Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

I'm going to call this meeting to order. If you could do roll call.

Board Member Lozada. Board Member Murphy.

Here.

Board Member Abramson. Not on Zoom. Board Member Gonzalez. Board Member Gonzalez. He's on Zoom. Chair Schaaf.

Chair.

Yeah, look for him.

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

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

Oh, for the record, Board Member Maximo is present.

We have to approve the minutes. We're going to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

I second. You have to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

That's 3-8.

Do you want to read 3A?

Do you want me to read them all together?

So, yeah. So, question, Mr. Chair. The 3A and 5A deal with the same project. Would you like to hear those as the same public hearing? Sure. Just for the interest of efficiency?

That's fine.

Okay. So, I will please read 3A and 5A.

A resolution of the Mayor and Commissioner of Arthur Village, Florida, approving with conditions or denying a site plan application for 1755 JFK owner LLC and 1819 MBV owner LLC to consolidate and modify site plans previously approved pursuant to Resolution 2022-011A as amended by Resolution number 2022-091 and resolution 2023-002 to develop a two-phase mixed-use development project consisting of a multi-family housing hotel and commercial uses including alcohol service establishments entertainment establishments food service establishment general commercial and civic space all located at 1755 79th street causeway photo number two three three two oh nine zero zero zero zero one one zero And 1819, 1855, 79th Street, Causeway, folio number 233209000120, providing for findings, providing for conditions, limitation of approval, implementation, and an effective date. Item 5A. An ordinance of the Mayor and Commission of North Bay Village, Florida, amending the zoning of certain parcels located at 1755 79th Street Causeway, folio number 23-3209-0000110 and 1819-1855 79th Street Causeway. Folder number 233209000120, from T630 Transit to Continuum Waterfront District Special Area Plan, amending the code to create Appendix C, Continuum Waterfront District Special Area Plan, to provide specific transit zone regulations that are applicable to the subject parcels, providing for solvability conflicts, codification, binding effect, and effective date

Good evening. Good. Thank you. I hope you're all well. So this evening we have, as you heard, two items pertaining to the continuum, what is now going to be the continuum special area plan. For background, this project includes two addresses now, which you're very familiar with, because you previously approved projects for each one of these sites. Together, the sites have a land area of over 3.6 acres, and in part because now they can be combined under single ownership, they can come in with this land area as a special area plan. I mentioned that the projects you support, not all of the members, obviously, but the previous iteration of this board reviewed both projects and send recommendations to the council. And for 1755, uh the um history of prior approvals include that original site plan uh which uh dates back to 2022 under a different ownership and the corresponding development agreement in 2022 later that same year after the project was sold to continuum they applied for a cyclone modification which she also reviewed the development agreement was amended and restated at the time and And in conjunction with that, there was a waiver that was reviewed administratively to deviate from the maximum floor plate size. Then in 2024, there was an administrative sideline modification. This one you did not review because it came to staff as an administrative sideline modification, which is under a certain lower threshold. For the 1819-1855 address, the original site plan approval came under the previous ownership in 2022-23. The resolution dates from 2023 because that's when the project was finally approved. And it was accompanied by a development agreement, as well as an administrative warrant to allow the outdoor dining on the sidewalk easements and the island walk easement. Separately, there was a tentative plat application that was filed by that property owner. But we believe that that application was abandoned and perhaps never made it even to the county. So that process was stopped. And this site was subsequently purchased by Continuum. So now both of them are under the same ownership. So as far as the nature of the current request, the first item that we have is the special area plan, which consists of two items. The first one is the creation of a new appendix to chapter 15 of the ULDC, which is our form-based code, as you know. And this appendix adopts the regulation that are specific to this special area plan. It's important to note that this application was filed under the previous SAP rules. As you know, there was an amendment to the Special Area Plan regulations recently. You reviewed that. But this application precedes the adoption of that ordinance. And so it has been reviewed under the previous rules, which include that the parcel needs to be at least two abutting acres in size, which this one obviously exceeds. regulations of the underlying zoning applied unless they are modified by the sap which this one is doing extensively in addition to the um the special area plan uh ordinance direct the regulating plan that goes with that there also has to be a concurrent site plan approval and the code is specific as to what is required for the site plan. It requires proposed layout, circulation, view quarters. In this case, the applicant is submitting a conceptual framework for the site plan and the detailed plans for each project are going to be submitted to this to the village via what is called the sap permit process so this will set the framework for reviewing those projects in detail when they come in later if the sap is approved In addition to these three requirements, obviously, there has to be a text that details the standards that deviate from the requirements of Chapter 15. That's Appendix C, which is part of your package. Another requirement is that there has to be a minimum of 5% of the total area assigned to a civic space type. that the construction and maintenance of all required public improvements is the responsibility of the developer there is a requirement for a development agreement as part of the sap but in this case there's also a requirement because the projects that were approved before have density bonuses And I guess the village attorney can clarify, but this applicant for development agreement, if I'm not mistaken, has chosen to, no, this is not the one that is statutory, nevermind. There's gotta be a parking management program that enables shared parking among the public and private uses on the entirety of the SAP. And in this case, there's going to be a flexible allocation of building height Within the site with appropriate transitions and will explain what that means in a moment. Second part of it is that this involves a rezoning. Once you have your regulations, which are in the SAP Appendix C, then you rezone the property to what that district that is being established is. In this case, it's going to be called the Continuum Waterfront District Special Area Plan. So it's a rezoning from T630 to that district. And it encompasses two subareas, which are called the Continuum West site and the Continuum East site, which basically are the two original sites of the projects that you previously reviewed. The third aspect of this project, the third component, which I already mentioned is conceptual, is the site plan, what I'm calling the site plan framework, which is more like a regulating plan. And you may remember an example of this with the Sunbeam project. So this is going to be a little bit more like the Sunbeam project in that respect than, say, the Shoma Special Air Plan, which already had a very specific site plan with all the detailed layout of the circulation, the landscape, the building design. In this case, these projects are going to come in later with changes in accordance to the SAP. And of course, the development agreement, which I already mentioned, that's also part of the site plan. So let me just shift gears and talk to you about the scope of the proposed development. This little table summarizes what the previous approvals are for the projects, the two projects, and what is being proposed now. So you can see that in the latest iteration, which was approved via the administrative side plan modification, in 2024, the site with the address of 1755 or Continuum West, if you wish, had 198 units and now they're proposing 236 and the non-residential portion of it is being reduced. The overall number of units for the combined site remains at the maximum number that is allowed. They're not increasing density. So for the two sites, if you combine them, the maximum density that you can achieve is 547 units. And that's still the case. It's just that they're shifting from one site to the other. And they'll speak more to that. They are also at the maximum FAR for the combined two sites, which is 13.0. In this case, that means a little bit over 2 million square feet total. But I should have said that before I started speaking about what is the continuing west site, but I wanted to go back and make sure that it was understood that there's no additional density being requested here. So let me just get back now to the 1819-1855 address, which is the Continuum East. In the original approval, this project had 345 residential units and 273 hotel units. um so again with this idea of being sort of reallocating density this project now will have 312 units and is reducing the number of hotel rooms from 273 to 200. on the flip side the amount of non-residential space is increasing from 30 000 approximately 30 000 to 70 000. So that's kind of the scope of what they're requesting. And now I'm going to walk you through the key proposals that are in the Appendix C, which is, again, the document that amends the regulations and sets a customized set of rules for the SAP. In terms of density and intensity, as I mentioned, that hasn't changed, but it is calculated based on net lot area, including the permitted bonuses. In terms of building height, this is where we see one of the most significant changes. Um, the maximum building height for the continuum West. Because they're making, they're differentiating excuse me between the 2 sites. Right? So, for continuing West, the maximum building height is going to be 40 stories or 440 feet, whichever is less. whereas for the continuum east it's going to be 60 stories or 600 feet whichever is less in addition for the continuum east side there's a step back that they're proposing so within 50 feet of the eastern property line the height will not exceed those same 40 stories or 440 feet Parking garages and building pedestals will have a maximum height of the lesser of 10 stories or 120 feet. And there are some additional concessions for height for appurtenances. Mechanical equipment can go up to 30 feet, where in the code, in the base code, it's 10 feet. And we recognize that for these tall buildings, the mechanical equipment tends to be taller. There's also an allowance for ornamental or architectural features such as trellises, pergolas, that kind of thing on the rooftop will allow them to go up to 35 feet. And in the proposed amendment, there's also a provision for additional height being approvable by administrative waiver. There's a provision for encroachments in the form of balconies, which would apply to the west facade of the Continuum East Tower. Those balconies could encroach up to 10 feet into the required setback. Similarly, there's a provision for floor plates. And again, we have a distinction between Continuum West and Continuum East. For the residential uses, the maximum floor plate area for Continuum West is 20,000 square feet. For Continuum East is 30,000 square feet for all the users up to the lesser height of 40 stories or 440 feet. And thereafter, uh twenty thousand up to the maximum height that they're proposing uh the maximum length of the building is 300 feet for all the uses Now, workforce housing, you may recall that what is now going to be continuing west had in their approval and the development agreement that they entered into with the village, agreed to pay for the workforce housing units instead of having them on site, right? For this iteration, That is still the case, but for Continuum East, the SAP now would allow the developer the option of providing the units, the required workforce housing units, on-site as part of the hotel development, while at the same time preserving the prerogative of paying into the fund if they decide to go in that direction. Civic space, I mentioned that the minimum requirement for the SAP under the old regulations was 5% of the aggregate lot area of the SAP. In this case, the Appendix C proposal also states that that civic space does not include the island rock. The proposed amendment defines what constitutes civic space in this context and what does not. And the graphic that you see there is from there's middle which shows you in blue the areas that would be considered civic space. And you see that there is a central space that is shown between the two projects as well as two public access walkways that are on the periphery of the site. With respect to the Island Public Access walkway that I just mentioned, the reason why these are set aside this way is because the proposed amendment sets an option to provide them along the opposite exterior boundaries of the property. It eliminates the indication of an easement, but it does require that the public access to the walkway be memorialized in the development agreement. And it also gives the developer the option of not having them opposite if they change the configuration of the site. of the project. The proposed amendment also sets minimum standards for these two view quarters in terms of, you know, how wide they need to be, what can go on in them or not. And similarly for the island walk, they set standards and restrictions on the placement of canopies, awnings, and other encroachments into the island walk, but only and limit them to the passive zone only. And finally, there's two sections that I would say are key. The first one is the section on procedures that has been modified from what the base zoning contains. The process is similar, it says the steps, but it also provides a timeline for and sets deadlines for how long the reviews take. And and also a deadline for how the village manager needs to issue that decision within a certain timeframe. And if you recall, the decision is similar to what the commission would issue, which would be either an approval, an approval of conditions, or a denial. And finally, I mentioned also another section, the alcoholic beverage and entertainment section. This is somewhat similar to what the... The appendix A for Sunbeam special area plan contained, they also have standards for alcoholic beverage service and entertainment. These are so much similar, but we have worked with the applicant to tailor them to the fact that this is a much smaller site than Sunbeam, and it is immediately adjacent to residential uses. I know that the commission, some members of the commission have some concerns and would like to see it further restricted. that may happen. I just wanted to make you aware of the public review process for this. You are aware that this is coming to you after the Commission had an opportunity to review the Ordinance for the SAP on first reading. Now you have the opportunity to review all of it together. and make your recommendations to them before this all goes to the second reading of the ordinance for the sap the second reading of the um resolution for the development agreement and the only public hearing for the approval of the site plan so i think you will have um plenty of opportunity to provide your feedback. We will make sure to include that in the agenda packet for that meeting, which is at this time scheduled to take place on June 17th. So to our recommendation on the site plan, we have a recommendation for approval with a list of conditions which are in the staff report. And I'm happy to go through them if you want me to, or if you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. And obviously those can be amended tonight by your recommendation before they go to the commission.

