City Council - Regular Meeting

special council meeting. The mayor's called to order. Mayor Roscoe.

Still here.

I know. Council Member Bracken.

Still here.

Council Member Kaplan. Council Member Lunden. Vice Mayor Sardinas.

Here.

Council Member Stoner. Council Member Vasquez.

Present.

And may we rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right. Mr. Bracken. Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance. Okay. Let me walk through what we're doing here tonight so that everyone knows what's going on. Just FYI, there's an overflow room available across the street where the turtle room is, where the turtles are in the village hall. If anybody wants to go over there, you're welcome to do that also. We're going to hear from the applicant. We're going to hear from our staff and then we're going to have a public hearing and everyone who's here wants to talk and talk and we'll get you this council will listen to everything that you want to say about this issue here. I think That is the intro anything else that I need to put on the record here.

I would just say mayor technically we do have public comments on this on this agenda, however, as the mayor said you have an opportunity to speak on the items for a 5 a and 6 a. So if if someone wants to speak about something not on this agenda, they can come and speak but okay.

that's not on this agenda? 4A, 5A, and 5B. They may.

Can I ask for someone to explain what does this mean, this bonus? Oh, okay. That item will be, there'll be plenty of discussion.

Yes, yes.

It's on any item that's not on the agenda tonight.

Yeah, that's.

That will be discussed tonight.

OK. All right. With that, we'll ask the applicant to do their presentation. on the project and the items before us.

While you're getting ready, Mario, Jocelyn, I spoke with the applicant. He'll confirm that we're going to hear 4A, 5A, and 5B all together. If you could read the titles of 5A and 5B to get it out of the way, that would be great.

Ordinance of the village of Keebus came Florida amending the villages comprehensive plan by providing development parameters and development incentive bonuses in the high density multifamily residential future land use category Providing for transmittal providing for conflicts providing for severability and providing for an effective date Thank you

You need a second?

No, I, Vice Mayor Sergine Houston. The next item, 5B, an ordinance of the Village of Key Biscayne, Florida, amending section 30-105 of the Village Code of Ordinances relating to development regulations and development incentive bonuses within the RM30 multiple family district, providing for severability, providing for codification, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date.

Move. Second. Thank you.

Okay. Item is properly before us. Special presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Mario Garcia-Serra with offices at 600 Brickell Avenue and my residence at 600 Grape Tree Drive. I'm here this evening representing Galen Drive MW LLC, which is the contract purchaser for the property located at 303 Galen Drive. and known as the Coral Reef Apartments. Walter DeFortuna, the principal of Galen Drive and WLLC, who is a fellow Kivis Skainer, is in attendance with us this evening, as is our architectural team, led by Bernardo Ford-Brescia and Jerome Soustrom. And we're also accompanied by planning consultant, landscape architect, and civil engineer. We are presenting and discussing three separate items this evening. One of them is an amendment to the village's comprehensive plan text for the high-rise multifamily residential category. The second is also a text amendment, but this one to the zoning code, and in particular, the RM30 zoning regulations as they apply specifically to non-oceanfront properties on certain streets. It's a very limited scope. Thirdly, there is a site plan workshop so you could see the project. Why are we doing these text amendments? We are proposing these text amendments because, as we will show you, these regulations, as applied to 303 Galen and the three other non-oceanfront RM30 properties in this area, are profoundly flawed. So flawed that they simply do not make rational sense. And more importantly, not only impact 303 Galen, but also impact the 187 or 186, excuse me, condo unit owners and the three other likely situated properties. Let me explain what I just stated by examples. The project site is located at 303 Galen. It's the northerly more RM30 site that you see out there with the white dotted line around it. It is a little over one acre in size. There is 51 units in a three-story building, which are mostly utilized for short-term rentals. There are a lot of good reasons to redevelop this site. Number one, the entire first floor of the building is below base flood elevation. There's some technical difficulties here.

So.

Okay, I'm not gonna touch anything here.

Okay, hopefully that'll work for now. The entire first floor of the building is below base flood elevation. The current operation of the building does not compare favorably with the neighboring residential uses nor other short-term rental properties nearby. The property valuation of the building continues to decline, and the tax revenue it generates is minimal compared to its potential. Lastly, the drainage situation on this property is very bad. Mostly because the amount of the property, a significant amount of the property, is basically just paved surface parking lot. This property should be something better. We can debate what better is, but I think we can all agree that this property could and should be improved. The most significant factor in determining how it should be improved is its zoning. As you look at the zoning map there, this is the area that we commonly refer to as the Garden District, the blocks on Galen, Sunrise, and East Enid, east of Crandon Boulevard. As you can see, the vast majority of the Garden District is zoned RM16, which is the village's intermediate lower-rise zoning district. I want to make it perfectly clear that we are not proposing, nor do we support, nor are you considering any proposed change to that RM16 zoning which you see over the vast majority of the Garden District. What we are asking you to modify is the RM30 zoning regulations, which, as you can see on the map, is the zoning at the end of each block on Galen, Sunrise, and East England. And we are asking you to modify them only as they apply to the non-waterfront lots on Galen and Ocean Drives, four properties which you see outlined there with a white dotted line. So what does RM30 permit for these non-ocean front lots and why are we asking you to modify it? What is permitted for these properties is listed on the left-hand side of that slide. It is very important to note that 150 feet of height is already permitted for this property. This is the high-rise zoning designation for Key Biscayne. What is bizarre is the exceptionally low fa are of point for which is provided for a 150 foot tall building the density is 30 units per acre, which is not consistent with any of the four properties as they are developed right now at their existing densities. This is, if you take those RM30 zoning regulations and you apply them to the 303 Galen site, this is what you get with the current zoning. Take note of the amount of floor area allowed, which is 19,800 square feet. That is less than half of what presently exists on the site today, which is 46,209 feet. When you factor in the minimum unit size that we have in Key Biscayne, which is 550 square feet for a studio unit, and you reduce the 20% that you commonly need for common areas in a multifamily building, you end up with a potential building that is 28 studio units. With these regulations, nothing new will ever be built on this property. Before you say that's great, perfect, it works for me, just keep in mind that this applies also to other properties. The Galen Breakers, the Ocean Drive Manor, the Hiamar are all built at densities and FARs which are well over the 0.4 and the 30 units per acre permitted there today. In 20 years, or whatever amount of time it might take, When the owners of those buildings, let's take for example Pahiamar, which is already built at a 2.0 FAR with 40 units, decide that they want or need to do a major overhaul of the building, which exceeds 50% of the replacement value of that building, is anyone going to really tell them that they need to tear down the building, replace it with a building one-fifth of its size, and tell them that they need to decide for themselves which half can stay and which half needs to go based on what can potentially be developed. The same holds true for all four of these properties. This is crazy and it needs to be fixed. As further evidence that the FAR regulation in ARM 30 does not make sense, When you look at the ARM16 designation, supposed to be the lower rise, lower intensity designation to the west, it permits an FAR of 0.8, double of the 0.4 that is permitted for the non-oceanfront properties. Part of the mystery, as we had discussed when we last made a presentation, is the fact that the language that's there along the red dotted line, circled by the red dotted line, was amended and put into this code at one point in time. and it essentially was inserted into what previous was a county FAR table for this property. And it allowed a higher FAR to be achieved of 2.0, but required a beach access easement. Of course, for non-oceanfront properties, the possibility of a beach access easement is not realistic. It's just planning basics. that the height density and floor area of any zoning district should be internally consistent. What we're proposing to solve this problem is a bonus system that would allow these properties to keep their existing density and increase their FAR up to the maximum 2.0 allowed. Not pursuant to a beach access easement, which they can't provide, but through a contribution of land or other improvements to village infrastructure. which is still sufficient and still subject to negotiation, but which should be principally directed, in our opinion, toward stormwater management. Is this better? OK. OK. Here are proposed amendments to the zoning regulations regarding the density FAR and lot coverage based on the bonus system. And here are some pictures taken this past weekend of the flooding situation on the property and on the street around there, clearly indicating the flooding situation that there is on the property.

Somehow we have to get the mic closer so people can, it's only the distance of the mic that's creating the problem.

Let's try this one. Is that better?

Much better.

Here we have a slide that basically is summarizing what we have right now and what we're proposing. What we have are 51 units utilized for short-term rentals, a first floor that's below base flood elevation, resulting in frequent flooding, causing property damage, reducing property value, and reducing potential tax revenue. We also have a paved surface parking area that goes property line to property line with minimum open space, prevents rainwater from properly draining. And a building that contributes on average $500 per unit to the Village General Fund. What we're proposing is 51 units of new quality multifamily housing, units that will admittedly be larger, but with 30% of those units likely being second homes. We'll have a building that's resilient, new construction with being able to retain watered runoff twice of what's required by the village and a building with more open space as a result of the lot coverage incentive. Lastly, a considerable increase in the tax revenue available to the village from the redevelopment of this site. Part of how we realize that increase in permeable area that's available for drainage on the property would be through this lot coverage incentive That would take you from a situation which you have on the left side of the screen right now, where most of the property is either building in the red color or a paved area for parking in the pink, as opposed to what's on the right, which is a larger lot coverage for the building area, but more permeable area available for drainage. And on that point, I would ask our civil engineer, Mr. Navas, Hernando Navas, to come up and talk a little bit about drainage.

Good evening. I'm Hernando Navas, with Schwepp Kishishkin & Associates, address at 3240 Corporate Way, Miramar, Florida. We have looked at the drainage system that exists there today and the elevations as well. That existing property has elevations somewhere in the neighborhood of about a 5. The drainage system is very old, and what seems to be happening is that whenever there is rainfall, the drainage system of the existing site saturates, and all of that water then flows into the street. One of the things that we're proposing to do with the new project is a handful of items that we would like to discuss. One of them is we would like to increase the elevation of the site about two and a half feet to be able to comply with current Miami-Dade County flood criteria. So that's going to take us from about a five to about a seven and a half. In doing that, we're allowing the system or the proposed drainage system to have additional head to be able to push the water out into the drainage well system as well as into other systems that we're proposing. The other item that we would like to introduce is perimeter walls to ensure that no water leaves our site neither to the neighbors, to the north, east, or west. And what we're proposing to do on the connections to the street level, which is at a lower elevation, is to be able to provide a series of trench drains to capture the stormwater as it's coming down so that it does not go into the road. And that will be a small little area, which is the area slope from the existing elevation on the road to the new proposed elevation of our parking facilities. Like I said, road is about a five. Proposed grade on our site is going to be at a low elevation of about seven and a half. The system or the proposed drainage system is, when you look at a site, this site is about 1.15 acres. When you look at a requirement for a 5.15 acre in Miami-Dade, Durham has a requirement of making sure that you dispose the five-year, 24-hour storm event. That is the requirement for a site like this. where we're proposing is a drainage system that is capable of discharging four and a half times that minimum requirement. And the way that we're accomplishing that is, again, by the utilization of four drainage wells, exfiltration trenches, bioswells, and rain gardens, in addition to some permeable asphalt or permeable pavers. So when you put all that together, the amount of improvement that you're gonna see is tremendous. For one thing, you're not gonna have any water being shed from our site, neither to the road nor to the neighbors. We are in compliance with current requirements for elevation of a parking facility, as well as for elevation of a finished floor. Right now, the finished floor are in the neighborhood of about a six and a half, The proposed finished floor has to meet the FEMA criteria, which is 9 plus 1. So the proposed elevation is 10, which will be in compliance with current criteria. I don't know if after that you have any questions. But like I said, I mean, we've looked at the drainage. The developer has asked us to make sure that we give you the best drainage system that the land can accommodate, and that's what we're doing. We're accommodating all of the different infrastructure items. Again, drainage wells, bios wells, rain gardens, and exfiltration trenches, all working in conjunction to be able to provide more than adequate drainage, not only for our site, but also to take away any possible runoff that is currently being shed to the street and to the neighbors.

All right.

Thank you, Renando. Yes.

We'll come back if we have questions.

Here is, again, another graphic showing the four RM30 properties that are fronting on either Galen Drive and Ocean Drive, which are the subject of the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning code text amendments. Again, all four of them in a situation right now, they are way above the density and floor area that are permitted by the code today, and all four of these properties are confronted with the same issue as far as rebuildability and viability going into the future. Another graphic just showing what's RM16 and RM30. RM30 is already there. It's a high-rise designation for Key Biscayne, and it was deliberately put at the end of each block. And now I'll ask Jerome Sustra to come up and present the architectural plans of the project.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. So I am Jerome Soustra with Architectonica at offices at 2900 Oak Avenue. I will quickly take you through the floor plans and some images of the building. Can you all hear me OK? So this image here shows our massing on the right hand side. And it also shows what would be the setbacks of the current code with this pyramid shape. And the drawings on the left show that we are trying to move the tower westward to unblock the views of the neighbor across the street. This is a ground level floor plan. In blue you see the car access and in red you see the pedestrian access of the stairs in the middle and also a garden on the west portion of the building. And what we've done here is to try to minimize the footprint of the building at grade and make it friendly to the pedestrian experience by raising the cars out of the way and making that podium feel as transparent as possible at the ground level. So if you go up a ramp, you then have a floor of parking, a single floor of parking, then a podium floor with pool deck and some amenities, and then we have the units thereafter as you move up the building. I'll keep, this is a rendering of the building with the podium here. We've tried to maintain the character of the street.

Quiet. Quiet, please.

Quiet, quiet. Quiet. It's 14 stories, but the experience of the street as you walk along the building is one of openness because the cars are lifted and there's a very small lobby and everything else around it feels open. The tower is not really something that you feel when you're walking down the street. You really feel the walls of the building next to you, which is set back quite significantly from the sidewalk. This is, I'll just click through these views and you guys can get a sense of the proposal. It is at the end of a street of low rise building, which terminate in a series of high rise building on the ocean. And these lots are specifically designated as high rise lots. And this is a frontal view of the building. And okay. Sure. This is the rain garden to the west, which is publicly accessible. And view of the pool deck.

Thank you very much, Jerome. And now Alejandro, our landscape architect, if you could just come and speak briefly about some of the landscape improvements that are proposed.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Alejandro Perez. I'm a landscape architect with Architectonica Geo offices. Hello, everyone. Can you hear me now?

Yeah, the closer you can. Yes.

