Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

I'm gonna call to order this meeting, good evening.

I'm going to call to order this meeting.

If everybody could please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the equality for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Great, thank you. Roll call.

Board member Lozada is absent today. Board member Murphy?

Here.

Board member Abramson is not present. Board member Turbides? Present. Vice Chair Gonzalez?

Present.

Chair Shaw?

Present.

You have a quorum.

Great, thanks. We got to approve the minutes from last meeting. If I could get somebody to...

I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the last session.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

All right, we have... The first item, Alba.

Item 3A, a resolution of the Mayor and Commissioner of North Bay Village, Florida, approving, approving with conditions or denying a variance application by Demis Alain Rodriguez for a property located at 782 Bridge Drive, folio number 233209-00800. To allow a fence height of 9 feet within a required rear setback where Section 8.17.F.2A of the Unified Land Development Code, ULDC, limits wall and fence heights to 6 feet, providing for conditions, providing for violations, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. Good evening. How is everybody today? Fantastic.

Great. So you may recognize the address. You may recognize even the applicant's name. He was here not very long ago in front of you for a different variance request, which was... You remember? For a new house that he's going to be building and which he wanted to encroach into the North setback, right? So this is a different variance, a different situation that he's in right now. And he will speak, I believe. Yeah, he is. He'll speak to his circumstances. I'm sure that more eloquently than I can specifically, but I will tell you this. This variance request is for a fence, and it is to increase from the standard height of six feet to nine feet in the rear yard, which is the waterfront side. Now, I'm going to show you a picture that is provided with his shop drawings. Let me see if I can do this. This is the existing condition. There is... fence a couple of fence segments that were installed as well as a barrier that was installed also recently these we recognize were done without the benefit of permit and it is our understanding that mr rodriguez intends to eliminate these The reason why he's asking for this variance is that he and his family have suffered a series of intrusions of people coming from the causeway over the barrier sort of across not sure exactly because it's kind of hard for me to see over there, but there are some conditions there now that make it for people to just kind of come across, get into his property. They have had several incidents in which property has even been stolen. We have police reports from those calls. And Mr. Rodriguez has provided photos, screenshots of his security cameras that show these intruders in his backyard, even taking pictures property, a generator in one instance. So this is the reason for his variance request. The new fence that will replace what you saw would come across the waterfront property line all the way down to the existing wood dock. And it would essentially create this barrier. It would make it harder for these intruders to come from the causeway and gain entrance because it's going to be outside of the side of the seawall. Those were the graphics that I wanted to show you. We have done our analysis of the variance with respect to the variance criteria that are in the code. And in our opinion, this warrants consideration. It is a hardship for them because they don't feel safe. in their rear yard they don't feel safe in their property that can be also burglarized easily and it's not a hardship that they have created on themselves whether it is because there's less vegetation on the causeway side or even the fact that you know There is sedimentation along the shoreline that allows people to more easily go across that area. This is happening. And it's been recurring. And so we are recommending that you give it consideration for approval.

Can I make a comment about this?

Does he want to come up and give his opinion?

Does he want to come up and give his presentation now or speak and then we can... Can I ask a couple of questions just to clarify your presentation? Sure. Can you put the image back up?

Of course.

Yeah, just give me one quick second. Just one quick second.

Which one?

No, that one. This one? This is the fence that we see right here that's abutting the water. Is that the new fence?

That is the new fence.

And is there also a fence running parallel to the causeway on the other side?

There is a wall that is on the public side, which kind of varies. Well, so the regular height, it just kind of feels like it varies in height because of the elevation of the ground. Okay.

But he's not putting anything there.

No, there's a hedge that goes behind that wall.

And then his wall is going to tie into that wall?

It's not going to tie into the wall. I think it's going to tie into the hedge. I mean, you kind of see it. Can you see my cursor there? Yeah. It ties into that location.

So the point, the purpose is to send for the wall and to the hedge That's correct.

And he can explain better, perhaps, but from understanding from the materials that have been submitted in our conversations.

State your name and address and give your presentation.

7821 Beachview Drive. The reason for the high, it used to block the site from the people walking through the bridge. Because you can go back to the picture where I was like 16 and 19.

Do you want me, okay, on this one?

Yeah, go back to that one. So you can see the bridge is right here, 16. So anybody walking through there, that is three feet tall, can see through my backyard. And I think that's the main reason why this is happening. Because, I mean, there's some videos of intruders jumping in the house through the fence, which is like 10 feet. the concrete fence, and they also walked through those. I mean, I got one of those fence first, then the second fence, then the security camera there with an alarm in it, even though that would usually happen, and that happens to six times, I reported four times in a period of six months.

So it's really uncomfortable.

to be in the situation right here where, I mean, everybody that you see walking through the bridge is already suspicious to us.

And... Would you like me to put your slides up? Would you like me to put your slides up?

