Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, can everyone hear me okay? Welcome to our April 14th Planning Board meeting. Everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right, first order of business is we'll do roll call. I'll start to my left.

Agustin Barrera. Anyone else from the planning board?

Lena, we need you to turn on your camera. Looks like it's trying to come up here. Welcome. And Daniel, we got you too. So we have a quorum.

Actually, let me I'll do the administrative item, and then we'll do the swearing in. One administrative item is we're going to generally go with the order that we published. However, items four and five are going to be reversed. So we will tackle the issue with the solar panels first, and then with the land development code relative to adult entertainment last. So with that said, Ed?

All righty. Without any further ado, item number one, Marcus.

Any quick questions before I open it up for public comment? Thank you. All right. Anyone who wishes to comment on this particular item, please step forward to the microphone or raise your hand on the Zoom call. All right. If you would state your name and your address.

Thank you. Any other comments from the audience here or online?

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I would just point out that while there is an item within what we just discussed that does deal somewhat with the student housing aspect of, it seems that you're addressing particularly a project that is still going to be coming and the presenters are here, the project folks are here, and I'm sure they've listened to your comments and thoughtfully. So thank you. Appreciate it. Any other comments? I don't see any online, Marcus. If not, I'm going to close it from public comments. Is it relative to the broader issue that we discussed or just to this apartm

No, that's not now. That's an item coming. The next two items are going to be handled together. So this was a broad, as he said, a big omnibus covering a number of topics. And there was reference to student housing and some of the size issues and so forth that go with it. But it wasn't a discussion about this apartment complex on 57th Avenue that runs between 64th Street and 66th or 67th, whichever it is. That is coming after this. All right. I'm going to close it to public comments and open it for any discussion on the planning board.

Through the chair, I just wanted to get a clarification. So the intention of the contiguous floor is when you have the abutting residence or a firewall or expansion joint, but two different buildings, although they're touching, so that becomes contiguous, right?

You want it to be separate buildings. So it is counting as contiguous when they're touching. You want a 10-foot space between them. Correct. Okay, my question to that is, when we have our setbacks, do we ever have a condition where we have a neighboring building touching walls with a neighboring building? And are we going to... take away possible usage because we're trying to create this. Will that create another conflict is the question.

But yeah, that's... That's why I bring it up. I think the air gap's a challenge. I see what you're trying to accomplish, but you might be causing another situation. And then when measuring the square footage on the apartments, is that to exterior wall and center of the mizing wall, or is it paint to paint?

I bring it up because if you could define it, it'd be easier. That way we know what we're getting each time, and it's not let's check how one did it and let's check how the other one did it. So that is more defined.

Other questions or comments? I see a few people shaking their heads. If not, do we have enough for a motion? Danny, since you suggested some changes, I would say.

I'll make a motion to consider board and staff comments to approve as is.

We have a second. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor? Aye.

Yes. And aye. So I think unanimous. Any nays? No. That's it. OK. All right. So that takes us to... Items two and three, which do relate to the same development. And Mark, are you tackling that as well? Yeah. So you're back up.

I would ask you to cover the two together, unless you tell me there's some great reason for splitting them, but otherwise I would cover the two together and we'll take the two together from a voting perspective.

All right. Thank you. Any quick questions for Mark?

Thank you. OK, I'm now going to open up the floor to public comments. So if you wish to speak, please step up to the podium, sign in, state your name and your address. Remember, public comments, each person is limited to three minutes. And it isn't really a question and answer session, but because the applicants are here, they certainly may address some of the things that you bring up. And with that, I'll start with the people in the room here. So were you sworn in originally?

Again, this is not a Q&A. Please make your comments and we'll give them a chance.

Thank you for your comments other people in the audience that wish to make a comment or Please step up. Your name and your address, if you'd sign in as well. And I think you were here to get sworn in, correct or not? Yes.

Would you sign in, please, if you would? I did. Oh, you did? OK, great. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments from the audience?

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else that wishes to speak in the audience? By the way, the two fellows that spoke earlier on the item we were covering before this had some relationship. If you wish to speak again, you're certainly welcome to do that.

They will be happy to address later, but this is not a Q&A. So you have about 30 seconds left.

Not right this second, no, ma'am. This is not an open Q&A format. You have 15 seconds. They will address as they would like.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else that would like to speak?

Thanks very much. All right. Any other comments? I think we have one raised hand on the Zoom call. I'm not sure whose hand.

Sharon, we see you now. We don't see you unmuted, though.

Where are you in? And if you'd state your address.

Thank you very much. All right, I don't see any other hands on the Zoom call. Anyone else in the audience? If not, I'm going to close it to public comments, and I'm going to ask the applicant if they would like to rebut or answer some of the points made.

Thank you. Okay. Members of the planning board, anyone have any comments or questions for the applicant or for the city planning?