My name is Alejandro Perez. I'm a landscape architect with Architectonica Geo offices located at 2900 Oak Avenue, Miami, Florida. And I'm going to talk a little bit about the landscape and resiliency of the project. The majority of the landscape located or proposed for the project is native and low maintenance. And it keeps with the character of Key Biscayne. As you know, Key Biscayne has many different native landscape habitats. So we're proposing plants that fit within those habitats. So the native dune habitat, the maritime hammock, the mangrove swamp habitat. So these are all different. palates and habitats that we're pulling from for the landscape design. And inherently, since these are native, these are also resilient. So these plants are acclimated to the soil and the weather conditions on site. These are low maintenance, these are drought tolerant, and they do not require a lot of irrigation to thrive. Also within The western portion of the site, which was previously mentioned, is the rain garden. So as Hernando had mentioned, the rain garden aids with the water retention on site and prevents that water from draining out into the street. And because it's a rain garden and we have a different kind of microclimate from a water perspective, we're able to have much more biodiversity than if we would not have had the rain garden. So this is a section, an image of that rain garden. And you could see that the center portion is a little lower than the side portion. So basically, the lower portion of this rain garden is in the middle of this green space. Think of the rain garden as a sponge. So when it rains on site, the rain garden captures that water and helps with the slower infiltration of the water within the site and prevents that water from heading out onto the street. So ultimately providing less flooding than if this was a hardscape area. And as I mentioned, since this rain garden has different levels, you have the higher elevations on the sides, the lower elevation in the middle, you have a different water profile. So at the center of the rain garden, you have more water tolerant species. And at the sides, you have more of the dune habitat species that like the drier environment. So with this rain garden, you get the biodiversity in the landscape. you get the increased water absorption on site and you have a multiple layered landscape effect. And here you can see with the plan on the right, the location of the rain garden, it extends, excuse me, the entire western property line from the street all the way to the northern power lines. And as you can see with the images on the top, of the diversity of plantings that we have. And then finally, to aid with the water retention as well, we are not solely proposing a hardscape at the Eastern Drive and at the Northern Drive. Like a concrete or paper we're actually proposing a previous material which aids with the water absorption with a conservative number of about 50% so further aiding into the water absorption on site.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. appreciate that Alejandro that that's the conclusion of our presentation, this is the start of a of a longer and more intense process. Nothing is being finally approved tonight. There will still be further study and opportunity for community input. We just need to get started with fixing what we think we have demonstrated are clearly flawed zoning regulations. Your staff is recommending approval on first reading of these changes, and we ask that you follow that recommendation. With that said, I'll conclude, Mr. Mayor, but I'll ask for a few minutes after public hearing is completed so as to respond to any comments that arise.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Staff, you're up.

Sorry, give me a moment. I'm going to switch out the computer for presentation.

Joe, I'm getting reports that people are trying to watch the television. Can you ask Alex? On mic.

Alex, people trying to watch at home, is it, we're having some issues?

said they're stuttering they can't channel 77 audio is terrible stuttering and it's really bad you can't they can't yeah thank you right yeah good to go okay good evening everybody jeremy karis gogger village planner uh here to talk first about the land proposed land use amendment so the Applicant has proposed that we update our village master plan to create a potential to. Add additional intensity which is another way of saying square footage in planning speak and additional density which is another way of saying units per acre or just the number of households on the site. Through a bonus system now the land use amendment is intentionally fairly big because Our master plan is just creating the sort of framework, which in our ordinance sort of sit within that framework. So I have included a lot of reference to the master plan in the analysis for this one. And I want to focus more on the implications of the master plan when discussing this one, and then more about the urban design and urban planning for the text amendment, even though they are There's overlap there, but just for purposes of clarity here. So it's worth noting that the very first goal in our master plan says that we should be moving towards reducing density in the village whenever possible while respecting property rights. That is on one hand. On the other hand, the master plan makes multiple references to how we ought to be improving resiliency and how we ought to be encouraging redevelopment that abides by existing and even future flood regulations. So there's a real challenge presented because, as the applicant stated, and at least in part I do agree, that our current regulations make it extremely difficult to redevelop these existing sites. You have a case where the examples that we can cite in the neighborhood, in fact, I think support this conclusion. The examples I'm going to cite are actually not in this land use category. They're in the RM16 or the slightly lower density area to the west. But we've had one redevelopment at 101, where they went from 21 units down to 11 units. And they were much larger units. And it's a lovely building. It's a beautiful building. I would suggest, though, that if it had been a financial success, it probably would have spawned imitators. And in fact, what we've seen is the two more recent major redevelopments in that area, they kept existing buildings. and refurbish them intact so that they could keep the same number of units that they have and they keep the same amount of square footage that they had. And in both cases, those include refurbishing units that are within the floodplain, that we expect to be about four feet underwater in the event of a predicted FEMA storm. So there's a challenge here. And I don't know, I do think, there needs to be some change to the zoning ordinance in order to address that particular challenge. Because right now, people are choosing to redevelop units in the floodplain as opposed to tear down, rebuild under current rules, which would be more limiting for density and intensity. But then they would be in compliance with flood code. So that's the existing challenge. and the existing contradiction in our master plan. So I'm not sure how we want to move through this because these things are really very related. It is worth pointing out, though, that the master plan amendment does affect every property in this district, not just limited to the four properties that are non-waterfront in the garden district. So we're talking about, this is the full list of the properties that are in the high density multifamily residential district there. So all of these would be subject to potentially similar, not the zoning, again, but this would allow some future changes that could increase intensity and density based on the bonuses. So barring... I think I'll just jump into the zoning matter then, if we don't have any objection. There's the example properties I was citing at 100 Sunrise, and then the redevelopment that we've seen at 201 Sunrise nearby, where they redeveloped the units in the floodplain. So I will jump to the zoning text amendment, which is item 5B. So again, this is going to get very complex. Everybody has permission. If I use an acronym or I use a term that people don't understand, please call me out on it, because we're going to be covering a lot of ground. And it's a very specialized lingo. It's planning lingo. And I'm trying to make this in plain language, but sometimes I slip into lingo. So I apologize in advance. So start off the bat, this is a recommendation for approval, but approval with conditions. So I'll get into those conditions over the course of this. So the zoning text is really the one that gets into the weeds about what they would like to change to enable their project to proceed. The four things that they're proposing in the section of the code are an increase in density from what our current code allows to allow what they currently have on site, an increase in FAR from 0.4, which is allowed on site today, which is about slightly, it's about 40% of what the existing building is, and five times smaller than, say, Bahia Mar, which is currently at 2.0 FAR. So those are the other, couple examples that are in that rm 30 district within the garden district uh the other thing they're asking for is relief on lot coverage to increase from 40 to 60 based on some on-site resiliency bonuses and then additional relief on on setbacks So I'm going to go through these four items sort of individually, although, again, it's the four things in conjunction with each other that really tell you what the form and shape and perceived size and actual size of the building is going to be. But I think it's worth going through them sort of separately because they also do have their own implications. In background, I think the village quite intentionally established lower densities and intensities in these districts when the village was formed. I think that was in reaction to certain projects that had been recently developed under the county rules that I think was one of the inspirations for the village incorporating was pushing back against this kind of development. Although it's also worth noting that, as I mentioned, the existing buildings vastly exceed the square footage allowed and the number of units allowed compared to our current code. The proposed amendment would allow those existing number of units and a similar amount of square footage to other buildings in that area. And that's sort of the big background. Show a couple tables, but those are the four asks. The map shows the limitations of what we're talking about as opposed to the multi-family district that applied to that every single property in that. This is limited to the four properties that are at the end of the garden district there near the sands that are circled in red here. So the first item is regarding density retention. And in all cases, the existing density that's on these sites is higher than what is currently allowed. You've got everything from a little bit more, in the case of where they have nine more units than what they would be currently allowed, to, I believe, our site that is the site that the applicant is proposing their development on has 17 additional units. And then you have Galen Breakers across the street that would have 29 additional units compared to what is available today under current regulations. So pretty significant increases in those cases, but no more than what we've gotten accustomed to on site. So this seems like an approvable matter. This is something that, you know, these are units that we've got the infrastructure for. You know, I do think that the, again, there is this contradiction within the master plan, and it's something to resolve and discuss. The floor area ratio bonus. So floor area ratio is literally the ratio between the site size. So if you had 100,000 square foot site, and you had a floor area ratio of 0.4, you would be allowed a 40,000 square foot building. If you had a floor area ratio of 1, you'd be allowed 100,000 square foot building. So it's lingo, FAR. If I refer to FAR, that's what I mean, floor area ratio. It really just means area, the size of the building. So the FARs that we have on site today are, You can see them on the right side of the table where it says FAR current. So the building where the applicant has proposed is actually the smallest in terms of FAR of any of the existing buildings on site. But their proposed building is actually consistent with both both Galen Breakers and Bahia Mar. And please note that I had to estimate these building sizes. I didn't have exact information on it. And I estimated on the conservative side, which is to say on the smaller side. I did get more accurate information on Bahia Mar, and so I was able to get more exact there. But Galen Breakers, you know, the difference between 1.82 and 2 is it's pretty negligible in terms of perception from the street, that sort of thing. So in those cases, you know, we can see examples of buildings that are at 2.0 FAR. There today, again, this seems like something that folks have no objection to. It seems consistent with the neighborhood. I think These buildings are functionally transitioning from the much taller high rise buildings that are part of the planned developments that are on the north and the south, even the sands to the east, and then the lower rise neighborhood as we go further west. So this seems consistent with what has been in the area, what would be in the area, and creating a bonus system For these non waterfront properties seems consistent with our code, where we already have a bonus system for the waterfront site. So I do believe that we do need to study how this interacts with the rm 16 district, and you know this this isn't something that I think needs to be. some additional massing studies, some additional example architecture of what the shadows, what that could be impacting the adjacent properties could be sufficient for this. And so I want to come to, again, I think the existing buildings are a great example of how floor area alone and the size of the building alone, it doesn't tell you the whole picture on the architecture and on the impression to the neighborhood. Because I think if you walk around there, I went by again today, and you go by Galen Breakers on one hand, and you walk around on the other, They feel like very, very different buildings. They feel like you would never guess that they have the same FAR, if you care to think about such things. But they feel like very different buildings. One sits on the ground and is pretty much just one large rectangle, the other one because it's L-shaped, because it's elevated, it feels very different. So these impressions aren't just governed by floor area ratio or that particular abstract number. The setbacks play a very important role as well. I think the, and this is another one where the differences in, and these start to impact sort of the detail and the real impression on the street, I think. So these should be considered pretty carefully. The applicant is proposing a change from what our current code is really set up almost like a ziggurat. It steps in. And as you go up a floor, it steps in more. And to go up a floor, it steps in more. And that would set the sort of outside envelope for where your building can be. Some of these setbacks are pretty challenging to develop on smaller sites. They're much easier to comply with on a larger site. where those impacts really just sort of push your vertical tower towards the middle of the site. In general, folks like to build a straight vertical tower. It's much more efficient, and it's much simpler to build. Not that that's reason alone, but so the diagrams that i'm showing here show an overlay of what the applicant is proposing versus what our code allows. So the darker blue area is what the current code is, and this is for the left hand side of that diagram is the front setback the right hand side is the rear setback, I think. In general, all four of these sites would be very, very challenging to develop considering, in particular, the rear setback, which comes in 75 feet into the site. So on the front side, which is the one that is primarily impacting the street, they've actually increased the setback in some portions and decreased it in others. So they're actually going to allow have an increased setback in this particular zone. It doesn't really show there. But that would be one portion where it's increased, and then the tower would be 10 feet closer to the street than would be otherwise allowed for that upper level. The main area they're asking for relief from is on the rear setback. And in this case, in their particular case, and this is a great example of why not to focus too much on this particular site plan when we're talking about the zoning tax amendment, because this does affect the other properties as well. On their particular site, they have tennis courts and even an access road for the adjacent Ritz property to the north. So in their case, it would be a good candidate to reduce that setback considerably. We need to study it for the other properties and even make a determination on which is the front side, rear, and study it accordingly because the reduction asked for, you can see here, that lighter blue portion this is the building volume that they would be able to build into compared to the current regulations, which is this dark blue stepped area. So that is the front and the rear setback. I want to address the side setbacks as well. So this is, I now wish I had used darker colors. I think it's a little better on the screen than it is on my screen, so I hope that's helpful. But I think you can see, Our current regulations, again, they are, it's not strictly a ziggurat building. It actually is a sloped building that our regulations require, which in this case, the proposal they're suggesting is really a one-to-one square footage replacement on the site setbacks. So there would be required to build further away from the property line on the lower levels In exchange for building closer to the property line on the upper levels that's that's what their request is, I think, again, these smaller sites that are in the non waterfront parcels and this zoning district. there's there's a good cause to support, and this this option does make more sense it doesn't give them leeway to build a larger building that's regulated by the floor area ratio and the allowed square footage. But it gives them flexibility, as they've shown, to move the square footage they choose to have within that side-to-side parcel. So on these smaller sites, this makes sense to adapt to the site conditions. And this is a pretty clear. On the side setbacks, I think this makes a lot of sense. The rear setback, I think, needs additional study in the neighborhood context. So finally, coming around to lot coverage, the lot coverage they're proposing is a significant increase from what is currently allowed, which is 40%, to 60% lot coverage. Now, it's important to note, lot coverage does not mean green space. Lot coverage doesn't mean open space in any traditional sense of the word, because it really just means the footprint of the building. This is an example of what our current regulations really allow. We don't have a green space requirement in our current regulations. And I think this is also representative of sort of typical garden district use, which is the building footprint in blue with a very large surface level parking lot, although sometimes it's also underneath the building, and then a minimal landscape buffer. So what The applicant is proposing is to allow for a larger building footprint, but in exchange for increased green space and increased pervious area. So as they show, this would be an increase in green space up to 20% of the site being green and an increase in pervious area to up to 30%. That does include the green space in that. The the site that would be allowed to remain in order to get this bonus you know everything that isn't the building maximum would be a 10% impervious area so. And then the prerequisite for this for this to get to this bonus to this increase is to have a 50% increase in stormwater capacity on the site so what that means in normal terms is about. Six inches of rainfall falling in a day is our baseline requirement per county rules now. And then so we would be requiring them to store about nine inches of rainfall that falls within a day on their site. And then so that would be the baseline. You've got to get to that increased stormwater level. And then you've got to provide additional green space and additional pervious area. So those are the four things sort of. taken apart. Overall, I think we do have an example of what this could look like. That's the applicant's proposal. It meets the requirements. The implications for the other sites, I think, need additional study, and we need to see the diagrams, and we need to see some additional analysis, shadow studies, et cetera. As noted, they're not asking for relief or a change in the building height allowed, but it is worth noting that with our current regulations, you could never build 250 feet because it would be a needle. It would be an elevator, an elevator lobby, and a balcony, I suppose. That would be about where you'd get to with 0.4. You know, all of these regulations do work in conjunction to create the form. Limiting any number of them has add-on effects and effects on the others. So for instance, if we limited density further, but without the square footage, they would probably build the same size building, but with fewer small units and just maximize the size of the units. That's what we saw at 100 Sunrise. on that project, when they shrunk it down, they still built the maximum square footage they could do, but with 11 pretty large units. So if you change density, that's probably sort of your knock-on effect. If you limit the FAR, if you limit the square footage, that could impact, that could limit the number of floors from a practical sense. So all of these things do work together, and I think that's why One of my recommendations is we do study it in conjunction. This is something that I think the applicant could do if they provide us with enough information, with enough additional studies, views, additional information about the other sites. It is something maybe they could do. And then I do recommend that in any circumstance that you direct staff to study the RM16 district because the density restrictions, the FAR, while are not nearly as restrictive, probably do need a look considering the recent redevelopment in that area. So I believe that's... everything I have and am available for questions.

Any questions right now? The base flood elevation is what, 10 feet?

Yes.

And the street is about four feet?

