the um the noise ordinance has a definition of what's unreasonably loud that's only defined after 11: p.m. there's no definition of how to assess that you know um between the hours of 11: p.m. or after between the before 11: p.m. in terms of what's un reasonably loud so the code says that after between the hours of 11: p.m. and 7:00 a.m. if the music or the noise is heard um at a distance that's plainly audible 100 feet from the building then that is a um it meets a definition of unreasonably loud there's nothing that defines that beforehand and that's why why is that it's not it's not that there's nothing that that defines it um the the noise ordinance has a list of of examples of noise that would violate um the unreasonably loud standard what the what the code provides and this is is consistent with the Mii County noise ordinance is that after 11:00 if noise is plainly audible from a distance of 100 ft that that alone is there's that there's a presumption that the noise ordinance has been violated it's it's a prim that on its own is a primate facient case of a violation of the noise ordinance so what what staff is recommending is extending the plainly audible sort of presumption to to to all hours um and I think this is consistent with a condition that was in the original approval for the for the good time yeah yeah the original approval had stricter conditions regarding um noise not being audible from the residential units at any time the you're by residential units I'm Mickey I'm just curious do you have Outreach with the with the neighbors this past couple months or month uh yes Mr chair actually I'm in touch with Mark Anan actually going to meet with the owner of the palace just to get some additional feedback on how successful they have been just to learn from them um unfortunately Ely you know Chris and Yaga Charles Fisher have been silent and they might be away I'm not certain but um continue to reach out yeah okay I mean part of me you know it's it's funny you know people moved to South Beach they didn't move to Palm Beach they didn't move to Coral Gable so they're I'm sure that they expect some some noise but again as long as it's not disruptive to where they don't call in and complain you know it's so I'm really thrilled that that the last month has gone the way it is um so so you know I we don't want need to be bad horse it sounds like the inclination of the board is to go with the staff report and you guys do what you're doing and if it goes like the did the last couple months then you should be good to go I just want to clarify when you say go with the staff report that doesn't mean their recommendation to further restrict it just keeping what you voted on last month right I believe that's I mean it means plainly audible I'm in favor for what we voted for last month and at the end of the day you know it's for you guys we have to react to not only Code Compliance but also the public opinions of the neighbors around and I think at this point doesn't really matter the language you guys screw up and we get a lot of complaints from the neighbors even though there's no code violation you guys are are setting yourselves up for for disaster in the next hearing right so at the end of the day I mean I'm ready to give you guys the the the more what we decided on last time uh knowing very well where you guys stand at this point and you can't mess up because uh it's not even a code violation issue at this point it's it's the whole neighborhood we have to react to as a reminder they are going to be submitting a new sound study that's going to be peer reviewed by our peer-reviewer and we're going to give you the um updated study as well as results from our peer-reviewer at the July meeting so there still an opportunity for the board to further modify the um cup based upon the results of that sound study so that we're all on the same page can you rearticulate what we it sounds like so it sounds like the board is comfortable with um keeping the cup as modified based upon how staff has interpreted what the board said at the meeting um in April and those those conditions are outlined outlined in the modified cup at the end of the staff report not with our further recommended changes um if that's the case um then the board should clarify that or confirm that and then we have the sound study to be presented to staff peer reviewed and the revocation ification hearing continued to the July 30th meeting okay well I'd like to make a motion to move this forward and to uh um help me with the language here but based on our recommendations from last month keep it as such and dismiss the recommendations uh changes that um you put forward and continue and continue the modification revocation hearing for to July right right yeah to July to July second second okay roll call yes Mr cement sure tough day today so um Mr Elias yes Miss Bey yes Mr cement yes Miss Laton no Mr goov just a clarification again when the motion was to dismiss the staff's recommendation what exactly does that mean we're not going to further add in that music shall not be plainly Audible 100 ft from the property line that's something that the board if they decide after looking at the sound study and the peer review further modify there's still a chance to further modify at the July hearing so we're we're basically just continuing this right hearing but but agreeing to the the concerns we had last meeting that we verbalized that have been Incorporated and does this result in a modification no it confirm you just want to keep you guys just want to keep it the way that that we did it last time and just leave it alone and Contin it can okay for now so I'm going to change my vote so I'm a yes for this then if I want to keep what we've already agreed upon thank you and just for clarification I'll change my vote okay thank you and then Mr needleman yes okay so the motion passes 6 to zero and this is continued to the July 30th meeting okay we'll see you in July thank you thank you all thanks for uh your work this month seriously I thought we were going to have 30 people on Zoom okay okay uh previously continued code amendments item number seven planning board file 23644 residential use incentives comprehensive plan Amendment um are seven and eight companion or they're separate these are companions we're going to take them both together okay so the second one is uh item 8 planning board file 23637 residential use incentives Land Development regulations I'm just get to my notes here and this report report starts on page 77 of the board packages so although this um this text is very comprehensive I'm going to try to summarize it as briefly and concisely as I can so these ordinances require a six-step review process um because they include an increase in F so the first step is a planning Board review that happened by the board um in March the second is a public Workshop that happened earlier this month we're in step three now right now which is the planning Board review and transmitt to the city commission with a recommendation the next step is the initial review by the city commission the fifth step is another public workshop and the six step is the finally adoption by the city commission if you look on page 90 of the board packages this highlights the areas that are subject of the attached ordinance regarding the rm1 rm2 rm3 areas and rps4 areas in mid Beach and South Beach this ordinance allows generally a height increase is by incentive which is between approximately 15 to 20 ft additional height and F increases of approximately 15 to 25% depending on the zoning rm1 rm2 rm3 but generally that's the um intent is to incentivize um properties that agree to abandon any existing transi uses such as short-term rentals or hotels and forgo any such transi uses you know forever in the future now in the rm1 district as noted along um West Avenue and highlighted on page 90 of the board packages this would only apply to existing properties that already have approval for a sweet hotel or Bed and Breakfast um as those uses are no longer allowed in this zoning District so if there's a property in the rm1 district that's already a conforming residential apartment they couldn't take advantage of this ordinance to get increase in height and increase F because they would not be able to come in and get a transi use right now so we've highlighted the areas within the rm1 district that currently have a Transit use so this ordinance would only apply to those properties in the rm1 district um now that we did have an workshop on May 8 May 8th via Zoom it was well attended we had eight or nine participants with question and comments I provided an update of those comments on page 89 of the board packages and so we're recommending that the board um um transmit both the comprehensive um plan amendments as well as the Land Development regulation amendments to the city commission with a favorable recommendation and this will likely come to the city commission at their July hearing we also did provide in the staff report if you wanted to take a look at had it further for reference for anybody watching online um there's a link to the YouTube um presentation and that's noted on page 13 of the staff report thank you Michael anyone in chamber to speak on this item anyone on Zoom there's uh one person on Zoom with her hand raised uh Mr Mitch novic Mitch Mitch good good morning Mitch were you sworn in no I wasn't but I swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole we're going to let we're going to let Nick swear you in this is um this is a legislative item so so uh so you don't you do not need to be sworn in oh my apologies thank you Mitch you have you have two minutes go ahead Nick Nick sorry thank you Nick uh Mitch noic I have always had a problem with the regard to height and F increases being decided by those we elect I feel those are one of those things that should go to the voters similar to the vacation or vacating of valys right of ways and air rights over alleys uh that's that's it that's my two sets thanks Mitch anyone else there's nobody else with their hand hand raised and if I can just provide just some further clarification so height has always been something that the commission can can could have amended in the past in the future um with an ordinance easily regarding um increases in height what's different now is based upon um recent State legislation previously any increase in F did require the voters to approve that increase with um recent State legislation that preempts the city from doing that so now the city commission has the ability to on their own um increase um f and that's but they as part of that review process they did require this pretty strict much more intensive review process compared to a normal um ordinance or comprehensive plan amendment I have a one question um and this would be for Nick Nick how and I did read I maybe you can explain it a little bit better but what kind of guarantees are there that say somebody takes Vantage of this and builds bigger and taller um five years go by 10 years go by and they decide they want to start to do short-term rentals but there's a covenant there's a they have to see a covenant restrictive covenant runs to the land yes okay that's I guess it's again it's a legal question which I'm not up on so that that goes with the land and they would never be able to do that right so so uh so so we could enforce we could enforce it as a uh as a code violation but we could also sorry I don't know why that's happening we could also Sue to enforce the Covenant if it if it came to that point okay I just got to I'm super happy to see that moving towards you know disc surgence on the trendi use and in those areas and um putting some sort of incentive but is it is this enough like do we have any sort of you know search researcher that shows that this will actually be enough incentive to get the the sort of results that we were hoping for like will it actually make a difference and and I think it's it's maybe a matter of trial and error and instituting something and seeing if there's a response if there's no response the city you know City commission could amend further I did speak to somebody who does have a Transit use and they believe that that it would offer it could offer enough incentive for them to to um to modify their use and what I okay so uh I was watching the the call um that you had on Zoom you mentioned about the possibility of downsizing Heights on in in the whole call yes so um we have an ordinance that's actually before you um on the agenda next month it was deferred from the prior month which is to lower the heights for um certain districts including rm3 um from 100 