Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

How to submit comments in the dedicated web page and in the notice to the public. Board members, are you comfortable with all these notice provisions set forth and these uniform rules of procedure we've established? Yes. Yes. Thank you.

May we stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

Turn the public. Oh, yeah. We can do that first. All right. Rise for a moment of silence and Pledge of Allegiance.

If you intend to testify in this proceeding, please remain standing or stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you, you may be seated. I'll go ahead and call board attendance.

Thank you.

Calling Chair Adam Gersten.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Member Mario Bailey.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Member Chris Collins. Calling Member Joseph Corral. Calling Member Maria Paula de Corrales. Present. Thank you. Calling Member Paul Mann.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Member Elon Mottoyer. Calling Member Joshua Patinkin. Thank you. Calling Member Arthur Parasov. Calling member Manuel Vadillo. And calling member Lynette Cardoche.

Present.

Thank you. We do have quorum. Also, I did receive requests from members Ilan Montoya and Manuel Vadillo as to an absence waiver.

Is there a motion? Move. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay.

We have minutes from October 15th. Move to approve.

Second.

All in favor?

Any opposed? Okay. Let's get to the deferrals.

The first deferral is item two. This is a resolution of the PSAB recommending to the city commission an ordinance to modify article three, titled general to zones, and it's to modify our affordable and attainable mixed income transfer development density program. And the city would like to defer this item to April 1st.

And what's going to happen between now and the 1st?

We're going to continue to have discussions about the legislation. Okay. I believe there should be some more community outreach. And then legal and I are going to continue our exploration of SB 180. Okay. Okay.

Through the chair. Yes. Would it be out of line to ask for clarification of what exactly the last raise in that purpose means?

Yes. So there is Senate Bill 180 was passed by the Florida State Legislature and signed into law in 2025, so last year. It restricts city municipalities and counties from making land use policy and or land use regulations more restrictive and burdensome than anything that was on the books prior to August 2024, and restricts us from making anything more burdensome or restrictive until 2027. And so as a result, we can't make anything more burdensome or restrictive, and some of the language that was requested would have been in violation of that state law.

Is there any other questions or discussion? And how many people are here for item two? And madam attorney are we able to if we defer the item. Or is any is public comment put off until April or. Can we.

Typically, so the requirement is that it needs to be in reasonable proximity and time. So typically, we do not hear comments on deferred items except as to the deferral. So if anybody does want to comment as to the deferral, they could. Right.

So, thank you. So, yes, if there's any, since you're all here, comment related directly to the deferral, not to... the contents, but to the deferral itself. That's what we hear now and discuss now, to decide whether we will agree to defer or not. And we would do the same rules, you know, you have two minutes. But again, we're just staying on whether we should defer or not.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Andy Parrish, 3940 Main Highway. I am actually glad this item is being deferred because I want to make a proposal to you board members. And specifically, I do recognize some of you, but the only one who was here when I started is your chair. And I want to bring his memory back a little bit to the good old days when... Most of the stuff that came, a lot of the controversial things that came before this board involved private schools and charter schools wanting to open up. This is nine years ago. And of course, somebody on the board, sometimes me, would say, oh, it's for the children. I make a motion. And then, of course, the board would say, no, we're going to take it up for discussion. And every one of these school proposals to go in the various neighborhoods, a lot of them are small schools, Then we would get in, and sometimes lengthy discussions, as Adam will remember, about traffic, about access, neighborhood quality, mainly parking, everything to do with the school, and most of them we did pass for the children, but some of them we didn't because they would abuse the neighborhoods. So that brings me to tonight about this item two, because the magic mantra no longer is it's for the children, it's become affordable housing. Everything you hear about is affordable housing. The beach is concerned about it. The neighbors here tonight are concerned about it. And a lot of times, our board and the city commission will say, our hands are tired, tired, tired and tied, because the state is mandating this. We know there's an affordable housing crisis. The county is laying into this. Everybody's saying to this board and to our city commission. This is what you have to do and There's there's a lot of weight behind that But what I'm proposing to this board tonight is remember It's not just the zoning board and all this stuff that comes before you on this affordable housing is about zoning you are we you wouldn't everybody is you're the planning board and and this board can make resolutions to the city commission to say, we would like to make a proposal to you to not just abdicate to whatever the county and the state are telling us. Now, that is risky, and I'm sure Amber over there, who I know very well, will tell you it is risky. But South Miami did it when they tried to enlist everybody on the South Miami police force to be part of the enforcement of federal law. It may be a loser, but I think this board, I'm sincere, should really consider, and maybe by the time that this item is being deferred, sending a resolution to the City Commission saying, please, we are the premier city in the state of Florida. Respect us. Let us use our own zoning code, our own planning board, and our own City Commission. Give us a year. And we will supply more affordable housing units than you're requiring us to do, but we'll do it according to our own plans and our own neighborhood wishes. And then we'll get a better plan. If it blows up, hey, we've lost a year. But right now, the momentum, as you all know and have to face, there's tremendous pressure from the county and the state and money to get this done. So please consider next week, April 1st, whenever this is deferred, coming up with a proposal to the city commission to say, stand up and tell us we'll do this in our own way. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anything?

Just a moment. Am I able to close the online? I'm sorry. Am I able to close the online public comment?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Senator Garcia, 3240 Mary Street. I am in support of this deferral for so long as there will be meaningful adjustments to this piece of ordinance that's going to be passed. So long as that's going to take place, then I am in full support and hope that it is deferred. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Kate Patterson. I live on 3900 Loquat. So in addition to the language in the state law that you're looking at, you mentioned significant community input and forum. Can you describe what that is and what the schedule would be between now and the 1st?

I don't have that schedule at this time. But it will happen. I have been working with the commissioner's office, so I believe that there's been emails that have been circulated. I believe there's been a fact sheet that has been circulated, and I will continue to work with them on any community outreach.

So we have the date set for the deferral, but nothing? for the community to understand before that? Is that my understanding of?

At this time, the deferral would be till April 1st. I'll be happy to work with the commissioner's office on any additional community outreach. But I don't have a schedule or anything for that.

Sorry, just if I could jump in. I will say that generally our board, if we, I don't speak for everybody, but in terms of historically, if... A representation is made here that there's going to be community outreach, and then everyone shows up on that day, and we find out that there's not been community outreach. We'll seek to, it's likely someone would make a motion to defer again.

So someone needs to then have that on the record?

Well, I mean, it is, they're representing now that that's going to happen, and also it's been represented that, you know,

sure that it sounds like if another date is needed at that date we would have to do that again so city staff works through the commissioners offices on on community outreach and so if if they so choose to do any additional community outreach it or we do any through any it would be done through that through their offices

Through the chair, a question for staff on that issue. This is a city deferral, so that does allow this board one deferral in the future, correct? That is correct. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chair, is there a way, this is for staff, so they just brought a petition, I'm not sure how many people signed, that once the outreach is decided, we can share with them?

I think we're going to let them, yeah.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Henrietta Schwarz, and I live at 2627 South Bayshore Drive. I'm here to not only ask you to defer this, but to also, as Andy Parrish said, to work with the commission to not put this through. This doesn't benefit neighborhoods. There are specific certain neighborhoods in this city that are beautiful. They're magnificent. They're jewels. And this kind of transfer of credit is just gonna mutate as we all know, as every one of these little loopholes has mutated into something that has destroyed neighborhoods. And I would ask that, SB 180, the item that got slipped in that made this happen There's some contention there about it. So wouldn't it be up to this board to say to the commission, hey, you know, there's a procedural error on the item in the SB 180, and maybe we should pause and take a look at it and defer maybe as, you know, a year, whatever it takes. But why are you pushing through something that neighborhoods don't want, the people don't want, the residents are begging the planning and zoning board to actually fight for residents, for us, for our quality of life. Because shoving bigger and bigger and bigger buildings into areas that can't even move at nine or five o'clock in the day What's going to happen when there's a hurricane and you need to evacuate? Will the planning and zoning board stand up to the city and say, hey, it was us who put all those buildings in there and put you in harm's way? That's what I'm asking. I'm asking you to consider the residents before the developers. We would appreciate it.

If you could just speak into the microphone.

I live at 2811 South Bayshore Drive.

You have to speak into the... Together.

We understand you want to defer, and that's fine, but we have a petition we would like to give to the group to look at that talks about how we all feel and we respectfully request from the city of Miami so it was signed by a number of people in our buildings and we would like to share this with the committee I think just hand it over to the attorney that'd be fine or yeah

And they'll get that to us.

Mr. Chair, I have a question regarding that. Does that have like the email addresses or contact information for the people that signed it? Because I know we're going to do some outreach instead of that might be a great place to start to make sure that they are aware of the outreach.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone. Jeff Taylor. I live here in Coconut Grove on Florida Avenue. I am also in support of deferral, provided it provides the city with enough time to work through the issues with NCDs, which is the big question that we've been working through with Commissioner Impardo's office. So more time to get it right for the NCDs. I support deferral. Thank you.

My name is Elisa Margulies. I live at 33 Rice Street in Center Grove, and I would also like to ask for a deferral As you can see, you had quite a turnout tonight. So you know that the NCD is not happy with this legislation as written. So we're really hoping you guys go back to the drawing board and work it out. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Daniel Celentano. I live at 2831 South Bayshore Drive. I support the deferral, but only on the condition that we receive all the residents that are going to be effective a white paper that lays out the pros and cons and the parties who have advocated for this. I want to see absolutely more disclosure than I've seen. I think this is of tremendous importance to where we live. I am concerned. I'll share with you directly now, even though I know we're not talking about substance. I am very concerned, and I think others are, that this is a very undemocratic approach to dealing with development.

But you are in favor of deferral. Okay. Deferral. Anyone else on the deferral? Okay. I'll move it to defer. There's one more public comment. This is on the deferral.