I believe so. Four to five, five feet.

So basically you go down two feet or two and a half feet because you've got to go up to 10 feet anyway, and you could have underground parking, and that would not be considered part of the FAR. And if they got 49,000 feet at 300 feet for a car, give me about 160 spaces, which would be more than they need. The reason I'm bringing that up is because Lately, people have been saying this is terrible because you're going up four floors before you're doing anything, et cetera, et cetera. And that's been a big, I guess, objection to a number of the people who have written and called and whatever. And all I'm thinking, from your, from Walter's standpoint, if that wasn't considered that, and he'd go from lot line to lot line, in other words, coming up, they don't have to come up on the side, basically landscape around the perimeter, it would change the whole thing. It would make it more palatable. And basically, you could stay with the 0.4 lot coverage. You won't have to go to the 0.6 lot coverage, which would then give you the massing of the whole thing and make a much simpler building, actually less expensive building, but much more acceptable building from all the objections I have heard so far. Does that make any sense to you?

I think it makes a certain amount of sense in terms of you would have a semi-submerged parking lot. You'd have something that's Parts of it are below street level, but part of it would be popping up. I think there's definitely groundwater challenges in Key Biscayne, and you'd be creating a building that would have flooding issues, would be fighting flooding issues. We do build swimming pools, and they're filled with water.

We can build a container.

Jeremy, can you address the intensity issue?

In planner speak, intensity means square footage size of building. In normal people speaking, I think they mean impact on the community and these other things. You mean planner speak on intensity? Yes. The intensity issue, it's governed by All of those things, right? I think the lot coverage, that larger parking podium, is square footage that is literally covering the lot. It gives the impression of a larger building at the podium level. But then again, you're walking on the street, as they said, and I think the design reflects this in the elevation drawings that I've seen. It is popped up. It is elevated. that's a good way to keep your cars out of the water, but it also does require that lot coverage increase. The overall square footage and the FAR, it is It's getting them to a point where they would be consistent with the existing buildings that are in this RM30 little carve out that they've done for these four properties. But it's also consistent with the RM30 properties that are elsewhere in the village where they're much, much closer to that 2.0 than we are. So it's not out of line with what's existing and what folks have grown accustomed to.

Your bonus for water retention, and you talked about nine inches per day. In the last 31 years, how many times have we had nine inches in the day?

I am not the person to ask that.

Well, we've just gone through with our storm sewer.

I think you said six. Six? I think you said six. You think that many? No, no. That's what I heard the gentleman say. Six days in the last 31 years?

Six inches. He said nine inches. Oh, he said nine inches. That's a requirement. For something that doesn't happen.

Sir, six inches is the current requirement? Come to the podium.

I'll restate. Six inches is the current DERM requirement for stormwater retention. And what we're requiring as a baseline to get to that lot coverage increase is a 50% increase over DERM's baseline. Now, what I will say And what I have seen, and longer than I care to admit, experience in development, is these systems as designed and as they perform, there's a reason we over-design them, because they underperform pretty consistently. And they get us to, this would get us to a very well-trained project, though, with this increase.

Jeremy, I just want to ask a question. Ed's point of the sort of subterranean garages are becoming extremely popular in Miami. This is not something that's unusual at all. I mean, you see it on West Avenue. You see all the new projects downtown are being done with subterranean garages. It's a pretty common parameter, even though it is in a difficult situation. They're dewatering these projects regularly. And, Ed, you're building in Coconut Grove. I think you have the same issue.

Okay, but Coconut Grove is a mountain. It's like Everest around here.

On West Avenue, which is basically underwater, they have several buildings. West Avenue is a good equivalent. There's several buildings there like that already. This is not an uncommon project.

It exists, but we also have an example very nearby at Oceana where they had such a problem.

They go down.

They went originally, they went down two levels. And then they went down, ended up with one level below grade because of issues with

I'm not suggesting that.

Yeah, look, I think it's a viable...

It's above the order table.

It's a viable option. It's an option that would relieve that issue of lock coverage.

And also less structure to be built, and people are concerned about the existing buildings looking down from the fourth floor, I guess you call it, to the other side here. Here we're almost at the same level as everybody else. So it would fit in, in my opinion, it might fit in better.

And they can even put stackables... Less objectionable. They get with stackables down there to stackable stackable right parking.

Yeah, you know If you go lot line to lot line, you won't even need it Just one level parking Putting aside planner speak When we use the word intensity in context of our comprehensive plan What does that mean to you? What do you think that word means?

So you know, I think I think it means and something I've experienced and I've heard is know this is a crowded island and we are stressed our our parks are stressed our um obviously traffic schools are not stressed actually um quite the opposite good point uh the you know that that it's a little bit bursting at the seams you know like we've i haven't every every month we're looking for agreements and opportunities for parkland and other locations. So I think there is that. And it was reiterated to me when I took part in the vision plan exercise when folks said, no more density, no more units on site. And then so yeah, I think that is unquestionably, it's goal one in our master plan.

And you would agree, I think, that What you just said informs our land use policies, our goals and objectives that deal with land use, future development.

Correct. Yes. But I do see, I also see the conflict because the goals aren't one being more important than two or three. And we have that requirement and desire to improve resiliency and improve. Because I don't know, I've spent a lot of time walking the district and driving around the district. And the number of almost, you know, garden apartment is a real estate term. You know, it's a marketing term, which means you can open your door from your apartment into a garden. It's just so happens and and that is an aptly named District because there's so many of that style of garden apartment where you open your door into a courtyard you open your door more motel style into the parking nearby but that's also Would be you know three and a half four feet underwater in the event of a storm and in that in that particular garden So it is in pretty stark contrast to our resiliency goals and that are also in the master plan. So that's the balance that we got to weigh.

There are, this is life, competing.

There are competing interests.

Competing and conflicting realities can all be true and relevant at the same time. And reconciling these things can be difficult. But that's what we're about. And that's why we plan.

That's why you're here.

That's the way we codify rules and regulations.

Okay, let me get to our public hearing part. I'm going to open the public hearing, and I have the cards, and I would ask you all to try to be as brief as possible. a lot of cards and now and we're here to uh to listen to everything that you have to say and get your input um let's let's make sure that we uh maintain the decorum uh everyone's opinion is important And we want to make sure that we don't go and boo anybody or anything like that. So up to now, I've gotten a lot of emails. Probably I've gotten more emails on this topic than anything else that we've done up here. And, uh, and I think that the emails have been, uh, extremely, uh, nice and respectful. And that's what I would like to see happen and continue tonight. So, um, I'm going to call your name, come on up, and please, if you can say it in less words, say it. If you're just agreeing, say, I'm in support, and that's it. If you have a good argument, like I'm sure you do, you go ahead and take all the time that you need, okay, within three minutes. So I'll start. Dwight Hewitt.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council members, staff, and neighbors. It's good to see you. I'm Dwight Hewitt, 555 Cranon Boulevard, and a 45-year resident of Key Biscayne. That's hard for me to believe, to be honest with you. Sometimes it seems like just yesterday when I owned the Island Fitness Center and all the things were going on then, but... That was the 80s. And during that time, the former council member that you all know, Raul Llorente, and I and a few other people formed the Key Biscayners for Responsive Government. And this was an initiative to get the referendum on the ballot to create the village of Key Biscayne. Well, while we were doing that, so was Gene Stearns. So we joined up with Gene Stearns, and we had joint meetings. And I was the young buck in the room at that time.

I'm an old goat now.

But at that time, I committed to going to every single family home on Key Biscayne, knocking on the door and handing out a flyer. That was my role. So I did that. And what I learned in the process was that most people were for it. Obviously, we became a village. But they had reasons because of landscaping and potholes and Lamps that didn't have lights in them. And they wanted fire and police. All of these things that we wanted at that time. One of the most common comments that I got was related to overcrowding. And I said, well, don't worry. Because if we have our own capability, if we take it away from Miami-Dade County, we can then zone land use, density. We can handle this. We got this covered. Well, you know, I think a good example is 101 Sunrise Drive. Somebody's talked about it tonight. But when you look at that, it was 20 units, one bedrooms. It became 11. That sounds great. Hallelujah. But at the end of the day, they were all three bedrooms. So it's actually more people can live there. For me, that's what intensity of use means. More people on the street, more cars, more pull on the grid, more people in the schools, and all these different things that intensity of use, I think, means. 303 Galen, I see, is no different. When you do the math looking at the appraiser's office, there are 74 beds times two people per bed. That's the code. You can have two people in each bedroom. That gives you 148 people that can be there now. The applicant, who I think has a great plan, I like it, but it's too many people. For me, it's an intensity of use issue. It's 200 people. And I think if we keep doing this, we're going to find our... I mean, we're already there. This is busy. I mean, the census of 1990 is less than 9,000 residents in Key Biscayne. The census of 2020, it's just about 15,000 people. We need to stop doing this. I say hold the line on intensity of use. And thank you all so much for being volunteers. I really appreciate you.

Thank you. Next speaker, Steve Powell.

I think he walked out. OK.

Okay. Armando Shomat is next speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. I live at 450 Grape Tree Drive, and I also have a unit at 301 in the Garden District on Sunrise. I support Walter's project.

And your name, sir? I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, Armando Shomack.

Thank you.

I support Walter's project. I think it will be a catalyst for all the Garden District. I think all the owners here of all the apartments in the Garden District, we should all support it and look at our own properties and start upgrading our own properties to make that whole area more valuable to all of us.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Piva.

Good evening, Mayor, Distinguished Member of the Board. I'm Eduardo Piva. I live in 600 Grape Tree Drive, 7CS. I have lived in Key Beach Cairns since 1991. I know Mr. Walter de Fortuna and his family a lot. He's an active member of our community. And I think he's involved in the development of the island for many years. And I think this, I support this project because I think it's a very, very good project for the area, especially for that area on Galen Drive. And they probably solved some of the existing problem in the area. Once again, I support the project.

Thank you very much. Next speaker, Juliana Littlejohn.

I'm Juliana Littlejohn, 290 Sunrise Drive. I was surprised to see so many people speak in support of the project at the last meeting. 14 of the people who spoke Sorry, of the 14 people who spoke, only one lived in the Garden District. And that imbalance is worth thinking about. Most of us who do live in the Garden District were not aware of the zoning change that was being proposed. So how did all these people with no direct stake in the outcome not only know about it, but also feel strongly enough to come up and advocate for it? That kind of turnout doesn't happen by coincidence. It suggests a level of coordination that the residents of the Garden District did not receive. So what I am asking is that the council weigh the view of the people who actually live in the Garden District and will be more heavily impacted, sorry, will be more impacted more heavily than that of the supporters with little direct stake in the outcome. The people showing up to speak in favor of this project, not all of them will be living next to it, we will. So I also wanted to go over some of the arguments that developers were making. The argument about intensity versus density has already been made, it's 200. a capacity of 200 people versus a capacity of 140. The total floor area would also more than double. The developers haven't said exactly what the total floor area of the proposed building is. We did some math and it looks like it would be somewhere around 150 to 200,000 square feet based on the floor plans that they provided. And not to mention the height would increase about five times that would result in notable impacts to the community around glare, noise, traffic, vibrations, swale from the construction, a lot of things. I mean, glare specifically, the heat that would be radiated from all the glass would affect us who live there. And another argument they're making is that a mistake was made in the current code, in the current zoning code that needs to be fixed. And yeah, there are some things that don't quite add up. But the developers are saying that the arguments, sorry, the developers are arguing that the lawmakers did not realize that there were RM30 properties without beachfronts. I think if you look at the language, it suggests that the opposite is true. They specifically say if oceanfront buildings provide a dedicated easement, then the higher FAR schedule can be used, suggesting that they knew that there were RM30 properties that were not oceanfront buildings. And the reason for keeping the language that way would be to precisely prevent this kind of development from moving forward and preserving the character of the Garden District. So there was no evidence that a mistake was actually made. And if anything was mis-zoned, it would have been 303 Galen itself. It is surrounded by mid-density buildings and is not in a corner or across the street from the beach like the true RRM 30 properties. I'll just leave with supporters of the project made a fair point that key this game should welcome thoughtful hurricane resilient projects that can is absolutely true, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be done within the parameters of our current ordinances. And zoning ordinances exist, so the neighborhoods aren't reshaped one exception at a time, if we make an exception now that would start a precedent for you know every developer who has a big idea to come before you and ask for a rezoning.

that's. Thank you. Thank you. We've got Mark Dodds.

Mark Dodds, 250 Sunrise Drive. I've had the joy of living on two apartments in Galen Drive. Mark Dodds. We're asking the Village Council to protect the scale and character of the Garden District. A 14-story building would be dramatically out of scale with the low-rise village-style character that surrounds it and could permanently change the visual identity of the Garden District. Do not allow one project to establish a developmental precedent. If the Village changes its zoning or development regulations to facilitate 303 Galen, that decision could influence future redevelopment proposals. The council should determine the appropriate long-term height, density, and scale of the Garden District through comprehensive planning and not one project at a time. Require complete traffic and infrastructure analysis. Key Biscayne's an island with finite road capacity and limited ingress and egress. Before approving a major change in development intensity, residents deserve independent analysis of traffic, parking, and emergency access, construction impacts, and evacuation conditions. Require a comprehensive resiliency review Key Biscayne faces flooding, storm surge, hurricanes, and sea level rise. Any development of this scale should be evaluated for stormwater management, drainage, flood resilience, and emergency access. Give residents meaningful opportunity to participate. A decision that could permanently affect the future character of the Garden District deserves adequate notice, adequate time for review, and meaningful community input. This is bigger than 303 Galen. The decision before the council will help determine what type of development Key Biscayne will permit in the future. We support responsible development. We support safe, modern, resilient buildings, but redevelopment should occur with a planning framework that protects our infrastructure, environment, quality of life, and the unique character of our village. We respectfully ask that the mayor and the village council vote no on the proposed 303 Galen. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, Eduardo D'Agostino.

Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Kind of changed my mind during this meeting, but in any way, one thing I wanted to say is that...

I'm sorry, your name and address.

Oh, Eduardo D'Agostino, sorry.

And your address.

I'm in Key Colony.

Which building?

141. No, D'Agostino. D-A-G-O-S-T-O-N. No, no, not your name.

Your address.

Oh, address. Key Colony. 141 Crandon. 141 Crandon Boulevard. OK, thank you. Sorry.

That's OK.

I'm a little bit hard of hearing. Anyway, I just wanted to say and if I have time, ask a question to the developers. It's hard for me to understand, as you really don't agree, to the issue that this is called a correction because it was an oversight from the previous meeting back in 2010. I think that meeting in 2010, when they wrote this regulation, was very well discussed. The issue was very well reviewed. And it was approved in October 2010 after six months of review. task was solved, correction, I think that was the intention of the regulation in 2010. I know it wasn't an oversight. The other issue is that according to what I researched regarding the Kibitz-Kem, village of Kibitz-Kem regulations because of regulation in 2007, in 2022 and state Florida laws in 2011 and 2023 in which there are some legal appeals decisions and also an attorney general report and opinion. The residents of Key Biscayne still, up to my understanding, I may be wrong, they still had the right for the referendum regarding this issue because it's very much a completely new regulation, not a correction or something which was oversight. That's one thing. The other thing to the developer, if I may, you're going to do 18 floors? 14 floors.