from 200 feet to 150 ft so we'd have to resolve any sort of conflicting um Heights in that regard yeah I guess so this this will take more time you know there's a lot more steps to going through this will apply probably after the decision of downsizing the right so um we're going to have more information um based upon the board's recommendation at the June meeting the soon as this is going to go to the city commission is going to be July for the first reading the public Workshop won't happen till September so likely this will not be for final adoption of the city commission until October or November so that's at that point we would before then reconcile any um conf conflicts with the height okay so the the lowering of the height is that east or west of Collins that' be East that that's sort of to um to sort of um balance the live local act which says that you can take the highest height within a certain radius right so that's the reason for um you know lowering the height okay and you'll get that information and you'll actually the staff report is available online from the from the April meeting if you want to take a look at that before the next meeting but it's largely going to be a um pretty much what was indicated in our report for April when you see it back before you in in June is the conversion of the short-term rentals or other transient uses such as hotels is that for current or proposed or both so in the rm1 it's only properties that currently have that Transit use for rm2 and rm3 where those areas do allow that current already it would be prospective so if a property right now is all apartments or is all apartments they could um submit the Covenant and agree to you know foro any sort of short-term rental or hotel uses in the future Transit uses and take advantage of the incentives thank you any other questions comments yes so Michael you mentioned that you had a project that you've heard about is that what was the kind of the driving force behind this was there are there particular projects that um you know that contemplated I think the driving force here is really the city commission being concerned with these transient uses and the city's ability to control them because right now we're preempted by the state from restrictive from restricting short-term rentals in areas where they were not further restricted prior to um 2011 so the only way to sort of um reduce or minimize these uses is to offer incentives do something El and then the other question I have is in the staff report it discussed the public meeting that was held or public uh community meeting that was held and there was mention of potential impact perhaps to Historic or contributing structures and looking at the map here a lot of this is along the coastline in areas that were impacted by recent State uh preemptions as well so is there any concern about that additional height or F could incentivize something that we don't want to happen it doesn't it doesn't affect the historic preservation Board review of projects it doesn't it doesn't affect um the rooftop additions the maximum number of rooftop editions that are allowed um currently in the Cod so it doesn't doesn't affect that whatsoever but in in these districts like for example the uh the rps4 rps4 and then rm3 those the the demolition of these buildings is no longer under the purview of the historic preservation board correct well I think it depends on the particular circumstances um surrounding the property and their elevation okay that that's my my big concern this is not this is not intended to encourage demolition or modify um our current historic preservation board ordinance okay thank you I think I I think understand what you're getting at which is are we is it does this create an incentive to demolish a building in a historic district is that what you're asking yes I mean it's more F and it's more height than um could potentially be permitted today with these these buildings and and I think Michael the way this was drafted is is in order to be eligible um if if the property is located within a historic district then the owner shall be required to to obtain a certificate appropri from uh from the HPB um so I think that you know to to take advantage of these incentives you you uh you you'd have you'd have to consent to the hpb's just meaning you I don't think you could travel under the um under the state the recent State preemption although there could there could be a risk that somebody would travel under the state preemption and then um file for this right so um where is North Beach on here or is this only mid Beach and South Beach this is only mid Beach and South Beach why does this not include North Beach as well because that's that's a real issue this is the area that was recommended by the city commission I think it should be Citywide um yeah mean there's some people ask for expansion of we make that as a second separate recommendation um yeah just to Echo um many people here said I would really love to see this expanded and increase somehow I think probably the biggest issue right now that Miami Beach is facing is having attaina priced housing uh for people to live and stay on the beach I know the city went a long way towards kind of gearing up for office incentives which it seems like it's been successful and people have built and utilized I wish we could figure out some way to try and I don't want to say curtail that but maybe redirect those office incentives to say hey what works for the residential development Community try and build things where people can finally live on the beach so I don't know how we do that but I don't Michael maybe you have I I can tell recommendations for that I I don't know this is just sort of a I've sort of been looking into some things with Tallahassee um but one of them was I had a conversation with Ways and Means A couple weeks ago there are some tax things that we can do that are not necessarily um they're not we can't we have to collect taxes but we can rebate them so that's something that can be looked into that I'm not real sure that anybody is actually yeah I I don't I don't know what what it is but that can be done even uh you know for the new hotel that we were looking into and it seems like the development came the community came back and said hey even though the city would love to put residential there right now based on what we can build it makes no sense so so but they can be done there just there there even special zoning districts in different places but that's a whole separate argument so or discussion yeah just love to see what we can do with the plan Department to say hey how can we push this forward right and that's furthering residential incentives maybe curtailing office just to see how we can kind of redirect the city I think based upon direction I've seen um from the city K and land use and sustainability committee meeting I think there is a concerted effort to increase residential uses you know within the city so I I wouldn't be surprised to see um more ordinances come to the planning board that have incentives um to further increase residential uses yeah I just hope that they think bigger right because like the feedback that we got on the new hotel that you know we were going to here today was at most maybe you know the residential development Community could have put 30 units there right 30 unit development when you factor in costs and whatnot that's not really moving the needle for how we can solve the problems that in my opinion the city has well I I do agree I think you know based upon past um amendments to the city code there are areas where clearly the code is modified to incentivize hotels and offices so we do have in place and and I think it's also going to be coming before you um modification of those um um requirements or modific modification of those incentives to to to walk that back got it so to walk that back and then ideally further the residential goals right like you saw last month we had the repeal of the co- living incentives so that that was a start okay all right someone want to move it and i' just like to respond just to follow up on on Matthew's question is is I think um just just I want to clarify what I said which is if a property owner wanted to use any of these incentives they would would have to file an application with the HP if if the property were located in historic they would have to file an application um to the HPB before before they are um availed of these incentives yeah absolutely okay yeah thank you I'll move it with the with the all right we're starting with the uh first one right right okay with a favorable recommendation and then you can we can make a separate motion that it okay I'll second that okay and that's for both the comp plan and the LD we do both we can do both of one okay great yeah I'll second both all in favor I any opposed okay none and then I think uh you want to make a separate motion I'd like to make a motion that it be applied Citywide especially to North Beach I think that we have a real problem with short-term rentals especially a lot of the new buildings that are coming up that are micro units that are that are extremely is problematic for the whole city especially where we are so I'd like to kind of take the temperature and say where we are with that and i' support that but do we also need to expand that motion to include ideally prodding the commission uh and committees to kind of think about how to further residential incentives and right Court Curel yeah we can include that com recommendation so if you that I'll second great thank you and I do think you're also going to see an amendment to increase the um the hotel room size so I think so I think that you're going to see that direction to um to reduce the incentives for [Laughter] hotel we also have the elimination of of the additional f for the hotel bonus in certain city2 districts so there is that um Direction okay um all in favor of that in favor of that motion of recommendation I just I just have one one question before uh my concern is the increase in height perhaps might incentivize these higher ceilings which then get into those like Class A type residential um you know larger units again which isn't really it's it's it's knocking out one of the issues which is transi use but then it's not necessarily addressing the lack of uh you know more more attainable housing in this city I'm supportive of this and I'm going to vote in favor of it but I think the there could be some disconnect now of course understanding that this uh these two ordinances are Waterfront right so it's never going to be that more attainable housing but ceiling Heights play a really really important role in determining you know the actual value of these units in addition to FL area that's a great point I guess it could be tied to unit right right the goal could be to increase the residential unit count in the City versus you know something that's a little bit more broad such as the F yeah so just I mean I I don't have specific you know language to add to this motion but I think we need to to and we're not necessarily endorsing this particular um you know carbon copy of these two ordinances Citywide but it needs to look at holistically that's what we should be asking the commission you know floor area height and other items as well understood all in favor I I opposed I think we had a question yeah just a quick question because in the summary you do make a reference to this not increasing the maximum allow yes so this does not increase density right so so it does not increase the number of unit so linked to his point is that we're not trying to change the number necessarily of uh in the density of the we already like if somebody's doing a Workforce Housing Development there already is a density bonus that's allowed of 80% okay right all right so that's a recommendation okay great all right we're on to um new applications planning Bo file 24659 1905 Collins Avenue I guess a modification of a prior cup 1905 oh it's just change of owner oper yes this application is requesting modification to a previously conditional use permit for a neighborhood impact establishment specifically the applicant is requesting a change of the owner operator and the staff is recommending approval with conditions and you'll note that this initial CP was granted by the board um back on December 19th of 2000 there have been several changes longest standing Club in America and I was a I was a participant it was at one time it was a larger venue it was um it was um eventually split um it was modified to expand an area um this applicant here is before you just for a change of owner operator now since