Pamela Rose, 2821. Bayshore, and we're already impacted greatly in the neighborhood by just all the construction disruption the past couple years. We've lost our sidewalks. We have a lot of environmental pollution and other things going on, traffic. And I would like the committee to consider that we understand the value of the land and the motivation of the developers to build as much as they possibly can build but it also has a huge impact on us. And I think that we should maintain whatever the original zoning was and enforce it. So the deferral makes sense. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Chris Ann Ernst. I live at 2831 South Bay Shore. I just wanted to echo everything that the people prior to me have said and just ask that this deferral is not yet another deferral that kicks the can down the road yet again without a substantive conclusion on what seems to be an error in the first place. If you ever tried to make a right turn out of the parking lot in my community, it takes me 10 minutes to even have a good-natured soul make me able to enter the traffic. And I myself have seen people without crosswalks, say, in front of Seidel's going into the well. get hit, or not get hit, but potentially get hit, moms with baby strollers, and the impact of the valet right in front of Coco's, how anyone is expecting us to get down the street to Southwest 27th, the main thoroughfare, is beyond me, because as a practical matter, if you guys sat there at the intersection for just 10 minutes, you'd see what it is that concerns us most. So we appreciate you really giving this some consideration, and I hope that when we're all back here on April 1st, that there's actually some work to our benefit being done. Thanks. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Robert Crapsy. I live at 3229 Mary Street. My backyard is the well development. Right on the other side of my wall is a 10-foot hole, as well as a concrete plant currently. So I have a real vested interest in this. Also, every morning when I pull out of our parking garage at Mason Grove, I can't see to the left. I can't see oncoming traffic. There's a 15-foot wall that now blocks our sidewalk. I'm in favor for deferral as long as another clerical error doesn't happen in the meantime that allows for bonus height loophole, just like the last one. So I'm for deferral, but I want to have notice ahead of time I want to make sure that there's not another issue that can be exploited for another three stories plus.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Melanie Schoeninger. I live at 3242 Mary Street, and I'm for a deferral. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening. My name is Bernard Sucher. I live at 2821 South Bayshore Drive. I too am in favor of the deferral. And I hope that this board, which has tremendous responsibility for many, many people for years to come, will recognize that the feeling here is an opportunity to make this entire process more transparent, make it something more democratic and representative of the community that you are here to serve. Thank you, and good luck.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Fabio Ianelli, 3404 Poinciana Avenue, and I also represent the Four Way Lodge Homeowners Association as a president. And I've come here, again, also in agreement with most of the other people here, asking for a deferral on this matter. And yes, I think that, amongst other things, I've been to several Commission meetings in the past, and one of the key things, I think, especially when dealing with two different set of representatives, is the kicking back and forth on deferrals. So I think that there needs to be more transparency on that. The other big thing is regarding the NCD and making sure that all the work that has been done in years past in trying to retain the neighborhood conservation districts two and three are retained and upheld as best possible. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Vicky Perla and my husband and I, Paul Guajardo, live at 2811 South Bayshore Drive.

Sorry, can you hear me now?

Okay, sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you all for the work you do. We both agree with the deferral request. We know there is going to be a long line of other developments that follow this one. We know of buildings that have already been purchased. And so this is the tipping point that's already tipped. And so it would be only fair to really proceed with care and include the residents because it is everything everyone said about the difficulty of getting around. just for safety. Safety, driving, walking your dog, worrying about ambulances, fire trucks, getting through. It is really concerning. Thank you. We vote to defer.

Thank you. Okay. Bring it back to the board. Move to defer to April 1st. Second. I think we'll do a roll call.

Roll call. Calling members Mario Bailey.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling members, I'm sorry, Joseph Corral. Calling member Maria Paula de Corrales. Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Calling member Lynette Cardoche. Thank you. Calling chair Adam Gersten. Yes. And calling vice chair Andres Lopez. Yes. Okay. This passes by a vote of eight to zero.

Thank you. Deferred till April 1st. Thank you. Mr. Chair, we do have three more deferrals.

Yes.

Item four, five, and six. Item four is for 3100 Monroe Drive. It's for an exception. Item five is for 1662 Northwest First Street. This is for a variance. And item six is for an exception for a major use special permit for 2505 North Miami Avenue. And these are all requested to date certain for April 1st.

Okay.

Can we do them as a group? Yes. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on any of these items? Four, five, or six? Okay. Okay, no one, then.

Motions are deferred, four, five, and six.

We have a motion.

Second to April 1st.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Motion passes.

Calling members Mario Bailey.

Yes.

Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Calling member Joseph Corral. Calling member Maria Paula De Corrales. Yes. Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Thank you. And calling Chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Thank you. It passes by a vote of eight to zero. All right. Okay. I'll go ahead and call item one. Okay. Okay. calling PZAB item 1, file ID 17940, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board recommending to the Miami City Commission approval of an ordinance amending ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 code by amending article 6 titled Supplemental Regulations, specifically section 6.1 titled Intent and exclusions, table 13 to modify the permitting process for food service establishments and to clarify the permitting process for alcohol service establishments and by amending article 6.3 titled commercial uses to clarify and update outdoor dining regulations and to allow outdoor dining by right in specified locations when, I'm sorry, when scale and design criteria are met, making findings containing a severability clause, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you, Melanie. Good evening. My name is Mawuzi Watson. I'm the Chief of Land Development. I'm doing this presentation as well as Graham Jones, the Assistant Director of Planning. We're bringing this item back from February the 18th meeting. Particularly, we're bringing it back because this board asked us to re-evaluate four specific things. The first was to see if there was a way that we can make approvals by right if they weren't offering any noise outside. The second was specifically for small-scale outdoor dining that instead of us having a distance requirement of 150 feet to reduce it to 75, the third was to make Any outdoor dining that was proposed in the industrial zones to be by right, no matter what it was abutting or anything. And the last request was that for food service establishments, they should be able to go by right, but not if they're associated with an alcohol service establishment. So this project, the reform of the legislation specifically, is to modernize our standards, to make it easier for our applicants, for our staff to approve these types of permits. I mean, as we know now, we have some challenges. Delays in outdoor dining can significantly impact business owners by delaying their paying rent, but they're not able to necessarily have the operation fully up and running. So the goal is to alleviate those kinds of considerations, to support small businesses, but also to prevent losses of businesses. So at this point, I'm going to pass it over to Graham, and he's going to talk about the proposed amendments as well as show you graphically what we're discussing tonight.