Your own slides?

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. The video, yeah.

Okay.

You can see the guy is through the bicycle on the bridge. I mean, I can never really see it from here. And that happens, if you can see the time, it happens on a Sunday, 11 in the morning. I was there. Look at the guy jumping through it. That was before the fence was there. That's 11 in the morning on a Sunday. I was there with my wife and my daughter. That was the first time that I recorded, because I mean, before I didn't have cameras there. On the second time they took the one, two storage house that we have and took the pressure cleaner. A third time they took a fishing pole. um gas tank so so they're not really jumping the fence they're just walking down the seat they're just walking down the seawall you will see oh okay i was jumping that's 10 feet high so my idea is to block the view because from what i can see they can clearly see through my back jar and they see that there's nobody there you went through the story shop i have everything on lock now

Wow, that's crazy.

It is. And it's just like one after the other. And he goes. And look at the game at the time. It was 2 p.m. on a Tuesday. I think it was on a Wednesday. My wife, she was in the house. I was there. I was at work.

Have you been able to determine from the videos if it's the same guy or different people?

This one is the same guy, but this is another one of two in the morning. Already with one fan, the second fan with an alarm in it. I have recorded like four times it happens. I need to have cameras. I have a security camera right there. If you have like volume, you will see that the alarm went on. And I have it on my phone. It rings like every five minutes. And now I'm planning to take that off. Because I mean, at night it's really uncomfortable. Because when I'll, you know, anything that goes through there, the alarm goes off. It's going to go on.

This is the first time. Max, did you have any questions?

Not really a question, but a comment. I've been working with an architect for the past year on remodeling my property and working on plans. One of the things that I didn't want was the six foot height of the fence limiting me to six feet. I wanted to actually go to eight feet myself between myself and my neighbors. The way my architect explained it to me is that I can go up to eight feet if I have six feet of fencing and the top two feet has to be vegetation. But the code doesn't say if it's real vegetation or that green screen vegetation that looks like leaves where you can get your eight feet by code without having to ask for the variance. So that might, that would have been, my architect would have been wrong.

There's no provision in the code that says that you can get to eight feet that way.

An extra two feet with the vegetation on the top of the six feet?

I'm sorry to tell you that.

No problem. He was wrong.

No, I mean, you can have a hedge that is taller than the six feet.

The hedges are like up to 10 or 15 feet, of course, but for the hedge to be that tall, it has to be like four feet wide and you lose a lot of square footage in your yard.

I understand.

Okay.

Yes.

Anybody else have any questions? Can I make a motion? Yeah. Do public comment on this? Once, twice, or it closed? Anybody on Zoom?

I make a motion to approve the variance. I'll second.

Absolutely. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. You got it. The motion doesn't keep happening.

What kind of fence are you putting in?

Aluminium. Aluminium. Yeah, it's going to be like this, kind of like that. We'll block you from the front and from the bridge side.

Are you going to go up like that? No, it's cool. Because that'll keep people off the top of the fence.

I just wanted to make, for the record, that board member Abramson is on Zoom.

She wants to speak.

Does she want to speak?

No, I'm good. Hi, everybody.

Okay.

Congratulations. Thank you. If you decide to put on barbed wire, come back to us. Okay.

All right.

Great. Next item.

Next item is item 3B and 5A. I'm going to read them combined.

Do you want to hear those together as one public hearing? Sure. Because they're the same application. There's two parts of it. That's fine. Okay.

both items. Item 3A, a resolution of the Mayor and Commissioner of North Bay Village, Florida, approving what conditions are denied in a site plan application by PRH-MP, North Bay Venture LLC, to permit a residential development consisting of two multifamily residential towers, a parking structure, marina, and a civic space located at 8000 East Drive, folio number 23-3209-001-0020. and 2332090010024 and 7946 East Drive, folio number 2332090010030, providing for findings, conditions, limitation of approval, implementation, and an effective date. Item 5A, Adornance of the Mayor and Commission of North Bay Village, Florida, amending the zoning of certain parcels located at 8,000 each drive. Folio number 23-3209-001-0020 and 23-3209-001-0024 and 7946 each drive. Folio number 2, 3, 3, 2, 0, 9, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0. From RM 70 to 8,000 each drive special area plan amending the code to create appendix D 8,000 each drive special area plan to provide specific zoning regulations that are applicable to the subject ourselves, providing for codification, severability conflicts and binding effect and effective date.

So, yeah.

Okay. I think one of the issues that we want to clarify is whether the SAP is called 8000 East or 8000 East Drive. It was 8000 East in the application, so we've gone with that, but I'm not sure if that's something that you want to maybe amend. for clarity. Tony, do we need to make a clarification with regard to the titles at this point?