Have your recommendations changed since the first commission meeting to implement what they need?

No, they have not changed. And for the site plan, like I said, I'm happy to review them with you in detail. I just didn't want to put them on the slides because they're a lot. But for the special area plan recommendation, Our analysis shows that this is consistent with the pillars, with the comprehensive plan, with the relevant sections of the code that pertain to the approval of SAPs. only conditions that we would suggest which are not necessary conditions of approval but just sort of reminders that the rezoning and the proposed text amendment have to be approved and adopted prior to any action by the village on the site plan um And we are recommending that unity of title or a covenant in unity of title be required to unify the two sites prior to the issuance of any building permit for vertical construction. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do you guys want to ask Sylvia any questions, and we'll have them do the presentation and ask? Want them to do the presentation? Okay. You guys want to do a presentation and come up? State your name and address.

For the record, Christopher Pinellas, Attorney Ackerman, LOP. Law office is located 98 Southeast 7th Street, City of Miami, Florida. Good evening, Chair, Board members. Pleasure to be here this evening. Before I begin, I want to thank Madam Planner for her presentation. I thought that was very comprehensive. And also thank staff for taking the time to work with us through this presentation. It's been a long time coming, a lot of long meetings. I just wanted to state my appreciation on the record. With that, I will, if we can for IT, we have the ability to share screen. If we could get the ability from IT to have Emma Knight as a presenter. Thank you. And with that, I would like to introduce my client, Alexandra Eichner. She will go ahead and make the initial presentation. Thank you. There we go.

It will pick you up.

Alexandra Eichner, 1013 15th Street, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139. Okay. So you can go to the next slide here. Just a little bit about our company, for those who do not know. Our portfolio spans New York, Las Vegas, and Miami. We like to build one-of-a-kind projects that are placemaking properties, most notably the Continuum South Beach, which I will take you guys through in a little bit more detail. Our track record – next slide, please – is – I was someone pointed out actually at the first hearing that my dad has actually been doing this for 50 years. So instead of 35 years, you can you can pick that up to 50. He aged him. We have done many projects and the majority of which are in New York and Florida. And in the next slide, you'll see some examples of the projects that we have done, including we currently have under development two projects in Bay Harbor. We have, as some of you already know, already actually broken ground at the Continuum West. And we also built the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas, which is a great example of our mixed-use development expertise, and Madison Square Park Tower in New York. Here I just wanted to take a minute to look at Continuum South Beach because that was a mixed-use development that we master planned. It had a public-private component to it with the South Point Park as well as the adjacent beachfront access, and we are applying a lot of the principles that we used in that property. We are applying those here today with our suggestions for the special area plan. In that project, our development ended up being the catalyst for the South of Fifth Neighborhood. At the time that we first arrived, there was very little development. There was effectively no commercial space. There was Joe Stone Crab and Maybe I mean Smith and Walensky announced their announced their steakhouse during the during the course of construction of our first tower. So what we saw was how impactful a development that is properly master planned and has the right acreage and size can do to spark investment in commercial and retail. You know, all of the. At the time, there were two restaurants. Now there's 20. And a lot of that came from really effective master planning of projects of scale. Our vision for North Bay Village, we really see North Bay Village very similarly to the south of 5th neighborhood. There is tremendous potential here for this to be an iconic waterfront destination. And frankly, the legwork that you guys have done in the ideation of the island walk is really sets makes it possible it takes the the bayfront and really activates it in a way that beachfront has been really successful at doing and so we're you know looking to leverage all of the work that you guys have already done and just kind of you know make it as as good as it possibly can be uh the key here really is that you need a product you need a developer to really set the benchmark it's very hard to go first it's easy to go second third and fourth but to actually set the benchmark is quite a difficult thing to do, but we are used to doing it and very, very happy to take on the challenge. Reminder of the project site, we are located on the north side of Kennedy Causeway, which I think is somewhat relevant here. We are in the zoning district that was originally conceived of as your commercial highest density zone. It's on the correct side of the causeway from a circulation traffic area. shade, as you'll see, standpoint. So it has all of the factors that one would need for a special area plan of this kind. Next slide. Project background, I mean, I think Sylvia kind of already went through that, but just as a reminder, we bought the parking lot of Shuckers in 2022 and then closed on the Shuckers property last year. What I like to point out here is that the photo on the right is a photo of the rendering of currently of 1755, the Continuum West, which is effectively phase one of our SAP. And the photo on the left is, this is actually a photo from our marketing materials, our current marketing materials for the Continuum West project. And what I'm showing here is that when we bought the first property before we amassed the assemblage and our project, here before you to talk about a master plan. The way we marketed the property really was North Bay Village in context of all of the other neighborhoods. And by amassing the two properties together and allowing us to master plan them, our goal is instead of selling this as North Bay Village and its proximity to You know, the beach is 5 minutes away. The design district is right there instead of talking about it in proximity. We want to focus directly on North Bay village and making North Bay village specifically a walkable. know livable destination for the neighborhood so we really are fundamentally shifting from one property where we can only do so much with you know so much land to the ability to really move the needle on the uh quality of life and lifestyle for actual north bay village residents and you know future residents of the property So our purpose and intent for the SAP, we are serving, we would like to act as a catalyst laying the groundwork for the long-term revitalization of North Bay Village. We are aware it has been a long time coming. And we are very excited to partner with the village on this. We are looking to improve the livability and walkability of the village by transforming the north side of the Kennedy Causeway into a mixed-use destination. We are looking to create a sense of place. One of the reasons that we have... We reduced the amount of hotel. We transferred a lot into commercial. It's because we are looking to create a destination that people want to come to that is competitive with all of the other options or people have places to go. within Miami-Dade County. And the last piece is to redevelop an otherwise underutilized and or vacant piece of land in a quality that improves the public realm, increases access to Biscayne Bay, and still upholds the resiliency goals of the NVB 100. And most importantly, I mean, which I will get into, our goal here really is to create a project that significantly contributes to the tax base for Northview Village, as I will go into and explain, what we're proposing really is an opportunity for the health of the village is best captured with an annual tax base that allows the village to handle all of the infrastructure and parks and recreation and what the property that we're proposing would effectively double the existing, the entire annual operating budget for the village. Now I will have Chris Pinellas come up and take you through a little bit more of the specifics on the SAP.

It's me again. So just wanted to briefly go and I think Sylvia did a great job kind of explaining the purpose of an SAP and the intent here. But as you all know, the purpose of the SAP and the process is really to give a developer who owns two acres or more within the village the ability to master plan and reallocate development rights that are already associated with the property. I want to be clear here that this reallocation and this SAP does not propose any density increases or any increases to FLR. The proposal here in terms of capacity or development characteristics on a high level is really height. That's the main ask here. So really, the SAP process serves as a medium to allow for master planning and placemaking. It gives the developer the ability to propose certain modifications or enhancements to the code to create a special district or put into place and implement a special plan. Next slide, please. So as I previously mentioned, obviously this property has certain development rights already allocated to it. Those development rights, 13.0 FLR, 547 units with a bonus density permitted by the code, a permitted height of 340 feet and 150 units an acre. So total density, we're sitting at about 547. if we were developing this project by right we could take the three the over three and a half acres that make up the property and subdivide it into six separate sites and if we were to do that we could have these three towers uh not these three towers excuse me these seven towers uh provided on site with minimal separation setbacks between the towers, minimal light and air going through and intersecting the property, obviously having an impact on the village's skyline and other effects on the property. Next slide, please. As you can see here on the left, you have the as of right design and on the right you have what we are proposing in the reallocation of those development rights. So what we've done here is again, no increase in FLR, no increase in density. We are just reallocating the height from those towers, placing them on top of one another to go ahead and have more open space aggregated together and master planning the property in such a manner that we believe is contextual and respectful to the existing neighborhood. As Sylvia pointed out earlier, the component and the way that we've proposed our regulations is that we have continuum west at 440 feet, We step up into the middle, into the middle component of Continuum East, which is the taller section. And then as we go back towards the residential area of the neighborhood, we step back down to 440 feet. So we believe that this sets a nice condition that centers the height and is respectful to the existing neighborhood. Next slide, please. So there was, in the staff report, I just wanted to show, there was a comment on the shadow effects, and I just wanted to do a side-by-side comparison for the board to take a look at. You know, it's our position taking a look at the figures. You can see on top is the buy-write scenario, and then on the bottom is the proposed scenario. Impacts on the neighborhood are minimal. If any, when you look at the two situations, they are essentially the same when you're looking at the impact of our shadow conditions and height on the neighborhood. Next slide, please. So when looking at the regulations, and I'm not gonna spend too much time on this, because again, I think Village Planner did a great job comprehensively going through all of our proposed changes and regulations. I would put the proposed modifications in two categories. Some minor cleanups that allow for improvements for viability of the project. For example, exhaust fans on the project, curb cuts along Kennedy Causeway. The allowance of a marina, since we're master planning and these properties are now together and unified, the allowance of marina facilities without regard to internal property lines. Again, these are just mechanical things within the code that in order to have the viable program that we wanted to propose in these cleanups. Next slide, please. The next slide really goes over code enhancements. And these are the things that we are proposing in addition to the reallocation of height that really allow us to and my client to create a master plan and vision that really separates this district from other areas of the village and really allows us to do that placemaking and do something special. So some of that, the village planner went over the access point. um and what our goal with the access point is to create a perimeter around the property uh because if we were to provide the access point or the island walk access point pursuant to the code you'd have one on the west side of continuum west and then you'd have another one on the west side of continuum east So there would be a whole other portion on the eastern side of the property that would not have that access point by by moving the access point to the eastern side of continuum East. We feel that from a planning perspective, that perimeter and the civic spaces that are being provided as part of the proposed program would be able to serve more residents. and have greater access. And again, a better condition in terms of having a circulation around the property than those two access points in the middle. Next slide, please. With that, I'll pass it back over to Alexandra.