Good evening, Board. Graham Jones, Assistant Director of Planning. I said this last time we were here. I want to thank again staff for their work and efforts in preparing this. They've done additional outreach. They've tried to respond to your concerns. It's improved the legislation, I believe, since last time. So I want to say thank you for your suggestions. And, you know, we took them seriously. Appreciate also the efforts of working with zoning to ensure it's a collaborative effort. and when we come to implementation, it does so effectively. I'd like to welcome a new board member. I'm going to go through the presentation again. Not everything in this much detail, but certainly so you can be brought up to speed with what we're proposing this evening. So, just to mention, there were general standards in the legislation currently, the existing legislation. These standards we've looked at, reviewed and rewritten in a slightly more, I think, user-friendly manner. And we've clarified some of the aspects of concerns, such as the need to ensure that the walkway within the waterfront is maintained, that we don't encroach on that, that we've reiterated the need to remove tables and chairs when there's an emergency notification. We've clarified those locations by which outdoor dining can be placed. And we've also, in a later piece, clarified the parking aspects of this proposal. So we've tried to bring back the general standards in a slightly more easier format for people to implement. We know that parking was raised as a concern in the last meeting. REVIEWED WHAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY AND INTRODUCED A NEW SECTION. SO WE'RE NOW SAYING OUTDOOR DINING SHALL REQUIRE PARKING PER THIS CODE WHEN ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR YOUR OUTDOOR DINING have all three of these applied to your proposal. So if you're not located in the TOD or transit corridor, you have more than 50 seats being proposed and there are more seats provided outside than inside. So these kind of proposals for outdoor dining now won't require additional parking per the code. So again, for the smaller scale kind of outdoor dining, we don't require additional parking in addition to your restaurant. These are again following on from that some of the general standards we've ensured that We always maintain a six foot sidewalk at all times that we don't have Barriers or planters and things like that they encroach into that six foot sidewalk we've also added a general condition that's that that reiterates the need for a refuse containers, outdoor speakers, ingress-egress to be done in a way that mitigates noise, smell and visual ambient effects on neighbours. That's a general consideration. And we've also reiterated, obviously, the noise ordinances in Chapter 36, alcohol and the provisions of Certificate of Use in Chapter 2. So, in one specific area of the Code, you can find everything you need to know about outdoor dining. So you'll be aware that within the code, there was existing buy right opportunities, but they're only limited to the downtown area within the DDA. So a big part of this was to increase the opportunities to go buy right for outdoor dining without removing the opportunities for a warrant. So this is us saying, if you meet the following design criteria, you mitigate the neighborhood concerns around these things so you can go effectively buy right. you have to be wholly contained within the first and second layer. That means you can't put anything by right in the rear of the property, always has to be on the street and on the frontages. Secondly, it has to be placed on the ground floor. It's not rooftop or anything upwards of the building. So we know the only, I think, appeal we've ever had was something on a rooftop. But in any case, it seems correct and right that neighbours are notified if something's going on the roof above you so that they're aware and also then land development team can consider how that might impact the neighbours and so forth. The third general rule is that it shall not be located with the Miami Modern Memo Biscayne Boulevard Historic District. That's an existing provision in the code that we haven't touched. So if you do all those three things, then you can meet one of the following scales. You can go by right. So what are the scales that we're now talking about? We still have the four grades, micro, small, medium, and large. So the first one is micro, which gives you up to 10 seats anywhere within the city. If you're a button T3, you can't do music or amplify noise. So if you, in the by right proposal, you state that you're not going to do noise or you're going to keep the volume down, in terms of the usage, then you can go by right. So that provisions only when you're abutting T3. Otherwise, you can do 10 seats anywhere in the city, 10 seats anywhere within the city. Small, you can go up to 20 seats, except when abutting T3. So you can't do, you can do 20 seats anywhere, outdoor dining anywhere in the city, except when abutting T3. And then you're effectively pushed back into the micro, level of 10 seats if you're a budding T3. Then there's the medium, which we are proposing you can do up to 50 seats, based on our analysis, it seems like a very moderate kind of proposal, but you have to be within one of those locations, within a TOD, directly fronting a thoroughfare that qualifies as a transit corridor, within the DDA area, the urban centre, central business district, within a specialty district, within an entertainment district, or within a D1 and D2. The one caveat here with this is that you have to be greater than 153 feet from a T3 transit zone. If you stay in your permit and proposal, you're not playing music, you can go within 75 feet of a t3 so again I think we're responding a lot to board member Bailey's proposals to try and you know if we if there's no music or outdoor noise then we can expand some of the provisions on that I know We appreciate that feedback on that aspect. So hopefully that's created a little bit more flexibility by introducing that. And finally, you can go larger, obviously over 50 seats, but you need to go by warrant. So provided you comply with all this design criteria, you can go by right. Let me just break that down just really quickly because we've done the work. So again, by right. by right up to 20 seats, except when abutting a T3 transect zone. This should say, this one. So if you look at the diagram here, you know why I've jumped over one, that's why it's not right. Okay, perfect. I was like, give me a heart attack with that diagram. So you can go micro up to 10 seats, but if you're a budding T3, you cannot do outdoor music or loud noise. So if you look at the diagram that's pictured here, we've got a diagram that's showing T5, T6 development adjacent to both T4R and also adjacent to T3. So it's showing here you can do 10 seats on the front of those bottom right parcels or on the side here. but you can't play music because both those properties about t3 the one on the bottom left you can do ten seats again and you can play music because it's not in that case a bunning t3 what does ten seats look like it's you know this is a illustration that our colleagues put together it's trying to show you the scale of around ten seats we're trying to demonstrate that if you're in this space It's a very calm space. It's within perhaps lower scale, lower density neighborhoods. It's generally less offensive. The architectures purposely made calmer here to prove a point, but this is how we feel that an outdoor dining area of around 10 seats with no music is gonna feel. It's very pleasant, very suburban, and generally doesn't cause any challenges for neighbors. Moving on to the small category, you can do up to 20 seats in this case, but not when you're abiding to a T3. If you're abutting T3, you can only do up to 10 and you have to go back to the micro level if you're going by right. So again, this is showing here in the blue what 20 seats looks like when it abuts T4R. In the bottom right, it's saying because those properties abut T3, they can only go up to 10 seats as shown on the previous diagram. So moving on, this is again another illustration. It's trying to depict, you know, as we increase in density and urbanism, as we get closer to more central, kind of more built-up areas, that, you know, the architecture changes. It's a little bit more aggressive, a bit more fun and vibrant. And the people kind of are responding to that kind of look and feel. You can see the additional seats there fit in with a more kind of urban, vibrant kind of neighbourhood. Finally, then by right, we have a medium category. This is when we get up into the more kind of urban kind of restaurants and they have a bit more kind of coordinated, active, kind of vibrant kind of feel about them. It's still not super large by any stretch of the imagination, but it's giving you up to 50 seats, which is quite commonly what you see in Brickell on the street within these kind of more urban neighborhoods. They have to be located within the specified areas, which I'll mention in the next slide. But importantly, we've put in two protections here. If you want to go by right up to 50 seats, you have to be greater than T3 transit zone. You can go up to 75, a bit closer, 75 feet if you agree to not play music. So you're in one of these central kind of vibrant kind of specialty districts, but you're still protecting the T3 without overstepping, I guess. These are the districts that we've pulled out within a TOD area, directly fronting a thoroughfare that qualifies as a transit corridor within the DDA, which is existing, the urban central business district, a specialty district, which has already set a principle for entertainment and kind of those kind of things. And also within a D1 and D2 transit zone. The map there shows those districts and areas, you know, the legend speaks for itself there. The blue is obviously the TOD network. So, keep going, keep going. So again, like we tried to illustrate this showing like a more intense kind of vibrant neighborhood, the architecture becomes more kind of impressive, more formalized, the people there, there's more people around, and then the outdoor dining seats kind of fit in with that kind of vibe of, you know, fun and activity and noise and music and those kind of things. So, you know, everything is scaled according to the neighborhood that we're thinking about. This hasn't changed from last time. These again are to help applicants with, you know, restaurants and things understand what the provisions of the code are, what needs to be done. It's all in one place. The important thing is that we haven't taken away anyone's rights. They can still go by warrant if they so wish to do so. This I mentioned before, these are really about clarifications and updating cross-references. And then Melissa is just going to talk very briefly about the impact on her team and the next step in this program of work.

So again, the question really is, you know, we're proposing these adjustments to our current legislation. What is the impact? And before when we came, we had less data. You know, we added...

from, did we do five years before?

So we had one year, now we have five years worth of data. With the one year when we applied the Well, we had did multiple things. I'm sorry, but with the one that we did in the 18th of February, we were able to get 21% of the warrants removed and they would be right by right. So with the new changes, it's going to be 30%. So we're able to increase another 9%. The data is showing that what would not have made it go by right is the seating count, putting it in the third layer, and other considerations like the location, like if it's in the TOD or if it's in another specialty district that might have knocked it out. So the next steps, if you choose to move this legislation proposal, the next steps is to go to city commission. We're gonna focus on the other improvements that we were talking about and discussing, like the overall warrant process, entitlement process. How do we streamline that and make it easier for staff and for businesses? We also wanna have a cheat sheet. for our applications to make it easier for applicants to be able to understand what is required of them in the process. And then we're going to monitor this. We're going to see if the improvements that we're making are making a significant difference. Like, we just don't want to do something and not see it really have the kind of impact that we want. And if it's not having that impact, then we'll bring it back and we'll consider it and see if there's other adjustments that we have to make. Thank you very much for your time. And we're ready for any questions that you have.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I just want to thank you for taking our conversation and adding it to the new proposal. Also, thank you for sending out the presentation early so I got a chance to review it before I came in. So that was very helpful. Thank you. You're welcome.

We would like to do it even earlier than that, but we did the best we could.

thank you uh the first time we heard this we i think we discussed it for two hours and as i remember uh the the main stumbling block that i remember was the 150 foot rule abutting t3 um i didn't i may have missed it in this presentation but did you if that was i think that was one of them one of the main reasons that we deferred it but i don't see that addressed here uh I mean, we're all for streamlining this process. I've talked to many, many developers and even just homeowners who want stuff done. And we're all for streamlining the process. But what's been done? I hope this board doesn't begin discussing the 150-foot rule by T3 again. What did you do to help us there?

The concern around the 150 feet was one, it was complex to administer to begin with. We also were applying it to what we considered to be actually in practice quite moderate levels of outdoor dining. So what we were trying to think about was the fact that these uses are established. You can have a restaurant and an alcohol service establishment by right on these lots. What we're regulating here is purely the outdoor dining component. So what we went back and looked at was, to begin with, we were regulating against T3 and T4. WHERE WE'RE SAYING, WELL, ACTUALLY, THESE KIND OF USES ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED KIND OF WITHIN A T4 KIND OF ENVIRONMENT. YOU HAVE TO BE IN A T4 LRO TO BE ABLE TO DO THESE THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THAT KIND OF RULED IT OUT IN THOSE AREAS. SO WHY WOULD WE CREATE BUFFERS AROUND T4? SO WE TOOK THAT OUT AND FOCUSED A LITTLE BIT MORE ON T3. So then we said, well, OK, so you can have a legal, you can have a T4 property next to a T3. That T4 property might just be like an ice cream shop or a bakery. And they might just want to have, you know, two tables outside. does that really have any impact on the T3 next door adjacent? So we said, well, probably not. If you're going to say you're going to do no music, it's really just saying, you know, you've got a bakery and you put a couple of chairs outside. So we removed any kind of buffer around T3 when you're just doing 10 seats outside. only if you do no music for that. We then looked at the small and said, okay, we'll take away the 150 feet, but if you are abutting T3, because now you're doing 20 seats, five tables, you can't do it, you have to go by Warren. So we still try to maintain protections when it abuts T3, but just really focus it more on where we think the real impact is, and that's when you get up to 20 seats, not the 10. Excuse me. And so forth. So that's where we went with it. Thank you. Sorry.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Sorry for interrupting. No. Because I just think it's inappropriate. My recollection is we went through the entire... I can't quite... My recollection is we went through a very long presentation. A lot of questions were asked. And then at the very end, some of these things were commented on. And I think I said, others said, those are major impact sort of things or items that we're trying to propose. It's 11 o'clock at night. In two hours, let's talk about it at the next meeting, not implement it at the next meeting. We haven't talked about any of this stuff as far as my recollection was. I don't remember saying, hey, let's put those changes in and vote on them.

There's a difference there.

There is a difference.

Wait, let me finish.

So there's a difference there, and I just think it...

I mean, it's always about, I mean, I think we got to take more time without being anti-everything and consider the residents rather than always offering more and more for the business community. They can both, but again, we never, I don't think anybody said, let's come, let's just put those things in and we're going to vote on it. It was not, am I correct?

If I can, well, just. None of this stuff was discussed. I mean, I'm happy to reply.

Well, it was well into the, it was too late to start talking about such impactful changes.

Yes or no? Well, I mean, I'm going to answer. What I recall is that we did have a long, the presentation was made longer by the amount of questions asked. And within some of those questions, we started to go, we started having discussions sort of on each of the questions that came up. And that's, and then we sort of at the end gave directives for them to come back with sort of absorbing the comments that, I mean, you know, in other words, like, for example, the discussion, we got into the conversation about, Emperor Bailey said, well, you know, what if we tried something that had no music? But I think it's totally normal at every meeting that if there's a deferral and we come back, we have, I mean, that's what we're doing now. We're having a discussion about these things. But just to answer your question, we did have back and forth, and the board members interacted with each other and with the staff as we went through the points. That's why it went on so long.