So let me ask a question, Mark. The variance on this, my understanding is that what they've done with the ingress-egress coming off of Red Road is a voluntary deal in an attempt to keep the cars out of the neighborhood. That's not a variance request, and Red Road is what it is. I wish I had the power. I wish we had the power to widen Red Road because we thought it was too crowded because believe me, I'd be up there with my magic wand today. But what are the variances here that we are considering? It's simply a look because it's a larger use project and because of the floor plates, correct?

Correct. And not having the gap of the 10 feet as we were just putting into the code, which has not yet been voted in, correct?

So does that change? There's no variance relative to what you're talking about.

The variance is strictly to the plate. Correct. So you feel like that's enough to stop the project? Well, I wonder.

Okay. It's an interesting point of view. I mean, so if they add back the 10 feet in there to break up the plates, then you wouldn't have any objection to it.

Thank you. Other questions and comments? May I, Mr. Chair?

Thanks very much. Other questions or comments from the board?

Okay. Thank you. I see some of their hand raised. The public comment is closed, so we won't be addressing a non-board member at this point. Other board comments? My thoughts are, before I go to Dan, I'm just going to say I appreciate what you guys have done to modify the plans to make it better for the neighborhood. It is still a six-story building. It still has three stories in the back. But the amenity deck has been reduced, particularly from a noise perspective. having no paddle ball and whatever else up there makes sense I would probably ask have you given some thought to having any kind o

Thanks. I would also remind everybody that The three stories of the main livable building are going to be facing out to the same amenity area with the same concerns about noise and lighting. They're even closer to it than those on the ground.

Understood. And one other thing I want to say before I go to Daniel, I know he wants to make a comment, which is these are not done deals. We are a recommending board. And so how we vote on this, we will be voting whether it goes to the commission as it is, whether it doesn't go at all, whether we turn it down, whatever. But ultimately, the commission is the body that approves it. And I wouldn't be wasting my time up here if this was a done deal, as fun as this is. Daniel? Daniel?

Thanks, Daniel. THROUGH THE CHAIR. FIRST OFF, I DO WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU THAT CAME OUT TO SPEAK TODAY. I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. AND TO THE COMMENT OF DUNDEAL, I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS IS BACK IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE WE REQUESTED CHANGES THE LAST TIME THEY WERE HERE. We are by no means a rubber stamp board. We definitely give comments. We reject presentations. We definitely try to call balls and strikes here. So I do appreciate the comment, but I want to make sure that the community knew that that's what we're doing. I do believe that the architect and the develo

Danny, do you have an additional comment? Your hand is still up.

And Christine, your hand's not up, but I see you talking, so.

All right. Thank you. If there aren't any different additional comments, do we have a motion?

If I could offer a friendly amendment just to include the board comments as well.

So approval as presented with the board comments included. You OK with that? In particular, relative to lighting.

I would like to see that explored, but I'm not for putting that as a condition.

Correct. Noise hours as well. This is what these guys do, you know, is run projects.

I'm seeing some shaking heads, so we have a motion and a second.

OK. All right. To the large scale development. All those in favor? Yes.

I'll second. Any other questions? If not, all those in favor?

Motion carries. Correct. Okay. Thank you very much for coming out. We appreciate all your comments.

Number five. We're going to skip to the, and we're going to finish with the number four. So number five is all about the... Is the solar panel moratorium.

Thank you recommending the extension of the moratorium for another six months. Yes to October 15th. I believe okay Any public comment? either in this room or Online Seeing none any comments or discussion on the on the planning board If not, I would ask for a motion I

Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor? Aye.

Okay. Motion carries. All right. On to our last item, item number four.

So do I need to open this for public comment? Yes, please. So let me open this for public comment. If anyone would like to speak on it, please sign in. Were you sworn in earlier?

So I live on 76th Street, and I'm an early bird, and I walk early in the morning at 5, 530.

MARK MCQUEEN, JR.: Thank you very much. Any other comments? Any other comments? Anybody online? I don't see any. Okay, so let's open it to discussion. You're on the planning board.

I'm happy to run with it. Um, if I may through the chair. Yep. Um, I have. Lost sleep on this one, honestly, and to, you know, to the point that, you know, it's like, as we mentioned to the crowd earlier that, um. You know, we, we, we take this position seriously. Nothing's ever ever stamp here. So I did speak to merchants. I spoke to residents, neighbors. I spoke to some law enforcement. And it dawns on me that some of the concerns that we need to consider also is what burden does this have, if any, on our services? How many service requests do we get? to or because of this use in our city? A

I think we have a lot of signage rules in place.

It's not defined in this particular verbiage.

Yeah, I mean, the intention of maybe having it seen from US 1 would be challenging because then it means it's seen from very far away as well.

The other thing I would say is, you know, bringing into the conversation of law enforcement, maybe we can add that, you know, the on-site, surveillance cameras are shared with our police department, you know, that there's a more cohesive connection there where the police department is directly involved with this process, requiring minimum a D-class security guard provided by the Department of Agricultural and Commerce Services. And I say minimum because D-class is not like a high-level security guard. It's a certification, but we could even maybe consider going beyond that.