the cup is quite old it does requ did require them to come to the planning board um over the past couple years the board has modified the conditions of approval so when there is a change of owner operator that's something that can be done with an affidavit at staff level so we're all recommending as part this this modification that language also be modified so that when an owner operator changes in the future they don't have to come back before the planning board they can do that with the submission of an affidavit and handled by City staff right but what why did it come to us to begin with is it just to make sure that it says the conditions of the cop are very strict it says any change of operator has to come back to the board but they adopt the cup that's in place yes they basically they agree that they're not if they were asking for mod ific they' have to come before so if you eliminate the need for us and it can just be done by affidavit if affidavit just says here are the new owners and you agree to abide by the conditions of the CP yes okay which they really have to do anyway but right have there been any issues no no if there if there had been and then that's also um a good point where you know outside of this affidavit if there are issues with complaints and violations like you've seen previously we do a cure letter and bring them to the board and is there any basis that staff could reject a new owner really can't right not really the affidavit is just saying here's who it is and we agree to abide by the new cup correct correct all right essentially I didn't know if you did a background check on their history no we don't don't do all right sir good afternoon Mr chair honorable board members staff Attorney James Ral with greens Mar office at 600 ble Avenue here with my colleague Adrien Noto um and our clients represent Yan feifer uh we are here on behalf of our client Lee P Schwarz um who was acquiring this venue is under contract to purchase it and we're here for um as indicated by the staff the basic change of owner operator change out the LLC um the venues fully licenses fully licensed and permitted as a restaurant and bar lounge with a good operating record this this application is a little sentimental for me because it's the first application I worked on almost 20 years ago with with my mentor Harold Rosen so uh I've been with it for a long time you've made it yeah um applicant will not exceed the currently approved seeing an occupany it's a very small space a little over 1500 square feet um and who who's the current owner is it still um prior to this new owner who who is the owner owner's name is the principal is uh Michael kig okay so it had been sold before what's the guy originated it I'm spacing out but anyway okay a long time ago yeah that was back when I was working on it a long time ago okay um and so we're here requesting your approval um I'm we're excited to change ownership and um keep on improving the venue okay anyone here to speak on this no anyone on Zoom there's nobody on zoom zoom and then just an update you're going to see for the the space next door is going to be before you next month also for a change of operator that's the little restaurant next door that's the um mint mint no we're the little restaurant oh you're the restaurant oh not mint oh got it okay mint is the larg that's why I'm sorry I thought you yeah yeah mint's the larger space I thought this was mint got it same confusion this is the little place no because the the staff report me is Rock Bar it was yeah it was originally combined I see is it same type of music and things like that or are we changing that type of thing as well um I not sure is it it's the same kind of mus I'm sorry I can't I can't hear want to stand up yeah sorry go ahead explain that so it will not be the same kind of music it will be more like disco Funk like very old school so we change it okay all right all right someone want to move it motion to approve okay I'm sorry who made the M she'll move to approve it Melissa second all in favor I oppose oppos good luck sir thank you very much welcome to Miami Beach congratulations on your new Chambers looks beautiful thank you okay all right the next is a lot split planning board file 24657 14 1905 1415 and 1425 Mars drive this application is requesting modifications to a previously approved land L split to divide existing site comprised of three pled Lots into three individual fieldable Parcels staff is recommending approval with conditions and this is on page 121 of your package so just an update here the board may remember or some of you will remember back on October 26 of 2021 the planning board did approve the lot split here which was to divide the lot which was three pled Lots into three separate buildable Parcels now at that time the code had a penalty if you were demolishing a pre- 42 home there was a pr42 home in the center of the property the code said if you demolishing a pr42 home you're penalized in terms of lot coverage to 25% and unit size of 40% so when the boorder approved the lot split those were the standard conditions that were put in place the applicant um then proceeded with three to the drb had three new homes approved since that time um State legislation was adopted that prevents the city from treating a pre 42 home differently from from other homes and when a resiliency code was updated a year ago we remove that penalty for um when a home is demolished so there's no longer that penalty however we still do an analysis of the area and the unit sizes um and lot coverage and based upon that we are recommending that the the um unit size be limited to 45% based upon the standard average unit size of around 30% for the area we're not opposed to a lot coverage of 30% we're all recommending the unit size be limited to 45% the applicant is requesting a modification to allow them to go up to 50% unit size that turn it over to the applicant for his presentation this recently good morning uh Nicholas Rodriguez from bural Rell Fernandez Lin and tapenz offices at 200 South bisc Boulevard here repres presenting Betina equities LLC and their principal Maria kyola joined by our architect Chris Fernandez and of course my colleague Mickey marero um we have our digital presentation I see it here there we go so as Michael explained uh this was a previously approved lot split the original triple lot uh was around 24,000 square ft we divided it give or take into roughly 8,000 square foot Lots um so the lot split is done and the owner actually uh has kind of suffered a lot with this property um they went not only got three homes approved by the drb they went into building permit uh were in the process of getting the homes approved Chris was working on trying to get them approved uh fit all of the mechanical equipment fit everything within the 40% and 20 40% unit size and 25% lock coverage footprint um along you know it wasn't a sing One Singular issue uh but ultimately after several meetings with Michael the owner made the call to try to return to the planning board because of just the homes that were being proposed in that building permit application was not good quality product it was not going to be sellable uh there weren't going to be good homes for her to live in uh it just wasn't working uh the the limitations on unit size and lock coverage were just constricting and tying the architect's hands behind his back um so you know actually throughout that time she considered selling the property uh and she did engage with four separate buyers and every single one of those four buyers walked away the moment that they saw the planning board order order that limited the unit size to 40% she could not sell it um so here we go the the owner has made the difficult decision to basically start over come back to the planning board get three brand new homes uh and we feel that these new homes are a big step up in design uh but we are requesting that we be treated just like any other vacant lot in the neighborhood uh and any other vacant lot would be would be entitled to the 50% unit size that's permitted by the code and not be penalized at 40% or at 45% uh based on surrounding homes that are frankly much older and likely to be redeveloped in the near future um so oh did I lose a slide here there we go so just to give some context of where this property is we're in North Beach uh we've seen a couple similar applications recently uh you see in the in the background you see Bay Drive along the bay you all may remember the 1120 Bay Drive application we went had a similar conversation and you all approved 50% based on the fairness one lot uh you know one lot that's not subject to a lot split approval being entitled to 50% uh while a lot that is subject to a lot split but follows the original ploted lot lines and is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood is hit with a penalty um so and then more recently at the very last planning board meeting you see Southshore Drive in the foreground you all approved of a unit size of 50% at 900 Southshore Drive now all applications are evaluated on their own Merit so there's not really a precedent um but it is worthwhile to point out that there's a fairness issue here right you have a one single platted lot and it should be developed just like any other single platted lot would be in the same neighborhood uh and the effect that spring a unit size restriction and a lot coverage restriction has on the property it's really a chilling effect on being able to sell the property uh in perpetuity um it's a chilling effect on and uh difficulty for designers to be able to to design high quality homes and high quality product and in our conversations with the neighbor in this neighborhood they express to us a desire to see larger nicer homes they feel that some of these other streets in North Beach have been subject to to Redevelopment to new nice homes while their street uh you'll see on the area analysis there's only one home been built in the last 50 years on Mars Drive uh so they're they're starving for new development in this neighborhood and they're happy uh to we we you know with our conversations with them they have been supportive of our request for 50% unit size so uh just as Michael mentioned we're requesting to go up to a 50% unit size modify the previous condition of the order and 30% lock coverage staff doesn't have an objection to 30% lock coverage but they are trying to knock us to 45% unit size uh which again to us it's just a fairness issue uh as to how we're being treated with respect to other lots and also just an ability for the architect to take that four or 500 foot difference and be able to use it uh to for mechanical equipment or for uh certain things like resiliency improvements whereas the you'll see shortly the proposed new homes each have underst stories uh which is something that will'll have to get approved at the design review board um but it's a resilient element that elevates the home and it does take that 300 3 or 400 square foot basically is all put into that understory so this is the properties that staff analyzed with respect to the area analysis it's a very unique neighborhood and that Mars driv is a short sweet a short Street uh buttressed by two rm1 so you literally driving down the street in a single family neighborhood and then suddenly there's apartment buildings um so it's a little bit of a unique neighborhood in that respect uh and as I pointed out earlier the area analysis you see that the only home on the street that's been constructed in the last 50 years is a home in 2011 and it was at 48% unit size you just don't see new home construction at 45% or below anywhere time in the last 20 30 years uh we are requesting slightly above the average uh but I think if you see the the age of some of these homes and the size of some of these homes uh you'll you can deduce that they will be redeveloped in the near future and when they are redeveloped they're going to be at 50% or close to it uh so with that I'll turn it over to Chris you're saying by virtue fact that they don't need a lot split they are entitled to 50% yes anybody who has a vacan lot is entitled to or or an existing lot can go to 50 right so I'll give it to Chris to walk you through the proposed new home designs and how we're mitigating impacts without reducing our unit size all right before I forget does anyone have a disclosure to make about a communication anybody no okay go ahead good morning board um my name is Chris Fernandez who cfz design residing at 4051 Northeast 27 Terrace Lighthouse Point um we are asking not to exceed as as Nicholas has mentioned but to kind of align with what the you know surrounding