I disagree. I remember specifically, I remember specifically because I brought it up, it's like, What we're talking about right now are major changes to this. No, I remember you saying that. Can you tell me specifically what the changes are?

I don't think I misunderstood what you said and the board directed us to do at the last meeting. You directed us to go and study certain aspects of the legislation, to do analysis, bring forward another proposal, I can tell you, we don't blindly take ideas from the board without analysing them, bringing back them without justification and with confidence that it was the right thing to do. I'm saying to you today, we took forward your recommendation and direction to go away and study it. I think through that process, we think the legislation's improved, it's simplified, the language is better, it still creates protections around T3. It increases the capacity of land development team to not work on routine applications. It increases the chief's opportunity to focus on warrants that really impact the neighbours rather than us to process. So I take your point. I didn't take it as a direction to do something. It was a direction to go and study. And I brought it back, I think, in an improved manner because of that. So I appreciate the comments you made last night.

I'll say it again. Can you go through specifically what the changes were from what was presented at the last meeting to what the current legislations are? Can you do it just in a more bullet point type of a way?

Sure, we can do that. So this slide shows what was here before. So before we had the same kind of categories, although we boxed them in, where now we're saying a little bit clearer language. You can go up to 10 Cs, up to 20, up to 50, and now up to 50 and beyond for the large. So we've changed the language a little bit so that it's clearer what you can do when you meet the criteria.

So whatever you think are the most significant.

That's the first thing we did. The second thing we did.

I don't understand what you just said then.

The second thing we did was, if you look at the micro level, now instead of...

Sorry, I don't understand the first thing you did. I'm sorry, what's the first thing we did?

The first thing we changed the language and made it a little bit more simpler. So we've said you can go up to 10 if you meet the criteria associated with it. Whereas before, we were kind of saying you're either in one category or the next category or the next category. So just language-wise and communication, I think we've tried to make it simpler. It's just words, but that's what we've done, first of all.

Doesn't change anything, the first?

doesn't change anything, but the language is clear.

So then we've said in the micro... Sorry, just to be fair, it does make it less subject to back-and-forth interpretation.

Sure, it makes the language clearer. It's clearer, more plain language. 100%. Second thing we did was in the micro. Here it says when the lot abuts the T3 or T4 transect zone, the outdoor dining shall only be located along a principal frontage. So we've changed that from being just along the principal frontage. It can now be on a principal or secondary if you don't play music. So you can be a bud in the T3 and you can put it on either side and if you don't play music. So that's one change we made. We also took out the requirement on T4R. So now it's only when you're a bud in T3. The rationale behind that, I apologize, is that you can create, it's a valid legal use for a restaurant or a bar to be in a T4L and all, provided you get the other permits. We didn't think it was reasonable then to restrict it when you're buying a T4R, which is a three-story building, more urban. If you're in that kind of property in a T4R and you're next to a restaurant, it's almost expected that you could have like 10 seats outside the front of it without any really major concerns. So that's one change.

T4R, the change was?

Just took it out.

So T4R, if you're abutting T4R, could be any size?

You can do up to 10 seats. Up to 10 seats? Yeah. Now we move on to the next category.

That's it, I'm sorry, just 10 seats.

Actually up to 20, because you're now conforming to the next category. So we removed the... See that?

I mean, 10, 20, that's a big difference.

Okay, I'm going through each of the categories.

It's always better to see it in writing. I'd like to see something... a red line, so to make, again, I wanna make, I'm here spending my time. For me, I like to see things clearly stated, a red line, that I can see what was proposed before, what's proposed now, and how we got to the point.

So I'm going through one by one. We can come back.

But this is so easy to get confused. When you say 10, then it's really 20. And that is not against you, but you can't remember it.

Let me go through each of the categories. I'm happy to spend as much time that we need to go through the legislation so you fully understand it and you know what you're voting on. I can come back and go through it one by one again if that helps you. So the next category is...

it doesn't help you if hearing it verbally, it helps you seeing it clearly. All right.

So, so here's, here's, here's what I, what I recommend.

I don't think that's me just being, I know.

No, listen, I think, I think it's fair that everybody has a different way to absorb. I, I, I understand it visually.

Call me the low bar. No, not even.

I just think, I think some people were visual. They have to, like he said, the red, see the red line. So I think, uh, the toggling back and forth is helpful. I, I, want to accommodate everybody's, you know.

Listen, I'm not going to continue to serve on this board if I'm being asked to vote on things that I don't have clear understanding on. I've done it already for a year, and I'm holding firm. In order for me to be able to make a recommendation, you know, toggling back and forth in my brain doesn't fly.

It doesn't work for me. Okay, so here's the thing. We let's go back to the beginning here really quick. You guys came back with what we the board asked you to come back with and this was disseminated to the board with the changes and I think we have to get through this now, at least in discussion, because it's in front of us. It was presented prior to the meeting. If it hadn't been presented prior to the meeting, I think it would be a slightly different conversation. But to be fair to both, I think we've got to, if Graham is explaining something, and you want it explained again, I think that's reasonable. Please don't, this is the thing, don't interrupt, please. Okay, so I know that we have the ability between everyone that's here and I think the patience to go through, if anyone has any questions about this, it's totally reasonable to get it right and for each board member to say, okay, I do understand this now. Because nothing here, we're not doing algebra, but yes, it can be confusing when we talk about what was and what is 10 and 20. But you got to let, I think, Graham finish. And then if you like can narrow down and say this specifically is what I do not understand, give him the opportunity. to try again, because to just throw up our hands and say, well, you know, because the work's been done. But I totally understand what you're saying, because I am the same way. I have to see sometimes side by side.

I'll say one thing. I don't think the board directed, I don't think we ever discussed, for example, removing, and I'm not saying I'm for or against removing the T3 buffer entirely, but that was not discussed at the last meeting. That was not discussed. It was not discussed about the T4R being removed. None of that was discussed. Again, I'll go back to what I said at the beginning. It was at the end, those things were being thrown out after two hours, and it was decided that those are so impactful that we're going to defer this and discuss it. No, we never, does anybody else recall discussing the T3 and the T4 removal of the buffer? Excuse me.

I'm new, so pardon my ignorance. Maybe I'm not understanding what the issue is since I wasn't here the last time. But I think I'm hearing that there were items discussed. very capable staff went back and took advice and started to integrate. I think that's what we all want, is a city staff that is listening and is not necessarily asking, what do you want me to do for every step? So if I'm misunderstanding what the concern may be, So, thank you. I appreciate that you're not asking us to do, you know, step one, two, and three. So, I think there may have been something in what you're saying that I'm not, that I'm misunderstanding. And then the second part, I fully understand that you're, that having redlined items is sometimes very, you know, very useful to be able to see the change. I myself didn't know what the changes are, so sure. But with the information that's presented, what's the object, which is the objection on the item, so that I could better understand and see where it is that you're coming from? Because right now, I feel a little bit like , I'm not really understanding what it is that your concern really is, other than it's not redlined. And I think that's valid. So is there an objection to the actual criteria? Over.

I mean, I'll go back to what I said. We didn't discuss these changes. A lot of these were not discussed. So it wasn't like... I don't remember there being a mandate to make these five changes. That's not what happened.

At the last meeting, we asked for additional time. There was... a laundry list of things that you guys discussed. And there was some direction that was given to staff to go back and study those items. And then to come back with a new piece of legislation after we studied those items. I don't think we said that, yes, we were going to make changes or no, we weren't going to make changes. The idea is that we study those. For example, one of the things that Mr. Bailey said is, can you look at what happens when you don't allow speakers or music outdoors? So we as staff looked and I said, hey, look at this street. If you look at these small outdoor dining venues, actually none of them have speakers. I think he's right. and then we looked at the number of seats for those venues. And so we started doing analysis and going through those items, and we realized that that was a really great idea, and we incorporated it. And that's just an example of the list of things that we looked at. We also looked at the boundaries in terms of how far it was away from T3. We looked at you know, trying to be able to do, one of the requests was how do we allow more to go by right or how do we further push allowing more of these to go by right? Because for small business owners specifically, getting an outdoor dining warrant is incredibly challenging. And when you're trying to carry as a small business owner rent for six, eight, your restaurant is already, especially if you're a local mom and pop shop, is already out of business before you've ever started by getting an outdoor dining warrant. So we were also challenged with doing that. And we looked at parking. So we were challenged with a lot of things and are balancing all of them in an effort to bring you a piece of legislation that works best for our neighborhoods and our small businesses. and that's what we've incorporated into the piece of legislation that is in front of you. If there's something that you disagree with, I think that you can say, I disagree with this item, and I would recommend denial of this based on this item, or I would recommend approval, provided that this piece of the legislation is changed.

Just to go back, I mean, We are being presented with new version of legislation. And it is, we are in the discussion mode right now. So I think the point that you could also look at this and just read this today as it is and say this particular This particular thing doesn't sit right with me for X reason so that there can be a discussion on how we can improve on that. Because even if we have a discussion today, we would still then have to send them back with changes. We can't just say, well, I don't know, I'm like, you know, this is the second discussion. So I think everybody just wants something to act.

Can we get through the five? So the first one was T3, we removed the buffer for restaurants that don't have music. The second one is T4R is allowed on the secondary street at all levels, or what's the restriction on T4R on the secondary street?

How did that end up? That's in the micro, that's what we did. We allowed it now in both primary and secondary. There was never a buffer on the first one. The buffer was in the slightly larger one, the small. That buffer was removed and replaced with, if it's a bun in T3, you have to go by warrant. So we removed the buffer for the small ones. And now we have a buffer in the sense that if it's a bun in T3, you can't go by right. You have to go through a warrant process. The buffer remains in the medium one. When you're up to now between 20 and 50 seats in these locations, if you're within 150 feet of a T3 transit zone, you have to go by warrant. If you do know music to the consideration that was put forward to us before, you can also go by right. So the buffer was focused more in the medium and was removed from The micro and small, the small was just left with not a button T3. So that's how we simplified the language. We've focused the buffer more on the larger ones. And we also added in the music to allow us to do that, the no music.