So the proposed project, I think it's quite useful to look at the board in the middle. So the building on the left-hand side, that's Continuum East. That's Phase 2. The building on the right-hand side, that is Continuum West. That's the one that we've effectively already started on. Within the Tower 2, the area that you see it steps down to the lower height.

Do you want me to?

So the area that has a different architectural facade that is of a lower height, that is the hotel and the various commercial uses that Sylvia had mentioned, the 70,000 square feet are contained in there. There is, as you can see, a 600 linear feet of island walk and 5% of civic space. And we actually have uh a waterfront plaza that we're proposing which we thought i mean it's quite beautiful it's detail on the on the site plan uh next slide please uh one of the this i mean this speaks a little bit more to the development agreement uh necessary than master planning but we are waiving our right to build rental units um Technically, a developer can come before you and say that they're going to build rentals or condos and then decide administratively thereafter if they want to change their mind. We are waiving our right to do that, which goes back to having the significant tax benefits for North Bay Village. Next slide, please. We did a study, actually, of the... the project as originally approved when it was a rental when it was 345 units of rental and actually both properties were originally conceived of as rentals and we've come in and we're master planning them as condos and there is about seven and a half seven and a half million dollars of annual tax revenue anticipated we had a independent economic analysis done and the difference in tax revenue between the rental and the condo program is very significant as you can see. Next slide, please. Additionally, we are between the impact fees, community contribution, public benefits, workforce housing, all of those fees, there's about $20 million in one-time fees in addition to about $8.7 million annually in additional tax revenue for the city of North Bay Village. Additionally, the hotel provides foot traffic for local businesses and generally will increase the property value of all properties in North Bay Village. Next slide, please. So, we recognize that 1 of the things that. People residents are most concerned with is how just in general, all of the projects, all of the development along the corridor will impact traffic. We feel that between our reduction in hotel from 273 units to 200 and also. the the level of hotel that we would be delivering combined with the change from rental units to condo units which are continuum branded condo units are typically you know second home buyers that all of that combined with the fact that this is a ultimately a live work play destination all of that will have a mitigating effect generally on traffic next slide please The island walk that we're proposing, I put Martha Short's partners up there because she is a world-renowned landscape architect who is known for her ability to design things that are good for the environment and also very pretty and accomplish the goals of both the public and private sector. That is her specialty. So we have the 600 linear feet of island walk, the two access points that we have discussed already. We're looking at other features like shaded benches, hydration stations, doggy bag dispensers, trying to take the concept of the island walk and really make it, again, a place that people can go and spend time and take all of the features that we have seen be successful in South Point Park and where I grew up, Brooklyn Heights, and taking all of that and putting it into action. The photo you see here, which is the one that I put up here as well. This is the waterfront public Plaza that we are envisioning the perimeter civic space also will ultimately provide for a great. Dog dog walk and jogging path perimeter also. when by moving it to the perimeter we've created that condition as well we are planning to upgrade the existing marina the good news here is uh the marina does exist um we have every right to keep it we intend to keep it and we intend to keep the majority of the uh boat slips for transient use and additionally for use of north bay village residents We are going to look into a water sports launch dock, given that it's in existence already. We think that we will be successful, but regardless, the boat slips will exist, and we intend to make them available for North Bay Village residents. Uh, we are offering combined 4M dollars in community contributions and public benefit fees. Part of that is 600,000 dollars that we have already paid into the project for paddle and. courts. And in general, the project is really designed to improve the livability and walkability of North Bay Village residents with new restaurants and retail opportunities. We are also planning to provide, to the extent that there is a hotel amenity, a rooftop pool, fitness center, spa, we are proposing to make those facilities available to North Bay Village residents with a discount, so a membership program. And if you are a North Bay If you're a North Bay Village resident, you can have access to that through a discounted program. Next slide. And just in summary, the SAP is really located in the ideal location. T630 is, again, where it was intended for a project of this type. There is no increase in density or intensity. tax revenue is significant probably the most significant thing that we have here and the master planning of providing the perimeter really will improve the livability and walkability and also it All of the additional canopies, everything that we've proposed really is ultimately allowing for a more economically viable project, both for the developer, but also for future commercial tenants. You can't have an outdoor area if there isn't proper shade coverage. Someone needs to be able to get in the building. If they get out of an Uber, it's raining. They have to be able to get into the building without getting rained on. So pretty much all of the things, the little details really are very specific to just making sure that the project is viable for us and for future commercial tenants that would be on the ground floor.

That's it. Thank you so much. Questions?

Sherry, do you want to start? No? Max?

Paul, you have a question? No.

All right. So Sherry, what questions? You all want to go from the public first before questions? All right. We can do that and shut it. Is everybody on Zoom?

I don't have anybody on Zoom.

All right.

Is anybody in the audience?

Does anybody from the audience want to come up and ask any questions or comments regarding this project while we have open comments before I shut it? No? Going once, twice? Oh, come on, come on, sir. Please state your name and where you live.

Sure. Martin Ogawa. I live at Space 7934 West Drive, North Bay Village. I had a question regarding the height. I think when Sylvia had spoke, she mentioned that there was like an amendment or an add-on for like additional height. That could be an administrative change. And so I guess I'm interpreting that as it says here in the presentation that it's going to go 600 feet. But are we going to end up with 700 or 100 with administrative change? And so I think that's something that I would like to hear from you guys on.

You know, I guess the other question is, how high do we go?

You know, we look at Sunny Isles, 700 feet, Paramount Towers, 100 stories. So how high is North Bay Village going to go? I think Miami Beach, the continuum is like 600 feet. So they're not going to go high. Miami Beach has said, we're not going higher than 600 feet. So it just seems like in this, you know, I've lived in Miami 20 years and my wife grew up here and we've lived in Brickell, we've lived in Edgewater, we've lived in the design district and now North Bay Village is where we finally arrived and bought our place. And so we've seen construction. And so it seems the developers keep wanting to go higher and higher. So if they go 600 or it goes higher, then the next developer comes in, he's gonna wanna go higher. And so where does it stop? And, you know, we live on Harbor Island and, you know, we know that our East Drive is targeted. And so if he goes 600, if they go 600, Why would that developer want to go higher? So at what point does, you know, do we have an urban planner? Who is acting? I know that Ralph, our former manager, was an urban planner. So who is acting as the urban planner? Is it you guys?

Okay. Who's the watchdog? So we'll answer the question regarding Heightsford, sir.

So thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Anybody else for public comments. Please state your name and address.

I've been in North since 2014. 7, 928 West drive. And I have a unit, another one at the Kennedy which is close by and just next door to the suggested zoning. And I just wonder if such a project, what would it be a direct effect on the direct buildings that are surrounding this area? So how does it affect it and would we are able to have access to all these public amenities that are going to take place?

Thank you. Great. Thank you. Anybody else for public comment? Going once, twice, close. Thank you. I believe we can, I mean, address the hype thing because I'm sure it's going to be a question. But I think if everybody else on the board except for Sherry has some questions, Sherry, you can start. We can address the hype. Yes.

So to answer Martin's first question regarding height and the waiver that's available, that waiver would be specific. The provision that we have in the proposed regulations is specific to rooftop mechanical and covering specific to that. So right now there's an overrun allowance. If as we build for the mechanical, there needs additional space for that overrun and for those overrun equipment, we can apply for a 10% waiver that can be processed administratively. to get additional height for those mechanical overruns it does not apply uh to the height of the structure so that that waiver um that sylvia mentioned earlier would be specific to those mechanical and rooftop Uh, conditions, I'm going to let Ali answer the question regarding height of the structure, but I do want to answer some of the questions. She had a question regarding public access to the island walk access point. That will be all be open to the public. That's outlined in our development agreement. That's going to be provided and that's memorialized in that document. In terms of the height and consideration for the impacts of this development on our neighbors that was taken into consideration when we planned this project, which is why we had that condition that we showed in the proposal. We're closer to our Eastern property line. We will be step back. The height is lower on that Eastern side. the the bigger height of 600 feet is centered on the property in the middle and then you have the conditions going down on each side to respecting existing conditions uh so and and that is also established i mean the impact of the height in terms of our shadow study there's no impact uh between what can be proposed by right uh versus what we're proposing in our development i will let miss heitner answer the other question yeah i think uh

We are at 600 feet. Sandeep was at 650. So we are certainly not trying to push the envelope here. And as Chris mentioned, we spent quite a long time figuring out how to position the height in a way where there's essentially no impact on our neighbors and also our the way that the programming is master planned. I actually think, you know, even for Kennedy House, it's a benefit because we're giving an additional 10 feet on the easterly property line where in the as of right scenario, we would be able to abut directly onto the property line, you know, right on the line. And we're also providing closer public access for them. Now, basically at the entrance of their property, they're going to have direct and immediate access to the public amenities that they otherwise would not have had. I also think that it's the way that the island walk, particularly on the east side, is oriented. It also is right effectively at the traffic light, which is just also provides greater connectivity to the single family homes in getting access to the island walk. So we have taken quite a bit of thought and consideration.

And I think that that answer.

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Yes. Yes.

I want to make sure your piles go down to solid rock. Okay. Okay.