You could see that they've changed the... I mean, I think you did make a change. That wasn't the way it was originally, was it? It doesn't... No, the ordinance... No, I mean, in your verbiage here, we were talking about that you would have security guards and or off-duty police officers, and you would go from 1 up until 8 p.m. Correct. To where you go to 3 from 8 p.m. Yeah, but... That was in the prior version as well.

And going back to the resident's statement, the hours of operation are relevant. A lot of these kids go to school really early. A lot of these kids get meals early in the morning at these schools. And to be crossing paths in this process

We can pull this back to 5 a.m. across the board as opposed to the 7 a.m. that was originally contemplated during the weekdays. I'm skeptical about people getting food delivery at 5 a.m., but I do think you would give people a chance to clear the area to get out before kids start rolling in. Absolutely. Before the parents start trying to dump the kids off in the area. OK. And I do think the auto body, again, I don't know how much they're permitted to do prior to 7 AM or 8 AM. Well, you have a bunch of gyms back there too, right? They do. I think you have to look at the hours carefully to make sure there's not an overlap with the daylight crowd.

And I'll leave you with two other thoughts. In terms of distances, I would say that if there needs to be a reduction to find a path forward, it should be no less than 750, not 300. And we should create a limitation of closest distance between establishments. Because we're not trying to create a district here.

Okay. Yeah, I talked to Ed about that. I'd like to see it just like we did with, and you were on the board at the time, with dispensaries, where we said we couldn't have more than X dispensaries either within four blocks or whatever the number is.

The idea, if I remember correctly, on the dispensary piece, we were doing that not to really try to regulate anything other than we didn't want to become a dispensary district. Frankly, we were including CVS, Walgreens, whatever in that whole thing. So it was a retail establishment focused on selling, you know... Prescriptions and things like that so same thing. I wouldn't I don't think any of us would like to become the district of Is incompatible with what we're trying to do in South Miami so?

Gus or Dan, do you have any comments or thoughts? Gus, you're talking and you're not off mute.

What time would you like? Pick a time. I think what Ed's trying to tell us is we can design what we want to propose to move forward. Yeah. And so if we want it to be 3 a.m., we think that's fair, gives them a chance to clear, you know, whatever we think in the group is reasonable.

And so on Friday and Saturday, I could make an argument that you would keep it similar or maybe take it to 4 AM. But we have a pretty significant running community in South Miami. They're out on the streets organized and heading out. And that's a ridiculously early hour because of the heat. And so it won't be me out there, but, you know. But so I would propose that we use earlier time as well for Friday and Saturday. Let's say 4 a.m. Okay. If that works for everybody. I see that as a safety issue. I agree.

And I don't know, we talked about this a little bit, what is a distance from parks, schools, et cetera, that we can use that would allow someone to be in there? But, and I think, so what is a reasonable number? Is it 500 feet?

So what if we try the 750, because that's not way off what we originally proposed. Okay. I agree. To the extent of not, so we don't develop a neighborhood of late night artistic dancing that we do put in that we don't want to have, they need to be separated by at least 750 feet.

Establishments themselves being both. They need to be both, absolutely.

Yeah, I think that's fair. Off-duty police. And I don't know. We need to stipulate South Miami off-duty police. If we open up the off-duty policemen in Miami-Dade County, I would think that we would be OK. and that would give them a broader pool to yank from.

I don't know if that's really feasible. Okay. I think I'd overlay Danny's comments about certification.

And I would add that it's important that maybe we take some details on the service calls to the commission for them to digest. This is, I mean, and it's not just to an establishment of this genre, call it, but of, you know, anything in and around it because I think sometimes, you know, the problems move off property next door as opposed to, and that's what I heard from a lot of merchants.

Look, I'm not going to try to tell anybody that nothing ever happens outside BT's, but I live six blocks south of it. I mean, directly, same corner of 79th Street. And so, and I'm out sometimes that early, not a lot, but a lot of my friends and my wife run down in that area, and it's quieter than it was when it used to be, whatever the bar was there before. BT's does, I think, a good job of keeping it internal, and so I'm not seeing the same activity down there, and I'm down there early enough that I'd see remainders of it, people still being sorted and so forth. So we need to recognize that w

And I want to go back to Danny's comment on signage. I do think we ought to be able to put a height restriction on the sign that would guarantee that it isn't the beacon of, you know.

And what else do you think we need to make this something that is recommendable, that doesn't put us in dormy or put us in stalemate?

Right. Or municipal services. Yeah. I'll change that. Municipal services. Any services, period.

So with that in mind, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

All right. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. OK. Unanimous. Yep. All right. Find my agenda here. All right. Sadly, that's the last thing we have in front of us. New business. I don't think we have anything right now. The minutes. Can I make one request, Marcus? I'm not sure how we got away from this. But on the minutes, especially on, and I could live with this on the deferred items only, which would be if we're deferring something, we think it's going to come back, is to have some level of detail. What the deferral we generally say we would like to have some bullet points about the deferral What we were talking about so we don't go

All in favor? Yes. Aye. All right. And next meeting date is May 12th. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.

I don't know. He was on and he was off. Yeah. The new fellow.