That was number two.

I'm sorry?

That was number two of the five changes that we were.

I don't know which one it was, but that's what we looked at and we considered and we brought back to you today.

Again, I just want to understand what's changed from the last one to this one.

Sure, I understand. That's it. That's it? Yeah. That's what we did.

I heard mentioned there was five things that were changed.

I mean, there was a list and we've, you know, once you mentioned earlier, so we looked at the whole piece of legislation again, to be fair, including those kind of considerations. We have to look at the piece as a whole, not just your singular recommendations, and that's where we got to.

Okay, real quick, let me just go one more, because we only have one person left, and then we'll come back.

Okay, through the chair. Yeah, first I wanted to...

Sorry, Pata, can you speak into the microphone?

Yes, sorry. So first, to my recollection of what happened last time, I think it's difficult for board members sometimes to receive new legislation and that it's not ahead of time. So I think one of the things that... the board member requested was that we will receive the presentations which we did for this meeting ahead of time so that we can review them prior to the meeting and become more familiar and have questions and not be asking back and forth. So we're committed to doing that.

The legislation to be clear was advertised a week in advance.

Just recapping on what I remember which happened for this meeting. And, yes, I was also trying to figure out what were the changes from the last proposal to this one. But are we discussing the item now?

Is this – can we – are we in the process?

Okay. So one of the questions that I have regarding this item is that I'm thinking about adaptive reuse. which I think these suffer the most. They're really mom and pop shops, small, maybe 50 by 100 lots, adaptive reuse. I'm thinking Southwest 12th Street, I'm thinking Coral Way, where these restaurants are typically built to the property line. So I wanted to ask if there has been any consideration only for the micro and small to be allowed in the third layer as well, the outdoor dining, providing only for micro and small, so they stay small, providing that it is not abiding at T3 and there's no music amplified. knowing the hardships of these very small, and I'm thinking 12 Provisiones, for example. I don't know if you've been there on 12. It has a very small backyard, which is amazing.

So let's say it's T4, T5, it's two stories, the building is already there. One story. Either way, yeah, one or two stories. You're saying it would have to abut another T4 or a lot of... And in the rear, you could put a limited amount. I mean, we haven't gone there anywhere with the rear right now. Like, we... put it more on the front because there's already noise activity, people walking past, any kind of disturbance is kind of already, your front is already kind of disturbed. In the rear, your neighbors are generally more protected, more peaceful, quiet spaces, and you haven't got, it's not just your friends and family going out into the rear, you're inviting people off the street into the rear to sit in those tables, enjoy that space. Thinking on the spot here, weighing it up, that might still be a case when you might want to do a warrant, assuming we can speed up the warrant process and so forth, right? The cost. Yeah, absolutely, and the cost. So at this moment, whenever we talked and discussed about doing anything in the rear, we were like, is that one step too far in this moment? Maybe this is enough for now, we can monitor it and then bring it back. So that's where our thinking was on anything in the rear.

And my question is also based on the list of applicants. I was trying to read quickly, but then the slide shifted. How many of these cases would you see that apply? Like how many circumstances would you see that some, zero, four, many?

Give me the information in my earpiece here. We think in the last five years, it's around eight more that probably would have been caught if we had added in a provision around the rear to allow it by right.

So maybe it's a two-step process. The first one is to do a pilot with this, keep that in mind, and maybe you can amend it later on. Because I think this will open the door for a number of small, which is exactly what we're trying to achieve.

When we spoke to stakeholders about this, they also put the point that, you know, in the rear, it could be an internal courtyard, it could be walled, and so forth. Now, the only challenge around that is, by right, it needs to be very straightforward. You know, it can't really be, like, how big is the wall, how thick is the wall, is it a fence, is it how enclosed is the courtyard? You know, I think for us, we hadn't done that analysis to see how easy it was to... you know, validate that it's by right. So if we do it by one, it gives us an opportunity to, we can still approve it, but we can validate what the circumstances and conditions are in the rear so that it doesn't cause unintended harm to the neighbors. But I do believe it's something we can, we should keep in mind.

Maybe it's not even just a T3, it's a T3 and a T4. So it's not allowed when abutting T3 and T4, and you only allow it for T5 and T6, so there's more protection.

Right, where you think there's more people generally in the back and so forth.

Commercial, right. Yeah, I agree. So I would, you know, encourage it because micro is super small.

So, I mean, we can either bring it back a step two or, you know, obviously you can make a condition of that if you wanted us to do it between now and city commission. That's your purview.

And then what happened, I was very concerned. There's no overlap with the alcohol services because that's one of the areas that I was concerned about. When you throw alcohol and doing it by right...

We looked at that, we determined that both those uses, so both those uses are already established in the building before you can even do the outdoor dining. So to start to say that putting tables and chairs outside somehow is different between the two when we've already allowed them, the uses inside the building was maybe a bit too much for us. Okay, thank you. Member Bailey?

Sure. Board Member Carroll asked a question like, what do we kind of remember? So based on my understanding when we left, we presented like suggested changes, and I thought they were incorporated, bring it back to us, and then we kind of discuss it and decide what we like, what we don't, and take it out and take it in. And so three things that were mentioned was the 75 and 50 feet, and that was the chair, parking, and also the noise. And so I was happy with the changes that you made, I was happy that you sent the presentation today so I can look over it. But I do understand his frustration. Most of the terms, like for me, I'm completely new to zoning, planning, and appeals. So a lot of terminology I don't know. And so I've been purchasing books. I've invested in classes. And so I'm learning. And so as soon as you can get the additional information to us, like it's greatly appreciated. Because just reading the resolution is harder to grasp. But once we see your actual presentation, like it really helped us to kind of get through the information. So I definitely understand his frustration.

I will always take feedback on how we can more effectively present this board. We will always, always do that. To be fair to staff on this, the presentation that they put together before you is leaps and bounds from what we were presenting to this board. like a couple of years ago, like the renderings, the graphics, the cleanness of that. So I can only commend my staff for doing that. Now, if we can always improve and do better, I will always take feedback. I'm humble enough to do that. What I would say is that we bring to this board affirm what we believe resolution for you to approve or to amend through conditions we don't bring two resolutions where you choose we have to bring a resolution that is what staff are recommending approval on and that's what we have to do and you vote yes or no on that you vote yes with conditions so it can't be like I can give bring you a palette of choices that we have to bring what we recommend as being the way forward on this policy. You can amend it to go back to what it was before or add in T4R or, you know, if we went too far, say we went too far and we can bring it back between now and City Commission. But I'm confident here with my professional opinion. This is a good piece of legislation. I think it achieves the goals. I think it's going to help small restaurants not spend a lot of money waiting for us to process warrants. and they can get these small businesses open very quickly. So standing here, this is my professional opinion. This is the best piece of legislation in its current form for this topic. I have a follow-up.

So we are tasked with voting, and it affects the entire community. And we want to feel responsible when we vote, like we're doing the right things. And so it's very important that we understand the information before we vote because it impacts the entire community. So I think something that you could consider going forward, maybe having office hours before the meeting so we can actually ask questions or agenda review or just something that's helpful for the things that we don't understand before the meeting. But I do like what you brought back. I sift through it, I understand it, and I'm comfortable with the changes. Thank you.

Thank you. I think it's just...

And just in response, if any of you want to speak with staff, you can email either hearing boards or myself directly and we're happy to set up that meeting one on one between you and staff to receive either that specific briefing on the agenda. I cannot do all of you as a whole because that violates Sunshine Law, but we're happy to do that one on one. I know that various board members have called about various different presentations. or pieces of legislation or applications, and we have set those up one-on-one with the planner that is working on that. So anytime that you want that, just please reach out, and we can make that happen.

I will follow up. I've reached out before, and I haven't been able to get a sit-down, but I will follow up, yeah.

Well, there's just the one very important thing that was brought up only a few times, but that the chart with the page of times, you know, all of these discussions, all of this is incredible. The fact that they've gotten from 20 something to 30% of the past warrants would have gone through this and gone by right. But the other thing is for the neighbors that you know, for the things that are staying within the warrant process, it's still critical that the... It's not necessarily the professionals on the staff reviewing it, but it's how many there are and how much time they have. So I think that the biggest thing to take away that I... have learned, or not even learned, what I felt before and still feel, is that a lot of these things that we've had to go through, and they've done a great job coming back and, you know, kind of balancing out all of this stuff, we'd barely be talking about if those processing times were, you know, months and months shorter, you know. But that really comes down to staff. quantities, people, humans. So I think the other big piece of this, and I think something at least from where I stand is if someone made a motion, I would want to direct the Commission to discuss or to have some kind of you know, mandate to, yes, we want to improve these times, but we need to have a certain level of staffing as recommended by staff. Like this is what we need in order to achieve. So it can't just be go make this happen, which does have to happen, right? Because for everyone that the other 70% on that chart still need to go through a warrant and they can't wait a year or nine months or six months or three months really. in a perfect world. And I think that's achievable, but it's only achievable if the correct staff is there in the right places and the right quantities to make it happen. So that would be something I would add, for sure, if anyone makes a motion.

So I mentioned before, the second phase of this program is to focus on process improvements. Morse is, you know, new in her role. She's been in the Chief of Land of Women for one year. A lot of the work that she's been doing has been fantastic in getting through a backlog of work so that we're at least have our head above water so that we can now start addressing improving the timelines and the processes. We needed to create capacity for her to focus on these improvements. That's one of the reasons why we need to at least shift a percentage of them into the buy-right category so that She's spending, and her team is spending time on focusing on warrants that really impact the neighborhood. A second aspect to the program, and what is, like, I've been working with her a year, she's completely committed to doing process improvements to improve efficiencies so that the resources that we have are used effectively. Of course, I'm going to say we need to fill our vacancies. We need to have appropriate resources.

We need to fill our vacancies.

Which we're currently underway with now.

In the process of doing.