It's like that, which has a 3 inch lead because they didn't. Yeah.

I second that because, like I was saying, the Porsche has, like, a three- to four-inch lean because it gets the piles going deep enough. Yes. Yeah. I've worked on that. Do you have any questions?

No questions. Sherry? For Sylvia?

Great presentation, by the way.

Hi, Sherry. How did we get to 600 feet?

How did we get there?

Yeah, how did this project get to 600 feet?

It's based on the reallocation of height that they would be able to get from the 340 feet per each of the towers that they would be able to put. So it's basically reallocating from those to the two towers that would be on the site.

Is any of this bonus height?

not technically no no there's no bonus height and there's no provision for bonus height in the uh in the proposed sap so what is the allowable maximum height in in the base zoning or in the proposed so propose is what they're asking for right so what would we The base zoning allows 340 feet maximum for each of the towers.

So that's why I'm confused how we got to 600.

Again, they are proposing in their amendment to allow for the reallocation of density among the different components of the project and height as well.

And we're charging $0 for that.

There is no bonus included in this proposal that would carry a fee.

Okay.

So you just said what you said was important. In this, it's not a new application.

It's not a new application in what sense?

So there is approval for the 20 what the West lot was approved when that was the original approval for that was 2022.

So I heard from West Continuum West.

We have changed substantially from 2022. We have changed what's in front of us is different from what was approved.

Oh, the project, yes. How is this not a new application? I think that Tony can explain a little bit better with regards to the terms of like the legal terms.

And I think you're referring to how the community contribution fees were.

I'm getting there, yeah.

Yeah, I think that's where you're going. So let me just get you there.

Sure.

uh community contribution fees in t6 which is this district yeah are predicated on bonus density on units right so the base density is 70 units per acre and as you get up to 150 right which is the maximum you have to pay Community contribution fees of how much per unit uh well they're like a $20,000 a unit for the units that you gain in terms of density. And that's been in the code for, or in the fee schedule for a while. I believe the commission wants to reassess those fees. the excuse me you asked uh when it was approved why is this why is this not a different it is a different application it's certainly a different application however it's predicated it builds on the base of whatever they had and what they had they had already secured that density uh and secured the community contribution fee level i guess for that density so whatever that is right they do not have to pay additional community contribution fees for the same density they already have that density so what you may be referring to is and this is really dealing with the development agreement which is not before this board however i want to answer your question okay i believe where you're going is if they are changing the nature of the application shouldn't they have some you know provide some some some justification some incentives to to the village and uh they have provided a package of uh I guess incentives there's you know some uh I don't know that the the package of incentives is all the way there yet but but I but that's that's where things stand and that's that's a direct negotiation with the uh with the village commission but I think that's right

How could we approve not knowing what the incentives would be?

You're not approving anything. You're making a recommendation to the village commission. That recommendation can include that you think that there should be sufficient incentives here. But you're not making a decision on this application. You're making a recommendation. Right.

So our recommendation then to the commission How could we make that recommendation without knowing what the incentives currently are?

Because your recommendation is not based on the incentives. It should not be based on the incentives. It should be based on the project. You're reviewing a site plan and you're reviewing an ordinance and certain rules. And you're either recommending that they're they be adopted, maybe that they be adopted with conditions. You're looking at the land use portion of this. You're not looking at the financial incentives or community incentives portion of it. That's what's in front of you.

I mean, I think that they're very, very much intertwined.

I'm not suggesting that they're not, but I'm telling you what is before you today is a land use-based determination.

So I just want a further understanding of how this is not a new application with the substantial change.

It is a new application, but they're not... Yeah, they are not achieving additional density. They already got approved for the density that they have. The 500 some odd units that they have on these two properties that are now being unified in this application, they already secured that. They were approved for that density. And they are under contract, essentially, from previous development agreements to pay for what they need to pay for for that density.

Right. So I guess that's my question. If this was with a previous developer, did they just assume that?

They take on, they take, that runs with the property. They take on those rights. They also take on those obligations. Those obligations require certain payments.

Correct me if I'm, is my mic on? Correct me if I'm wrong. Basically, the project was approved for the Shepard site. They purchased that from Jesta. It just so happens that they own the property next door. So now they have the opportunity to combine it to make it an SAP property. and request a few changes to the whole project as it is. But it's still the same project, it's just taken a little bit different form. And actually, in my opinion, a more better looking form.

I mean, I agree that it's better looking, yes. However, what they did was have their existing site purchased from Jesta and now taking, they're transferring from one site to the next. So that is a substantial change. And with that substantial change, I think that the city in their development agreement in whatever negotiations they have should be asking more per unit than what was initially expected.

Well, I think from a legal standpoint of what Tony's saying is that if you want to put that on record, great. But our job here tonight is to look at the site plan and see what's in front of us and make either some comments of what should be changed or different or added on to whether it's public space or you know the commercial space or the boardwalk what's been laid out here we can make some recommendations but if you want to put that on record i think you're doing a great job of it but we gotta we gotta make a motion and vote on what's been presented so can we get into workforce housing then that is a part of this project that's a that's a requirement a code requirement

Yeah, you can talk about that.

So as of now, there are how many workforce housing units in this project?

There is a requirement for 28 units total.

Yeah, 28 units. And you're building 28 units.

We are, Continuum West was, we already agreed to pay a payment in lieu for 11, and we have provided what we thought that the majority of the commission was very excited about, which was the opportunity for to actually build on-site workforce housing units within the phase two of the property so we're taking the the message which was we actually would like if if possible for you to actually build on site and provided language that would allow for us to do that and that's how many units that's the

No, 28 minus 16. It's 16 units. And that's going in like what, the hotel?

Yeah, it's going in the public, basically in the public realm. So where the hotel offices and everything, it's providing the mechanism that would allow for them to be there. Same elevators, same, you know. which was the goal of workforce housing was to provide it on property. The payment in lieu was something that was derived after the fact once everyone realized that workforce housing and luxury condos don't necessarily go together. What we're trying to do here is to kind of uphold the original intent, which is to actually provide onsite workforce housing.

So I think that the original intent came from a great place. I was around when that whole idea was born. I think that it currently does not serve North Bay Village as well as the payment in lieu could. I know that there's an idea being floated with another developer about potentially the same payment in lieu for those workforce housing units. One of my suggestions would be to go full payment in lieu and not provide those 16 units because I think that providing those units to 16 residents versus what that money should do for the community at large, there's no comparison there. I get the intent of workforce housing, but we currently have a workforce housing program that nobody even takes advantage of so now we're adding further units into that program which again are not going to serve the community as well as moneyhood so that's why i would like to propose wiping those units entirely for payment in lieu if we could somehow work that into i i would want to work that into my suggestion

That's, I mean, you guys wrote the workforce housing ordinance. We are simply abiding by it. I'm, you know.

And I mean, to that same tone, I mean, I watched the meeting and I saw how you respectfully kind of wiped the floor with, you know, the zoning that we gave, that we have. And it was embarrassing. you know, to see a developer stand up in front of us saying like, you know, I was able to do this, this and this and kind of work around, you know, I'm not sure who watched the meeting, apparently. I mean, I don't know if you guys did, because I would expect you to have more to say, but as a resident, it was kind of shocking to say like, you know, there's a developer standing in front of us and this is not the first one. This is not the second one. It was like, yeah, I was able to work around your code and now look what I'm able to give, you know, to propose. And again, I don't think it's to the benefit of North Bay Village as much as it should be like at all, not even like a fraction. However, I mean, you can't, I mean, the developer is a developer, you know, I, you're not in, this is not a charity, you know? So I understand that the intent is to produce a great product and to make money, obviously, you know? And I think that, you know, if you look around us and communities around us, what those cities are charging for a project, something like this with the bonus height and, you know, the, the, the bonus units and, you know, kind of moving things around, we're charging next to nothing. And the community needs money. So I urge all of you in the audience, sitting up here, sitting everywhere, pay attention. You know, I think this is our chance to try and make some recommendations to the commission. Like, look, this is a beautiful project. You guys are probably the most thoughtful developer that we have had come up here. I appreciate your projects, truly. However, I think that the negotiations for what this project is offering North Bay Village need to start all the way over. There is so much money that's sitting on the table. So that's part of, you know, my questions about all of these, you know, the bonus heights and the, you know, what I asked Tony about how this application is not new. I don't understand it. But I do think that there somehow has to be a way that we as planning and zoning get the message to the commission that there needs to be some more negotiating around here.

I do think also the, I mean, the waiver of the right to build the rentals is a huge difference. And the, I mean, the best way to ensure the health of North Bay Village, this is speaking obviously from the private sector, it's not my job, but it's To increase the annual like the recurring revenue that you get annually is way more impactful long term than one time fees that you can. It's the cost of the one-time fees are extremely high the earlier you are on in the development. And what a very good developer should be able to do is to deliver a project that has long-term lasting benefits that both provide for public amenities and also support. a very robust tax base which is money that happens every single year and hopefully increases thereafter uh and and that's what we are trying to do something do you know how much out of the tax dollar stays in North Bay Village The tax money that I referenced, I very specifically, that is for North Bay Village. So my analysis is I have already, in the economic impact report, it's a full-bodied one where it talks about a lot more tax revenue, county and state, whatever. The money that I'm referring to and the analysis that I did was very specifically only for monies that would be retained by North Bay Village. Because I know, obviously, that's what... you all care about. So I already, I took out the county.

Here's my take, Sherry, just to is that one Look, I think there's been probably some financial things already done in each project, and that's why you purchase a project. Second of all, I think everything you've said has been noted because the appropriate people are sitting here in the room. And the next thing is that looking at a continuum of what they've done is that, one, they're actually breaking ground. Two, they've left Shuckers open and operating. which is the only developer that's actually doing something to keep things lively in this town, where there's other developers that have gotten a lot of things and they've kept their vacant buildings and haven't opened up the waterfront at all. And, you know, I think... And so, you know, I would say those type of developers are not being friendly to the community as much as they preached before they got their SAP. And this one has been great. So I would take that into consideration. And at the same time, we're supposed to be discussing what's in front of us as far as the site plan and any recommendations for that. And yes, that was a shot at sunbeam.

So the 7.5 million, that's what you said that North Bay really receives yearly?