properties are allowed to do as a right um in the previous design um I was wasn't a part of it but I joined in afterwards um it was you know the 40% unit size was inadequate with chin mechanical equipment it led to very small rooms um it was just unappealing product that we had very difficult ch um time selling the the new design with this which has an additional 10% in unit size actually feels smaller massing and results in a higher quality product which I'll I'll run through it um the design philosophies um on this is you know resiliency sustainability Aging in place and neighborhood massing sensitivity in regards to the sustainability you know rising sea levels our design proposes elevating the buildings move allows us to you know tuck the parking underneath increasing the permeability of the site and account for the future rising of the roads at our current site the street is projected or it's it's to be raised in the future um about up to 2 feet um and you know we want to design something that kind of is future proof for these for these homes in contrast to the previous designer proposal will have a more Compact and Greener footprint um with the underst story um you know Aging in place given the elevated nature of the homes we aim to ensure that they're adaptable for all residents by incorporating elevators in each home we facil the ease of movement accessibility this inclusion accounts for approximately 680 ft so most of this area that we're we're requesting is actually being tucked under the building so when you look at these massings um with a house on the ground your garage is kind of outside of it well now that we've elevated we can tuck it under the house we actually have a lot more green space um in regards to massing we really took consideration to the properties next to us um if you see the property on the far left lot nine um it's it's set back even further than what's required in the front we have a portion that's about 44 feet that's first and second story um and in the rear yard also it sets further back um so it it kind of lines right behind the the actual uh 1433 resident um you'll also notice that the buildings set back um on the sides um further than what's required of 8' 6 in and it's what we're proposing is 11 ft on lot 9 um and about n uh 9 or 10 ft on lot 11 um we we took a lot of consideration in that in the massing of it um and in addition we're planning on really Landscaping this um so that when you're walking down the street with these buildings set further back everything kind of like compacted you know we kind of conceal these buildings um in conclusion our proposed design modification aimed to enhance sustainability resilience and relability while being sensitive to the existing neighborhood thank you so we have U Chris didn't quite get to but we have these massing studies this is the proposed homes and this is of the massing study of the previously approved homes at 40% and what I found interesting about these is when you look at the massing of the 40% unit size home uh if I'm out of time I'll take 10 more seconds and I'll be done I promise it's an interesting new noise for the the the alarm way more alarming I didn't recognize it at first like is there a car in here um so what I was saying is the new homes as Chris was saying actually appear smaller in massing than the proposed homes that were approved at 40% unit size and that's as Chris said we're tightening up the homes and the new square footage is actually a lot of it going within or underneath the home um and you know I want to point out we did meet with our neighbor to the left uh Olivier they may be here today to speak we are open to continue to meeting with them to make any design improvements we've been meeting with the neighborhood they were a vocal part of the first lot split approval we had a meeting at the site uh there were was a little bit contentious as first but things have come around and like I said they've expressed to our owner that they to our client that they are supportive of this um and I think that they are happy to see this project finally moving forward as opposed to being stuck in kind of purgatory which where it has been uh in large part due to this 40% unit size so with that we respectfully request approval of our modifications thank you okay anyone in chamber speak on this anyone in Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay close the public hearing any questions yeah um like I guess what they said I just confirm it that if this was just a vacant lot let's say one lot no there's no historic home demolished would they be able to build up to 50% of the lot size that's correct okay um one thing I did notice on your renderings and and I was going to me ask if you would talk to the neighbors um yeah from from the perspective you showed the um the the second um set the the revised one showing 50% do look a little bit better but from a street view I'm guessing they're going to look a lot taller because you're pushing everything together so the question was how much Outreach did you do to the neighbors and are they did you show them maybe elevation street level elevations and were they okay with those so Chris actually met with Olivia so they can speak more to it I know he he sent an email that I was copying on and said these designs are a big step up from the previous ones um Chris I I think one of the things the underst story will make the home taller but we're not going to the max right that that yeah right that is correct we about 2T or so shorter than what the max allows when when we met with the neighbor to the left he liked the idea that these buildings are being pushed back these second stories are about 40 feet back plus um even in the rear and the amount of landscaping that we're providing in the front we're hoping that intention it looks like a force with these little you know little glimpses of the houses Beyond um and one of the other factors is uh with an underst store you required a 70% open space it's a heighten open space requirement in your front in your rear yard uh so it's it's more open space by providing a slightly taller home on on the lot and we should note too that um just because it's if it's a lot split so regardless of the type of home it does require drb review and approval however they're also asking for an understory so the height is also reviewed by the drb and typically for an RS4 lot the drb will allow a height of 24 ft when from your first habitable floor to your rooftop so the understory level is flexible and the drb reviews that so it can't be excessive typically the drb will allow an understory of around 9 ft for an RS4 lot and then 24 ft on top of that for the um the first and second floor did you guys have you been to the drv yet for the second no we we have to get approved here so we know our unit size and then we can apply but we'll definitely be coordinating with with Olivier our neighbor to the left lot a for Michael and and your team you recommended 45% uh unit size not the 50% that they asked for and it's of course is greater than the 40% currently allowed can you talk more about how you landed there sure so um if you look at page um 122 of the board packages that includes the lot split criteria and criteria number number three says whether the scale of any proposed new construction is compatible with the ASB built character of the surrounding area not the Future character or creates adverse impacts on the surrounding area and if so how the adverse impacts will be mitigated to determine whether the Criterion satisfi the applicant shall submit a massing scale studies reflecting structures and uses that will be permitted under the Land Development regulations as a result of the proposed lot split even if the applicant present presently has no specific plans for construction so we believe based upon a review and Analysis of the surrounding area which has an average unit size of 30% we believe a 45% is a reasonable what was permitted back when those homes were built they we didn't have when those homes originally constructed we didn't have lock coverage unit size limitations it was a factor of um setbacks and height and people are just not building but you would agree that at some point if these homes are redeveloped which they likely will they'll all get 50% likely when a new home is developed we're seeing them come in and going to 50% right so don't you find it punitive no we're no I mean right now right now if they wanted to do a larger home they could do they could keep the lot as is not split it and they could do a larger home on the on the lot so we don't think it's punitive and it is a criteria that's listed in the in the um on the lot split criteria for a lot split application and we've been consistent we've never Rec there's in instances where for example on Palm Hibiscus Island we do an analysis of the of the area and in those circumstances we do find that you will find sometimes an average unit size existing over 50% that's because it was a period where the drb could approve a unit size of up to 70% so in that case you know going to 50% is not incompatible with the neighborhood but we've been consistent where we find an average unit size of 30% recommending no more than 45% and we're going to continue you know with that Rec you almost do that as a matter of course it seems like because you did it last time right right okay based on what they have quick question sure functionally what's the difference between you know it's called 40 45 and 50 in a minute you know essentially it's the an additional bedroom um we are you know striving for like a four four member family um with an office is kind of what we're targeting um so that 400 square feet we're asking um or it's technically 800 the 10% is 800 but a lot of it's being consumed by the circulation we need to be able will bring people up to the first floor but that extra 400 is an adequate closet and a bedroom um that we're asking for if I may for less than a minute so to to answer the chair's question back in the 50s 60s standard you know the way folks lived was very different closets are huge closets have quadrupled in size at least in those times and that's why you're seeing all these new homes are 50% you used to be able to go to the drb and request up to 70 with with board approval that the city took that away but now we're seeing 50 everywhere and the only home in this neighborhood in the last you know 30 40 years was that 50% um the only difference here is that at one point many years ago an owner chose to unify the Lots develop one home and keep the rest of open space but that's the only difference between this and every other lot in the neighborhood you all had a very similar application last month on South hero Drive Nick and I worked on that one too and there was the same argument we we don't you staff did what they're supposed to do do that analysis on the existing uh on the existing uh homes that are there but the reality is every other home here as you said will be redeveloped and all likelihood all at about 50% this is just the only this would be the outlier so we're asking that it be brought in line with everything else and we think the homes certainly dictate dictate that thank you now to to your point M I think we're going to be seeing you know no one's going to go and not try to apply for 50% in all these new new construction so we got to figure out what we're comfortable and be somewhat consistent in what we we grown doing and I just don't think we um there's some specific cases probably that we we we might consider differently uh but you know based on a staff recommendation it's normal that they they they're trying to to match what the neighborhood has but all these neighborhoods that are being redeveloped they're all going to ask for 50% so it's for us to be consistent on how we decide on that stuff I agree Mr chair may ask um what is the average what was the previous home size versus what's new and also what is the what is the previous bedroom size versus the new bedroom size what you what you had yes yes we got yes so they were at 40% and we need you on the mic so that's about 3,200 square ft and then the new homes will be about 3,800 give or take roughly and and the bedroom sizes it I think they're the same just you took away but you have one less bedroom right yeah basically yeah and just the bedroom sizes were like single um not full size but single beds it was very small what it does is it makes these new homes you know less quality than the other ones that will be redeveloped in the neighborhood and again as as Michael said somebody could say you know what this lot doesn't make sense I'll build a 50% home