The full picture we get, we understand we're starting with outdoor dining because we know how the immediacy of the cost of delay affects the opening of restaurants and bars. Step by step, I think we've got a program, it's project managed, we've got it planned out. We need this step today in order to create the capacity to do phase two. But I'm very happy for you to put it in the condition as a condition so that it helps us with the mandate to focus on this area of work over the next three to six months. Thank you.

We hope that happens.

um do any board members have any questions on the legislation remaining just a general comment general just thank you staff because i do like my line items and i do enjoy downloading legislative packet and seeing all that so just putting on the record i know that takes a lot of time and uh Even through law school, that was a fun read, and now that I'm actually seeing it through, thank you. It takes a while. Thank you.

Yeah, and I just want to say, you know, knowing that you all are spearheading have to this point and will continue pushing all this stuff through. I have a lot of faith and confidence and excitement about what can be done now moving forward that we're catching up and able to actually look ahead and be proactive and not reactive. So it's amazing what you all have done and look forward to, because I know this is, for all the discussion we've had on this one, How many of these have we done so far?

Like eight or ten of the... We're up to, I think, five now through the entire reform program. We're moving into a new program which that will be folded into, but yeah, we've... Felt like eight. I guess it was only five. I don't know. The city commission will process this one and the next two over the next coming weeks. It's been a big effort, but we're...

You guys had 36 code amendments last year. Between Miami 21, the comprehensive plan, and the city code, you guys made recommendations on 36 amendments. That's great.

Well, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Okay. Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Okay, are there any, anybody have any? Second. Second. Yeah, amendments.

Amendments.

I feel like there was maybe... Paola de Corrales, maybe? Member de Corrales, did you have any sort of amendment or anything you were going to...

I feel like there was maybe... What I'm concerned, not concerned, where I see an opportunity is to, and I echo the adaptive reuse, sites where the third layer could be...

We talked about that last week.

For micro and small. Nothing bigger than that, because it's up to 26, right? So it's very few of them, as long as it's in a T5 or higher. So there's no obstruction of noise or...

Okay. T5 when, sorry, T5 when abutting another T5 or do you want T4?

When it's not abutting a T3 or a T4.

Okay, so T5 abutting T5 or T6 abutting T5 or T6.

You're saying adaptive reuse of any building against a T5, not a T4 or T3.

It could be in a T4. It could be in a T5 or a T6. Right, right, right. As long as it's not a budding.

It's what it is a budding. She's saying not T3, 4, T5.

Yeah, so the rare is not a budding. Anything under a T5. T5, right. So then you're controlling it. You know that it's a very open use in the rare. Yeah, I actually. It shouldn't.

Yeah.

create that hardship for the neighbors. And you are still, because it's such a small application, possibly tapping into those adaptive reuses.

Yeah, sounds great. So there was that one. I don't know if anybody...

I don't know, but I don't know if the department wants to do a pilot project with the amendment, with the legislation as shown, and then do this as a second, but I see the opportunity. I mean, I don't see the unintended consequences of not allowing it at the moment, but I'm not working there and reviewing these applications as they are.

I think they said they would consider it as a second bite at the apple.

We can either do it as a separate phase after we've monitored it for a year, or we can do it in between now and city commission if that's something the board wants to recommend. So that's really up to Paola to determine how you want to do your condition.

I would be happy to see it now if the board wants to contemplate it.

So typically when there's a recommendation, it's typically up to the city staff to either go back and if they feel comfortable recommending approval of that and they have time, then they can incorporate it into the city commission ordinance. If not, if they think that it needs, you know, a little more study, they don't have, you know, it might take a few months to do it, then what they will do is they'll say, listen, PSAB recommended this change. We're still looking into it. It's not included in this. It may or may not come down the line. That's typically the process when a recommendation is done. If you'd like to see it, then you can indicate to city staff that you would like to see it in the ordinance, and then they'll go back and study to see if that's possible.

Question, I understand the first one, but the second one, I want to understand from staff, what are your reservation concern regarding the second amendment?

So we've focused this amendment on the front of the property because that's where the noise cars people walking, movement, street lights, all those things associated with, like, activity is already there. So we believe that by adding chairs and tables and people, it's really not going to cause any neighbourhood impact. When we went into the rear, we started thinking, well, you know, that's... To the neighbours, these are alien kind of, you know, like people from the street kind of walking back into the rear of the property. It's not like friends or family and things like that. So that's where we thought we were doing a lot with this amendment, and we thought... it may get into trouble if we start doing the rear as well. So our thinking was, today let's do this, let's monitor over the year, let's see the impact on warrants, let's get the warrant timelines down, and then if we still feel like there's challenges or not enough capacity and so forth, we were going to come back and look at the rear of the property. You know, the courtyards where it's walled, those kind of circumstances. But, you know, I'm happy for it to be on the face of the recommendation today, and we'll have time to consider it, you know, in the coming weeks. You know, we still feel nervous about it. We'll recommend that it comes at a later phase. So either way, I'm happy for it to be as part of the recommendation.

Yeah, I don't think there's really any harm in just, you know...

The reason why, because I understand activating streets and things of that nature, but my concern is also about the rear, too. But if this is a recommendation, I have no issues.

It is typically the third layer is the most protected in the code. So there is reason to what planning staff is speaking to. I can see how it's less... It's less intrusive if you keep these uses on the front. It's easier to absorb. It's easier to gain that acceptance and that it passes the voting and whatnot. I can see that happening now. I don't know the number of applicants in the city that are pending an application, an outdoor dining with a rare seating that could benefit from this.

So in the last five years, let's say, with the amendment, there's another eight that would have been caught if you had your... Another eight. Yes. probably, likely, there's eight that I know were caught by the rear aspect. And to say, also just to mention, and I actually, this is a good recommendation, whether we do it now or not, is obviously for the consideration of the board. You can still do outdoor dining in the rear. You just have to go through a warrant. So your neighbors are gonna be notified that there is chairs and tables coming in the back. So you don't just wake up the next morning and there are people outside adjacent to you in the rear of the property. You've been notified. Moose's team has checked the plans. We've maybe added additional conditions in terms of hours. Maybe we've added more landscaping and buffering. So there is a rationale for putting it through a warrant process. So, you know, but that, you know, we're happy to consider, you know, in certain circumstances, maybe it's not a problem.

I mean, personally, I would be, you know, I was trying to find a situation where third layer, because it exists, where it would make sense to do it by writing. It was hard to find, but I think the way that that's being presented is, you know, if it's a budding T5 or higher, there's already issues in a T5 that would make it less impactful, especially if there's no music. And if we put it into that no music category... I don't really, you know, it's, so anyway.

I have a process question. So as you're moving forward, and I very much love the way you phrased it about being able to look at the opportunities and all of that. So I'm one of those that like, I really prefer incremental gain than continuing to move ahead. So that's my bias on, you know, the cards on the table, that's how I tend to operate is incremental gains. If we take into account potentially looking at this recommendation, is there an issue that it would slow down this particular first issue and being able to start to pass? Because I think we're all in agreement that having something that allows us to move ahead would be great and then continue to look at your aspect without... Like, how do we use babies?

Another reason to go, I think, in steps here is there's also state legislation that It's easier for us to make things by right. It's harder for us then to put the rights into an entitlement process or remove certain rights. So I would suggest that, and I really am not, I really respect your role on the board and the board in general, but I respectfully would suggest that we do this amendment, we monitor it over the next year, and if there's additional by right opportunities, we can continue to do that. If we have a very efficient, quick, warm process and we get that, then there are less push for us to keep making everything by right, if that makes sense. So maybe my recommendation to the board, get this as clean as we can through this moment. take it to the City Commission, we'll monitor over the next year, we'll improve the processing times, and then we can report back in a year to determine how this whole program ended up, you know, phasing out. That would be my recommendation, but with respect to the board, you're welcome.

And you can make that part of your motion. So you can say, you know, we recommend that city staff study this condition over the next year and come back next year. We will also communicate that recommendation that you've asked us to study that over the next year to City Commission as well. Yep.

All right, Mr. Chair, I'd like to then pull back my second so that Board Member DeCarolis can then second with her recommendations.

To the chair, I want to just one discussion is I'm not comfortable with the pullback on the distance requirements on the T3. I think we should leave those in there. I mean, I think obviously noise is one thing from music, but there's also noise from people sitting at tables at night, which is just as bad. That could be directly across from someone's home, the T3. And generally that's going to happen in areas where people are not as active in the community. They're working, they're not looking, they're not paying attention to what's going on until it's too late. So I'd like to, I don't know what the rest of my fellow board members think.

So there is a motion on the floor.

There's a motion and a second.

Can we add that to the?

Can you repeat the motion? Like, where are we?

The motion was to accept the presentation as presented. And there was a second, and then there was an amendment proffered. There was discussion regarding the, I think, 75 feet to 150 feet.

But then Member Mann withdrew his second, so that Member DeCarolis could make a second with an amendment. And that's where we're at right now. Or just amend the motion.

You can just amend the motion, and the second can agree to the amendment.

But we're... Whatever happened, happened. That's in the past now, so.

If there's any interest in my discussion, how can I get that in? Well, everyone here. I apologize for my lack of understanding of how the process works.

Here's, I mean, I think we're basically at a vote.

So I believe that there is a motion to approve as presented. The second for that has been withdrawn. So is there a second? to the motion to approve.

I'm sorry, I thought Member DeCrolis did, but maybe she didn't, I'm sorry.

I didn't do anything yet. Oh, sorry.

Everyone was talking like you had, and I got confused, I'm sorry.

I think the question now is to the motioner if he would like to add any recommendations or conditions to his motion, or is there a second to the motion?

Okay, so are you going to add Member DeCrolis's? Yes. Okay, and now... What would you like us to... I mean, are we discussing here?

If it's inappropriate, if it's too late, I understand, but I would like to have a conversation, discussion, maybe what other people think about why... Let's reconsider not keeping 150 in for the T3.