So it's actually anticipated to be 8.7 million. What I was showing you was the difference in the previous approval. So the 547 units that you know we came they were they were conceived of as rental project and rental project does not provide the same level of annual tax revenue so the the switch the waiver of right to build rentals and kind of the project that you have before you and the additional revenue you get is because of the waiver of right to build rentals and so the 8.7 this is that is to north bay village not Not to the county to the county. I mean, I don't actually, I actually stopped. I didn't even look at that because I'm here to talk to you guys.

Not to the county companies have any rental projects.

Do we have any rental projects? And we've certainly built rental projects in the past.

But I'm saying like, you know, for example, like I understand what you took over and what it's being converted into, but it's not like continuing companies. That isn't your product.

Oh, we build, I mean, we've built, we built, we build whatever the market will allow us to build. We, we built the brand. by putting the continuum flag the name continuum on our building you are correct we would that the brand name we would not put onto a rental project but as developers we have built everything from workforce housing to luxury hotel commercial we we run the gamut and and kind of let the let the market, the property, the whatever dictate. So it's more of the name that we wouldn't put on, we wouldn't have continuum, like branded apartment, like rental buildings. But as developers, we certainly would and have built those.

Is there a motion with any suggestions?

I want to say you take each one individually. You've got a site plan and you've got an ordinance before you. Just take one by one, please. The site plan first?

The first one, yes. Why don't we take them in order? The first one will be the site plan 3A.

I make a motion to accept the site plan as presented. With the conditions? With Sylvia's recommendations, yeah.

just out of curiosity um with the one the one comment that sherry made which i think is a good suggestion where would it fall on the it should be the developer's option whether they want to pay or build for the um and actually that is still in there yeah so like the idea i'm sorry

Well, actually, that language is in the SAP in Appendix C that says that they will build this workforce housing as part of the Continuum East, but they reserve the right to.

Okay. So, to Paul's motion. Anybody want to second it?

I'll second it.

You want to do roll call?

Board Member Murphy?

Yes.

Board Member Lozada? Present. Board Member Abramson? Yes. Vice Chair ... Oh, Board Member Torvides?

Yes.

Vice Chair ... Vice Chair is on Zoom, and the vote is yes.

Chair Shaw?

Yes.

It's unanimous.

What's the next one?

Next item is 5A, and this is for the Special Area Plan.

I think they want to make a motion on . What are their recommendations here?

There are no conditions on an amendment, but we do have a recommendation that first, this SAP and the rezoning have to be approved by the commission, adopted by the commission, before they can take up the site plan. That's the sequence, right? First, you have the zoning, the text amendment, the rezoning of the property to that proposed new district, so to speak, and then they can approve the site plan. So that's the recommendation on the text amendment and the rezoning. And the other recommendation is that the Commission require them to provide unity of title or a covenant in lieu of unity of title. prior to the issuance of a building permit if this amendment is approved.

How is this project effectively already started if we don't have these approvals yet?

There are approvals from the prior projects.

but it's not this. It's not what we're approving now.

Maybe I can address it and maybe the applicant can address it, but my understanding is that the foundation of the preliminary work is the same, whether it's the old project or the new project. The new project is essentially the same building. It's going to be dressed up nicer, but the guts of the foundation are the same.

kind of speaks to my point that this is a different application but i understand i think it actually speaks to the opposite but also that we're talking about one piece of property which was approved and is being developed currently and now we have an entirely new project

you have basically right but there's still two two sub areas that have their own project each right and so continuum west is essentially a variation of what's already been approved. I think where there are going to be more modifications to the project is on Continuum East. Yes.

I mean, effectively, the Phase 2, where the height comes from, just if I can offer, just help explain. When you're building rentals, they are smaller units and lower ceiling heights in general. So really where, how you get to a place of, you're not really increasing the density or intensity, and you're just kind of reallocating, really comes from the switch from rental to condos, which the phase two when we purchased Chuckers, it was when it came before you all, it was as a rental project. And now we're conceiving of it differently, and we feel like it's an alignment of interests because it ultimately gets – us all to where we all want to be i mean we want we want to be in a village that is thriving as well but the high down east is not achievable without transferring it from west no no that's oh um well i don't think that's really what it is it's not really it's in concept more so than in reality what do you mean

Or meaning that if you look at the buildings, you can take it right now as is and build seven little gritty, 360-foot stubs.

And nobody's building those. Like, those are massive stones.

You can really do that.

So we came up here and did the same thing to scare everybody. Like, we can build all of these really ugly buildings, you guys. We can do it. Or... Look at this. We can build this.

But that's what we're talking about tonight. Do you want this project?

My point is that they would never even develop those massive studies. Come on. It's not even something that any developer... It's certainly not a destination. I mean, look, images right there.

Well, regardless if they would build it or not, right? It's the analysis is really from a legal perspective. What development rights does the developer have? The developer has these development rights and we're reallocating those development rights as permitted by by the unified land development code, right?

Which is kind of to my earlier point that there was one lot, one and with approvals, And then another lot comes along. So we get to now transfer height and units and still call it the same project. That's where I'm not.

Well, it's a reallocation of those development rights.

I don't even think that you needed the other lot to do this.

For sure.

the real reason we want we want the sap it it really does a lot it provides a perimeter that is just it's it's better for us and for everyone um we don't we could just

take the second tower and just go at that as a separate individual application. We could apply for the SAP and qualify on its own. We would like to keep the payment schedule that we've already agreed to. We know that the village wants money today. I say today, meaning now versus years from now. this is us trying to be good partners and give you guys what we know you want and what your timeline kind of addresses your timeline needs from a financial perspective.

I think I already asked Sylvia, when was West approved?

West was approved originally in 2022, and then the same year, but later after continuing purchase that there was a site plan modification that you reviewed. And that's when the conversion to.

At that time, we paid an additional 600,000 dollars, which you all already have. And then we modified it, but the modifications were, they were funny. I mean, we had like a combo unit, so we actually reduced the number unit count from 201 to 198, and they were, and the number of stories, not the height.

Yeah. Does somebody want to make a motion on the SAP?

I'll make a motion to approve the SAP. That's Sylvia's recommendation. That's Sylvia's recommendation.

Can I get a second?

I will second it.

All right. Alva, please.

Mr. Raichu, just for clarification purposes, the vice chair, Gonzalez, is online, but alternate member, Torbides, is here. Do we...

If the vice chair is online and able to participate, then his vote should... Do we call on Mr. Torbides? No.

No? Okay. Board Member Murphy.

Yes.

Board Member Lozada. Yes. Board Member Abramson. Yes. Vice Chair Gonzales.

Yes.

Chair Shaw.

Yes.

I want to be Gonzales. Thank you.

Thank you.

And now we have 5B.

Can we have a little break?

We'll have five minutes.

What happened to the green? Upgrading colors. I'll use yours. One less thing to be worried about. no we got some pre-taught I'll be the last one. Thank you. I need a lot of sun face. Yeah, I need a sun face. Yeah, I need a sun face. This month. It's already collapsing. So much for the villages. Yeah.

Ava, are you gonna give the presentation? Okay, so we're down to item 5B. If we could read that album, please.

5B, an ordinance of the Mayor and Commission of Northfield Village, Florida, amending Chapter 15 of the Village Unified Land Development Code, ULDC, to modify T6 transit regulations to address rooftop and mechanical structures, bonus height, floor plate limitations, and new corridor requirements, providing for salvability, providing for codification, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date.

Hello again.

Hello.

So the first clarification that I have to make is that this is a privately initiated amendment request. So this is an application by MG Prosper MBV LLC. There is no site address. There's no site acreage because it's not specific to a property. It's an amendment to the code. There are four items that are being proposed. Essentially, the first one is to create a height bonus of up to 10% over the allowable 340 feet. subject to payment of community contribution fees. As you know, we have a bonus height program in the code that applies to RM70 only. We don't have a bonus height program, as to Ms. Abramson's question from before. There is no bonus height program in the T6 zone. So what this would do is to allow for UP TO 10% ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ABOVE THE 340 SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FEE. WHICH IS, BY THE WAY, NONNECESSARILY BEING PROPOSED. WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THAT. The second item, also related to height, is to allow for certain already allowed rooftop structures to exceed the height for apprentices and to exceed the limit on roof coverage that we have in the code today. And we'll go through the details of this in a moment. The third item is for a building to be able, above the first story, to be able to cantilever over the required view corridor, which in the code in the T6 zone is always on the west side. So the cantilever would be of 8% of the lot width, as long as the project provides an equivalent size view corridor on the opposite side of the property, which would be on the east side. So in our base code, the view quarter is always on the west side, and it has to be open from ground to sky. What this is proposing is to allow for a cantilever above the first story of the building. In other words, so at the ground level, you would have the view quarter in its required width, but then above the first story, the building would be able to cantilever into the view quarter and build up up to eight percent of the width of the lot as long as they provide an equivalently sized view quarter on the opposite side of the property so you would have essentially the same condition we were talking about with two public access ways to the waterfront to the island Okay. And the, I'm sorry, I think I kind of, I copied the wrong one. Sorry. But the No, yeah, this is essentially the two parts of it. And they will explain this in more detail in a second. But let me kind of go to the specifics of the language that they're proposing. So for the measurement of height, I mentioned that for mechanical equipment, roof structures such as housing, the stairways, elevators, tanks, ventilating fans, et cetera, We now have a maximum of 20% coverage of the roof and a maximum height for the mechanical equipment of 10 feet above the maximum building height. So from 340 you get to 350. What they're proposing is to increase that coverage from 20 to 40% of the rooftop area and the maximum height from 10 feet to 25. I have the rationale on the slide.

I'm not necessarily for this district, right?

only for t630 yes uh the rationale um they they can you know speak to that but essentially we recognize that taller buildings and multi-family buildings require a lot of equipment on the roof and that the taller the building the taller the equipment needs to be for capacity um It can be up to 25 feet high. I mean, I did a little bit of research into, you know, what the average height of equipment for high rises is. It goes anywhere from like 18 feet to 25, 30 feet. And Paul is nodding, so yay for me.

Well, lots of times you put your elevators up there and put an elevator.

Cooling towers. Yes.

You've got elevator equipment on top of your elevators. You have cooling towers that go up to 25 feet. So 25 foot is reasonable for a high-rise. That's just my opinion.