on the full lot then you'd have a 12,000 foot home with no board it's straight to permit as of right we think these smaller around you 3,800 3900 foot homes make a lot more sense and that's what we're asking for and if you look at the previous plans which we don't have but um the closets in the bedrooms were like maybe two feet wide um there was several of them like that the rooms could fit like I said a single bed in there um it was just not functional okay thank you I was just trying to get an idea visually move it um is there is there anyone on Zoom to speak on this there is not okay no one here I think think I asked okay so I'd make a motion to approve it at the 50% I think kind of going back to the conversation we had about trying to allow for housing where people can functionally live this is all kind of a part of that conversation uh whether it's in buildings or single family so I'd make a motion to approve that I'll second it okay all in favor before we do one one question I'd be in favor um of that as well um could we limit um when they go in front of the drb can we um add on something that says they can't ask for any further any any variance basically from the L I think we have that as a condition already right VAR I probably missed it okay I think that's usually standard in in the dra orders right I just want to be sure you don't need to a roll call on a new app no no as long as there's as long as we haven't heard any um okay okay so all in favor yeah anyone opposed okay congratulations thank you all thank you all very much it was a weak approval all right do you guys want to take lunch now or um is lunch ready is it here I don't think it's here okay oh wait yes it is is it huh it's there I'd like to make a motion that the air conditioning be increased to about 72 instead of 52 incre acre temperature yep all we're going to do one more uh before lunch it's only 10: to 12 so the next one is planning board file 23641 1333 dat Boulevard mixed use building application for mechanical parking yeah see you don't have to sit through our lunch um this is a this application is requesting a conditional use approval for a mechanical parking uh and the staff is recommending approval with conditions and it's on page 135 or your package and the um application was reviewed and approved by the drb on May 7th and that included a variance for the driveway width this is a relatively minor application that's before you only for mechanical parking this is for largely an office build an office building with one residential unit and we are recommending approval of the application there are some recommendations since the initial application was submitted regarding removal of one parking spot to allow for maneuverability for valet I think there's a total of 13 parking spaces so recommending approval of the application as noted um with a recommendation starting on page page 148 of the board packages that'll turn it over to Mr amster for the applicant's presentation good morning almost afternoon Matt amster with the LA from of burkow Fernandez Larin and tapenz offices at 200 South biscane Boulevard in Miami here today representing uh crear office LC that's the uh applicant and owner of this uh subject property Southside of Sunset Harbor um with me today I likely on zoom in fact I I think before I go any further Nick you might want to swear in some of our team since they came in later as well as there are some team members on Zoom sure so if if the um if the presenters are on Zoom as they raise their raise their hands on Zoom so they can Maximo panco and Joe Goldberg our Traffic Engineers and then for anyone in the room please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do thank you uh and this is Sebastian VES uh our architect also uh at his office Julio fomina um as Michael mentioned and we do have a presentation if you could call that up um we've already been to the drb this did not require us to go to the planning board first even though that was how we intended to do so uh but uh in processing everything we did go to the drb first so the design has been approved with Associated variances uh this is a Bas it's a mixed use building it has ground level parking uh one residential unit which is on the second floor and then three levels of office uh it also has a rooftop but that is uh Express and private only for for the residential use and not for the public um the the ownership is actually a Brazilian entrepreneur and he's looking to make this his family office here in Miami uh so it's intended at the moment uh to be just one office and the residential unit will be for his family's use um so that again is a a specific defining characteristic and that owner as well as uh you know his corporate staff have been working very closely with the Architects to design something that um will meet their needs uh and we think that they come up with a great uh project um we did pass out a letter of support from tront Towing which is kind of to our North and Northwest um I have also spoken with uh to the west of us is Beach towing and their attorney representative has uh seen the plans uh shared them with the ownership and they have no issue at all um and I don't know if they're here to speak but we have spoken with representatives of the Sunset Harbor neighborhood association uh they actually came in person to support our drb application earlier this month so here you can see our property um it's a very narrow it's only 50 ft wide so it was a challenge to uh design this building and put it on the property um it only has access from the south from Dade Boulevard uh you can see here that um even to the south of us not just a Boulevard but then you have the canal and then you have you know 17th Street as it crosses over so we're and we have two towing companies nearby and a public storage to our East so uh we're kind of shoe boxed in but uh I think that uh The Architects have done a great job of addressing that um existing condition um the the building on the property which is actually here in these older photos is the orange roof roof has actually been demolished already um but here you can just see that context of what surrounds us and here's to show that it is a vacant property uh so in context again here you can see our our building and we are not meeting the maximum setbacks at all I mean we are able to go zero on the front in both sides and I think 5et from the rear uh the building is much uh narrower and slender than that uh in in an ability to be compatible as well as to you know have uh a good presence even though it's very narrow but I'm going to zoom in you'll see that here is our actual ground level this is where all the parking is we are only required in Sunset Harbor because there's an incentive for office to have just one parking space for the residential unit we are electing to provide 13 parking spaces right one for the unit and 12 for the um the office use now just to be clear on that um the uh they become required parking by doing so um we are able to be more efficient we'll have full valet 247 which likely won't be needed for an office in the in the evenings uh but that will be how they operate there will be a gate uh but that all has been managed by uh and reviewed through the city's transportation and also their peer reviewer and if you heard Michael baloi did mention that uh we had some changes uh to uh address maneuverability uh basically and that was really why the applications swapped in order we were planning to come here first but to address a transportation issue about maneuverability we identified now so there not in your plans but there's a condition in fact two conditions in the uh staff Report Draft order that we approve that basically do recognize that one space needs to be dedicated for maneuverability only so they're originally was 14 parking spaces now there's 13 luckily we because of the required nature we're able to absorb that but that will actually help the operation um EXT extensively so here you can see in yellow those are our actual parking lifts uh again they're underneath the building there's either enclosures or screens on the sides as required so that no impacts from lights and noise um here you can see just in section you know the lifts are down there at that bottom level uh just for refence right the pink above is the residential then three levels of office and again there is a roof deck but that's for the residential use only um they are going to use a reputable company uh CLA parking systems they have a lot of uh uh both uh established lifts in nearby areas as well as good close by maintenance in case there's any issues but they're very reliable um we did have to do a study to show that we're not getting any more intensity or density out of using lifts so we showed uh at the bottom there's a we can actually provide 15 standard parking spaces uh so that uh is a requirement to make sure that the lifts aren't you know giving us more office space more density which is not the case uh just again in brief these are a number of the maneuverability studies that were done both Again by our peer reviewers I mean by our sta our Traffic Engineers and then peer reviewed by the city and uh basically this one here over on the upper right you can see uh that uh there's a te of two two cars together making a te the one uh at the bottom of that te is actually the space that's open for maneuverability that's really the the opportunity to uh at worst case right this is basically the worst case when you have to take a car that's already up at the top of a back lift you can get it out and not have any issue uh again our Traffic Engineers are on if you need it we also had to vet with staff and the pre- reviewer are uh loading and unloading there's a loading space uh there's also a a trash you know dumpster and these are showing how uh Vehicles can get in and out for both of those operations happens all on our property uh and you know in in the interest of time I mean I do have the architect here he could say a few words about their design uh and or we can because we do agree with all of staff's conditions did you want to say a few words sure uh thank you so much Sebastian Bellis with Urban robot Associates we are located here in um Miami Beach on Lincoln Road for TWI Lincoln Road and I'm also a resident so projects like these are very important for us um because you know we we we live in Bri Miami Beach so just very briefly it's a unique building right uh we we uh we really wanted to make something that worked with the current context which is public storage and and the uh tow yards but also we understand that the city is changing and so it was important for uh the building to take that into account uh also this is a building that as you're coming from Venetian you're going to have a view and as you're coming down dat you're going to see the building as well so it's a building that even though it's a very narrow lot we wanted to approach it visually from uh all sides so that you know because you can see it right so it contributes to the urban fabric hopefully and it's a building that for us it's important that it feels like it's part of Miami Beach that it it doesn't really work if you know if you put this building in corl Ables or anywhere else um with that said I think the driveway it was very important for us to not drive by and see this very wide 24t wide you know garage entrance right we we we encourage pedestrians bicyclist and and know considering the private nature of this office we really wanted to narrow it down and have a building that that doesn't sit on a pedestal but really comes down all the way to the ground so that's why we have and we asked for a variance and got approved a narrow drive lane that goes into the parking uh and and worked with with staff and our Traffic Engineers to make sure that all the buildings um you know Services worked and parking uh work with that so um I'll show you just a couple more pictures here of the Planters and uh what I like to call the Miami visce shot it's our render got a little excited here but we thought it was fun so uh that's it but I hope you got to see that there's you know Landscaping is actually incorporated into the building purposefully not just on the the ground level uh with that um again as I mentioned we're we agree with all of staff's uh conditions and respectfully request your approval we're here to answer any questions okay thank you anyone here to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay close the public hearing questions I got a couple questions um first off beautiful project really nice and it it has sort of a um similarity to the project that just finished being built