Yeah, there are a couple of clarifications just to make, just for the record. The applicant name is Harbor Island Development Company, LLC. The So that's a pretty simple change. Where it says the folio number, it's got FKA there. It's got two folio numbers. That should be an and. So it's a typo that we've since corrected. And Other than that, the title for the commission meeting will have slightly amplified, more information, but it's essentially the same. It is the same title. It's just providing additional information on the application.

All right. So some basic information on the project. As Tony said, the owner and applicant is Harbor Island Development Company, LLC. We are dealing with two projects. established addresses 8,079, 46 East Drive on Harbor Island. We have an acreage of over four acres, 179,536 square feet. three folio numbers. These are properties that are at the northernmost end of East Drive. And they were previously Biscayne C Club and the Majestic. These properties are pretty old buildings. I'm not going to go into the history of the Majestic, you know what happened there, but that one was built in 1960. The Biscayne Sea Club was built in 1955. That one had 52 units in three-story buildings. When we did the analysis for the RM70 amendments that you passed a couple of years ago, we looked at the as-built density of all these properties. And for that one, the as-built density was 17 units per acre. And based on the established density of 70 units per acre, that site had an additional capacity of approximately 163 units. For the Majestic, there were 36 units there, also three stories with an as-built density of 39 units per acre, an additional capacity based on the acreage. And by the way, this was acreage that we got from the property as a fundraiser. So it's it wasn't from survey, an additional capacity of 28 units. So the reason why I'm talking about this additional capacity, so you understand that there's a net gain. These were developed sites, both of them with multifamily residential buildings, and those units are going away and they're building new units, but there's a net gain of a certain number versus what's there today, right? Okay. Now, this special area plan, unlike the one that you reviewed very recently, was submitted under the recently updated special area plan rules that you reviewed. If you recall, that amendment added RM70 to zoning districts that are eligible to be considered for SAP. But it must be a property or abiding properties that have received TDRs. So... A little typo there. The minimum acreage for eligible RM70 properties to get an approval for SAP is 1.75 acres. So this one greatly exceeds that minimum acreage. And like the... standard SAP regulations that we had in place before. The SAP is approved by the process of rezoning, whether it has changes proposed to the text or not, this one does, although not very substantive. And those standards that deviate from the base requirements have to be clearly spelled out. And that's what Appendix D does. When you review and approve a special area plan, it has to be accompanied by a site plan that at least shows the proposed layout, circulation, view, quarters, open space, dedications to the public, renderings, and a landscape plan. It can... have a specific building approval uh come with or if it doesn't as in the case of the continuum if you remember that was more of a conceptual site plan it didn't have the buildings um rooted in those cases then the buildings have to be approved via a special area plan permit this one brings the the design of the building with all of the accompanying documentation for a sideline approval. except for the regulations that are being deviated from the underlying zoning applies. And the site plan has, if applicable, has to include the thoroughfares, cross-block pedestrian passages and civic spaces with appropriate transitions. At least 5% of the aggregated lot area has to go to a civic space type, not included in the island walk. But in this case, for the RM70 district, the amended regulations for SAPs specified that the only acceptable civic space type is going to be a public park. The responsibility for construction and maintenance of those improvements, as well as any other public improvements that are included in the development, rests with the developer or its successor. A development agreement is required, just like we've done in the past. And there is a flexible allocation of development capacity, excluding density on individual sites, as well as height that may be allowed if the public benefits provided by the project are balanced against the massing, the scale, the orientation, the architectural design, materials, roof lines, and landscape elements. That was language that was added in the amendment, SU. may recall. But still, no increase in density is allowed beyond the limits that are set forth in our comprehensive plan, inclusive of all bonuses and TDRs. Which leads me to mention that this developer was one of two that purchased a number of TDRs through the bid process that the village opened last year. And they are intending to use those TDRs to go from the maximum density at 70 units per acre to what we know is that allowance of an additional 30% for TDRs that we have in the code. Okay. So that's for the SAP. The second part of their request is the rezoning of the property from RM70 to 8000 East Special Area Plan. And you can see it added to our zoning map now. The third item is the site plan itself. And I'm going to give you some details before allowing the applicant to tell you the full story. It includes 364 multifamily residential units. THREE, ONE BEDROOM. THESE COUNTS, THE BREAKDOWN IS FROM THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THIS ITERATION THAT WE REVIEWED FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD THAN IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL THAT WE RECEIVED. SO I EXPECT THAT MAYBE THAT MIX COULD CHANGE STILL. BUT THREE, ONE BEDROOM, 161, TWO BEDROOM, 76, THREE BEDROOM, AND 124, FOUR BEDROOM UNITS. The development is spread over two towers that are tied to a pedestal containing parking and rooftop amenities. The building height is 43 stories and slightly less than 500 feet. And the parking garage provides 798 parking spaces. In addition, I mentioned the civic space that is required in the form of a public park. They are providing approximately 9,000 square feet of that, which are in addition to the view corridor. Basically, you can see this red square on the southern part of the site, and that contains the view corridor, which is required, as well as these 9,000 square feet of additional open space park land essentially with park and recreational improvements. The view corridor is provided, as I mentioned, the island walk is provided. There's also a marina that is being provided on the inner side of the site, the U part of Harbor Island. And the building is intended to provide 30 points for the green building program, which is required. It's more than is required, actually. So now to the proposals of the SAP. This is unlike the previous one that you reviewed. This is a very, very short SAP. As far as the text, there's a title section that establishes the 8,000 East Special Area Plan that is, you know, It also establishes the purpose of the SAP with language that is generally consistent with what we already have in the ULDC. The applicability section obviously establishes that these regulations apply to the land that is being rezoned. to 8000 East SAP. And it clarifies that the underlying regulations of the RM 70 zoning district apply except were modified by the SAP, which is our standard language as well. But also that the property owner reserves the right to not develop under the SAP regulations if they so choose. There is an approval section which establishes the criteria for findings that the commission must make to approve an application under this SAP. The language that is there is very, very similar, if not exactly the same as the language that we have in our site plan approval section for approving a site plan. Perhaps the most substantive change that is being proposed in this SAP is with regards to building height, because that one is allowing up to 43 stories and 500 feet to the top of the roof level of level 43. And it also provides for an additional allowance of 25 feet for mechanical equipment. Parking, rather than using the ratios that are in the base code, which are tied for multifamily residential, are tied to the number of bedrooms. They're proposing a standard rate of two spaces per residential unit. And the last change that they are including, although it really isn't much of a change, is that there's a marina that is allowed with a docking length of up to 150 feet. One item that is not addressed in the SAP and it's also not addressed in the site plan is the requirement for workforce housing. By code, a minimum mandatory 5% of the residential units is required for um residential projects that have 75 units or more uh not including um measured at the or calculated at the on the basis of density not including the bonuses so in this particular case based on that um that would be a requirement of 15 units. There are no workforce housing units being provided on site, but the code also allows for sale projects to satisfy the obligation through, as you know, the payment in lieu. So we have calculated that 15 units at the 2024 fee which is $74,463, would be a payment of $1,116,947.15. There are a number of, this is one of the conditions that we're recommending for approval of the site plan. There's a whole other list of conditions that are there, but many of them are standard conditions or they're conditions related to revisions that they will have to make to the plans for the purpose of building permits. So we're recommending moving forward with that. This process is just a little different from the one that we just went through for continuum because this applicant is not asking for a statutory development agreement. So this development agreement only requires one hearing by the commission. But the adoption of the ordinance does require two public hearings as a standard. And the side plan has to be approved in conjunction with the second reading of that ordinance, the adoption, just so you know. So again, for the side plan, we're recommending approval with the list of conditions that we have in the staff report. And if there are any that you would like me to go over or any that you have questions about, I'm happy to go into specifics. And for the special area plan, we are recommending approval just with the caveat that the rezoning and the proposed texts have to be approved before the site plan and that the different parcels that comprise the site have to be united, whether it's through unity of title or a covenant in lieu of unity of title. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yes. You said that it was 43 feet, but in the shadow plan, they also have... 43 levels, yes. But in the shadow plan, they have one that's at 648 feet is...