So our recommendation on this one is we recognize that need. We recognize that when the the transit the form-based code was drafted and it had that limit of 10 feet perhaps it did not consider that factor I didn't write it but but that's that's what is there and in the five years that I have been here I have heard this over and over and over from the developers if they come in with plans that they need to adjust the height. And that's why we have had some waivers and different administrative approvals for allowing additional height for that equipment. So we can get behind this amendment as staff. But at the same time, I will note, as you heard me say, that they are asking for additional height via bonus. And if The board and the Commission favor allowing that. I'm not sure if there's a need to allow for even more height for the equipment. In other words, I mean, I'm not suggesting that you try to incorporate it, but it could be incorporated into that bonus height. In addition to this, I would recommend that the applicant look at the screening requirements that we have in the code. for mechanical equipment and make sure to reinforce them as well as this particular proposal. With regards to the view corridors, essentially what they are doing is to this section that is on the screen, they are adding the language that says that a building in this district may cantilever over the view corridor up to 8% of the lot width above the first story. as long as an equal width view quarter open to the sky is located on the east side. So you have two view quarters, one open to the sky on the east and one that is open at the ground floor, but then has a cantilever. So in our opinion, it could create a tunnel feeling to that quarter, which is the main quarter. And we are not recommending approval for this one. however if the amendment is favored by the board and the commission then we would recommend uh restricting how much the cantilever is uh or changing the allowed cantilever to not you know right now is proposed as a percentage of the lot with uh which could be significant um we um we would suggest then to instead think of it in terms of a percentage of the view quarter as is required and that the requirement for the east of your quarter be set to a minimum width The next item, which is related to the definition of floor plate area, that's the one that I was missing. I'm sorry for that slide. As you know, our code limits the floor plate cap for residential on these buildings to 15,000 square feet. And it also defines the building floor plate as being measured to the edge of a balcony. what they're proposing is to take out of the definition of floor plate the terms that make it required to be measured to the balcony and basically to the outside so that the balcony would not be counted as part of the floor plate. and staff can recommend approval of this amendment. It's unusual to have a definition that measures floor plate in this way. And I also did a little bit of research as to how other communities define floor plate and none of them include balconies. The final proposed amendment is the building height amendment. I already mentioned that what they're proposing is that the maximum building height for this remain at 30 stories, 340 feet, whichever is less, but up to 10% additional height in feet would be available via a bonus. Our recommendation for this is that if it is acceptable to the Board and the Commission that the bonus be structured similar to the bonus that is provided for the RM70 zoning district. That is that it be You know, on the basis of an increment on the number of units, but at the last meeting, the Commission provided direction to the village manager to conduct a study of community contribution fees and. In light of that, I think it would be possible to defer action on this particular amendment until that study is done and we have a better sense of what the structure recommendations or the fee recommendations would be. How many items are there? Four items. Four proposed amendments. Okay.

Let's have him make a presentation.

Wait, so can you just say, like, so we have bonus height is number four.

Bonus height for the building. Additional height for mechanical equipment. Floor plate. And cantilever of the viewport. Okay. Thank you.

It does sound like a lot, doesn't it? It's good to see everyone again. Graham Penberg, Howard R. Fernandez, Larkin Tappanis, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. Here representing MG Prosper NBV, LLC. And just a bit of background. Although, as Sylvia correctly notes, this is a text amendment. It's not site specific. This development team, sorry, I should be introducing everyone first. We've got Ariel Gutierrez from ownership. We've got Luis Revuelta. I always lose it when I try to do that, Luis. And then Barbara Paradisoli, our architects. We are MG owns across the street in Caddy Corner, which is 1681 and 1725 Kennedy Crosby, which is The last remaining, assuming that the SAPU review tonight passes, this site will be the last remaining undeveloped T630 site in the village. Everyone else, you know, Benihana obviously could be redeveloped. Some of the other residential developments could be redone. But we're the last empty dirt at this point. And we're also the smallest assemblage in T630, smaller than anyone else. So, you know, we're surrounded by the two big SAPs to our east and our west, and then we have, you know, Benihana, of course, immediately to our west. So that's why that is a genesis of these requests, that we are trying to provide flexibility to T6 developments, especially for smaller sites that will improve both design and functionality so um so that's kind of the the reason that we're in front of you with these requests now i can limit what i'm talking about to i guess the points of contention if unless the board wants to hear more detail but you know obviously if we start with height which is of course in front of us and i i do get frustrated without the ability to start pointing at stuff But this drawing that's in front of you on the right is the current code. On the left is the proposal. They're designed to be the same scale. So as you can see, what we have on the top on the left-hand side is the impact of that 10%. bonus. It also shows you how the difference between the two mechanical systems. As Sylvia noted, we're asking to go up to 25 feet for the mechanical and allow a larger footprint, which is very important for smaller towers, which we believe is consistent with the reality of the situation. And really, when it comes down to it, with any of these things, as you all know, there's no as-of-right development of the village. So any project that's coming in front of you and in front of the commission will need to justify why the mechanical system needs to be as tall as it is. No one's going to build mechanical systems that are taller than they need just to max it out. So we think that 25 gives the flexibility to property owners that they need here. The 10% bonus, there was some talk about height regarding the continuum and going taller. This differs in that, again, it's a modest amount that will give us room to accommodate. large, taller ceilings, mechanical parking. The ability, what people tend to forget also, is the ability to put interstitial space that will allow pool decks to be built, rooftop amenities, landscaping. All that gives us some more flexibility. And of course, as proposed, it would only be possible with, again, site plan approval and the payment of what an appropriate community contribution fee. a la as you do in RM70. So the whole idea is that this is another item you can pay for. It, of course, is all subject to site plan approval. So that's the height element, which we think are two reasonable minor changes. The floor plate, I'm not going to belabor because Sylvia has agreed that that is an acceptable and appropriate change. So with that, let me focus on the new corridor because I think this is the most potentially confusing. So drawing on the bottom is the current code, and this is a generic application to generic sites of the code. Right now, the way that T630 works is that you have a 20% view corridor requirement. It all has to go on the west, but you're also allowed to put your building at a zero lot line on the east, right? So you can take – you have to have that 20%. You can choose to put a setback on the east, but you don't have to. So people could be zero lot line on their one side, 20% on the other side. what our solution would do would give, again, an option for property owners to provide the full 20% on the West, right? That width is not getting reduced. However, we would be allowed under the ordinance to put to 8% of that total width could be encumbered above the first floor. So at the ground floor, that first 20 feet of height that you have under the code for the ground floor, which I believe is the number, Correct me if I'm wrong, Sylvia. It's open straight through, right? Then on the east, that same amount of the cantilever, you have to provide open to the sky. So you imagine the property, you've got instead of one side only having access, you have access on both sides, which is another thing we heard from the continuum tonight about having that kind of opening up the property to more opportunities. So you end up with a view corridor that is equal in width to the current code plus the width of the counter lever. So if you max this thing out, you have 28% of your lot is a view corridor. Now, of course, 8% of that has a building above the first floor. But again, you're not losing the 20%. You're gaining 8% of an additional view corridor that might not be as great as having it open to the sky, but it's more. It's 8% more. So again, the whole intent here is to provide additional flexibility for property owners to provide that access on both sides, to avoid a blank wall that might be necessary on the east side because of the zero lot line condition. You know, to provide landscaping on the east side, you know, to open it up. And again, you know, in our case, what we'd like to do is have pedestrian access along both sides. So that I hopefully I've explained that in a clear fashion. You don't lose any width of the overall view corridor open to the sky. You have a 20% view corridor that is completely open. You also have the additional 8% that is open at the first level. So again, it's an option under the terms of the ordinance for a property owner to add that flexibility. So let's see. Do I need to touch on anything else before I open ourselves up for questions? Let me make sure if I got this right. Yeah, I believe that. I mean, that's I can touch again on the floor plate if you're interested. But you know, Sylvia noted, there's no there's no controversy there. But we can answer any questions you guys have about the technicalities. Oh, and okay, I mean, he said he was gonna be quiet. But all right, let's let me bring Mr. up. And he can address you briefly and we'll close.

This is Luis Revuelta with Revuelta Architecture International. I think the explanation and the presentation was excellent. The one thing we wanted to add is that when you have a building at a zero, setback on a property, the amount of architectural flexibility that you have to execute anything on that building mass is zero, literally zero setback, zero. Any kind of eyebrows, any kind of architectural features, any kind of openings are prohibited by code and the fire code. Also, since the tower is set back 10 feet from the pedestal, any kind of building, residential building, any kind of building, 10 feet from a property line has a lot of limitations on the glazing. So we feel that architecturally this will give the city and architects and developers a better product. Architecturally and from an urban context standpoint, the ability to have individual architectural expression on the pedestals and the towers. And I think that's important from an architectural standpoint and from an urban aspect to the city and everything that Graham said, you know, we're going to have more landscaping and efficiently present It's landscaping, access on both sides. I think it's a win situation for everybody. And again, it's a code change. And we debated internally quite a bit whether to go for zone variances or go through a longer process of a code amendment. And we felt that the right thing to do was to go through the code amendment because maybe it will be beneficial to us, but I think eventually it will be beneficial to the city. That's it.

thank you thank you thank you um let me let me let's open this up to uh public comments and then we'll close that and then we'll deal with any questions is it is anybody on zoom album no anybody out there want to speak comments all right public comment closed thank you good comments

If your microphone, it's not.

Let's start with, but I'm recommending yes on the floor plate definition. Yes, the mechanical. Equipment height, we accept that it could be more. And we could support the amendment. At the same time, because they're asking for that additional 10%, I think that it might be possible to accommodate it there. So I think that, you know, I'm a little ambivalent, but we do recognize that mechanical equipment takes more than 10 feet. And then for the cantilever, We're recommending denial. However, if you do decide to recommend approval, then what we would suggest is to tweak what that percentage is and either reduce it as a percentage of the width of the lot or make it a percentage of the view quarter itself, not of the width of the lot, and then establish a minimum width for the opposite. Yes.