Go ahead and leave your questions.

Yeah, that's 14 floors. Can I ask a question to them?

Just state what your questions are. Yeah, my question is how many floors. They'll reply later, yes.

No, how many floors? 14. 14, okay. Can I continue?

Go ahead and put your questions there so that they'll be answered.

My question is, you are asking for 0.8 FAR, that's correct? No. Well, I understood it was two, okay. And how many of those square feet that you allow are excluded from the construction actually? Because according to Kibbe's scan, the underground garage and balconies and the lobby, I think, are not included in those. Almost everything is included in this. So you are asking for how many square feet of FAN? Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Joseph Kellogg.

Good evening. Joseph Kellogg, 115 Sunrise Drive.

Thank you all very much for being here and all you do for the village.

This is great that so many people have come out to speak. First, I want to thank the developers for what they're doing for the project. I think a lot needs to be done to improve the community. I also want to thank the developers for helping to spur and to catalyze our identity in the Garden District. I've been a resident there for 25 years and it's really brought us together to recognize the special community that we have and I hope we can keep it up. I think that from what I can see, I oppose moving forward with these amendments this quickly, these provisions. From what I can see, there are some inconsistencies that have to be addressed, but perhaps at a different pace with a little bit more thoughtfulness. Perhaps what I'm hearing, I like the concept that Dwight mentioned that this density thing, we seem to be pushing that aside. But from what I understand, density is not that clear. For me, it means biodensity, number of human beings that are around, but that's not clear in the rules. Perhaps that could be better addressed so that we don't be increasing the human beings that are out here. And from what I can hear, the rules that exist right now have not been done haphazardly. They've been done so that when aggressive people come in, people that are developing and want to get things done quickly, that there are some safeguards so they can't, Things have to be done thoughtfully so we can study them. I just heard about this this week. There's been this project going on for a while, and I think it does need to be reviewed. And I'm glad that we've got our elected representatives here to protect us, to make sure that our community feels like we're being protected from something that we don't want to have, it feels like, shoved down our throat. Thank you. All right.

Carl Jardines.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Karen Jardines, and I live at 550 Ocean Drive, directly across from Coral Reef at 303 Galen Drive. He bought the apartment in 1998. At that time, there was no Ritz-Carlton. I believe that the Ocean Complex Club was being built. I have lived in my property since 2000 for more than 25 years, and I've seen Key Biscayne change and develop over the years. I understand that some outdoor buildings sometimes need to be redeveloped, as what happened on Sunrise Drive. I'm not against that and the one of 303 on Grayland Drive, but I strongly believe I'm strongly against changing the six existing zoning rules to allow a 14-story building at that location. I live on the ninth floor on the left corner facing Galen Drive. A building of this size directly across the street would have a very big impact on my home and our building. It would affect my view, our view, my privacy, the light. and the character of the neighborhood, which I have called home for more than 25 years, and do have a great view and privacy right now. I'm very worried about more traffic and the parking situation. We already have a lot of traffic in this area, and adding a development of this size will bring more residents, visitors, deliveries, noise, and more cars. I worry about what this will mean for the people who already live here. I'm also concerned about the value of our homes. Many residents have invested the savings into their properties. A very large building directly in front of us with a loss of views, privacy, and light could negatively affect the value of our apartments. But this is not only about my apartment or my building. The current zoning rules exist for a reason. If a developer buys a property and existing rules do not allow the building they want to build, I do not believe we should simply change these rules to make the project possible. I'm very worried about the precedent this could create. If we allow a 14-story building here today, what happens with the next property tomorrow? Once these decisions are made and these buildings are built, we cannot go back. We do not want to become brickle. We want Pee Wee's Cane to stay like it is now. Please think about the residents who already live here and will have to live with the result of this decision every day. I support a reasonable redevelopment of 303 Galen, but it should respect existing rules, the surrounding buildings, and the people who already live here. I respectfully ask you to vote no on these charges. Thank you very much for listening.

Next speaker, Sylvia Garrigo.

Good evening. I'm speaking on behalf of Sylvia Garrigo. Sylvia is an assistant professor of professional practice at the University of Miami Business School, and she's teaching there tonight.

And her address, I'm sorry.

Oh, I beg your pardon.

No, her address.

Her address is 550 Ocean Drive. Thank you. Dear Mayor Rasko and members of the Village Council and Sustainability Advisory Board, the purpose of this letter is to share my concerns with the proposed ordinances, proposed comprehensive plan, and Section 30 to 105 amendments. I own and live in the property located at the Galen Breakers. I ask that you take these concerns seriously for the reasons stated below. My family and I have lived in Key Biscayne since 1972. I'm very grateful for your dedication and service to our community. You have made a positive impact in our community. as stewards of our community which calls for responsible social and environmental development and the preservation of our quality of life on the island, I request that you deny the proposed ordinances, plan and amendments. The proposed changes taken together act in contravention of your duties and establish a new development practice which negatively impacts density, safety, land use, water capacity and stability. sewer capacity, the structural integrity of surrounding buildings, and privacy of their residents, stormwater and hurricane evacuation. Moreover, the surrounding neighbourhood and residents' quality of life will be severely affected in the short term by substantial construction and related traffic, and in the long term by overdevelopment. It is unclear whether the proposed changes together with the discretionary development bonuses permit dwelling units, hotel rooms or temporary accommodations as have been permitted on Sunrise. It is important to note that the new dwelling units and temporary accommodations on Sunrise conform to proportionately and permissible land use. land use regulation without the issues presented in the paragraph above. The same also applies to 101 sunrise, a profitable, elegant and conforming project. What is clear is that the proposed changes have far reaching impact beyond the development in question and establish a precedent for the Galen and sunrise that must be evaluated, not from the vantage point of the one development, but rather from an island wide study The tail is wagging the dog. I ask whether we need more dwelling units or temporary accommodations in the Garden District, and for that matter, in all of Key Biscayne. We already have several towering and massive buildings that dwarf Casa del Mar in terms of density, land use, water capacity, and stability, and sewer capacity. Soon we will also have a new development on the property replacing the silver sands. Why do we need more? Why do we need to stress our infrastructure, capacity and quality of life more? Our beaches are already in far worse condition than the past. Crandon Beach is full of faecal bacteria and is unsafe. How can you proceed to evaluate the proposed changes without a comprehensive impact assessment and an island-wide study? The proposed changes place the cart before the horse. They also call into question your fiduciary duties to the community. I have to conclude my letter by stating that I just recently learned of this issue. None of the residents of Galen Breakers received notice of the proposed changes, and I suspect that the remaining Key Biscayne residents, particularly those on Galen and Sunrise, have not been notified. Please make sure that there is an appropriate process in place for notices. Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Next speaker, Jose Gaviria.

Good evening. Jose Gaviria, 550 Ocean Drive, Galen Breakers. I'm also happen to be a licensed architect, so I took the liberty to study all the material that was distributed for this meeting. I respectfully ask you not to recommend items 4A and 4B. Is it 4A and 4B or 5A and 5B?

I'm sorry. 5A and 5B.

Okay. So I recommend, I respectfully ask you not to recommend items 5A and 5B in their present form. These are not minor technical corrections, and they do not simply allow an aging building to be replaced. Together, they create a new development framework permitting substantial increases in density, floor area, and lot coverage, as well as reduce setbacks through discretionary bonuses. First, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is extremely broad. It states that any property may be redeveloped beyond the density and intensity limits of the high density multifamily category. This language is not limited to 303 Galen Drive. Once adopted, it could establish development expectations extending well beyond this particular project. Second, the proposed code amendment would allow density up to an existing building's density. Increase FAR from 0.4 to as much as 2.0. A five-fold increase and increased lot coverage from 40 to 60%. These are major development entitlements, not modest incentives. Third, existing building density is not adequately defined. There is no controlling date. no clear method for verifying legally established dwelling units, and no explanation of whether transient accommodations or other non-conforming configurations could become permanent residential density. Fourth, the bonus system lacks objective standards. The Council could grant substantial benefits in its sole discretion. in exchange for land, easements, or infrastructure improvements. Yet there is no valuation formula, minimum contribution, proportionality requirement, or measurable relationship between the public contribution and the private entitlement granted. Existing non-conforming density should not automatically become a permanent right transferable from an existing three-story building to a materially different tower outside its originally approved building envelope. I am not opposed to redevelopment or architectural innovation. I support replacing an aging building with a safe, resilient, and well-designed project. The existing regulations already provide a lawful path for a substantial and creative development. Good architecture should respond to established community standards. It should not require rewriting long-term land use policy to accommodate one proposal. Before making changes of this magnitude, the village should study traffic, utilities, stormwater, hurricane evacuation, construction impacts, neighborhood compatibility, and the precedent for other RM30 properties. I respectfully ask you to recommend denial or at a minimum defer these ordinances until objective standards, precise definitions, infrastructure analysis, and meaningful public review are provided. Finally, with the utmost respect, I ask you to remember what brought you into public service in the first place. the desire to serve this community. Let us be honest. These amendments are being advanced to benefit one single entity, one single private project. Tonight, I ask you to put a broader interest of Key Biscayne First and oppose the proposed amendments.

Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker, Inigo Villalobos.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, attendants, ladies and gentlemen. Address, 644 Crandon Boulevard.

In your name, I'm sorry.

I respectfully address you.

I didn't hear your name, I'm sorry.

644 Crandon Boulevard.

In your name? Your name, your name.

Ingo Fiebeck.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Ingo Fiebig. I'm of the opinion that the project is a rejuvenation opportunity of an old, outdated building that will bring a refreshed alternative of living to that area of Key Biscayne. The existing building has come to the end of its life cycle and it should be replaced by a modern building that is FEMA compliant because you're not in compliant in that area. So you're kind of have to look for a consensus of allowing something to be built that might be a little bit redimensioned to what was proposed. But I think that you should look at the project in a unique case and it should be looked at individually. No rezoning of Garden District is needed. The council can address this without a district-wide rezoning. The traffic will actually be less with fewer full-time users, reduce short-time frequent renters. So you will also reduce the risks of the flooding that you have in that area. You will have a better water management in place. So you will also increase your tax revenue. So I think, you know, it's about modernizing. It's weighing the pros and cons. It's to have a productive dialogue. I think there's room for doing that. And, you know, this is America. We like progress and we should embrace the entrepreneurship of a qualified developer. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, Brad Senatore.

Brad Senator, 1121 Crandon Boulevard. My parents were original owners of the Towers Pre-Construction. I went to third grade down here. I went to third grade down here on the island, and I've been coming for 50 years. And for the last six years, I've been homesteaded and resident. And I opened up a real estate brokerage here on the Quay, and I'm here to just voice my neighborly opinion.

Bear with me because luckily for you guys, a lot have been said, and I tried to not cover that.

But anyway, good evening, Mayor, council members. Thank you very much for all of your time and energy and efforts and for understanding. So, yeah, so first, you know, there were three major things that I see fundamental with issues about 303 Galen. that I have concern. One is the density. We've all talked about that. My only concern about the density was that the individuals that are not in the industry understood that that was a very slim and specific industry term, and it does not mean how many people we have as neighbors on this island. That was mentioned. I just want to reiterate that, and I thank you for, in the future, whenever that term is being used, that that's clarified. Let me see. So then the next thing would have been the FAR, obviously. So now we all learned about that. That's the square footage that's allowed. So these are parts of the equation. Together, the equation in the zoning makes up for the density or population allowable to live on this island. They're both equally important. And if the population on this island is an issue, then both of those things should really be monitored and held heartily. Key Biscayne residential ownership expectations. I just wanted to touch on that because I did sell a property there at Galen right across the street, and I did my due diligence. I showed him the zoning from the property across the street, explained it to him, and that being said, it's really understandable, and I expressed that the zoning laws in an established neighborhood very rarely change, the council will always have the right to do so. It's very rare and unheard of unless there's major issues. Aside from that, I just wanted to say that perhaps the best use of that location is sitting right there in front of us. The structure as an existing hotel motel, it could be renovated, modernized, restored. As a quality hotel, Key Biscayne is generally in need of additional hotel accommodations. I request a traffic study, but as you all know, most guests that stay on Key Biscayne show up in an Uber and walk into town to enjoy our shops and residents. Does that mean I'm done? Three seconds. Meanwhile, every resident drives their kids to school four blocks away and each have domestic help and services that drive every day. Please just respect those zoning laws as we have them and take that into consideration as you move forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Scott Hardy.

I just got a drink. I'm Scott Hardy, 155 Sunrise Drive, a 14-unit condo building in the Garden District. Everybody said most of the relevant points. The site shouldn't even be zoned RM30. It should be zoned RM16. If you take a look at the site, it has nothing to do with any of the oceanfront properties there. Throw those out, okay? Look at the other properties. Galen Breakers has two sides to it.

What's the name of the other building next to it?

Bahia Mar has two streets to it. What's the name where Patricio Pei lived? Has two sides to it. 301 Galen does not. It's exactly the same as all the R16s. It's not like an R30. The zoning department of Key Biscayne, there's no way that was a mistake. This gentleman said they spent six months reviewing the zoning changes. Six months, and you came up with a mistake. FAR was 40% for a reason, because they couldn't determine to call it R-16 because it was a larger number of units from the county, maybe even illegally. I don't know how it came about. but they had to give it an R30 zoning. But what they did is, with the height, 150 height, which it shouldn't be, they restricted it with a 40% FAR rating. It's clear as day what they did. He's asking for a change. Nobody in the Garden District wants this building. I haven't asked, I mean, I haven't ran into one individual that is for this building that lives in the Garden District. There's not one person. It's so pathetic to watch this that everybody is massaging for one person. It's really hard. It's really hard to see our zoning department figure out a way to get this through. stormwater or whatever it is for flood, that's great. Ed mentioned six inches of rain in the last, probably since Andrew, right? That's over 35 years, okay? So we're gonna throw that flood criteria in there to try to push this through to change the zoning. There's 27 buildings in the Garden District, 900 units, probably two people in each, let's call it 1,800 people. I've asked 100 people about this. 99 have opposed it. The only person that was for it was Doug the mailman, because Doug the mailman said the mailboxes were going to be in the air conditioning. That's it. That's the only person that's been for it. If we take that same statistical approach out of 1,800 people, 1,600 will oppose it from the Garden District. You guys need to represent the Garden District.

Holy, holy. Period. Thank you, Scott.

Marine Cotton.

I'm a little nervous, but okay. Hi, my name is Marine Cotone. I live in the Garden District. I live in 260 Sunrise Drive, Apartment A. I was not prepared to speak tonight at all, as I only heard about this last week. I was only made aware about this last week. But I'm here with my husband and daughter, my daughter being a fourth-generation key rat. My daughters have both gone to the community church school, KBCS. Today, one of them is at Mass still. I am here today to stand against this project. And I want to let this council know that a very large amount of residents in Cubiscayne oppose this as well. How do I know this? I created a petition two and a half days ago that I have over 750 signatures as of tonight. And so give me a little bit more time. I am confident this number will triple or quadruple over the next week or so because I believe that not enough people have been made aware of this project. As it was stated before with the speaker before me, since people have not been aware, people have not been voicing out. But, sorry, let me... As you can see in the public's, you can even see in the public's commentary here tonight that so far more people are against it than for it. Most of us feel that we are, that this island is completely oversaturated. Even your own attorney mentioned that, confirmed that. Key Biscayne residents do not want this to become a future mini brick hole. We want to keep the standards of the Garden District. And nobody's saying that that property shouldn't be improved. We're just saying don't put a mega building, 14 stories, that it doesn't really go in the, in the, design that we all enjoy in the Garden District, right? And so everybody has said what they had to say, but I just want this, I'm asking the council to please take into consideration what the majority of your constituents want. We are asking you to oppose this project.

Thank you. Next speaker, Maximiliano Grigio.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. Okay, I see some great people on both sides here tonight. One with the Ocean Lane Drive, Max Regio. Naturally, whenever development discussions come up, there's always two sides, right? Those who are pro-development sometimes support projects regardless of the circumstances, while those who are against development can oppose almost any development or redevelopment proposal. In my opinion, I don't think either approach is right. Every project should be judged individually based on what it takes from the community and what it gives back. I've personally opposed developments before. More recently, I opposed the Colusa Golf Course redevelopment because of the loss of green space and wildlife habitat, and Miami Wilds at Zoo Miami for similar environmental concerns. That's one of the reasons I look at this proposal differently. The current site is currently developed. There isn't a green space being removed. There's no public park being removed or environmentally sensitive land being disturbed. One of my biggest concerns with other projects simply isn't present here. The next issue is resiliency. The existing building dates back to 1967 and is approaching 60 years of age. This building and Key Biscayne in general is already dealing with flooding, aging infrastructure, and the enormous question of how older properties will eventually be restored or redeveloped. This gives the village an opportunity to see what modern redevelopment can look like. The group proposing this project should demonstrate exactly how they plan to address flooding, stormwater elevation, and hurricane resiliency. If done properly, this could serve as a valuable example for future restoration or redevelopment projects throughout Cubiscane. Another concern for me is displacement. In this case, fortunately, the existing property operates as furnished vacation and rental accommodations. So this isn't the typical situation where redevelopment displaces a large number of people, families that have been living somewhere for decades. Then there's density in traffic. There are 51 units on the property today, and the proposal maintains 51 units. They are proposing to turn 51 residents into 150. The building may become taller, but the number of units remains the same, and the zoning currently allows to build up as the other parcels south and southeast of it. A taller building is not automatically a denser building. Traffic should obviously be studied, but there is also a practical reality in Key Biscayne and Key Biscayne's real estate pre-construction market. We have a ton of real estate professionals here tonight that can tell you how many purchasers of pre-construction properties are not full-time residences. These are seasonal residences, snowboard residences that will be footing some of the property tax bill for us Key Biscayne-ers. And that also means that not every future owner here will be seasonal, but 51 luxury residences does not necessarily mean 51 full-time households generating daily 365 days a year traffic. And that leads to what I think is one of the most important benefits for the Cubiscaner, the tax base. Cubiscane has long maintained an exceptionally low property tax rate compared with the rest of Miami-Dade. Since its incorporation with the help of Eugene Stern in 1991, the village has always had the lowest millage rate in Miami-Dade County. For example, of million-dollar property value in the city of Miami, you'll pay $20,000 in property taxes. In Key Biscayne, you pay around $15,600. That's a noticeable difference. The difference reflects years of village budgeting, a strong tax base, and decisions made by successive village councils. Projects like this can help strengthen that model. If this redevelopment were eventually assessed at the approximate estimated value at today's village millage rate, it could generate nearly... $570,000 a year just for the village. And importantly, many buyers of luxury new construction may be second home owners. They pay property taxes throughout the entire year while potentially only occupying their residences seasonally. That creates year-round tax revenue without necessarily creating the same level of year-round demand on the village services. You want to wrap up? Yeah, that additional tax base helps pay for the things permanent residents depend on every day police, fire rescue, park, public works, infrastructure, flood mitigation and resiliency. So for me, the question isn't whether development is good or bad. The question is whether this particular redevelopment creates enough benefit for the daily Cuba scanner. It doesn't meaningfully remove green space or wildlife habitat and maintains the existing 51 unit density. Displacement is very limited at the worst case scenario. It replaces a nearly six year old building with modern infrastructure. It creates an opportunity to improve resiliency and it could contribute substantial revenue toward the services and infrastructure that improve the lives of people who actually live on Cuba.

Thank you for your very input. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Next speaker, Adriana Spitali.

Adriana Spitali, 1121 Crandon Boulevard. We cannot stop development. And this project is made by Bernardo Ford. who is one of the best architects in the whole world. And he also used to live here in Key Biscayne and he raised his family here. And he's very conscious and he's very, what's the word? Mindful. Sorry, I'm not my, English is not my first language. And another person who is going to lead this project is Walter. Walter also decided to be Key Biscayne his home since so many years. He has his family here. He chose to live here and he has family here because he loves Key Biscayne. And I'm sure that this team of Bernardo and Walter are the best developers and proposal for this project. We have to see and to think in the future I know the Garden District was or is support for a lot of people here today, but we have to see the future. We have to see that new developments are going to happen anyway. What is best to have a local developer with a local architect? the real care for Key Biscayne for their neighbors and for the future of Key Biscayne. Thank you.

Thank you. Lisa Hilardi.

Hi, Lisa Gillardy, 250 Sunrise Drive. Thank you so much, Mayor and Council. I'm happy to be here tonight, and I'm thankful that you're giving us your time. I'm against the zoning change. I live in the Garden District, and I have three main concerns. First, the speed at which this is progressing. Second, the technical implications. And third, the effect on the community that I know. The speed, I live in a very close-knit community, as you can tell. You see people walking their dogs. Everyone knows everybody's business. So why is it that none of us knew about this except until 48 hours ago? I wonder what other conversations are going on while I'm teaching my kids to swim while I'm working every day. What conversations are going on that I'm missing? So I'm glad now that we know this conversation is happening, which leads me to my second point about the technical implications. i'm not one to speak on the geotechnical analysis, the resiliency stormwater and i'm glad that there have been months of work on this. But i'm not glad that this is the first time i'm hearing about it, and most people as well, this is the first time they're seeing that work. So I can't speak much more to the technical implications, because I haven't been a part of that and, lastly, the effect on the Community, which is where I can speak from personal experience. My apartment is one of the few left with a screen porch. We have our sliders. We can sit and eat our meals out on the porch. And I hear people walking by and they look at my porch. I always tell my husband, they look at my porch and they say, that looks so cozy. That looks so nice. There's lights there. They took pictures of the orchids that my neighbors planted in the tree. And so I wonder, what are the people on the 14th floor gonna hear when people walk by? So I'm not against change. Change is life. Change is all the time. I really am not against change. But I am in favor of transparency. I'm in favor of thoughtfulness and working together. And I know that you guys are as well. So I hope that you support us in this. Thank you.

Thank you. Charles Collins.

Charles Collins, 1121 Cranon Boulevard. So what's my unique input? Okay, I lived in the Garden District in 1970. I was broke, my girlfriend, I was a student, my girlfriend roommate was working at Jordan Marsh as a lingerie salesman and my best friend or the neighbor of it was the night clerk at Sonesta. So that gives you an idea of the income bracket in 1970 who lived in the Garden District. So that's changed considerably. It's now, I did the math backwards. If you figure out it costs $4,000 a month to rent an apartment, you'd need an income around $160,000 a year to pay for it, which coincidentally also qualifies you for workforce housing. So the suggestion would be he could turn this into a live local, build whatever he wants, and then they could afford to rent in the building, and let's see if that would be a compromise. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Karen Levinson.

Hi, Karen Levinson.

I'm at 650 Ocean Drive. Quiet, please. Everything's already been said. I just want to say I'm in opposition to the zone change.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Jose Alvarez.

Got tired.

Jose Alvarez going once. OK. Here he comes. We'll take care of him. Martin Guyot. Martin. Going once. Okay. Guadalupe Hines.

Good evening. Guadalupe Hines, 155 Ocean Lane Drive. Good evening, Council. I grew up in Key Biscayne, and like so many people my age, my dream is to raise my own family here. and give my children the same amazing childhood that I was lucky to have. Unfortunately, I feel that there are very few options for our generation. Single family homes are out of reach for many of us and much of the condo inventory is older and facing significant repairs and special assessments. I also think that there's value in having a local team behind this project who cares about the community is willing to listen to their residents and work with them to address all of their concerns. I know I speak for many young families when I say we want to stay in Key Biscayne, send our kids to school here. I feel that projects like 303 Galen will give our generation a real opportunity to do that. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Quiet, please. Greg Sanders.

Good evening.

Uh, thank you council. Thank you everyone for coming.

Um, your name and address, 200 Galen drive and your name, Greg Sanders. Okay. Um, most things have been said tonight. I definitely can't top Scott Hardy. He was great. I mean, um, at the end of the day is I've been in front of the council many times at many of these meetings. And, um, I've seen for the past 30 years that I've lived here, the population just explode. People have lately said grown, but as you heard the numbers earlier, 10 to 5,000 over that short period of time is a lot. At the end of the day, I can remember going back to where we had crab crossings coming in on Crandon. We had parakeets flying above us many times during the day. We had many birds walking amongst us. We had so much nature around us. Armadillos, yes, back, yes. And I would swim the beach, you know, and I've noticed over the past 10 years, the sea life has just basically disintegrated. and disappeared. The beaches have become overrun by people who don't even live here. If you spent much time on Galen, you'll see all the golf carts that are on the grass. Why? Because people have cars. They have multiple golf carts. They have lots of things that everyone's entitled to. But there needs to come a time where we start to say, enough. Okay, we have developers that live amongst us. Okay, developers and investors that live amongst us that basically I don't think they have the same vision as the other 99% of us. And I feel that people in the key all talk about it. And we talk about it tonight. But there's more and more people that are not here And in the past couple days, I found out about this meeting as well. And I think there needs to be more meetings. And listening to the flood drainage plan who he's hired by the developer, I mean, you can't fight Mother Nature. And we've all been through, we've been through Andrew where the water was up to here on the buildings of Galen, up to your waist. We don't know if any of those hurricanes are going to come more. Are they going to put a wall across the front of their building in order to hold in that water the plant that this is a site to me is flawed and They can tell you everything they want to tell you and try to convince you about it But again, you can't beat Mother Nature. We've all seen it even with Just simple full day of rain here Galen gets flooded like there's it's just like one giant lake that reaches across over to sunrise and you know And you really need to think about and take more meetings on this than to rush into it. And that's what I ask you tonight. Thank you very much. I oppose. Thank you.

Terry Oliva.

I think she left.

Okay, in the meantime, Tony Debs. No Tony either, okay. Manny Rionda.

Hi, Manny Rionda, 155 Sunrise Drive. Thank you very much, Council, Mayor, all of you, friends and neighbors. I don't think anyone's against improving the Garden District or even developing. I mean, it's a tough time right now between what's happening between here and the toll. There's a lot going on, right? So the optics are tough right now. I get that. But I want to commend the developers on, I think it was your work on Sunrise, 201, 202. I live on Sunrise. Those are my neighbors. And, you know, RM16, I'm just learning about all this right now also, RM16, RM30, but... You didn't max out on your RM16, from what I understand, right? I mean, I'm in a five-story building, and the ones next to me that were redeveloped are still two stories. And kudos on the work on the resiliency and the flood mitigation and the work that you did on Sunrise with that, because I noticed it. The pervious ground and just a lot of good stuff. I've seen it. And we want it. We need it. But let's stay within the character of our neighborhood. You know, the neighboring buildings are nine, ten stories. I mean, that's going to be an easier sell, I think. I think it is because it's right there and it's in line with what we have. And also, you know, I really want to we want to trust the council and not just this council, but the next one coming in, you know. Let's not be in favor. Let's not go on a platform of say, yeah, I'm for more density. That's not going to fly. I mean, look at the turnout that's coming here with just about 48 hours of notice. So thank you all very much for your time. Appreciate you all. And all you do.

Thank you.

Luis de la Cruz.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, Luis de la Cruz, 640 Allendale. So I've received a lot of calls about what I happen to think about this. I guess that's what happens when you're running for council. Speak up. My position has never changed within the past 15, 20 years. And that is that we are overbuilt. And I don't think anybody in this town, including the developer, will tell you that he's for more people and more cars. Now, we've heard a lot of stuff from the developer, from the village. But I think we're missing the forest from the trees. We talk about density. Density is units per acre. Units could be an efficiency. or a four bedroom apartment. So I mean, you can't talk density. You might be able to talk intensity sometimes, but I still think we're missing the forest from the trees. I have seen nothing up here that tells us that there's been an analysis that the proposed development is going to bring more people and more cars to the village of Key Biscayne. Right now, we have 51 units. I don't know what size they are. They're tiny, probably. And those are used like a hotel motel type thing. So they generate a lot of traffic and stuff. So I don't really know what the answer to that question is. But I really believe that you guys who are making this decision up here need to know that. Because at the end of the day, what we don't want And I was the chair of the vision board when we met with all the people here in Key Biscayne. And the one message that they kept telling us is don't bring more cars. Don't bring more people. We have to limit that. So that analysis is something that the village of Key Biscayne should require in the future. And it should probably be somebody who is not aligned with either the village or the applicant. It should be a consultant probably in the list of consultants that is paid for by the applicant, but not hired by the applicant. And that person should come and give us an idea of whether whatever it is that you guys are looking at or the next council will be looking at, is going to bring more people and more cars onto the Village Keepers King, because that's really what we don't want. So I think that needs to be demonstrated at some point. I don't see how you can come to a conclusion without having that idea. I know I always go over that time. But thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. It's like Miriam Pettis.

Good afternoon, Mr. Major. Good afternoon, village councils. My name is Dr. Miriam Perez. I am a pediatrician who had lived and worked in Key Biscayne for a very long time, more time than I want to remember right now. My address is 151 Crandon Boulevard, apartment 1020. Although where I live is a little farther than the Garden District, my mom lives on Gallon Breakers. She's actually outside and she doesn't speak English so I'm gonna speak on her behalf as well. I know that change is always scary and every time that we KiwiScaners hear about a new development, we get scared very easy. I think that if we see an aging building, which is what my mom sees from her window, she lives on apartment, at gallon breakers, it's also scary to know that we're gonna allow our infrastructure to deteriorate because of the fear that we have of change. We need places like the one that Walter de Fortuna is trying to give us. Our kids also need a place where they can go around without seeing aging buildings. We don't care about it and that's not our reality. I am in favor of this project. And I think we need to be a little bit more open to change. Change doesn't always mean worse. We cannot stop the change. We're not gonna be brickle, but we cannot stay the same way we are right now than we were 35 years ago. As much as we want to close the island, that's not gonna happen. It's not right for our kids. It's not right for our grandkids either. So I do, we are in favor of this proposal.