I think that they are using a comparison of what their previous, the original, they're going to go over that, but they have a comparison of the original proposal that they submitted way back when, I don't even remember, Mario, it was probably around October of last year, which had three towers And they had a proposal to go even higher. And so this one is a little more moderate in that sense. And it goes from three towers to two towers. So they're going to show you some variations of that to demonstrate the impacts of the proposed development on shadows around the development.

What is the distribution between the two towers?

The units between the two towers, I'll defer to the architects on that one, but it's more or less an even split of the 364 units.

Do you want to say a name and address?

Sure. Well, I have some questions. I know.

I'm going to have you. Name is? I wanted to get Sylvia's questions first, so hold on with them.

I want to ask her questions.

Go ahead.

Sylvia, you mentioned, correct me if I'm wrong, but you mentioned that you imposed some conditions on their approval and you had a list of them. I haven't seen that list.

It's in my staff report. And it should be in the resolution as well. But if you want, I can tell you more or less, there's a lot of them. So I don't know that I necessarily want to go one by one.

Has the developer agreed to your conditions?

The developer knows of the conditions and they have started negotiating with the village attorney on the development agreement. But yes, these are the conditions of site plan approval. Many of them are standard conditions that we impose on all of our site plans that you're familiar with. Many having to do with things even, you know, like you have to pay all your fees before we can issue you a permit. You have to... So, for example, you know, if you have this fee due for workforce housing, that has to be done. We have conditions that are... conditions of permit approval and conditions that are required to be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. But standard conditions, for example, would be that the development agreement has to be finalized and recorded before we issue a permit. The workforce housing requirement has to be met. A lot of the conditions for subjects such as landscape, parking, and infrastructure. For example, many of them are technical that pertain to the plans. Please correct these sheets that are inconsistent before we get to permit and so on and so forth. But there are others that are also just reiterating things that are required, such as the 5% of open space that has to be provided and that the developer is responsible for building it out and for maintaining it.