uh West of you guys so it kind of has a nice blending in the neighborhood um that being a a mainstream we already have lots of troubles with uh with traffic in that area when you talk about the gate to the to the building you said there's a gate to access is it is there enough um uh setback that cars can turn in and and not be slowing down traffic on the boulevard uh sure uh we have uh if you look at the plan we actually it's quite a a bit you drive all the way to the back and have parking so there's space for uh several cars to be queuing one way or the other so so the gate that you spoke about is further in yes it's quite a further ways back yeah um I'd just like to say that it's beautiful I think it's something the neighborhood needs it is certainly a lot better than looking at the towing um I did have a lot of the questions that Melissa had but um thank you yeah want to Echo my colleagues uh thoughts it's a really attractive looking building and I think it will add a lot to the neighborhood I did have uh two two comments um or questions one what one comment is I really really appreciate the setback on the front and adhering to the short front edge standards along dve vvart I think that will add a lot of presence and and uh at least for that narrow section we'll really uh Elevate The Pedestrian experience uh but my question is about the location of the bike rack um so it's all the way in the rear which is concerning and then it looks like it may have some sort of overhang but minimal amount of overhang which will then you know if it's a a windy and rainy day uh you know subject uh those stored bicycles to to the elements uh so there's any way in which it could be moved or if it's been contemplated to be placed in a more convenient and and more um covered area you I think that would be appreciated especially as you mentioned that the you know the parking um was not initially required you chose to uh to make that required so if there could be space there I would highly encourage that and then the last comment is I really love these traffic studies that everyone provides I actually went through basically the whole thing last night and uh it's really interesting um for example they level service for all the intersections is a mostly A's which is like unheard of in any Urban environment and then some B's and C's which even a CA is a really well functioning area so um you know there's not really contrary to what people might say at the Times there's not really a traffic issue in this area um and also the other data that it provides you know showing the high multimodal nature of the area pedestrian counts and bicycles counts as well in addition to the vehicles I think is it's really helpful in terms of like an urban planning perspective for this project and others in the area as well so I want to thank you for that but the bicycle uh rack part I think is something that really should be looked at and to the extent that you can do something there would be appreciated thank you and I'm very supportive otherwise because we're really only looking at the mechanical parking correct that's correct yeah you can make you can you can suggest like you're saying if you want to make have them make modifications for the bicycle parking to make it more accessible and secure and um secure from the elements you can include that as a condition I would encourage that and ask my colleagues as well to encourage that we we can certainly explore that I know space is a premium but we can look to locate it in the garage just for clarity remember this is there's no retail there's no real except for people visiting the office those are racks basically for the office employees so we felt it would be again a Safety and Security issue for their bikes while they're there throughout the day to so but also it's again space is a premium but I think we can we can certainly work to work with staff to figure find a place to make sure that it's uh protected from the elements I have a quick question do you have anything pre-leased well no so as I mentioned the owner is a Brazilian office any any office app no they're planning to use it for their own ownice it's the family office yeah so it's not intended to be leased out okay thank you question question for staff what is the benefit that projects get by classifying as mixed use versus office meaning putting that one residential unit on top you get the um f bonus got it thank you and wait what is the F bonus 25% got got yes um considering the limitations on the site it's it's nicely designed um how you kind of fit everything in there there um but that's the one question I had you know way in the back you have the FPL Vault and also the trash room have you reached out I assume to fpl and ask them if that's going to be an issue because I know they they normally um like to have sort of unfettered access to where their vaults are yes that's always a very good question you know you know on the city Side we don't want to see the Vault well it's not a vault it's a padm Transformer so we want to have it inside uh so we do have the clearance these are the the preliminary requirements our engineer gave us and we had a brief conversation with FPL about the sizing of it and the vertical clearance so everything is designed per their requirements we haven't gone back and forth you know they usually like to look at it a little bit further into the process but at least we have a good framework one other question on the trash um have you reached out to any companies you know try well I guess the two operating in the city because you know they use pretty large trucks and they depending on what they use um sometimes they have a fork in the front um I don't know if that's going to work where you are um or they have the the other trucks the back loaders and they kind of have the the totes they use for that or the the small dumpsters the concern is that's a long way to go back for the trash either for the truck and to maneuver in there because I don't think a truck's going to turn around um the alternative is they wheel out whether it's a tote or a dumpster to the street which is going to be a uh costly if they're going to do that every day and take time the concern I have is you know we don't want to see the whatever the dumpster is ending up sort of on the days it comes out on the sidewalk waiting for the for the garbage truck to come so that's that's my concern how that's going to be handled and I wonder if you if you did any um um investigation talking to different uh trash companies to see how that's going to work uh it's I believe that that at least a you know preliminary discussion has happened I mean it's all designed to happen on the property basically the we have a because of the lifts we have a higher first floor so it's over 14 ft clearance uh which is significant and and accommodates trash loading operations um it is Valley operated so the truck will get assistance from you know people on site to help them maneuver into the property it's basically a straight shot you know in and out um and that was all vetted through the transportation review and the peer reviewer so um it's possible that our um our our traffic engineer Maximo who's on Zoom may have had a provide more color about reaching out to the um the trash collection you know cont I'm sure you know it can be worked out the thing is on a consistent basis because eventually somebody says well it's the valet people a trash company oh this is pain pain to do this all the time and then they're going to make it easy for if we could call up the plan if I may for I think that this will help it's a very narrow driveway it's a oneway basically in and out as managed with both LA and a gate there's no opportunity really to have any dumpsters sit anywhere with that wouldn't otherwise impede I'm thinking that's that's my concern so assure you that a a family business is not going to want their trash container just uh out in the open in front of their business so yeah and I thought about it and I don't think you're going to have it's not like you're going to have every day a full full dumpster I assume so it's not going to be a lot but it's just a concern it's something that I guess whenever this project is finished and starts operating something we'll we'll keep an eye on someone want to move it go ahead approving the uh the conditions for the Mixed use office building for the um mechanic parking garage and I'll second second by m Laton all in favor I any opposed motion passes 6 to Zer thanks for the presentation good luck thank you very much thank you very much all right we'll take 15 minutes the rests are all code amendments so how long do you want to take for lunch break I mean their code amendments so 15 20 minutes 20 minutes yeah start at 12:30 I'll come back shortly after 12:30 just called me Mary e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] he n [Music] [Music] he he [Music] y [Music] oh [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] no [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] my oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] take [Music] [Music] n [Music] you [Music] [Music] take [Music] take [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] a [Music] [Music] [Music] n n [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] he [Music] [Music] e please take your seats the meeting is about to begin if you are here to present on an item today and have a presentation please go to the Podi please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 two [Music] one proceed with a new comprehensive plan and code amendments the next item is item 12 on the agenda planning board file 24673 mandatory progress reports for certain cups and this report begins on page 155 of the board packages this ordinance would only apply to conditional use permits that were issued for Neighborhood Impact establishment it would do two things it would first require a mandatory progress report within 6 months of the insuance of a of a cup and typically right now the board requires a progress report usually within 60 or 90 days um from the issuance of a a CU for the establishment the biggest thing this does is require a yearly progress report for all new cups for Neighborhood Impact establishments regardless of whether or not any violations have been issued and the purpose of this is to make sure that businesses are abiding by the conditions of of this of the Cup by having them come to the board on a yearly basis um as for a progress report now we noted in our report um in the future this could result in in a backlog or um an abundance of progress reports at the planning board that's something that the board and staff is going to have to find a way to manage in the coming years we are recommending that the that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation wait so I have a question um so it requires a mandatory progress report at 6 months within six months so typically do then every year thereafter regardless of any issues correct what's the purpose for that to make sure that the um they're applying they're they're complying with the conditions of the cup and these this wouldn't wouldn't the lack of any problems evidence that yes yeah that's true and the board still can issue a cure letter and have them come before the board for a progress report if any violations are issued like I said I think the purpose is to to be proactively on top of of um Neighborhood Impact establish establishments so these will be like say a restaurant that's over 300 occupancy or um a neighborhood impact I get that but this is in the absence of any issues corre no complaints nothing they still have to come before us that's I don't agree with that I don't agree there's nothing be in favor the what my question is why would staff that's our recommendation is in favor but I I understand the board's concern of you know I'm looking at you I'm like Oh my this is going to it looks like a very hesitant recomendation I don't I don't disagree right right okay I think it a lot of people's time to BU but let me ask you the first one I agree with so the six month what is the current what's our current typical requirement 30 to 60 days or 60 to 90 days oh so this would delay that to six months no it would be up it'd be with within six months so it just would require um a progress report so if we mandate one at 60 days they need to do it again at six months no no no it's just saying that it's once within the first six months right requires that the planning board cannot issue a cup for an AE and that and then not also require a progress report within six months right I get that but what's the current rule that we