I would say that basically, considering that this is probably going on the fourth hour... And I'm not saying this is a joke or any kind of like, I'm just saying everyone's, we are discussing and have been discussing and I haven't heard that come up. It's been brought up and it's possible that it's just that on a vote, you say, I don't like this and vote no. because that's, you know...

I wouldn't characterize it as a big... No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think it's...

I can get into all the logistics of all that stuff. No, no, no, no, no, but I'm just saying... People don't agree, that's fine.

That's something I would... I'm just saying we've had a lot... Is there any support for that? Is anybody... Point of clarification.

Mr. Chair, there is a motion on the floor.

There is.

There is a motion on the floor for approval as presented with the recommendation... There is. ...that we continue to study... Can I make a recommendation? ...the small... So that would be, the motion is for those items. I think their question is, is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Okay.

Now, if you would like to proffer an amendment to that motion, you can, but that would be up to the motioner and the seconder to accept that. If not, we can move to a roll call vote.

Point of clarification, is there a discussion allow once, no discussion allow once you proffer? No.

I mean, not really. But we don't always do what we're supposed to do with regard to that.

I would just like for the member to be heard.

We're pretty friendly. We're trying to be friendly.

And we can let the member be heard. Nobody agrees.

No, no.

And that's what I'm saying. I can temporarily withdraw my motion just so the member can be heard.

I mean, there's a second, so the motion cannot be withdrawn unless the second is withdrawn. You know, if you want to have a discussion, that's fine. Typically, when there's a motion and a second, we take roll call, but it's up to the chair to allow limited discussion.

And I think, yes, so typically we would. I'm just saying, you know, you put it out there what you'd like to discuss. If anyone else wants to pick up this discussion, I'm open to it, but I'm also saying that we've talked about it and no one had really brought it up.

Through the chair, may I just interject? Yes. I think the way that I understand this is that if there's outdoor dining on the first layer and it's across from a T3, it won't be able to occur by right because the street and everything that's happening is less than 75 feet. So I don't see an issue with your concern because it's taken care of by how the legislation is drafted, if I am understanding this correctly.

Yes, so if it's a banning, and the definition of a banning is across the street, as well as adjacent in the left and right terms.

So I want to say this to put at ease the concern that was brought by Mr. Corrales.

I don't think his issue is with your amendment. I think it was with the initial presentation to reduce from 150 to 75. Can you go to the slides that has the changes, the graphs? Can you go to the slide that has the changes, the graphs?

Correct. So, to Paula's point, and she is correct, that the word abutting means across the street, which creates a distancing requirement when it is across the street anyway. You know, you've got the width of the street, the sidewalk, and so forth. When it's abutting left and right, then there isn't a distancing requirement. It's just when it's not abutting. So... he's, you know, the board member's not incorrect, and for the small, medium, there is a distancing requirement on the when it's adjacent to the sides, if that makes sense. Now, you can't be a bun in T3, so most lot widths are, let's say, 50 feet in width. So if you are a bun in a T3 on the sides, you're going to be at least 50 feet away for the small and medium and so forth. So although it's not explicit in saying that, you know, there's not 150 feet, there are those protections built in by the words a bun in, not a bun in T3 and so forth.

Again, so it says up to 10 seats, one abutting a T3, no music outside. Correct. Does that mean that when they're abutting a T3, they can have 10 seats without music? Correct. That's what I would like to... Correct. That's the issue that I'm bringing up.

Correct. You're correct. I was correct.

My understanding is correct. Yes. I really would prefer... that the distance requirement remain, because again, it's not just music, it's people talking, or maybe put some hour restrictions.

Understood. Maybe at night you can't. I'm not going to argue. You're correct in the way you've explained your concern. It's up to the board to consider your concerns and whether they want to add it into the motion to create a greater distance. That's the purview of the board. So you can discuss that and make a decision amongst yourselves.

But we're not because we're going to do a roll call vote now.

Okay.

Calling, sorry, calling member, calling member Mario Bailey.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Joseph Corral. Calling member Maria Paula De Corrales. Yes. Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Thank you. And calling Chair Adam Gersten. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of eight to zero.

I would like to vote. Vice Chair.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes.

I apologize. Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of eight to zero as amended. Also, I just received a request from Member Arthur Parasoff requesting an absence waiver.

Is there a motion? Motion. Second. All in favor.

Thank you, sorry. And this is the final item. This is PZAB file ID. Okay, 18991, PZAB 3, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board recommending to the Miami City Commission approval of an ordinance amending chapter 62 of the code of the city of Miami, Florida as amended city code titled planning and zoning more particularly by amending article seven titled historic and environmental preservation board and article 16 titled art in public places to modify board appointments, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

So I did not send out the presentation beforehand, although it was finished. If you tune into some of our other boards, you may have already seen this presentation, but I'm Savannah Steiner, Assistant Director of Planning. And this is in regards to amending Chapter 62 of the City Code. The request is to modify the process for board appointments specifically to the Art and Public Places Board and then to the Historic Environmental Preservation Board. You may ask. Why is this in front of us? Because we are not either of these two boards. The Art in Public Places boards requires that anything that is amended as part of their Chapter 62 come before you. And then additionally, Chapter 62 is the planning portion of the city code, and so you make recommendations on any changes to Chapter 62. So, located within Chapter 62 for both the Art and Public Places Board and the Historic Preservation Board is this lovely language that requires us to place a 30-day notice on both the city website and the city newspaper asking for people to apply to be a board member for either of these boards. And so what this legislation does is it removes it for the Art and Public Places Board. It did go to the Art and Public Places Board earlier this month and they did recommend approval. In fact, they are very excited to get rid of this provision because it's been somewhat of a deterrent to getting people to apply to the board. For the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, it eliminates the 30-day notice. However, when I eliminated the 30-day notice, I realized that I had a little bit of an odd number on the board. So currently, there are nine members plus one alternate, and so it changes it to 10 members plus one alternate. This allows each commissioner to make two appointments and then the mayor to appoint the alternate member as opposed to having four commissioners appoint two people and then one commissioner appointing a member in an alternate. So it just kind of evens out that for them as well and gives the mayor an appointment as well. So again, really the purpose of the legislation is to eliminate the 30-day notice requirement. We did do a little bit of an audit overview of this. So Chapter 2 was changed to only allow for quarterly appointments in March 2025. So no longer can city commissioners appoint or make appointments to a board, unless there's a time-sensitive matter, they must do instead do these quarterly appointments. And so we have to run the advertisement, which costs us approximately $6,000 to do these advertisements within various newspapers for both And that's per board, so that's about $12,000. And we would need to do those 30 days in advance of the quarterly appointments. Most of our board members are actually sourced and appointed by our commissioners. So even though we are required to do this 30-day notice, most of our board members are sending applications directly to their commissioners and then being appointed. I'm not sure that the HEP Board has actually run this ad in the three years that I've been at the City of Miami. And then we also, one of the time sensitive things that we deal with and why appointments can be made outside of the quarterly appointments is for quorum issues. So our In Public Places Board was having quorum issues and so they had also asked about attendance. Just to let you know, your attendance is one of the reasons that commissioners can reappoint if you miss so many meetings. You can always request a waiver, and it's up to the board to grant that waiver. Currently, attendance is reported to the clerk's office, and then that information is posted on the city website and is available if commissioners ask for it. We have internally started creating a little bit more of our own report, and so that report will go to our director and the city manager to be potentially distributed to commissioners just to bring some more awareness around our attendance. So the timeline is we started at the AIPP board at the beginning of March with this legislation. They did recommend approval. We're at PSAB now. We are seeking a recommendation from the Historic Environmental Preservation Board on April 7th. It is slated for future legislation, and this is just allowing all of our commissioners and our mayor knowing that this legislation will move forward during the month of April. And so that future legislation is on... is on city commission agenda for april 9th and then we anticipate first reading and second reading being in april and may just in time for our june appointments um and so again really the point of this legislation is to eliminate that 30-day notice would anyone from the public thank you would anyone from the public like to be heard on this

Seeing that nobody is here except for someone from the mayor's office, bringing it back to the board.

Motion to approve, there is no discussion.

I have something that I would like to discuss. One of the requirements is that one member shall be an architect who has been registered in the state, and the other one is that one member shall be a landscape architect who is or has been registered in the state. So I wanted to discuss that for a minute because I think that requiring a state licensure as the primary qualification can unintentionally narrow the pool of candidates and exclude qualified professionals. The path for licensure can be lengthy and resource intensive and not all professionals particularly those working in interdisciplinary roles like academic or community-based or even design focused individuals and pursue licensure and despite having credentials and meaningful experience So I think that by recognizing an accredited education and demonstrated professional experience, just like when we do when we hire for the city, the board can promote broader access and support diverse career pathways within the field of design, architecture, and landscape design, and ensure a wider range of perspectives in evaluating public art and design. So also license or pathways have historically presented barriers to full participation across the profession. Sometimes, you know, that relying on this alone may unintentionally limit diversity. So I would like to bring this comment to the board and see if there's an appetite to consider or also request staff if there's an appetite to revisit those two requirements. Yeah, I think that's it.

So the point of the legislation was just really to eliminate the 30-day notice, and when I did that in the HEP portion of chapter 62, it also meant that I needed, the language also then required me to make some adjustments to the board member. At this time, there was no, we didn't feel that there was a need, and none of the boards have been struggling with meeting the qualifications that are outlined both for the AIPP board and then for the HEP board. That doesn't seem to be the deterrent in finding board members. So we, at this time, had not recommended or wanted to make any changes to the qualifications to sit on either board. I think that if you would like to make that recommendation, of course, that you always can. We found that our biggest deterrent was more so the notice and the paper versus the qualifications.

Yeah, I think there's, just to return to that, I think there's an opportunity to bring in more, to expand the pool of candidates. Understandingly, that there's no, right now you're not running into an issue on finding those candidates. Maybe the conversation can be richer if we can tap into other individuals that may not be registered but may have credentials that...