Have you added any conditions that are abnormal to what your regular conditions are?

I wouldn't say that there's anything out of the ordinary in this particular project. going through them right now. But no, a lot of the conditions are really technical. And in fact, the developer has been working already on addressing many of those. And I expect that we will see that maybe even some of these conditions can be removed before we get to commission because they will have been met.

All right. So you haven't added any abnormal conditions

No, sir.

Okay.

So a quick question. I want to understand how the TDR purchase impacts the density. They basically purchased 30% more, so that, in effect, is 91.

91 units per acre, yeah.

And the site is four and change, right?

Four and change.

What's the change? 1.22.

Okay. Yeah.

Because it seems like they're looking at four acres or not. They're not looking at, I don't know if they, if you do the math, they would be able to build any more than 364, because when you go forward times 91, that's exactly a 364.

Well, it's actually a little higher. They're going a little lower than the maximum. Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't know if that's just kind of filled.

Yeah, like I said, I expect that breakdown is probably going to change. I don't know.

Okay, that's my question.

I'll ask the rest from him. Thank you.

Sherry, do you have any questions for Sylvia before they make their presentation?

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Mario Garcia-Serra with offices at 600 Brickell Avenue. I'm here this evening representing the applicant, Harbor Island Development Company, LLC, which is the owners of the properties located at 7946 and 8000 East Drive. Just to sort of answer your questions before I get into the rest of the presentation, Mr. Turbides, the proposed height of the building, maximum height is 498 feet. What you're seeing and we'll show during the presentation is if you were to take the program of the four lower height buildings that you could potentially build on the site and combine them into two towers, that's the 600 and some number, but we're not proposing that. We're lower than that at 498 feet, 43 stories. And then Mr. Gonzalez, between the two towers, 201 in one and 163 in the other. So there's a bit more in one, but still somewhat even distribution.

Quick question to follow up on your answer to Mr. Tobias. So the 25, it's already included in that 498, or is that an addition to the 498?

The 25 that's mentioned, that would be additional for mechanical equipment.

That wouldn't affect increase the height of the building?

It would. The very tippy top height, let's call it, would be another 25 feet over the 498. Okay. Yeah. So my client is a partnership of the Related Group of Florida and Laura Tauber, two of the most accomplished developers in Miami-Dade County, and they are both represented here today. Laura Tauber is with us here in person. Harold Lander with the Related Group is here with us in person, and Amru Zarqani is joining us via Zoom. I'm also joined today by the project's architect, Mr. Bernardo Fort-Brescia of Architectonica, from whom you will be hearing shortly. One of the most unique characteristics of this project, board members, is the size of the project site. At 4.12 acres, it is a very large project site. And its location at the end of East Drive Peninsula makes it even a more unique and special site. The village's zoning code has a special process and set of regulations which can be made applicable to large properties, which is named the Special Area Plan, which Sylvia already mentioned. This board's already familiar with the SAP process, but for everyone's benefit, it is a way to create special site-specific regulations for special sites and to increase the public benefit of these developments. With that, the first slide that we have up there sort of gives you an overview of the project and of the property. The zoning is RM70, as has already been mentioned. Lot size, 4.12 acres. The proposals for two 498-foot high towers. The number of units, 364. Number of parking spaces, 798. A marina, which very importantly, I'll point out, will be only accessory to residential use. So it's not a commercial marina. It's only a marina for the use of the residents of the project with 42 boat slips. And importantly, we are proposing a 9,000 square foot public park on the southwest corner of the property. With regards to you, something I want to bring up also, because there's been some sort of talk, let's say, in the community and so forth about whether any commercial uses would be incorporated as part of this project. And I can tell you unequivocally 100%, no, this is just residential. There is no retail component or commercial component. It is strictly luxury residential product. The last bullet point there, very important for the purposes of this discussion, the footprint of the two towers is only 16% of the entire project site. So 84% of the project site is not tower. It's either parking garage pedestal, lawn area, park area, or island walk. And in this case, the purpose of the SAP primarily is to reallocate massing in height. And what do I mean by that? Due to the large size of the project and of the property, we could potentially develop four buildings here, each of those four buildings at 312 feet in height. But this would be a lot of mass in close proximity to the street and to other buildings. What we're proposing to do instead is to decrease that overall program and consolidate it into two taller towers of 498 feet, each of which will be along the edge of the property. This then opens up a lot of space and air at the ground and lower levels to create a project, which in our opinion is better, less imposing, and allows for us to provide the 9,000 square foot public park, which will serve as a great public space, and just as importantly as an entryway to the largest extension ever in the history of this village of the public island walk. So with that said, we'll actually show you the project now, and I'll ask Bernardo to come up and walk through the presentation.