Thank you very much. Larry Wasserscheid? Yes.

Larry Wasserscheid, 590 Ocean Drive. I'm opposed to the project. The building's just too big. It will increase density. It will bring more traffic. and I'm opposed to it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much. Patricio Dotras.

Patricio Dotras, 151 Crandon Bullard. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Here to support the project, I ask you to wait that this application proposes against what sits on the property today, that it is a short-term rental and vacation hotel. This would generate less traffic. This new project will generate less traffic with fewer. Sorry. This project will generate less traffic with fewer full-time users than the current use. And, of course, it will eliminate a short-term rental building that today causes more vehicles and noise to the surroundings. And also, I think the city should consider that the tax base will be increased maybe tenfold or even more by having this new building. So I ask you to approve this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, Rueng Hill.

Thank you.

Hello, Mayor, Council. Thank you for everything you do. And for everybody that's here today, obviously, it's a big turnout. So I'm glad everybody's here to speak their opinion. Ruben Gill, 300 Galen Drive. Thank you. So first, I see all these. I'm opposed to the zoning changes. And I'm not opposed to the project. I think that the scale and the density, obviously, in context, like Manny just put it, in very good terms, it's kind of out of scale. Also, I'm wondering, two years ago when we did 301 Ocean, was it 301 Ocean Drive? The council was an obsolete hotel developer, requested to convert to residential. So I'm wondering, we didn't change the rules for that district. We wrote a project specific ordinance for that project. So I'm wondering, In that in that level right the neighbors got something in the village got a great deal so I'm wondering why this isn't treated the same way as that project on it feels like one is only changes are feeding the other right. And I'm anybody have you know it's going to be impacted by this project I live across the street and the reason why I don't oppose it is because I get phone calls you know throughout the weekend for the week of people trying to try to. stay at the hotel, you know, and my golf cart has been stolen. So I'm affected by that property. So I would like to see it redeveloped, right? And I know it's difficult because there's no real path forward for the developer. I know they have their bottom line. But I think that, you know, as a community, as council, as that great team over there, I think we can come together and we can have options, right? We can study different amounts of density. I put together a little package. I studied the density down the street, up and down, and what the density looks like up the block to the end and then back the other way. And that gives you a good perspective of the garden district, right? What each building's level looks like and what's proposed looks like, right? So, you know, on secondhand, that's just kind of my... my thoughts on scale, but I think that there's a lot of other things that we need to talk about, right? We have an amenity deck. There's a lot of, you know, they put pickleball courts on the amenity deck. Imagine that noise, you know, throughout the neighborhood and properties like the number one complaint in the nation for, on the builder sense. Then let's look at construction noise right a we have aging buildings in the area that has spent the last couple years they spent millions of dollars on on the research vacations right and now just when we're done just when we've been finished us everybody's. You know, every building is almost completed, especially in the area. Now we're going to start vibration impacts across the street. So have we looked at the studies of what, you know, we live on sand and limestone, right? So what are the implications of a 15-story tower? You start driving piles, you start putting foundations, and we're going to have settlement issues. So have we studied what that looks like? Have we studied the noise? Have you studied, we have a lot of people that spent millions of dollars on assessments and haven't put impact windows. There's still jealousy windows, right? So I think we need to look at overall crane staging logistics. There's a lot of things we can talk about and plan, but I think there's still a lot to talk about.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Louisa Conway.

Yeah, yeah.

Good evening, Council, Louisa Conway, 151 Crandon Boulevard. First of all, I want to thank all the residents for coming out. I actually had, like, I was worried that no one was going to turn out. You know, it's always the same people that come up and speak. This has been an incredible evening. I mean, I was in the overflow room. It's phenomenal to see the community come out. And I want to thank Council for taking the time. I know it's a long night to listen to us. But this is a momentous evening, isn't it? You're being asked on items 5A and 5B to circumvent section 415 of the charter. And I'm here tonight because I want to remind everyone that in 2022, 62% of Key Biscayne voters said no to land redevelopment and zoning. you wanted to preserve that right. I'm here because I was one of the people that fought for you, that fought to keep those amendments, those charter amendments, there were seven of them, from passing. You passed five, you'll allow them to have two, but the most important one is the one here tonight. So 5A and 5B is asking counsel, 5A, for you to adopt the comprehensive plan that Jeremy has recommended to you. 5B, once 5A passes, is to nullify what 62% of us want to keep. And that is our concern about density and zoning here on the island. But I have to applaud the developer's attorney. because you sat on the Charter Amendment Committee. It didn't pass, but I have to hand it to you. This is a brilliant workaround, but the residents, you gotta wake up. You gotta understand what's happening here tonight. Don't get lost in the forest, everybody. You're hearing all kinds of stuff. You're looking at pretty pictures. but go to 5A and 5B, because they want to nullify your approval of zoning. So I am asking council, think about the residents. Think about the 62%, because they care so deeply about this island. They voted because they wanted to protect it. And I know all of you, because you live here. I know you care just as deeply as we do. But one of the things that really concerns me is how a building director came tonight to, and I love you, Jeremy, but really, this is insane, to come here tonight and present to you an option that actually is for the developer. What about us? Who here is representing us?

Lucas Boquimpe. Never, never get that.

Hello, guys. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, council members. I spoke at the previous meeting. Your name and address. I'm sorry. Lucas Boquimpe, 151 Crandon Boulevard, Unit 334.

Thank you.

I spoke at the previous meeting in support of a 303 gallon drive, and I wanted to come tonight because I think this conversation has reached an important point. Nobody's asking this council to ignore the concern of our neighbors. The concerns deserve to be heard, but listening cannot mean that every concern becomes a video. At this point, leadership requires finding reasonable balance between the people who want nothing to change and the reality that our village has to continue to move forward. I have lived in the Sunrise Scaling area for many years. I know these buildings. I know the neighborhood. And I believe this area can be better. What concerns me is that sometimes Key Biscayne In Key Biscayne, we confuse protecting our community with preventing anything from changing, and this is not the same thing. A community improved through collaboration, the developer should listen, the neighbors should participate constructively, and the council should ultimately make a decision based on what is best for the village as a whole. But collaboration cannot work if the starting position is simply we don't want it. If every development proposal is approached preliminary by asking how can we stop it, eventually we are not preserving Key Biscayne. We are preventing Key Biscayne from improving. The buildings around Sunrise and Galleon are aging. Redevelopment will come. The question is whether we manage the evolution intelligently with good architecture, better infrastructure, and thoughtful planning, or whether we resist until circumstances force decisions upon us. 303 guideline gives us an opportunity to do it correctly. There may need to be compromise. There may need to be adjustment. That's part of the process. But the objective should be to find a path forward, not another reason to delay. I would encourage the council and the neighbors and the applicant to stop approaching this as two sides trying to win. The real question should be, how do we make this project better for the neighborhood and better for Key Biscayne? Because progress does not require us to abandon what we love about Key Biscayne. It requires us to care enough about to make it better. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Steve Simon.

Steve Simon, 335 Harbor Lane. That's only for the last 44 years. Before that, when I moved down here in 1979 from Chicago, I lived in the Garden District. the 285 Sunrise Drive. Back in 1991, when we formed this municipality, we did so with three guiding principles in mind. To control our destiny, to reduce density, and to provide open space. At the August 25th council meeting, the applicant stated, quote, I'm not asking for more density, close quotes. The applicant's use of the word density may not match the way it was used back in 1991 or by all of our councils, nor even by his own attorney and local consultant when they wore other hats. I will explain density in the 2006 and 2018 evaluation and appraisal reports of Keebus Cain's comprehensive plan. is a population based definition associated with a long standing objective to achieve park and recreation lands of at least 2.5 acres per 1000 permanent residents, a village staff person whose name is on the cover page of that 19, excuse me, cover page of that 2006 report. Judd is here tonight, but in a different capacity as a consultant to the applicant. The most recent strategic vision plan in the executive summary on page two in bold print quote, there is an underlying, there is an underlying principle to the vision plan. That principle is that while communities inevitably evolve, Kibus cane cannot accommodate more residential density, close quotes, who, during his volunteer time, was the chair of that strategic vision board and did a fantastic job. Many of you know the answer, the applicant's attorney. Mr. DeFortuna, with this background in mind, I ask you to please utilize or apply this historical population-based meaning of density on Key Biscayne to your project. And tell us, will your project result in increased density in our municipality? Surely the applicant is the owner of two sunrise drive properties must know the history of the ongoing quest for a garden district park through the land acquisition committee and public recreation and open space board. Acquiring two Oh two sunrise drive for a park came up in 2015, 2017 and 2021 on a committee level. Once as part of a council workshop, Judd and Mario I consider each of you my friends and I and I genuinely hasn't been my intention to embarrass you in fact with all of us as neighbors and with Judd and Mario as part of the terrific team that you've put together Mr. DeFortuna I am going to ask you to consider doing something extraordinary if the vote on your project doesn't go the way you say is needed in order for you to proceed You've had to secure a sales contract in order to complete your purchase of 303 Galen Drive. I ask you, if the vote doesn't go your way, don't tear up the contract. At nearly 50,000 square feet, 303 is a far larger parcel than the 30,000 square foot 202 Sunrise Drive parcel. Instead, work with us, the community, to turn 303 into a beautiful and functional multipurpose park, assign the contract to the village of Key Biscayne, and depending of course upon the financial terms, perhaps consideration could even be given to naming it the Walter D. Fortuna Garden District Park. Thank you.

All right. Larry Vogel next.

Larry Vogel. Lily Warner.

Lily Warner, 155 Sunrise Drive. Hi, everybody. Thank you all for taking the time to sit here tonight and hear what everyone has to say. I wish I could just say I oppose this ordinance, and I hope you do too. But I have more to say. None of us is against improving the Garden District. In fact, we've all invested greatly in our buildings, recertifying them and remodeling them at great cost. And we can all understand why Walter has asked for these variances being recommended for your approval today. He's a professional and experienced developer, even if he's a very nice guy from Key Biscayne. It is, however, impossible to understand how And why, and honestly even when, our staff decided to recommend that the Village Council approve an ordinance tonight which will forever, quote, alter the Village Master Plan to allow properties, any property, not just 303, as we were misled, to be redeveloped with maximum density and to allow intensity expansion at any time. Expanding density and intensity, exactly what you are being asked to approve, goes against everything this village has worked towards since incorporation until today. Despite all of the words used, this is not a resiliency effort. This is a development effort. Neither the applicant nor his representatives, nor, most importantly, our village staff, has provided any new information which we did not know when our zoning codes were written. We knew then that the garden district buildings were old and would age out. We knew then that ground level buildings were prone to flooding. And we knew then that Bahia Mar 590 Galen and Galen Breakers were built to larger density. to build to their density. We knew all of this when we incorporated. We knew it when Hurricane Andrew blew through in 1992 and flooded the island, particularly the Garden District, and we knew it when our zoning codes were written shortly after that. We also knew it again a little over 10 years ago when this topic was revisited and Mayor Lindsay coined the name for the neighborhood, calling it the Garden District. We knew then, like we do now, that our goal was to reduce density, reduce intensity, and improve life on Key Biscayne. Do not be fooled by the request to approve this ordinance tonight. Do not be fooled that this recommendation comes to you under the guise of resiliency. Honestly, how is building more, using more, and pulling more resources being so boldly considered to be resilient? For the last two weeks, we have all tried our best to digest this proposal under the parameters presented at the August 25th meeting that repeatedly claimed these variances would apply only to 303 Galen. Today's recommendation is far different than that. Make no doubt, tonight you are being asked, the seven of you alone, to be responsible for opening up Pandora's box, changing Key Biscayne forever, by throwing out the zoning restrictions for the Garden District, a cherished residential neighborhood with over 900 units and thousands of your constituents.

Thank you. Wow, this is a good one here. I can't. Inoka or Mestre?

Yeah, she hears it. Iru.

And your name? Inova Marte. OK. OK. I'm a favor because I believe this will be great for the city of Key Biscayne. And the property will go up. They're going to get value. and the taxes as well for the city. Thank you.

Thank you. Olivia Lehman here.

Good evening, everyone. And thank you so much for your patience. I'm like, are we yawning yet? No, we're having fun. So my name is Olivia Lehman, and I live on 240 Galen Drive. I might be one of the youngest people to have stood up here before, right? I just turned 27.

Just you and Ed here.

I love it. I grew up here in Key Biscayne. I went to St. Agnes. I went to LaSalle. I got married a few years ago, two years ago. And my husband says, well, where are we moving? He's from Virginia. I go, well, we're going to Miami. He goes, where? I said, we're going to Key Biscayne. He goes, where? Okay, we're going to figure this out. I was like, we're going to figure this out. And so we're working very hard every day to make sure that we're able to raise our kids here in the amazing way that I had the opportunity to raise, well, to be raised here. And I want to make sure that I'm able to do that for my family and the future of the young people that want to really stay in Key Biscayne. And there's not a lot of newly married couples here in Key Biscayne. People are coming with their kids, but I'm trying to get the gang back to Key Biscayne, right, so that we can raise our children amongst each other. And I live on 240 Galen Drive, and my only concern is that this may be opening Pandora's box to more development and more, a little bit more of the inability to afford kibiskein. And we want to stay here so bad. And we're working night and day to make sure that we're able to do that. And I just want to make sure that we do evaluate all projects as individual projects and not lead this to a segue of just ultra development in the island. And so thank you so much for listening. I really appreciate being here and for the opportunity to speak to all of you.

Thank you for coming. Thank you.

uh alexander block good evening everyone alexander block 300 harvard courts so i do support the project uh and i will be brief because i think a lot has been said in short i think that when the island has the opportunity To update an older building to increase the tax base. To replace short term renters with long term stakeholders in our community. And keep density the same I think it's a deal we should take. I understand that you guys are in a tough position, and there's a lot of opposition to it. There was also a lot of opposition to buying the Village Green. There was a lot of opposition to building the building we're in. There was a lot of opposition to build the Yacht Club, to redevelop a lot of the stuff that I think Key Biscayne really holds near and dear. And I think this should be considered, and so should the opposition. But I think this is a solid project, and I think it would be a net positive for the Key.

Thank you. Thank you.

George Lesser.

Hi, my name is George Lesser. I'm at 255 Sunrise Drive, Unit 210. I am the president of Cape Polynesia, a garden apartment of 29 units. I was part of the formation committee when the village of Key Biscayne was being formed. I think Frank sat on a committee that I sat on also. And the only thing that I remember why the village of Key Biscayne, the driver, the only driver I remember was that we were concerned that Miami was going to build more strip malls, high density buildings on the beach, and change the character of Key Biscayne. Miami-Dade has very good zoning. Some of the best zoning in the United States. Except for one thing. It's known as a variance. And what we have now is a variance. A variance that will change Key Biscayne, it will change the garden area, and It's a 14-story intense building that's going to change density, intensity. You can have all the square footage and FARs and everything you want, but it's going to destroy it. And the other thing is you're letting something in the house, and it's going to destroy the next building to it and the next building to it. This exists in the city of Miami. We can't let it happen here. Thank you.