follow there's no current there's no current rule okay it's not cifi only done if there was so I'm okay with the first one I'm not with the second but and again let um you're finished with your presentation is there anyone to speak here is there anyone on Zoom there's no one on Zoom okay all right go I'll just yeah I I too think um perhaps the one within six months um yeah it it doesn't make sense to have somebody come back every year if if there's no violation but definitely one and and I know we normally say 60 or 90 days but maybe give the operation six months to operate I think by then any bugs you know things will come to light and we'll be able to discuss it when they come in front of us at their first progress report and then you know go from there no no violations and that was going to be my question when you have a a a standard of within six months then for each cup is the board going to determine when that should be yes correct all right so depending on the nature we could say we want it in one month or two month okay so it gives us the latitude to then determine when it will be for each up great okay do can you oh sorry oh no go ahead can you clarify why do you think that's good to you know and it's so I I just my question is what are we reviewing as a progress report if there's no complaints because if there's a complaint then they're here with you mean even on the first one right even on the first one I'm just I'm just what are we reviewing if there's no complaints if there's a complaint then they're going to be coming in front of us typically the board um the TP the one of the reasons for a progress report is to make sure that the operation is is happening as intended a lot of times there's there may be issues with valet and there's a certain number of valet Runners that are anticipated Bas based on a traffic study often times the the board may need to modify the or the applicant may need to modify the number of ballet ballet attendance or maybe there's complaints regarding um the hours of operation or noise complaints after a certain time but I think right now even if the board if the board said we're not in favor of both of these recommendations you still typically require a progress report within 60 days so if the board says you know transmiss transmit this with a negative recommendation the standard of having a progress report is still to is still going to be in in place okay so we still have something for them to to to to make some changes so if we agree with the first and not the second does that mean we have to refer this negatively and then do a second motion no no I think you can you can recommend in favor Strip by but strike on the second okay normally we have to do that in the second motion okay we can do that in one motion I think you can do it in one Mo it all relates to the draft that you have do you know what the impetus for this was because I don't remember this coming before L use but but do you know why they wanted mandatory and yearly because like I said I think it would just be just to stay on top on top and sort of catch anything up front okay right but I don't know what you're catching if there's no issues but anyway all right I think we're all I mean Matthew any my only question is so I don't think we've had a progress report yet since uh the three of us have joined the board uh in terms of a new neighborhood impact establishment so what does that entail is there like a like a form that they have to go down and and and review in front of us or how does that work no it's basically they they come before the board um we take a look and see have there been any um violations um they typically will update their traffic study and indicate so if for example if the if they I'll give you I'll give you an example we had a um a restaurant that was approved and then a at the corner of um Ocean Drive connects over to Collins Avenue and they're TR study indicated they would need like 49 valet Runners to to manage the establishment well when once they started operating they said that was ridiculous we don't have that many people come by car and actually they could handle it in seven so at that time the board was able to make a a minor modification to the cup you know without having to require them to maintain 49 valet Runners on site all the time during their peak hour so it's to make fine-tune adjustments like that with the progress report and then what about the TDM strategies that are usually outlined in their application then referenced in the conditional use permit are those yeah the board could ask the applicant to provide an update on on you know how many employees are are using um let's say um ride share or bus passes or um you know it it could be whatever the board wants wants an enough to add in terms of um traffic operational issues um it's sort of like a the the an application when it's coming before you we're anticipating things are going to happen certain way it's not until after they start operation where we can confirm that everything is happening as was in as intended or anticipated and actually this gives us more latitude to choose when within that six months because I think 30 days six is too agree and some some applications may have um tenants that they're not the building is not fully occupied so you really can't evaluate a project that's only 50% complete and sometimes the bardal Institute of requirements say that once 80% of the tenants are um are um are occupied then you come to the board for a progress report all right all right these also give um you know the progress reports give um residents surrounding neighborhoods the opportunity of to come in and talk to us if there's something happening that nobody anticipated and they're seeing maybe it's not a violation but they're saying then they can bring that to our attention at that time as well okay all right we all set to move it right sure so I believe so your recommendation is to well she's in a it all right so I think we're going to move the first one right soend approval but removing the second requir second requ I'll second okay all in favor I I all none opposed okay thank you happy birthday Michael next one planning will file o 24674 architect and landscape architect land use board categories and this is an ordinance um report begins on page 163 the board packages so right now we have four landies boards the drb design review board stor preservation board board of adjustment and of course the planning board the planning board right now has um some of the most lenient requirements in terms of the landscape architect position where at the planning board it says um one landscape one architect is required or landscape architect registered in Florida but also gives the option for a member of A Faculty of School of Architecture or professional practicing in the field of architecture or Urban Design as part of the makeup of the board the drb requires one architect and one landscape architect registered in state of Florida the St preservation board requires one architect registered in state of Florida and as well as a board of adjustment one architect registered in the State of Florida so this ordinance would expand upon those categories to allow not just an an architect or landscape architect that's registered but also professional practicing in the field of architecture architectural design or practice in the field of landscape architecture so it expands upon the pool of people that are maybe available to to serve in the architect or landscape architect position because it's typically one that's difficult because it has been a difficult position to fill because for example if you have an Architects sitting on the board they cannot have any projects that that come before that board so it does limit the pool of of qualified Architects to to serve on the boards so this broadens the pool it broadens the pool it's still subject to the city commission and then evaluate what those qualifications are motion to approve I'll move it before we should take if there's any public comment and there's nobody in Chambers all right anyone on zoom and nobody on Zoom okay close the public hearing okay motion to approve I'll move it approve it okay second I'll second it sure I I think Elizabeth second sh yeah all in favor I opposed the motion passes 6 to zero moving right along next one planning board filed 24675 live like live local application fees and this this um staff report begins on page 175 of the board packages so just some background before this on March 24th of last year the Florida legislature adopted Senate Bill 102 known commonly as the live local act which provides development incentives and overrides certain local zoning regulations and developments that provide at least 40% Workforce housing units and commercial industrial and mixed use districts now in January 31st of this year the city commission adopted an ordinance in order to um dictate How the City administra administratively reviews and handles these um applications and now um we're starting to see these applications come in so that ordinance was was adopted establishing those procedures however there's no fee schedule or fees that are part of that um ordinance what this ordinance does is establish a fee schedule that's consistent with the ly board application fees and these fees are noted on page um 178 of the board packages now these types of live local projects are not going to be totally Workforce housing they're largely have a a market rate um apartment component as well as you know commercial 40% right 40% minimum in terms of the um residential units but that's that's for example you could have if you have a a building with 100 units you could have a developer with 40 400 square foot Workforce housing units and 60 4,000 foot market rate apartments in combination with um commercial oh so it's not wait that's interesting it's not 40% of the footage no it's not 40% of the units yes that's an important clarification that is that's okay know that it's a little loophole um so this would not this would not assess any fees to the workforce housing component it would only um the fees would only apply to the market rate and Commercial portions of the project including a square foot fee that would not apply to the the workforce hous component this would allow because we staff is still on review these reviewing these projects so allows the city to do some cost recovery for these types of applications so we are recommending that the city that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation are these are these fees consistent or they higher no they're consistent they're not any higher that question okay so is that is is if I may chair um annually CPI is currently much larger than the normal what would be considered in real estate 3% so would that be a equal to or less than or how how I mean is this just the standard where where did these numbers come from this is it's already in the code in terms of how we adjust all of our other fees so it's it's consistent with the annual um CPI adjustment so this this does not put a live local application at a disadvantage to any standard application no it it doesn't require any like someone to come in with a fully a project that Workforce housing there's no fees this only applies to fees for the non-w workforce housing component all right any anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand nobody in here I assume motion to approve okay motion to approve okay second thank you all in favor I I all opposed none okay moving right along uh planning board file 24677 elimination of the .5 F bonus for hotels and this report begins on page um 187 of the board packages we provided a map on page 190 the packages that outline the cd2 districts in North Beach and South Beach and this ordinance would apply to the cd2 districts along Alton Road Normandy Drive 71st Street and Collins Avenue in North Beach it would not apply to the cd2 distri districts on Collins Avenue south of 6th Street or Washington Avenue now the the land use and sustainability committee is going to review a separate recommendation in those areas and provide a um um probably um recommendation to the city commission that'll come to the planning board in the future if they choose to um recommend a reduction in the or a elimination of the bonus for those areas so right now the the cd2 districts allow um an F in increase if you Pro if you provide a hotel or residential component of your of your project the standard f for what for cd2 is 1.5 however if you provide um residential Hotel you get the F bump to 2.0 this would eliminate the f a bump for projects that are hotel and not residential within the areas of um um Bon Road Normandy Drive 71st Street and Collins Avenue in order to incentivize more residential units it still allows the F bump but only if you have at least 25% residential and that so it only it only incentivizes the residential component correct and then wasn't there also some type of analysis being done towards I think it was along 41st Street it was it was some type of f bonus for hotels along 41st Street I'm not aware of that and that's CD3 which is a different that that's a different a different zoning there any type of no not for that nothing have know this is just cd2 correct okay and I see um nobody in Chambers and there's nobody online with a hand raised from public comment where's where's the table that's referenced in the the draft ordinance mean the um okay hang on maybe I'm misreading this so anything south I guess I'm trying to understand where I think you might have just gone over it but for example this the project that we just approved the mechanical parking for is that was that cd2 that was cd2 and is that that's along D B that's um that's a resident that includes a residential so that they would be able to to Avail themselves of but they also could have done Hotel correct as well yes and we're we're recommending whether or not to repeal that right to to eliminate the F bonus for hotel more residential okay so it's it's everything that's outlined in this kind of U like light red on the map except for so the so the areas that are the CD the the map only the map includes the um sort of the salmon color area that's that's cd2 and that's the areas within North Beach and in South Beach it doesn't specify which of the areas part of the um the ordinance that's what I'm asking so where does it specify in the ordinance of the areas so it applies to everything except for Collins Avenue and Washington Avenue okay City Citywide cd2 right okay so uh I'm obviously in in support of this but the question is similar to what the office uh project before us they have an office building they throw kind of one residential unit in they call qualify for yeah but that's so but 25% of that total F so for example in that project you looked at earlier 25% of the building was that one residential unit so so my point is is that how do we incentivize a higher allocation towards residential I don't know if that could be accomplished through this I don't think they're connected but just going forward okay that's that's the purpose of for example the if you if you would take if you take away that residential unit that project has an F of 1.5 right so they're only they're only getting the the additional f for the portion that's totally residential no get I'm just saying instead of in other words they they get a bonus for having one unit let's say they get a bonus for having two units well I think I think it's unusual case to see a unit that large I think the idea is here this is a like a family office office project and that's are creating the family offices not really the only additional F has to be residential correct so I'm saying instead of having them create one huge unit which is obviously only going to be geared towards right the owner of building or four right they could have done three or four or something which is what we've seen with three of the projects in Sunset harbard that big building same thing there one apartment only and the other You' have to Institute a maximum unit size got it but that wouldn't be tied to this that would be something that I guess how do we put an incentive that helps in making sure that there's more than just one that's I'm trying to to accomplish do you think they can make that's part of part of a recommendation I think we'd have to amend the ordinance though so I think I I don't think that could that could be done without going back and um I guess what he's saying it's kind of defeating the purpose right we're trying to put this incentive where you you got the offices and the living spaces and people are playing with it to get the F with no but I think it is it is a rare circumstance I mean we're seeing this this oneoff case maybe a couple we've seen on Alton Road um you know do the same thing but it's very rare to have a project that's you know one unit that's residential I think everything that we've seen thus far around the Alton Road Sunset Harbor area has pretty much been that you've had the office on the lower floors and you have this one huge un but just to be clear that's unrelated to this yes it is totally unrelated I'm just saying does I think maybe what if you um want to recommend in favor of this and then um separately have a separate amend should be separate yeah have the city Commission because the spirit of this is to encourage more residentials so and not b so let's vote I have one more question sorry I have just one question when when was this uh put into place that the the bonus for the hotels is that in recent years no it's been for decades I think it's been like that for a long time so it's there was not like a recent it's not recent back when they needed hotels okay then we well see no back I remember back um back in 2006 2007 we were worried about losing hotels because everybody was buying these properties and converting them into residential condos because that was what was that was the market was dictating and then the economy crashed and nobody was doing um residential residential units anymore so yeah quick question so going back to the the office building we just approved if they were to put one time they wanted to put one hotel unit in that building then they would not be able to go to 2.0 well the hotel component would have to be part of the would have to be part of the not be part of that 25% correct and that's right just to clarify okay I I just the way I'm reading this though it says the attached draft ordinance removes the5 F bonus for a site containing a hotel unit which seems to read that if there's any hotel unit on a site then regardless of what else is in the building that they could we would treat that as commercial so if they if they were to have say um um their total F was two if they were to have at least 25% residential they could have 25% hotel and 50% commercial but I still require at least that 25% which is the bonus be residential and then to clarify um the the project that we saw earlier because that's north of 25th Street um that would not apply they still would they still could take advantage of the bonus north of 20th Street this ordinance applies to let's see I was assuming that if that was in one of the districts that we're that we're looking at that was my question assuming it was actually looking at looking at the actual test of the or the actual text of the ordinance it um only exempts properties on Washington Avenue and Collins Avenue south of south of 63rd Street so that property on deade Boulevard in the Sunset Harbor neighborhood um would would be removed from being able to have the bonus for that property just for hotel right right but yeah just in terms of interpretation if they were to have um 50% Hotel 25% residential and 25% commercial that still meets the intent of having at least that bonus being 25% residential MH okay all right motion uh motion to approve all right second a favorable recommendation sorry who made the motion uh yes and Melissa seconded okay all in favor all opposed and did you want to make a second recommendation regarding yeah that I'd like to make a second um I guess motion to have the commission consider how to establish uh I guess maximum unit sizes in order to qualify for the residential use f bonus right it sounded a little weird but got yeah understand yeah to yeah to think about minimizing the max State the same case where you can take advantage of this by providing one unit that's 6,000 square fet right the way he said it which it is correct but it sounds like to maximize but it's to minimize the maximum size actually and I think we've got something coming up for corre raing hotel unit size correct is there a second on that motion a question before we maybe get a second are there other examples in the city of uh in the ldrs of Maximum unit sizes I know average and minimum is always contemplated but what about maximum no and so how would that how would that work because what if you have like a small lot you know how do you determine what the maximum this would this would only apply to properties that are taking advantage of the um residential bonus in cd2 districts and it could be um a certain number or uh a percentage of the of the um right the space but from your planning perspective is this this is like a viable recommendation to to look at maximum unit sizes yeah I think I think it is I think it is we're something coming up okay I'll I'll second his motion then okay all in favor I I anyone opposed okay all right last but not least planning board file 24 4 676 architectural tour requirements for land use board members we're going on a tour and this report begins on page I think it's from appointment though 197 of the board packages and what this ordinance would do is Institute a requirement that within within um 60 days of appointment um new appointees shall make best efforts to complete an architectural tour with mdpl it also ordinance allows an alternative in case you know something happens to mdpl in the future and it's not tied to one you know one um Corporation and the reason for this is that you know understanding the historic pattern architecture of the city is important in the review of any type of Landy sport application so having that background and knowledge which is provided through a walking tour of mdpl give some history and backgr background on the architecture of the city ranging from Art Deco Med Revival architectural Styles and um you know Mii modern architectural Styles this would be perspective so would apply to future future board members I have a question um is the commission also required to take those tours I'd like to actually I'd like to seriously because people don't really come up to North Beach very often and I think it would be important for them to see the myo architecture there um I've taken this tour I don't even know how many times just with friends just to have them kind of become acquainted with our architecture but I'd love to see the commission do that as part of your um transmittal you could recommend that the city commission also um that they take the tours take the tours I like so I have a I have a a linguistic question so if you look at e it says each voting member of the board shall complete and then the last sentence says it should be done within 60 days of initial appointment right so that wouldn't apply to the current board correct right that's right it would not apply to current members you I'm just saying it it's only it's from the initial appointment that's right so it doesn't apply to reappointments it's initial appointment but also and also says shall use reasonable best efforts so I think your clarification even for prospective appointees is if mdpl is not offering or there are scheduling or health issues and they exactly doesn't there's not like an automatic removal of a board member but obviously if someone's initially appointed and they do it and then they're reappoint they have to do it again so it's from initial appointment okay anyone on Zoom oh there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised are you either of you here for this item no okay motion to approve unless anyone has any questions or comments okay who made the motion yes you'll okay I'll second it with the further Amendment later all in favor anyone opposed all right that was an efficient meeting told and then no we're going to so the recommendation is to recommend in favor the idea that the City commissioners also take advantage of the tour we can we can do that as a separate a separate motion yeah I think it's a separate motion okay so the separate Mo separate motion made by Elizabeth does anyone want to second that second that okay anyone opposed having Commissioners do this as well no okay thank you Mr yeah okay our next meeting is April 25th thank God for the good time Hotel item otherwise we'd be here another two hours I'm sorry we're going backwards June 25th I remember everybody we're not you guys I uh you were not here in August I think you all know that right June June okay anybody else no I'm here I'm schedule the around both anyone else missing any meetings this summer okay all right so you got that Scott's away from June Scott will be absent for June right all right guys thanks that was a very efficient productive meeting thank you Mr chair thank you yeah I'm only as good as my e