Thank you.

If you guys want to state your name and your address, please.

I'm Bernardo Fabrezio. I'm a principal of Architectonica 2900 Oak Avenue, Miami. The image that shows you, that appears on the screen, tells you a little bit about the uniqueness of the site because it has three frontages of water. And it is the end of the axis of a street. It is a termination of a street where you see the semicircle. And in light of that, we started thinking on how to organize the site in a manner that would be most compatible with the neighborhood and take advantage of the amazing geography that we have on this site. I press the top or the side? Okay, perfect. Yeah, here you can see the view of the current condition. We're looking into the site. You can see there the existing buildings and the parking that is right off the street, actually cars back into the street. A rather unusual condition in many places in Florida or anywhere else. And it's sort of part of the pattern that occurs that hopefully this building is the beginning of a improvement of the urban design aspects of the street and the city as a whole. You can see this view of the site plan. And note what we tried to create because for us, the most important aspect of a master plan is that sense of arrival. And what do you feel upon arrival to a property? And you see where the circle, the red line of the circle at the end of the road, and we pick up from that circle perpendicular to it, a drive that curves through a landscape, a very green space, sort of like you're going into paradise, you're surrounded by greenery, and then you enter the site and you make the turn, and suddenly you are perpendicular to the view of the water towards the east. But before that, to the left of the arrival, as you're approaching the site, you see that park, that sort of open space that the public, whether they enter the property or they don't, they have that vista towards the west. So there is a moment in which there's a public purpose to this master plan in which this rectangular open space with pathways, and you're going to see renderings of what we're planning to do. As you know, Mr. Perez has a as a art collector and he likes to include art in his projects. And you'll see what we are trying to do with what will be, we think, a very beautiful park on the waterfront. An important aspect of this site plan is that you see the whole perimeter of the site surrounded by the Bayfront Walk. So hopefully someday it'll connect beyond to other properties. But it is accessible because you can go through that park And that provides access for the public to make it to that waterfront walk, which will be an enhancement of what it is today, which is private. And even if it became public, you can't get to it without crossing private property. So I mentioned the turning of the of the road into the water and driving along the water, unusual, and along that boardwalk into a drop-off serving the two towers. We have two towers, one to the north. The one on the right, call it a darker tone, has about 201 units. The other tower, the easterly tower, has 163 units. They're not identical. Close in size, but not identical. And everything you see here is a low podium. We spread out the parking in a manner that it wouldn't be so ominous. And therefore, when you are on arrival to the site, or as you look at the end of the axis, what you see is a lower podium and the towers are as far as possible from the rest of the neighborhood, as you can see. So even when you're by the park or on this drive, you only feel a podium height, not a tower height. And that was part of the objective of pushing the towers over to the right of the site as you see it on the screen. Everything else, I think, is self-explanatory. We have tennis courts and other sports facilities, barbecue, children's play areas, greenery, and a fairly large pool deck that goes from east to west and captures the southern light, but also at the same time the view towards the east and to the sunset. Here you can see the 3D extrusion of that site plan. I mentioned the podium that is a more low slung structure that comes forward towards the south. You see the marina next to it and you see that that park that connects the street to the boardwalk. And you see our drive through the greenery into the site. And you arrive looking at the water. It's not one of those sites that you arrive from behind. You arrive from the waterfront, so there's a sense of the place where you are at. Here you can see the island walk I was referring to. You see in orange the public park and the island walk. So we have a significant... access into that island walk. And there's activity that happens in the park, in addition to the experience of walking along the water that is finally happening throughout the island that didn't exist before. And thanks to the zoning, this is able to happen. So hopefully this is a catalyst for more of that approach. Part of the strategy of the curving of the buildings, by the way, is that opens the corners as you make the turn towards all the way around the peak of this peninsula. And you can see where the island walk is being reinforced and where hopefully someday will be continuous along the entire peninsula. Here you can see parts of the park. Most of the park, of course, is open to the sky, but we did want to create a moment of cover. A moment where if there's a pouring rain that starts, you can go undercover. If you want to be out of the shade and not be in the sun, you can relax under this monumental porch that we have at the end of the park. of the development and that belongs to the park environment so that we do have what is equivalent to call it a gazebo within the park at the entrance to the bayfront walk. And you can see here the view as you go down the walk, sorry, at the end, where you can have the vistas all the way out to the water and you see the building right next to it softly curving along the waterfront and opening up towards the corners. It is... The idea of the public park is a very important one, and it's not just what I just showed you that you see from the water. It's also equally important what you see from the city side. And this is the entrance to the park, very organic, with landscaping that is sort of native plants. And you can see the splash fountain on one side with... art and sculptures you see on the right the additional outdoor sculptures as i mentioned earlier is part of the dna of the of mr perez's projects where he includes public art and this is an example of this and there you can see the porch i'm referring to sort of the shelter for those who don't want to be in the sun or one don't want to be caught by a sudden rain um It is, here you can see the diagram that I think has been explained to you how we could have built four buildings and we essentially transferred the square footage of those buildings to the top. And that liberated and created that low slung building with the porch, the park. And the park doesn't have the ominous aspect of a building right next to you or a big tower. Instead, it feels open and more to scale with a human scale for the park. And I think this shows you some of our shadow studies. Of course, we are the north tip, so we don't affect anybody. I mean, these are some of the shadow studies, but they really are really innocuous. They really don't have any effect on the neighboring buildings. It is because of the geography of the site. It is what it is. It's at the north end of a peninsula. And here are the studies throughout the year. We did want to show them to you. I think it is important to know what the effect of these buildings is with respect to the sunlight into the surroundings. And I think this gives you a general overview of the project. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bernardo. We'll just talk a little bit more now about certain public benefits that we have of the project, and then we'll conclude and reserve a little time for any rebuttal if necessary based on the public comments. The slide that you have up there right now talks about the various benefits as we see it of the project. The first one there is the extension of the island walk, which we had previously discussed. It's going to be an extension of 1,266 feet. The park, which has already been discussed considerably, 9,000 square foot size park. Public art, which was touched upon. The idea is to incorporate public art in multiple places, which we can show you in the park and along the island walk. Again, emphasizing that this is residential use only. The parking that is provided based on related to many other projects that they've worked on, they feel is sufficient. It's about a 2.19 parking space per unit that is being provided. The seawall that's running along the length of the property, of course, is going to be repaired. Concurrency, we've gone through all the various concurrency reviews, and we comply with concurrency. Shadow study, as was previously discussed due to our location, does not cast a shadow on any other property. And most importantly, aesthetics and safety of the community are improved, of course, by this redevelopment. The next slide discusses the economic benefits of the project. We've already purchased TDRs to the tune of a $10 million payment to the city to utilize in this project. We'll be doing another additional bonus height payment of 2 million. Impact fee payments are estimated to be 3.2 million. The permit fee, 3 million. And this all results in about an $18.2 million additional amount for the city in the short term. The long-term economic benefit is about 110.6 million in tax revenue over 20 years, an increase of about 4 to 7 million per year. and an increase overall in yearly city revenues of 11%. So the next slide is just our conclusion slide, which shows the rendering of the island walk. What I will say is that the buildings on this property have pretty much lived their useful life. One of them, as you may be aware, was essentially condemned and is now in the process of demolition. The other one completely vacated. They served their purpose for their time. Those buildings don't reflect what North Bay Village is today, nor what North Bay Village aspires to be in the future. And we think this project does. We think this project is really going to help North Bay Village to live up to its motto of being the heart of the Bay. So with that said, just ask you to follow your staff's recommendation and recommend approval. And we're available, of course, for questions. And I'll reserve a little time for rebuttal if necessary.