Thank you. Another round for Jose Alvarez. Another try for Martin Guyot. And I think she spoke, Valentina Perez. Sorry, I thought there was another Perez.

That was Miriam, probably. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Valentina Perez, and I live at 550 Ocean Drive, directly across from 303 Garden Drive. Tonight, strongly supporting this project, I respectfully asking you to move forward with it. As a neighborhood resident, I have very personal perspective in this property. I see the existing building every day, and I believe this is an opportunity to replace an aging structure with something that can be better with this community, improving the character of this area. I also believe this project could provide important economic benefits to the city, which is important. I thought redevelopment and improved property can also strengthen the local tax basis, generate additional property tax revenue, and contribute to the city's ability to fund essential services and community improvements. Responsible developments can benefit not only the immediate neighborhood, but also the community. I understand that development decisions require careful consideration, but I also believe that responsible progress is important. We should not allow fear to change and prevent from improving this city. We have seen in the past Walter de Fortuna's work and development here in the island, and we can see also how it's improved our community with it. From my home, I would personally welcome seeing this property thoughtfully redeveloped, better maintained, and contributing more positively to the neighbors and the city. I respectively encourage the council and support the 303 Gun and Drive project. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody that signed up that hasn't spoken yet?

Gonzalo Fernandez del Castillo, 345 Harbor Lake.

50 Westminster Drive, 298 McIntyre.

I've been living here in the island for 15 years. And we're all focusing in this side of the island. And we are not seeing what's going on in the other side. You see all these houses, mackle, how you call, mackle, mackle, mackle houses that are being turned down. And you see these houses being built humongous within code and investment coming into this city. We have to face that at one point. That side of the island has to be renewed. Unless we start promoting or have investors like the Fortuna family doing these buildings is the only way to have value and to receive more tax for ourselves. I'm in the process of building a new house. And the same, I have neighbors who has old houses around me. And they complain. Yes, the time has come. I mean, new investments is coming in. and we have to support investment like this so we can have more tax paid into the city. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, last call. Anybody sign up? The chair needs a bathroom break, so let's take just a five-minute recess and we'll come right back.

I don't have the answer for you.

Yes, sir. Right. Your name. Oh, you do want to speak? Okay. So you're able to talk now? Okay. Okay, I'll go tell him. I'll go tell him when he did close public phones and ask everybody.

So I don't know if it's yes or no, okay?

But that's why he said anybody else, anybody else? I know you spoke last time, so I can look it up, but I just want to make sure.

Fernandez? Okay. He did close public comment. you and i can

Okay under our procedural rules, I give you a 5 minutes to wrap up.

Thank you very much what is going to say a few words and then I'll say a few words okay.

Thank you everybody, especially mayor council members, but I also want to thank the public, you know. I just finished thanking the council member and mayor, but I also want to thank everybody that came here tonight, I think that. What it makes a community is people that can talk and understand each other. I've been living here for 45 years. I don't think I wanted to say my address because it looked like I have a lot of enemies here. I hope they don't take this personally. All in good faith. I leave a 720 Harvard Drive in case you want to reach out to me. I think it's been an entertaining night. I think we can all say that at least we heard a lot of new positions and we have a better understanding of what it is. Different than what some people had stated, I think I don't take anything personally, but I wasn't trying to shove anything down anybody's throat, first of all. Second, I do think I look for, the best interest of the community, I always did. And I think one of the problems we have tonight is very difficult to address, which is the density factor. I don't think it's anybody that lives in Key Biscayne that wants more traffic and wants more density and wants more nightmare, you know what I mean? The solution is not a simple solution. Even just to agree with the term density, it's just a difficult thing. Because I can take the position, why me? Why don't you look at the guy that is building, like Gonzalo said, a 7,000 or 10,000 square feet house, and he's putting 10 bedrooms there. You know what I mean? He's not generating density. It's the same thing. We can go one way or the other way. I've been... I've been looking at the Garden District for a long time and I was part of the development of 201 and 285. I think the When I said I didn't want more density, I really mean it, you know what I mean? And when I said I don't want more density is because I know how real estate work. I've been in the industry for 45 years and I develop a bunch of properties. And when you develop a high-end condo or something similar, you know that a percentage of the buyers are gonna be second, third, and fourth home users. If you take the density that is today, which is 51 units and apply it to a new building, I think eventually you'll have less traffic and less people driving every day. I do believe it 100%. The other way to look at it is where you can always make 34 units and make them larger. You know what I mean? So you can train the number of units and then you said the units become larger. So instead of being, I wanted it to have a floor plate that is five units per floor, which is a one-bedroom, three two-bedrooms, and one three-bedroom. If you go to 34, most likely you go to a different number. Most of the units become three-fourths, maybe five bedrooms. Why do I want it to... be a larger number of units. I wanted to be a larger number of units because I think the very large units, like 101, I think that looks pretty nice, is unsellable. And that's why the developer didn't do very well. You know what I mean? So it is a very difficult balancing act. I think that I'm not going to put anybody, neither the council or the mayor, in a position to vote tonight because I think that I heard the people talking and I think there is some more debate to be had, if it is. Like I said, I'm not going to make it or break it by making a new building. I'm a responsible neighbor. Most of the people that live here, at least if they're not my friends, for sure they weren't my enemies. I'm not going to change that tonight. So what I think is we need to have some debate because the true statement that I can make is most of the garden-style apartments, they were developed in a way where the building takes a big, portion of the line and the rest it for the most part is is is the is this the self level parking you know I mean is the ground level parking. The ground level parking in all of those buildings basically is hard paid. So what happened when it rains a lot, what happened is normal. The water goes from the building to the sidewalk and then to the street. Sorry. So basically what you end up is the streets are flooded, but not all the water comes from the street. Most of the water comes from the buildings. You know what I mean? If you don't address that factor, you're never gonna be able to address, in my view, the problems that you have in those streets. So I think a good redevelopment is needed in this island. The other thing that we heard is that, I'm sure nobody wants to lose their density on their buildings. And many of the people that I think are opposing, which they have the right to, and I understand and I hear their view, but their buildings have more density than it is allowed today. So one day, they will come in front of you the same way. You know what I mean? I want to retain, I got somebody that wants to buy my building, you know, and I want to retain the density, and I'm at the 2.0 FIR, but I don't want this new guy to have it. It's like the story that I live in this three-story house, but I don't want the guy next door to build a three-story house because I lose the view from my bedroom now, you know what I mean? Okay, I hear you, but I don't think it's right. So the debate is a very difficult debate, you know what I mean, but I think that The debate make us all better. I think your job, I don't want to have it. It's a very tough job. But I think that debate needs to happen. If we want to be better one day, it needs to happen because I think that you're not going to be able to stop with one hand. You're not going to be able to stop the sun. You know what I mean? The population in Miami is going to keep growing. The buildings are very old here, and some of them are going to have to be redeveloped. The code exists, I'm not asking for height. Does it look different than the rest of the Garden District? Yes, it does. But on the other side, the end of the blocks, of all those blocks, they look very similar, you know what I mean? So I think that I want to propose to maybe to get into an impasse and reach out to, neighbors and see if we can come to something that everybody agrees, we'll move forward. If we don't get to anything that we agree, I'll pull the plug, I'd rather pull the plug than have people that are thinking that I have the wrong principles or the wrong ideas about, but I think it's not a good thing that we said just because we're not about development that we don't see the realities because the realities of this island are what they are. We're not gonna be able to change them if we don't are open-minded about it. And I think is, I always heard, Your position at the end of the day is easy because your decision has to be based on what's the best for all of us, not what's the best for me, what's the best for somebody else that spoke against it. I think the idea is that we're going to grow together. We're not going to grow at all. And the difficult part of your work is just to say, I'm going to vote it even when some people are against it because this is the best for the community. And that's what I appreciate every meeting I had with every one of you, they all told me the same thing. I'll be behind it if I think that this is the best for the community, and if it's not the best for the community, I'm not gonna go behind it. So I wanna make it public because probably some people had stated in a different way, and I wanna make it very clear that every time I met with anybody said, the only thing I want is to be treated fairly, and I think I was all the way, so I really appreciate all your time, all your effort, your dedication, and your timeless phone calls that I had taking you away from your family. Sorry about that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, just some final thoughts. You know, this sort of process has to be taken in steps. And tonight we were talking about those potential text amendments. We were talking about a site plan. I think a lot of the reaction was to the site plan. That's one thing that is not ready to be before you right now. We're talking about the text amendments. And even on those text amendments, I think everybody realizes that the process could benefit from additional thought and interaction. And we're open to do that, but we do want a path forward. Because I think there's one thing that everybody can agree upon, this site is in need of improvement. Now what that improvement might be is subject to a lot of debate. But I think part of keeping Key Biscayne the special place that it is, and I say that as a lifelong resident here, is finding a way to have a vision and build for the future also too.

Thank you. Thank you. OK. So our turn to analyze and dissect and then we'll We'll move to a conclusion here. Who wants to start?

It's a good night for this community. That was a laudable gesture. I appreciate that. It shows something about the breadth and complexity of the issues that we face in this community when we invoke both Doug the mailman and lost generation of armadillos in the same conversation. So there is a lot going on here. It's not about opposing or supporting redevelopment. It's not about, to me, whether resilience is impossible without redevelopment. It's about the quality of every built environment on the key. What's most gratifying to me tonight as I listen to this contribution from the community is Key Biscayners care about Key Biscayne, number one. That's great. When we are engaged with each other, we are more capable of approaching infallibility. than when we're at each other's throats. Tonight's a very good night. Among other things, I think that there is a broad consensus understanding that density is not simply limited to a technical definition, but has qualities and attributes that are sometimes euphemistically characterized as intensity. But the point was made and made and made repetitively that intensity is a driving concern and a problem which is difficult to solve in a community that has so much esteem and so much draw for people that want to be here. What I'd like to do is recognize some positives, and there are positives, also recognize some opportunities in addressing maybe more precisely some elements in our zoning. I don't think I could have gotten to support the comp plan part of this because of its breadth and open-endedness, and we can't get anywhere without dealing with that. But I'd like to start, with that and then move on to what it would take to enable redevelopment to occur in a manner that doesn't degrade the quality of the neighborhood that people so care about that time and again they'll reinvest despite the difficulties and the challenges of maintenance in older buildings because they're invested in what they have. They don't want to see that displaced. And I appreciate that. I see that. I've seen it time and again. So I'm committed to try to work this through. But it is a process. And it ain't going to be solved tonight. It starts tonight.

I thought long and hard about this one, and I want to leave it as a thought. Many people that are here tonight had worked extremely hard to buy their units. They sometimes put in their life savings on that. How unfair to me feels that you're not entitled to your own unit as a count. if you were to sell it tomorrow, whether it was because the building was heavily damaged, whether it was because the owners of the small community in that building decided to sell together to somebody else to do something else. Even to me, I said, I know some buildings in Galen that are around 10 units, you know what I mean? And let's say those 10 guys today decide, we live here all our life, we did very well, Now we thinking that the building is not much the reality of Key Beach County, neither our reality and we want to knock it down and we want to replace it with a unit for each of us to continue living together and maybe to then later on give it to our family. Well I'm sorry you cannot do it because you're not entitled to that. So I think when you look at density you also have to think about that.

In some respects we're plagued by our success Yes, we are. You know, to the point about second homes and reducing traffic intensities and the like, there are counter examples proving what a difficult problem this is for us because we are so esteemed. Both us among ourselves who live here and have invested their lives here, planted the flag, and here we stay, and those that want to be here. But Botanic is a good example of a former almost functioning hotel, in large part, that over time became a full-time primary residence community that created... a difficult situation in getting in and out of the property. Simple as that. This happens repeatedly. So this is not easy. But that's not to say that everything that we are is frozen in amber and nothing can change. That's not right either. Things do change. Our challenge is to, and this is why we plan, we plan to guide that change. And if we stay to the plan, we have a better chance of succeeding at what we aspired to be like. I want to work on this, and I hope we'll have an opportunity to do so. Fernando? Yeah, I mean, what I did hear is- Put the microphone.

Sorry, Fernando Vasquez. Well, I think one of the things that I really felt like I heard is that it's not that people are really re-opposing redevelopment, is that they're just, you know, some of the rules may have been not written the way that they expected them or at least that they anticipated they would be hearing them. Another thing too is that there is a, I continue to hear that this thing needs to get back to the public and I appreciate Mr. Fortuna really for you getting back and talking with the public and getting the public acclimated to this development. And also a strong technical point that I heard from Mr. Delacruz, which I respect, was the fact that he brought up the traffic issue and I think that we have not gotten any traffic counts to really understand the impacts. It's perceived that it won't be increased too much, but I don't know that, and I would like to see that in other developments we have been able to determine. Traffic Council, in your next discussion, would like to see some of that happening. What I have not heard, and I wanted to ask the attorney more on the issue of the bonus, I understand that staff is in discussions with Mr. Fortu now as to the valuation of the impact of the property, but I want to understand how does that work because I kind of may have a sort of an extraordinary request as we move forward and I want to understand a brief discussion with the attorney on this. I believe that one of the contributions that I would expect would come if we get to a point and if we get all to agree and the developer and everybody gets to join hand-to-hand on this is our school, our current school. We've been talking about a community that embraces growth and embraces development, but also at the same time, smart development. What about our children? What about our community? What about the strength of our community? I think these are great opportunities that we have in a school that is currently extremely deficient and it's really losing children. maybe Serdinas knows more about this, but is currently losing more students, and we have a great opportunity here to bring in and contribute, and I think, Mr. Fortuna, you would have a great opportunity right now, maybe not at PARCC, but maybe support Key Biscayne in strengthening our K-8 Center, and I'd like to put that on the table as you come forward. It's outside of the bounds, but it is within, I believe, our request for Key Biscayne, I don't have much to say except that I just think that there needs to be a continued discussion and really look forward to that and really look forward to people coming to term-to-terms with this magnificent opportunity that I think we have to enhance the Garden District, but at the same time keeping the character of our community and strengthening our community.

So thank you very much. Mr. Bracken. I'll make it quick and short. Walter, I appreciate all the efforts that your team put together for this evening, and I applaud you on your ability to reach out to the community and move forward with this. I'm hoping that, and I think Frank did a good job of summarizing, so I'm not going to redo this over and over again, but thanks for the efforts you guys made. And also, we hear you loud and clear, Key Biscayne. We're not going to move forward without a community effort, so thank you.

So first off, Frank, you're so tough to follow. Seriously. Yeah, I'll keep it short. Wonderful project. Really thoughtful, actually. It's not about the project. It's about the district. It's about the thoughtfulness that needs to go into the zoning. It's about many of the things that you mentioned. And I think we have a lot of work to do. And we've been here before where if we don't take the time to analyze, we could have some unintended consequences, and we don't want those. I love to see all you people here, my neighbors, coming here, speaking, talking civilly, difference of opinion. For me, it's been a wonderful night. You say we're patient for sitting up here and listening. I don't think it's patience at all. I think it's actually enjoying us coming out and really speaking about what we believe in. And we're gonna do our best, I have no doubt, every single one of us, to take the time to analyze this, to be thoughtful about it, and to find out a way forward. Because progress is important, infrastructure's important, and development is important, but only if we do it very thoughtfully. So thank you, thank you for coming out, thank you for sharing your thoughts, thank you for being honest. That's it.