Anybody have any questions? I actually have a comment. uh for sylvia so you also said that we could potentially going back to the additional the 10 additional we could include it as part of the bones yes in other words there might not be a need to do a separate right right

Oh, and by the way, the other recommendation with regards to bonus height is to, like, they did not suggest what kind of structure or what type of fee or what the amount of the fee would be. So what we're saying there is if this amendment were to go through, that it be similar to the existing bonus program or that a decision on the structure and the fee could be deferred.

your questions yeah i have some comments first of all i highly recommend approving the 34 additional height for the building up to the roof plate plus making the mechanical 25 feet i would recommend both that's my feeling it just makes a better building all the way around secondly I personally don't like the cantilever, but if it was me, I would move the building over so you don't have it on the property line, and I would have 12% on the west side and 8% on the east side, but bring the building straight down. If you have to do a tunnel, at least you got the building coming straight down on the west. So that's... That's how I look at this, and I think that would make it a beautiful building if we did that. But I agree with the height for both, and if we could change the cantilever, give them additional space, keep it at 12% on the west and 8% on the east, it would make it a much better building. That's just my opinion.

Matt, do you have any questions? No.

So we need a motion. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion. I think there's a lot of movable parts to this. You want to go one at a time?

You could take them one at a time.

Just for my part, I do like Paul's idea. Which one? A little bit of this is that, you know, this is going in as a code, so it could go to other properties when it's really suitable for just the property that it's being directed to, which has happened a couple of times, which is not favorable in my opinion. But anyway, the fact that you would have the 8, let's just say the 8% on the east side, it would almost connect with the view or the corridor on the continuum project, which would make it even wider. And it should also be blended in there, which would be a beautiful theoretically.

But what we see is that these projects have a fence or a wall or a hedge, and so they're not really integrated.

and then how are they going to decide who's maintaining this and this and what one well i think it's a dedication to the city if i'm not mistaken you know there's an easement for the public access corridor excuse me there's an easement for the public access corridor but the actual full width of view quarter is not dedicated no

So what if one material in continuum is different from theirs?

Yeah, I think that has to be addressed. I mean, you can't have like 8% in a fence and then 62 feet or whatever it is, 42 feet. I mean, again, this is a specific situation. It should be addressed specifically.

i've done a project in sunny isles where we combined the walkway of one building to the to the well that would be to the south to our building and we combined the two so it was one walkway and everybody agreed it has to be addressed would that be a variance then um well a lot of these could have been achieved by variance a lot of these proposals um now the um

The issue of combining the view quarters, East and West from the property line, obviously that will require both of the property owners to coordinate and agree. There's no requirement in the code to force that because we don't have a East view quarter. We only have the West view quarter right now. Now, obviously the code allows, yes, you can build zero plot line on that east side but you're not required to you can build up to 15 feet right from the property line so you could if you wanted to you could provide a second view quarter on that side if you wanted to do it sure um And I know I've had several discussions with I understand. But these are all design choices. These are all design choices at the end of the day, right?

So, I mean, there's nothing stopping them from coming before us with a variance if. Dave would like.

I'm not even sure that, I mean, like, do you mean a variance for the view quarter?

I think we're all in agreement here on the floor plates and the height situation subject to finding a fee schedule.

I think that we defer the height conversation entirely until the commission has their... Well, that's what I said, subject to a fee schedule.

You could certainly make a recommendation to the commission on the adoption of the proposed amendment and the commission and the establishment of the fee structure and schedule could be deferred.

So then it would make sense, what you're saying, to combine the mechanical bonus height with the 10% bonus height. You're asking for height. There's your height. Not height and height.

Well, sorry to interrupt, but remember the 10% paying for it. So the idea of paying for non-habitable space at whatever the community contribution rate, you know, number one, we think it's appropriate to set a mechanical height that's consistent with reality. And two, the idea of paying for mechanical space for your building seems a little bit inappropriate to us. And again, sorry to interrupt, but the The fee issue, obviously, we know the fees are going to be established when the commission can get to it. You'll see it. We have a whole site plan process to come in for this property. At the time we're coming for a site plan, we're going to pay whatever that contribution fee is. It doesn't matter for this purpose. For this purpose, we're just saying, hypothetically, if it passes, that the bonus is available, right? And then the amount will be established

consistently with the rest of the contribution piece what I would suggest however is that because there is no reference in your proposal as to what that structure might be at least that so I guess where I'm going is if we don't at least touch on that it will require the village to come back and amend the code to make that reference

No, look, I'll say it on the record. Let's, you know, any recommendation in favor of that should include that the tax get amended to make it clear that that bonus is subject to the community contribution fee. 100%, that's always been the intention.

The mechanicals, didn't we just talk about this in continuum? They needed higher mechanicals as well. So why are we going to say we need to charge for something that obviously wasn't taken into consideration in the appropriate way in the beginning of the code? So that should be dealt with, period. And then people pay for height, that should be dealt with as well for somebody to pay, but it should be two separate things because it wasn't done right in the first place.

Because we're talking about 70 feet.

No, you're talking about 1034, and you're talking about 34 plus 14, or 15. 25. That's 49 feet, 50 feet. And part of it's mechanicals that you need anyway.

Oh, so we're going from 10 feet to 25 feet.

Yeah, you already have 10, which was inadequate. And the Unilever thing, I don't agree with that. I don't even know how to spell the word. I don't even know how to say the word.

I appreciate what you're saying, but again, the court amendment is in the spirit of not losing the 20% at all. The city will end up with 20% open to the sky. But the cantilever does. We're going to have the entrance, the drop-off area, on the west side. So it's going to be open to the bay. It's going to be a view corridor no matter what. The difference is that if there's not a cantilever, it's going to be cheaper because the developer is going to put columns in there. Cantilever is more expensive, but the cantilever gives you a substantial greater sense of openness at eye level, up to 20 feet. of the same 20% width, of which eight are covered, but in exchange of that we're suggesting you have to request architects and developers to provide that 8% that is open to 20, all the way open to the sky, on the east side. Because not only opens things up, better landscaping, better access, and better architecture on the pedestal, and the building on top of the pedestal. I think it's a win situation for everybody because Essentially, the building is being shifted, but not at the expense of losing width of your corridor. The last thing is, I beg you, I've heard this comment, not only from Sylvia, but from a lot of planning and zoning departments. Well, that's a minute. You don't have to do it. I don't have to tell you that the reality in life is that if you need a certain amount of space on a property that you're buying, to fit parking, and it's product for sale. Nine times out of ten, ten times out of ten, a client is going to tell us, use it. Yeah. I like architecture, but not that much. And this way, I think it's a win situation for everybody. Because I don't foresee that anybody that is in development is going to cut themselves out of 15 feet of parking space and a product for sale to provide landscaping in the new corridor. It's not a reality. It's a harsh reality. I can understand from a purely urban standpoint, you can say, well, you know, be nice, shrink yourself. But it's a reality that we have seen that it doesn't happen. I just wanted to clarify that because it's a reality that we as architects are always trying to figure out how to make better and distinct buildings. And a lot of times between the budget and the codes, our hands are really tight behind our back. Thank you.

So your question. So we're going from 10 feet to 25 feet and from 20% to 40%?

Of coverage, that's the proposal, yes.

Do you think it's realistic that there needs to be 15 feet more height and 20% more roof coverage?

Well, the 15 feet for the mechanicals, which we've already had the conversation saying that 10 feet was inadequate, and the 20 to 40%, you're talking like if you want to have a rooftop deck or a bar or something?

No, no, that's not what it is. The rooftop coverage is still for the mechanical equipment.

Oh, for the mechanicals? Yes. Either way, it's the roof at 400 feet. What are we, 34 stories. What does it matter?

No, I'm just trying to understand.

Well, screening is what's going to be important.

Right.

Yeah. No, I do think that that's probably reasonable. Yes.

And on the footprint question, not to insert myself again, but especially for smaller towers, like on a smaller site like ours, it becomes very important to have that much area to accommodate the elevators, et cetera. I don't know, Barbara, if you want to add anything.

I mean, what we typically have on these buildings, and because of code and after 100 feet, you need to have two elevators for fire, because we have the passenger elevators, and all that has to go up to the roof. Then we have all the mechanical equipment, cooling towers, the pumps for the cooling towers, and in addition to that, we have all the fans for pressurization of the elevators and stair shafts. So it takes up 40% is pretty much what we have in every single building.

i have no problem going from 10 to 25 and from 20 to 40. i think that's fine if it's all mechanical that's your recommendations okay yes so i think we can i think we're all in agreement on that i think we're all in agreement on the floor plate not including balconies personally i'm not sure that the cantilever is realistic i mean it's a view corridor it's not a drop-off tunnel it's a view corridor you know so yes maybe at the ground level you could see the bay but what about the neighbor across the street who's on the second third fourth fifth floor you know they're what about their view corridor you know when you add that cantilever now there is no longer i get it that you know yes you don't have to build to this to the you know you Don't have many developers that are like, yeah, no.

Put a setback there, Marie. We don't have to have one.

But that's their choice. I don't see any of these cantilever images looking attractive at all. So I'm going to go ahead and still be on that and say no.

So you do have a rendering of it. Who wants to?

I'll make the motion.

Form a motion, then, please. OK.

So the motion is yes to the mechanical bonus height going from 10 to 25 feet. And from 20% max roof coverage to 40%. No to the cantilever. Yes to the floor plate, not including the balcony. And deferring the 10% bonus height until the commission has their conversation. Does that sound right?

Well, it's the 10% acceptable subject to the fee schedule, meaning that it gets paid, right? Yeah. we not want to review it once the commission that's why it's subject subject to right but you're saying approval subject to the company yeah but we don't want to just leave it out now you know depending on what her motion is set with motion yeah you want to split them let's just yeah i think that would be nice let's take four mini boats and we can all package it so what's the first one so here um the first one in in order is the mechanical equipment height

as presented as presented sherry i'll make the motion okay make it we need to approve the mechanical the for the mechanical

to go from 10 to 25 and from 20% to 40%. I second. I second.

Yeah, you have to, I make the motion, not just, I'll make the motion. I make the motion to go from 10% to, sorry, 10 feet to 25 feet and from 20% to 40%. I second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Okay.

So I'm going to make another motion. Second item.

The second item, let's take the bonus height.

Defer.

Second. Defer the entire concept?

Yes. I thought we were going to do a separate two. They have to come back with the pay schedule before they get it.

But why wouldn't we just defer that item?

If I could interrupt again, as I will. We don't know when the community contribution fee is going to be determined, right? This could be months and months and months.

Whatever the fee is at the time, they're going to pay it.