Sure. A couple of questions. I want to say you had a shadow study and that's fine. Did you do any other studies like, for example, traffic impact on traffic impact on the exit to Harbor Island? Yes. In terms of, you know, congestion that might. That might occur. If you want to answer that first and then I'll get another question.

So traffic study was prepared. It has certain recommendations as far as changing of signalization at the intersection of East Drive with the causeway. It's been reviewed also by your traffic consultant. And we have our own traffic consultant here if you would like to discuss further. But it basically, you know, the recommendations of the traffic study were accepted by the village.

Okay. I mean, as long as one exists in case we're asked any questions on it, that's available. Now, another subtle, I don't know if this was done, it was a wind study done in terms of what impact having these two large buildings have on, particularly the one that's going through the buildings. In other words, that corridor between the two buildings. I don't know if that would be something that would be considered in terms of how the wind can accelerate as it's being narrowed in and then comes out the other side, meaning that we have balconies and we have issues with things that could get blown off from balconies, et cetera. So was that considered?

I don't believe a wind study has been done. Perhaps wind was considered, but I don't know if Bernardo could perhaps share his thoughts on that. We could potentially also do the wind study perhaps between, you know, now and the village commission, assuming, you know, if our site agrees that it's an appropriate thing to do.

Sure. Can your engineer comment on that? Does he have any opinion on that right now that he can comment on so we can leave an idea?

Please come up and say it. Just for the record.

Harold Lander, 2850 Tigertail Avenue, Suite 800, Miami, Florida. So we do wind studies on all our projects. This is no different. We will do a wind study here. I'm not sure how far the depth of the, like how far down the island walk would look, but we look always within our project exactly what that effect looks like and how that affects the neighbors around us. So we will have that. We just haven't done it yet. but you're asking us. No, we will have one and we'll have one prepared for the group.