Any shots on this side?

No, I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. Discussion.

I think tonight was very helpful, helpful to Walter because he heard what people like and what people don't like. Unfortunately for him, more people didn't like things that did like things, but at least they know what they didn't like. And I've been receiving phone calls, talking to a lot of people, also know what people don't like. But also, what is real, what is practical? Remember guys, this is not a charity. Steve Simon thinks it is. He thinks, well, we'll donate it, but that's not gonna happen. So basically, if this doesn't make economic sense, he's not gonna go forward. And you know what? No one else will go forward either. And you can say, that's great. Of course, that's great meaning that it'll never get redeveloped. But what does it also really mean? It means that our present zoning is flawed. It's flawed because the way they have this thing structured, we can go ahead and build a 14-story building, 150-foot height. By the way, I don't think we can actually, everybody can dislike that, but I don't think we'll have the power to reduce that. Is that right, Chad, at this point in time? Under all the existing laws, we can't really reduce that height. So you might not like 150 feet. But that might not be something we can do. We might be able, we can control the size of the units, the FAR. We can control a lot of things. But as far as the height goes, say you're stuck with it or you're not stuck with it, is it gonna be efficient? Is it gonna be attractive? Basically, whether it be Walter or some other developer is gonna come forward and show you his plans and you say you like it or you don't like it. But the other thing is that I personally don't like big parking lots. And that's why I suggested put it underground, put grass there, put the lot covered smaller so you don't have a building that's not only tall, but it's bulkier. Make it tall and slim if you have to, but not short and fat. So I guess maybe that's not a good thing to say. My wife says I never say good things. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I think he will consider what you've all said tonight. I hope he does. I hope he doesn't give up. I hope he comes back. I hope he can find a way that he can make it work and make everybody relatively happy. Not that everybody's going to be happy-happy, but it's sort of a compromise. What can he do that we can redevelop that building, which most people tell me who've had friends or relatives stay there that it's absolutely horrible, to make it an attractive place, to make it a welcoming place, but more importantly, to make sure the people in the garden district say you know what not a bad idea not a bad building it really increased the place and helped everything else maybe a wishful thinking but you know 86 years old and still a cock-eyed optimist and i'm not going to change thank you very much why thank you um okay so

What am I hearing? I'm hearing from my colleagues and I'm hearing obviously from the input from our community. I think that the answer is we're not there yet. Okay, we're not there yet, and I'd like to propose that we find a consultant, perhaps in panel, another Zork, so that we can take a deep dive into this situation. And, you know, unfortunately, that doesn't, you know, bode well for Mr. DeFortuna's situation, but... But I think that's what the Community is asking for further understanding of what it means the the different fa ours that we have the different densities that we have the intensities that are around. A potential project like this and I gotta tell you, I have not heard from anybody who has had something to do with that building to say that it was a great building or that we ought to preserve it so so. That gives you an idea that we have work to do because we need to find a way, and maybe there's a middle court. This is what Ed was saying, what Mike and everyone else is saying is, is how do we get to that place where there's a compromise, where we can have regulations, we can have a comp plan change that maybe is very limiting to that RM-30. It doesn't mean that we don't have to look at RM16. On the contrary, I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the developer because all of a sudden we said, oh, hell, we really haven't looked at this in any kind of depth. And this is a situation that's going to evolve, and it's happening in the rest of Miami. So at some point, it's going to come to us. So we need to be prepared to do that. So my motion will be tonight and ask for your support is that we... get a consultant to start working on this. I will empanel another Zork and start working with our staff and with our attorney to see what it is that we can develop, what it is that we can come to grips with in order to satisfy what... what the director said, two opposing and diametrically opposed things. We don't want density or intensity. We're trying to limit that as much as possible. But people have property rights. People have property rights, and they will eventually want to redevelop these properties. So it's not at that point we just can't say, oh, no, you can't do anything. No, you have to be able to do something with your property. And so that becomes the linchpin of having to figure out what it is that we can do. Is there a suggestion?

I just wanted to say one thing. We can support that idea, but what's very important to us is having some idea of time frame also, too, because we've had situations.

I'm not going to put a time frame on it. It's going to take what it's going to take, and I understand your predicament, but we don't want to rush this either.

This dovetails with what I might suggest in addition to a comprehensive deep dive. take a couple of months, deploy the expertise that exists, talk to these people, see if we can make some progress conceptually that might reassure the development team that there's a path. And if that, and there's no commitments, but that would clarify possibilities, potentially, and if it doesn't work, they'll have clarity.

Right. In the meantime, Mr. Mayor, is it appropriate for us now to move one way or the other on what's before us?

Sure.

In terms of... We're not approving this amendment. I think that the applicant wants an answer. I may be wrong, but I think you want an answer on this. Not tonight. I heard him do that. Not tonight.

I think the amendment that's before us has effectively declined.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Do we need to have a motion on that?

Yeah, we need to dispose of the items. So obviously, there's... I make a motion to defer. Okay.

That was not going to be my motion.

Well, a motion to defer takes precedence. So if there's a second... Second. Okay, so there's a second.

To defer both items?

Yes. Just so you know, I will not support the comp plan amendment as written.

Okay.

Why are we deferring?

Why are you deferring? Oh. So there's a motion to defer. There's a second. The only question is, is that to a date certain or is that just left open? Open. Okay. Well, at some point, you know, this is their application. They need to be heard. Mario, I don't know. We would be fine with a motion to defer to no date certain. With no date certain? Yep. Okay. All right.

Okay, are you sure that you and your client want that, right?

The deferral of the application.

No deadline.

No deadline.

No deadline.

Come over here, Walter. Go ahead and speak.

things the way they are.

This is not pressure for anybody, you know what I mean? But the conditions that I have with the sellers basically are not gonna be there forever, you know what I mean? So if this doesn't move in an expeditious way, and maybe people be happy about it, I don't know if they'll be happy or sad, I'm not gonna be around, and this is not like in a way of threatening, you know what I mean? That, oh, you don't want me to go try to keep me, you know what I'm just saying? You have to be mindful of the timing, you know what I mean? Again, I'm not forcing anything, I'm not forcing anybody, I'm just saying, there is a time frame on real estate deals. It's just normal. I just want to put it out there because it's the truth. If the community is a community together with me wants to move forward with this, We have to do it in a way that we all have an understanding that it has to happen in a certain time. Otherwise, it's undoable.

But understand that we can't give you a time.

I'm not asking you for commitment. I'm just putting it out there because it's the truth.

Under those circumstances, there's no time certain. And whatever it takes for us to feel comfortable with, it'll be at that time.

Can you bring it back up?

I think that's fine. I just would like the one caveat and the applicant can hear that they obviously have the right to request for us to put it back onto the agenda and let the chips fall at that point. But I don't want to foreclose the opportunity because it is their application. And so I think you can do a motion, defer with no date certain. That's fine. But at some point, we may get a letter from the applicant saying, hey, I request you to put this on. Chad, I have a question. Sure.

If that happens, if the applicant makes some changes, do we start all over again?

Well, we're at the beginning.

But I'm just saying with the new presentation, if some things are tweaked and then we have to go through all this all over again?

Yes, this is the first step.

And this is really important because we're headed into election. We're going to have presumably some new members on the council. And this even came during budget. And I expressed this before. Everybody's very, very busy. And I want to be fair to everybody. about what we're setting up for all of us.

Yeah. Whatever comes back again, there will be a full presentation again.

This time we stopped, dropped, and rolled because there was, in an effort to accommodate the applicant and in the effort to accommodate the community, and I'm just saying with all that we have ahead, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about And the applicant understands that if there are changes made, then we are really starting at the beginning.

I think they understand that because they don't know what the desired outcome, what might come out of this process, too.

And obviously, if the ordinances that are proposed change in any respect, they have to be re-noticed.

Yes. I would anticipate. They are going to be re-noticed anyways.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. I'm the only one who hasn't thanked you, Mr. DeFortuna, and all of your team. You have been very gracious with your time, explaining things to us, explaining things to everybody who was interested. You made time, and you were respectful even in the face of opposition and questions that may not have been the most comfortable to answer. So I really appreciate it. I know the whole council does. Thank you.

Okay, have we done what we needed to do, Mr. Attorney?

Sure, there was a motion and a second on the deferral, and then after that, I believe you were gonna make another motion, potentially, or maybe consensus to the manager on the consultant, but deal with the deferral first.

Okay, Madam Clerk.

All those in favor of the deferral of both items?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Okay.

And then, Mayor, you had, is it just consensus in council or on the other item?

Does everyone think it's a good idea to get somebody on board and panel the... We'll get a Zorg first. Let them decide to hire somebody. Okay. All right.

We can do that. Can you repeat that? You had mentioned a committee at one point. In the past, you had mentioned like a zoning committee. Would that be the same? No, no.

Stork is right, but my suggestion is to let... What?

Mr. Mayor, do you want to... I can't hear, and so... Watch out. I don't think anybody else could, so...

Please give us a little bit more time here. Take conversation outside, please.

We have a dork.

Yeah, but.

And there may be some changes coming.

Yeah.

It's a question of.

Can we use the existing Zork?

Are we going to impanel a new Zork now that's not even going to start until after the election, in which case we should wait? Or are we going to impanel a new Zork now that's going to start working right now?

Why can't we use the existing Zork?

Well, that was my question.

That's the question.

That may change.

You can, but we're going to lose the chairman because he's going to take on a new job.

That's why I'm asking about timing.

Oh, because he's going to be the, yeah.

The mayor.

But that's the most efficient way to start this process.

And you're already the liaison.

I am the liaison. But I think while that proceeds, an informal effort is probably a good idea too.

I think we owe, after this hearing today, I think we owe and the public as well, a level of commitment and an action plan. I'm hearing that this thing is now gonna float in the air. I don't know when it's gonna come back. That's the sense I'm getting. It may not be that way, but what I think, what I sense, is that we just punted it. That's what I said. And I have no problem in hearing the public and the developer graciously trying to get together with the public and determine what the best approach is. But what I'm hearing us is saying, oh, well, we'll have it. We'll talk about it. We'll have Zork deal with it. And there's no timeline. And what kind of an example are we setting to our community? We talk about that we need to re-look at the code. We need to look at the density. There is a potential opportunity, a great opportunity here to contribute back to a significant public purpose back to the community. And I honestly have to say that I'm pretty frustrated hearing this council kick in the can. That's not the way. And look, we're in elections right now. I'm in a position right now that I should say, hey, let's kick the can. But I don't want to do that. I think the public deserves. The public that was here, may I just finish? The public that was here, speaking against this project or wanted in opposition to it and wanted to get better answers, they deserve that. The developer was here trying to accommodate for everybody. He deserves an answer as well. Let's get on the ball. We're a council. Let's get together. Let's make an action plan. Let's have the manager come back and report and tell us a timeline so we can be concrete and we can show that we move forward.

Otherwise... That is not feasible. I'll tell you why.

Why is it not feasible?

If we knew that, then why did we make the motion? Our entire history, since forever, is bearing on this moment. We plan for the future. The future is always coming. The complications that Mr. DeFortuna and others have described tonight are evergreen challenges that require solutions that are difficult. There is no way. I understand that. There is no way to commit to a timeline to solve these problems. There is a way to commit an effort to address these problems, and that's what I would like to do.

And that's exactly what I meant.

There's a public out there, I think the public that was out here that is concerned about future modifications to the code or impacts to their neighborhood, They deserve also an answer.

Yes, and that answer, Fernando, is that we are going to work on it, and we're going to work on it expeditiously. And if you rush something, you're going to have a bad outcome.

I got you, Mayor, but I'm not saying rush it. I'm saying be deliberate. It's all I'm asking.

Can I make a small suggestion, Joe? Yes, sir. Is it possible to engage the existing Zork, who is the future mayor is on the existing Zork, so there will be a carryover of people? And I'm just requesting that you consider that possibility, that we engage the existing Zork.

Yeah, I think that we touched on it.

That's right. So if we can agree to do that this evening, that might be helpful and maybe keep them.

It's the most efficient way to proceed.

Make the thing move. So if we can get consensus of council to do that, or can we do that?

Consensus of council?

What's that?

Yes. What? Mr. Mayor, Jeremy has a few comments about it. A couple of comments. One is, of course, we would want to ask the existing ZORC members if they want to continue. You know, they signed up for something with a limited scope. They signed up for something that, you know, I think they think the job's done. And they were also very much focused solely on single-family zoning, right? They were just focused on sort of that side of the street. So I think, you know, maybe we would want some realignment in any case because we are losing the chairman of the committee. And then we would also need to update the ordinance because the resolution, I'm not sure which one it was, that formed that committee because they had a limited scope on that committee to focus on single family and resiliency.

Both doable. If we need a motion, I'm going to make the motion right now because I think... As in deference to you, Fernando, we want to get this moving. No one wants delay. So we can start with this ZORC, and as things change, we have a liaison, we have a ZORC. If someone doesn't want to be on the ZORC and they resign, we'll have to recompose. We have our mayor-elect is already in place, so we could get the process started and... And if people don't want to be on the Zork, we can find people who want to be on the Zork.

All I'm trying to state, and let me just be clear for what I stated, deliberate. Let's just be deliberate about it. Well, that would be deliberate. That is, and thank you.

That's all I was asking.

Right.

Brett's right, sitting out there. I mean, is it, Brett, would you mind coming forward? I mean, are you willing to look at this? I mean, you are the incoming mayor. You are the chairman of this current Zork. I mean, do you think your team would be appropriate?

Yeah, I think they would be. We have two more months until I'm off it, but I have no problems with looking at that for two months. And if it needs to go longer than that, we'll have to replace myself somehow.

Right, right. There's a sunshine issue we have to be careful.

Just one clarification to what Jeremy said under the Zora coordinates It says the village council by affirmative motion may expand the jurisdiction of the board So there you go, you guys can do it by motion excellent.

So what is the sunshine issue though?

You mentioned that you and Frank can't be oh Yes, and I'll be on the I think the date of the election correct that we will not be able to be in the same Yes, since he's an unimposed candidate.

It's really the the date of the election going forward and

Okay. Clarify. November.

November 3rd.

Not when no other candidate stepped forward and by default.

Oh, right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Brett.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

I made a motion.

Please clarify the motion, and then we would need a second.

We're going to expand the jurisdiction of the current Zork, and we're going to ask if everybody is willing to continue to participate. And if they're not, we're going to replace them. That's right.

Thank you, Frank. And a second?

Second.

And the expansion of the Zork jurisdiction is to look at the Garden District, right? Right. So she has it for the motion.

It's going to be because RM30 includes properties outside the garden district.

Okay, so you want it broader. You have to look at the RM30 and potentially RM60.

I think inevitably we're going to be looking at multifamily. Okay, that's fine. You can keep it that broad.

That's fine to keep it that broad.

Look at it multifamily.

Districts. Multifamily districts. Okay.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Move to adjourn. Second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.