So here's the thing. I just want to make sure that this is understood. We have a fee for bonus height in the code. and it applies to RM 70 and we have a fee amount which is adopted by resolution and it is our fee schedule that exists today so what this proposal as presented did not do is reference the bonus height as it exists so I would I would request that that be an amendment to your proposal that it includes that reference And whatever changes come later, it will be subject to those changes.

So what that would mean in dollars and cents. So if we approve it with the RM70 schedule, if basically the RM70 schedule is going to get changed

and then we'll apply to them so we'll change along with it right yes so my request would be that so your motion your motion if you wish to support it is to move it to approve with an amendment that will be the reference to section 8.12 Which is a bonus, not the payments. Yes, the payment schedule, but the structure, essentially.

Yes. Wait, so this is only if the commission approves bonus type for this.

What this amendment would do is it would subject this bonus height to the bonus high program that we already have the commission.

No, it's already in effect. I think the commission would have to approve the site plan for this application would include the bonus height.

otherwise there is no bonus height and there is no fee and no payment it's 100 percent this is in the code this is just a code we're technically not supposed to be talking about a site for whatever reason that is um this is just in the code so we're saying in the code it should reference the pay schedule that's already been approved that pay schedule at some point is going to change right now it's not a part but you're still recommending the defer

Not necessarily, no. What I would say is that if you are supporting it, you could do that right now. You could make that change to recommend change to their text to reference section.

You're adding an item. You're adding a pay stipple to it.

no not a lot of things i make a motion to accept the height plus the pay schedule reference all in favor

All right, the third one.

The third one would be the floor plate.

Yes.

The floor plate, the definition, the change to the definition of floor plate to not include the balconies.

I'll make a motion to approve that the floor plate definition does not include the balconies.

I second that motion.

All in favor?

Aye.

That's a quick one.

I think that's everything.

No, we still have a cantilever. I have a question. Is the cantilever area, the view, is that public access space?

I mean, we don't have public access space. 20%. 20%. If I may, I would like to address the issue of the cantilever. All we're doing is we're shifting the building. We're shifting 12% on one site, and another 20%, as you pointed out, or somebody pointed out, that will add up to the other percentages, whatever they are, on the other sites. In addition to that, what we are proposing is not to block the view, when I level up to 20 feet, of the 20%. So you have 12% open to the sky. You have 8% that is not open to the sky, but it's through. But the, as she mentioned, residents on the west side are going to have 20% because those that live in the east have nothing. So now the people in the east are going to have at least 80% because whatever is on the other side people on the west are going to have the 12 percent is whatever is on the other side plus the people at the ground level are going to have an additional eight percent so the code right now says you need to provide 20 all on the west side and zero on the east and is i i can predict that it's going to be very unlikely not on on this section of this town but anywhere in south florida that anybody's going to basically cut their buildings for about 15 feet to provide less parking and less units. So given that reality, what we're saying, keep the 20%, A on one side, top on the other. In addition to that, we're proposing not to put any columns on the A%, not to block at eye level that view of the bay. So I thought that that was, to us, architecturally logical and a benefit to the city.

again that's but to your to ryan's earlier point it's not an issue i think this is very site-specific and if you came before us for this for your site i would approve it it's great but like across the whole um section and as i understand it we're the last empty lot so the right now

I mean, once Penny Hahn is put out of business, I mean, I'm sure they're going to get rid of her. You know, the service ain't great.

It's terrible. I'm comfortable voting no to this, but, again, if there's a way to – Okay.

I'd like to make a motion to eliminate the cantilever. leave 12% on the west side and 8% on the east side for part of the view corridor. No, I know, you've got 12 and 8. If you eliminate the cantilever and just make that a solid building, which in my opinion will look better on the freeway, and you still have 12% on the west side and 8% on the east side. It doesn't change the design.

Just wait, I'm clear. If we wanted to maintain a breezeway, forget about the county, we wanted to maintain a breezeway for people to walk or for people, for cars to turn around, would the code prohibit us from that according to your... Where's the entrance to your building?

On the side there or in the front?

It's on the west. We're not putting anything off of the causeway. Everything is off of the causeway. You come in and on the west side, we are going to have... With columns or without columns, depending on what the code changes, we're going to have a breezeway that's going to be open to the car and to the pedestrian. I just want to make sure that that code amendment doesn't prohibit us or anybody else from providing a breezeway, which I think it's not only a benefit to the building, but a benefit...

share your excuse i'd like to know if it's possible to make this design specific to your project and not necessarily change the code exactly um because i'm okay with it for you but i don't know that i i don't know that it's favorable to the scene i don't know if i want to use the word canopy or canopy or whatever the word is i don't think we want to use bridgeway if we have columns becomes a bridgeway we don't have columns

It's a bridgeway without columns, and you can call it a cantilever. If you want them structurally, it's a cantilever, but it's a bridgeway with or without columns that is opening up the building, not only for us, but for the rest of the class. If you have columns there, it's not a cantilever. Exactly. That is a structural semantics. If you want to keep it open, put the columns on. All right. I just wanted to make sure of that. The code would not prohibit us or anybody else from closing out. It should be open.

We would allow your project, just not carte blanche for anyone else to do the same. That's why we don't want to change the code.

So what's the motion?

Go ahead. It depends. Let me just clarify. I think Mr. Murphy's motion is to go to split 20% with 12% on the west side, 8% on the east side. Okay? That's the motion.

And no cantilever.

Not allowing for any cantilever. It would just provide for the 12% the requirement would be 12% on one side, 8% on the other. Let me finish. Give me a second. Um, what Mr was asking, whether he would be prohibited from doing a cantilever. Not over that space, but over his buildable space. He could do anything, you know, he could do a cantilever. He could do a breezeway columns. No columns. It's up to him. He's got the flexibility to do it within his space outside of the view corridor. That's the motion that's in front of you. What they had proposed was to keep it at 20. and add up to eight on the other side anyway, but then cantilever over the side. You end up with the same situation, essentially. I think Mr. Murphy's proposal gives them more flexibility in design, but it also closes off that possibility of having a clear height. So that's, I don't know if I, I hope I clarified that. Yeah, with the columns, right?

Is there a way to make the, the split and the difference subject to whatever site plan is being presented at this time?

It would be anyway because it would be, well, I see what you're saying.

Can I just kind of for reference give you for this is approximate because I don't have a survey in front of me for that property with the two parcels. But just from a Google Earth measure, the 20% of view quarter would be 48 feet from the west property line, 48 feet. if in in accordance with this proposal the cantilever at eight percent would be 19 feet so that would leave you 28 feet clear 28 feet out of the 48

approximately that's that's i think we're all on the same page we just want it to be that if we're splitting the difference it should be on whatever agreeable at the site plan not not we don't mind it's changing it would be subject it would be subject to site plan approval no matter what but what you're providing for if you make this code change is these are these are the new rules right so if you don't

if you want more control i mean you're talking about a whole different amendment i mean they could seek to vary that provision right and you got you all may support that but they're taking a chance that that the commission doesn't support that the other side of if we were there is a way to write that that's like an option or through a waiver process to reduce to reshift the the setbacks there's a way to write that i just don't have that that writing tonight so how do you want to call

I mean, what I would prefer is that you have 12% of the site would be how many square feet? Just 28 feet?

Well, of this site, again, you know, without the benefit of a survey.

Oh, why this is the site?

It's about 255, 248, 249, 250, perhaps. Let's say 250.

So you would get 30 on one side?

and 18 on the other exactly so and the building will look better if it's in the middle of the site or not on the side so i would leave it at 12 and 8 and either put columns where you want to do a space or you know just come straight down with the building i don't know

And by the way, we have some of our site plans that have been approved already that have precisely that situation with the clear 20% and the columns at the edge of the 20% equivalent and an additional space beneath the building.

I have to read what my motion is.

What I understood is that you would change the view corridor requirement from 20 on one side to 12 on the west side and eight percent on the east side when i say percent i mean percent of the lot width yeah yeah and just that you don't need to make any other comment because there would be no additional allowance but tony wouldn't they have to deny the can't delete the language with the campaign because that's what we have in front of us His recommendation is to modify that. To modify. That's what I'm hearing.

So that's delete the cantilever language.

Yes, we delete the cantilever language. There would be no cantilever allowance.

And instead have the 20%, instead of 20% on the west side to have 12% on the west side and 8% on the east.

Once they have a tunnel, just put fountains or something. Can I ask a clarifying question?

Well, if we're going to do it like that, I think what my recommendation would be that we, that would be the option, right? That you still could do 20% on one side, if you wanted to, but you could shift it as much as 12% on the West, 8% on the East, something like that. Because, again, there may be someone who comes in the future that says they want to provide it all on the West, right?

Provide it all on the West. Yeah, as long as we get that flexibility to do that. What Graham's saying is what I was trying to say is that, you know, it's another project, so it should be –

what paul said no more no less whatever word so they could you could shift it however you want up to that if they wanted to bring it back to the zero line great so that would be all right because if we put it in a code we're saying everybody so that would be so so the requirement would be 20 on the west which already is percent on the east but at the applicant's option they could modify it With down 8. Correct. Max 8 on the east. Yeah, max 8% on the east and a minimum of 12% on the west. Yes. Okay. And with whatever they lose on the west, they got to put on the east. Okay. Is that the new motion?

Yeah.

All right.

That is the motion. All right. Yes. I second that.

We're on the same page. Second. Yeah, I think so.

Okay. Are you good? Go ahead and restate it. The requirement would be 20% on the west, 0% on the east, except that the applicant can move that portion of that view corridor from the west side to the east side, so long as it's one for one, and they can go down to 12% minimum on the west and up to a maximum of 8% on the east. With no cantilever option.

They can still have a driveway there with columns.

Within their buildable area, that's right. Outside of the view corridor, that's right.

All in favor? Aye. unanimous.

Okay. Are we done?

You guys, we hit all four.

Tony, do you want to take a vote?

You know, yeah, let's do one more motion with these four things that you guys voted for. Just one, just to tie it all together. So, mechanical as proposed. Yes. Bonus height. with the amendment to reference the fee schedule for RM70.

Yes.

Floor plate as proposed.

Yes. Yes.

And then the cantilever option is no longer a cantilever option. It's what you just voted on, which is the 20%, but you can move some from the west side to the east side.

Yes.

I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion to do what he just said. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you again for your patience. No, sir. Thanks a lot. Meeting adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.