Okay, thank you. And then my last question on the parking space, are these all standard spots or are some of them reduced? Are these all standard size parking?

All standard size parking. And there's also ADA. Okay.

Just to add to that, there's no request for compact parking spaces as part of this. But I also would like to clarify that the 2.19 ratio is an overall ratio that includes the visitor parking spaces, I believe.

And does that also include the Marino parking space?

Yes, the marina would be accessory to the residential use. So the assumption is that if you're using the marina for the most part, you're a resident there.

Do not have their own parking for the marina users. It's not a separate parking.

It would require parking if it was a commercial marina, but this is an accessory to the residential use. And the assumption is that the parking that serves the residential units would be essentially the, yeah.

That's it. Thank you.

no questions you have a couple how many parking spots in total do you have 798 okay and the difference of the 728 from the 364 units everyone getting two the others are for visitors I didn't hear mentioned who's going to be responsible for the maintenance and for the park and the water features

That's us.

And the height payment that you mentioned, that's for the 490 feet plus the 25 for the mechanical.

Well, the bonus height payment that I mentioned is actually what gets us from 150 to 312. That's how the formula is set up right now in the village code.

Okay. Thank you.

Does she have any questions?

Board Member Abramson. Yes. Do you have any questions for the applicant? I don't.

Okay. I'm going to open it up to public comment. Is there anybody on Zoom? Does anybody want to speak regarding this? Come on up. State your name, address. You have three minutes or less.

My name is Nicholas Lawrence. My address is 7945 East Drive. I just wanted to say that we are currently in litigation at this juncture. However, I do request, if possible, any documentation, recording, minutes, agenda, et cetera, for the notice meeting held on Friday, June 6th, 2025, as stated, held pursuant to section 4.19C of the North Bay Village Unified Land Development Code

be provided to me via email if possible.

That's it. Okay, thank you. Does anybody else have public comment? Going once, twice, public comment closed.

Motion. I make a motion to approve the project as is.

Can I, Tony, shouldn't we have two separate motions, please?

Yeah, we need to do one for the audience and one for the site plan.

Let's do one for the SAP first. Yes.

Do the SAP first? Yes. Okay, I make a motion to approve the SAP as is. I'll second.

You want to call by individual? Please call.

BOARD MEMBER MURPHY.

YES.

VICE CHAIR GONZALES.

YES.

BOARD MEMBER ABRAMSON. YES. BOARD MEMBER TORRIDIS.

YES.

CHAIR SHAW.

YES.

MOTION CARRIES. ANOTHER MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANS AS PRESENTED AND APPROVE THE PROJECT.

WITH THE CONDITIONS?

With serious conditions. Please. As long as they're normal.

Define normal. No, I mean, yes, there's nothing extraordinary here. And as you heard, they are accepting the condition.

One question, one comment about that. The seawall, it's an old seawall. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide a new seawall than to repair the existing?

You're correct. I should have said replacement. It's not a repair. It's a replacement of the seawall.

Thank you.

Great. Thanks.

I'll second. I'll roll call.

This is for item 3B, and that's for the resolution for the site plan. Yes. Board Member Murphy.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gonzalez. Yes. Board Member Abramson. Yes. Board Member Terebides. Yes. Chair Shaw.

Yes.

Motion carries.

So now we have, what, 3A? Or no, 3, 5. 5A?

No. That was the one you just voted on.

Wasn't there one other?

No, the SAP was done first. And then the CIP you just voted on with conditions.

Before you close, could I just make a quick introduction?

Absolutely, Sylvia. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Craig, would you mind coming up? I would like to introduce...

Thank you, everyone, for the presentation. Everybody did a great job. Congratulations. All right. Come on up.

Just very quick. This is my colleague Craig Pinder, senior planner with our Florida office. And I just wanted to introduce you because you'll be seeing a lot more of him. He's going to be taking duties for being here for you the next few months. So I just wanted you to meet him and for him to meet you.

Oh, great. Pleasure to meet you. Pleasure to meet you. Welcome.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any other comments, concerns, questions? All right, meeting adjourned. Thank you.

If you count 2.4, they're at 6.5. They would owe 6.5. If our code doesn't apply to the SAP, instead, you could get some kind of credit for the 9,000 square feet. You know, we can figure out what the hell that is, but I just don't know if it's the same person. This is, they're asking for 480 feet. We allow 240 under, and they're going up to 498. I'm sorry, we allow 170. When that all goes up, you've got 328 feet of bonus. That bonus, according to our code, comes out. If they wouldn't do that, it would be like 8.9 million.

That they would pay us for the height?

Yes. It doesn't conflict. This is a discussion we need to have. And we will. I just wanted to bring that up.