And I believe it's only on the HEP board where you have to be registered or with a state license or with your state license because the AIPP board, you just have to have a degree. So if that's the recommendation that you would like, we can definitely move that forward.

And I just wanted to add that there are other reasons to have certain qualifications. For example, the state statute regarding conflicts has certain exemptions. And what I recall, one of the exemptions being if you... if one of the requirements of the board is a certain profession and you fit into that profession, then different conflict rules apply. So I did want to put that out there.

Is there any other discussions?

Just a point of clarification, both of those boards had 9 plus 1, so they're both moving to 10 plus 1?

Yes.

Great.

Oh, no, no, no, I'm sorry. For AIPP, the number of art and public places board members is not changing. Only for the Historic and Preservation Board is it changing, and that's because... HEP is, sorry, Art in Public Places is one appointment for each commissioner and the mayor. The additional members and at-large members or alternate members are appointed all at-large by the commission and the mayor. The HEP board, oddly, was nine members and none of them were at-large, so it made sense to move it to 10 and then give the alternate member to the mayor.

Thank you.

Move to approve.

Motion.

Can I make the recommendation?

I'm not for that recommendation. I don't think it's a good idea to not put those type of requirements because I've seen other boards and other positions and Other philanthropic roles that I've volunteered for that I think sometimes some boards should have people who are licensed, are well-versed, have gone through the education and can sit and be educated and speak about these type of things. So I'm not for that.

Okay, so if that is not the path, can we do like a clause that the city commission can waive it by a four-fifth like they do for the advisory, the education advisory board?

So there are, I mean, for the HEP board, I mean, we have three registered architects already on the board. So there can be various different people that sit on the board. So, for example, that is already fulfilled on the HEP board.

So just a clarification, the requirement is that there's, of the 10 plus one, one is an architect and one is a landscape architect.

That's correct.

Not for each commissioner. Okay, so effectively you could still have a pool of eight that could meet your requirements.

Yes, and if you were to remove that, then you wouldn't have any of those.

Right, then you could suddenly have a board of ten with no architects. 100%, yes. Which...

But there's a recipe, right? Like one has to be an architect, another one has to be a historian, another one has to be a landscape architect, another one has to be a real estate broker. So when you start putting that recipe together, I don't think you're having so many opportunities for non-registered architects or non-registered landscaping designers. Yes.

Then I guess I just don't want... I was going to say, the reason why I'm saying this is because I think there's rationale, like there's studies before, like they come up with those recommendations, and I wouldn't feel comfortable taking those away until I've truly studied it. Maybe that's something we can come back and offer later, but until we have a deeper understanding of why those specific individuals are there before we remove them.

Right.

I mean, the gist is that you could have a very talented person with some training without a license. That has a lot more to offer than a crappy landscape architecture. Which is possible.

I understand that.

But listen, I mean, the thing is that these are appointed boards. So it's also about the vetting at that level.

And those people do already exist on the board as well, who are people who represent the neighborhood, who are not registered landscape architects, but have a vested interest in landscape design and represent their neighborhood. So those people also already exist on the board as well. So it is a recipe, but the recipe is meant to make sure that there are specific professions that are represented, and then there's space for everybody else as well.

Yes. Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? We did second? Okay. Roll call.

Thank you. Calling Member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling Member Mario Bailey. Calling Member Joseph Corral. Calling Member Maria Paula de Corral.

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Point of inquiry. Without the amendment, just as is?

Okay.

Thank you for the point of inquiry. As is.

Okay. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Joshua Patinkin. Thank you. Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. And then calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. Chair Adam Gersten. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of eight to zero.

Thank you.

As is.

And welcome Lynette Cardoche.

Mr. Chair, before we, is it possible, like, any items that you know that's going to be deferred that we get an email prior to? The reason why, because I research everything, and so if I can spend less time studying those items before, it would be helpful.

Sure, so I believe items three, sorry, four, five, and six, those should have been noted on the agenda. Those were on the agenda. I did not get notice until directly before this meeting on item two. So if I can at all possible get notice out, and that's, I think I was saying, I was referring to Adam's or the chair's recommendation that we have a social media. That would have been my only way because I know that there were a ton of people from the community that came out specifically for that item. My goal would have been to try to let them know before they ever even came down to City Hall that the city was going to request that deferral. Understood.

We're working on it. I believe the public agenda did note that they were going to be, that those items were, well, not two, but I think four, five, and six.

Four, five, and six were noted. It was just item two, and that one was, I fully anticipated presenting to this board on that tonight, so that was something that came up last minute.

Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. I'll second.

Aye.

All in favor?

Aye. Thank you. Thank you.

The impact of tourism on the economic landscape

If you're a homeowner of a single family or a duplex in the city of Miami, you can apply for a building permit as an owner builder. If you're unsure of what is needed for the project, you can always come down to 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue on the first floor and we can guide you on what documents are needed and also what are the standards that the city requires and the minimum requirements for whatever project you are taking on.

¿Sabes quién te representa en la ciudad de Miami? Descúbrelo con el 311. Mantente conectado con tu comunidad y conoce a tus representantes electos. Solo necesitas marcar el 311, tu enlace con el liderazgo de Miami.

The City of Miami has some great news we want to share with our local businesses. If your business has been a part of Miami for over 10 years, the Office of Zoning wants to give you the recognition you deserve. We're launching a new initiative where qualifying businesses will get an official Certificate of Recognition from the City. It's a celebration of your dedication, your long-standing service, and the positive impact you've had on our neighborhoods and economy. Here's a quick guide to getting yours. Head over to the website link. Click on the print button. Use the drop down menu to select either your Oracle invoice number or your customer number. Just enter that number, hit continue, and you can download and print your certificate right away. We truly appreciate you being a part of Miami's story and keeping our city strong.

Estoy bien bonito, ¿no?

Seguro piensas que soy muy chistoso. Espero que no estés manejando y texteando. ¿Sabías que cada año hay miles de choques provocados por conductores distraídos en el celular? Piensa en todas las mamás, papás y niños que sufren porque alguien maneja distraído.

Un momento en la pantalla mientras manejas. Podría tener consecuencias por el resto de tu vida.

Ya no soy tan chistoso, ¿verdad?

Trees are an important part of our environment, providing shade, clean air, and homes for wildlife. But sometimes trees need to be removed due to disease, safety hazards, or other reasons. If you live in the city of Miami and need to remove a tree on your property, you must apply for a permit from the city. The permit process helps ensure that trees are only removed when necessary and that new trees are planted to replace them. Applying for a permit is easy. Just visit the Miami City website and follow the steps to complete the online application. Remember, it's important to follow the rules and regulations when it comes to tree removal in the City of Miami. Let's work together to keep our city green and beautiful.

The Mid-Block Pedestrian Signals, or MPS, is a traffic control device that functions like a regular traffic signal at a mid-block crossing location. The MPS operates as a standard semi-actuated traffic control signal, but instead of the typical solid red indication, the MPS will display a flashing red indication during the pedestrian clearance interval. How to Use Pedestrians The pedestrian signal can be activated by pressing the button when a person arrives at the intersection and wishes to cross the street. Pedestrians should wait for the walk signal to appear before attempting to cross and should only initiate the crossing when it is safe to do so, making sure vehicles have fully stopped behind the stop bar. As pedestrians proceed through the crossing, a countdown will indicate the remaining time to complete the crossing. If pedestrians arrive at the signal to cross after the countdown has started, do not cross. Please press the button to activate the cycle and wait for the walking signal indication. Drivers Drivers should pay attention to the light change on the signal. If the signal shows a green light, it means that drivers can proceed normally. If it changes to a red light, they should stop at the stop bar pavement marking. When the red light is flashing, it means drivers must come to a complete stop. Then, look both ways and proceed with caution if no pedestrians are present at the crossing. The MPS is intended to ensure safety at pedestrian crossing.

A parent's role in quality childcare is vital. By participating in daily, age-appropriate activities, children develop essential skills, build independence, and self-respect. Many childcare programs will have various features, but only you can decide what is most important for your family. When choosing childcare, look for a safe and nurturing environment with required supervision that provides healthy, social, and educational experiences. Look for one that has a range of activities, caring teachers and staff, and a safe, clean environment. And make sure the childcare you choose is properly licensed or registered with the Florida Department of Children and Families. You know your child best. Trust your strong mom instincts and your ability to make the best decision for your child. To learn more about choosing a qualified child care provider, visit myflfamilies.com slash child care.

No permitas que perduren los problemas. Reporta cualquier cosa, desde baches hasta quejas de ruido, a través del 311. Es tu herramienta para hacer de Miami un lugar más limpio y seguro para todos. Llama al 311, tu voz para un mejor Miami.

City life never stops, and your access to information and local government services shouldn't either. The 311 service is your connection to everything you need. With it, you have access to information about city services. Call 311, your voice for a better Miami.

Cuando se avecina una tormenta, recurre al 311 para obtener ayuda. Desde información de FEMA hasta centros de evacuación, 311 mantente seguro e informado.

El Departamento de Residuos Sólidos de la Ciudad de Miami se enorgullece en anunciar el lanzamiento oficial de su nuevo sistema de alertas de servicios, una plataforma de comunicación en tiempo real diseñada para mantener a los residentes informados, preparados y conectados con sus servicios. Esta nueva iniciativa refleja el compromiso continuo del Departamento con la prestación de servicios de alta calidad confiables, eficientes y responsables con el medio ambiente. A través del sistema de alertas, los ciudadanos recibirán actualizaciones sobre temas esenciales como horarios de recolección, retrasos en el servicio, preparación para huracanes y otras noticias importantes. The launch of this platform represents a great advance in the improvement of public communication, security and community participation. Residents can easily register by visiting the official site of the City of Miami, en MiamiZeroWaste.com. Mantente conectado y no te pierdas ninguna actualización. Regístrate hoy mismo en el sistema de alerta de servicios. Para más información, visita MiamiZeroWaste.com o llama al 311.

Kijan Okara Poté Incident 2.3 Illegal in Miami Reporting illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal