City Commission - Special Meeting

On you?

It is on me. Okay, pardon me.

Good evening, everyone. We're about to start our meeting for 6.03. I already spoke with the city attorney. He says he's on his way and he would like us to start off on the quasi-judicial because the other stuff is just mostly procedural. Madam Clerk, can you please do a roll call?

Good evening. Commissioner Chernoff?

Here.

Commissioner Jean?

Here.

Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Smuggler? Present. Commissioner Hsu? Present. Vice Mayor Mackenzie Florymore? Here. Mayor Michael Joseph? I'm here. You have quorum.

Can you hear me?

You can't talk tonight. Yeah, I'm so lost.

Okay, next is Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, All right, we pretty much have one item and some updates and yeah, one item which is a five point, no, actually 5.2. We have to set the agenda, yes, correct me if I'm wrong, I want a motion because the city attorney said we can move on to quasi-addition because it is going to take the majority of time. Can I have a motion to move up 5.2? So moved. I have a motion. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye.

I also have a motion to eliminate number 5.1. Was this advertised?

Yes.

It was? I thought special meetings only have one topic. No.

No.

No, except for the ones that we put on there.

Excuse me.

OK. They can have whatever you want.

Yeah, but we advertise this.

Got it.

All right. Because this is a continuation. We did have public comment last time, correctly. This is a continuation.

Move to introduce resolution number R2026-73.

But before I start, there's a public comment section because of the special meeting. Madam Clerk, can you open up for public comment?

Sure. The Mayor and Commission of the City of North Miami Beach has opened a meeting for public comment at this time. There is a three-minute time limit for each speaker. Speaker, when you're called to the podium, please state your name or the name of the organization which you are representing. Please speak only on the subject matter that is being presented before the commission. The mayor and commission of the city of North Miami Beach recognizes the importance of civility. The city of North Miami Beach requests that all in attendance exercise civility towards each other. Anyone would like to speak? I have one coming forward. Mayor?

I got you.

Good evening, mayor, commissioners, city manager, city clerk. Hope everybody had a wonderful day. It's really hot. My name is Whitney Pidote. I live in Lazul residence. Today's item I know is the development project. And the only concern I have is make sure you have a conversation with the developer to see what is their communication plans. on all of their active construction site activities within the city of North Miami Beach, because once the project starts, it's gonna impact the community in different ways. You're gonna have traffic, parking, and then once the project starts, certain business that's within that building, those small business owners are gonna have to relocate. So hopefully you guys have programs or different things in place to make sure that the residents or the small business owners are taken care of. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good evening, Mayor and Commission, staff, residents. My name is and I reside in . I really wanted to talk about something else, but since we have to talk about this project, let's talk about it. It's always whenever we have an item coming in front of the city when it comes to building, it is the parking space. There is never enough parking space. We wanna make sure that these people who are coming in front of you tonight have enough parking space. That's what the residents always ask about, enough parking space. So please think about it before you approve whatever it needs to be done tonight.

Thank you, next speaker.

No one has come forward?

OK. Public comment is closed. All right. We are going to go to the actual item itself. Like I said, this is a continuation from the discussion that we had last week. Is the developer here? Please come on up. I'll let Mr. Ning, who is now working on our community development section through the manager, to speak. I guess that was one of the questions that I have him look it over. And before we have your presentation, if that's OK. Mr. Ning? Oh, yes. But weren't they sworn in last time? I thought this was a continuation. Yes, please. More people. Okay, please.

Shall we read the title?

Yes, correct.

Resolution number R2026S73, approving a site plan modification for the construction of a 572, 656 square foot, 23 story mixed use development located at 2040 Northeast 163rd Street, sponsored by City Manager, Darwin Williams. A resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida approving major modification of the development site plan approval granted on January 18th, 2022 by Resolution R2022-14 for the construction of a building with a total floor area of 572,456 square feet. Building height of 23 stories, 255 feet with a mixed uses including 30-unit hotels, 7,328 square feet of retail, 344 residential dwelling units, and 410 parking spaces, along with three variances. As amended by administrative minor site plan approval granted by the Department of Community Development, on april 22nd 2025 for increases in total building floor area to 650 384 square feet increase in building height to 25 stories 272 feet 8 inches increases in open space for 30 177 square feet to 41 326 square feet providing 10 additional residential dwelling units and reducing retail space to 4,526 square feet, allowing for the elimination of the approved hotel use and elimination of the variance for minimum lot size requirements for hotel use and increase the number of residential dwelling units by 32, a total of 374 with no other modifications to the prior project. Approvals for the property located at 2040 Northeast 163rd Street, providing for findings of facts confirming expiration and limitations of approval, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. And now, let's do the Jennings disclosure. Is that okay?

Yeah, well, I mean, we did a Jennings disclosure. I mean, at the very least, we're gonna say we already had a presentation already, but is it between the interim? Is that what you're gonna say? Just in case. Okay, yes.

Jenny's disclosure forms have been received by Commissioner Jean. So we'll begin with Commissioner Chernoff. Per resolution R95-24, the subject matter of any ex-party communication together with the identity of the person, group, or entity making the communication shall be disclosed and be part of the record on file with the city prior to final action on the matter. Commissioner Chernoff.

Yeah.

Have you spoken to anyone in this subject matter?

Yes, I did speak originally with the parties that are here and I can be truthful and understand what I'm looking at and make a decision. Thank you.

Commissioner Smith.

I had correspondence since the last one. I spoke to the manager about this before. and it's all before and i had correspondence from one of our residents ruth ogan and what i heard last time when i was here from the presenters and i can make a decision based on what i hear tonight thank you commissioner smuggler

In addition to what I said last time, obviously I was here and I heard what the attorney had to say and so nothing has changed and I can still make a decision based on the testimony I hear today.

Commissioner Hsu. Okay, she has a disclosal form. Vice Mayor Mackenzie Floremon.

I'm taking into consideration testimony that was given in the previous meeting. I have not communicated with anyone outside of that forum and I can make my decision based on information presented this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Michael Joseph.

I'm taking consideration of the testimony and the discussion that we had prior meeting. I can make a decision based on the additional information that was given to me this evening.

Thank you.

Please swear and re-swear or swear on new people.

If you plan on providing testimony on this item, please raise your right hand and if you can't stand, do so. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you were about to provide shall be the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And your response is? I do. Thank you.

Mayor, Commissioner, before we begin, just because the city attorney's not here for your benefit, anytime you defer an item or move it to a different date, it's always a good idea to redo the general disclosure because of the time elapsed. It protects you and it protects the city in that regard. The attorney was here who would say the same thing I'm saying. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. um with that uh at the um mayor commission uh pleasure uh staff would like to request applicant presentation first all by staff report thank you thank you good evening mr mayor commissioners my name is steve warnick here on behalf of the applicant for the williams site plan modification

May I ask your position, Mr. Ward?

Yes, I'm the attorney for the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

Sure. And with the firm Day Pitney LLP. So just some quick background on the chronology. You may recall, I think many of you were here, the original site plan approval was in January of 2022. Last year, in April of 2025, we submitted minor modification application for certain changes to the building configuration, which actually included a slight reduction in the retail. It included additional parking spaces, 38 additional parking spaces and 10 additional units. Also, and we'll be showing um through javier font the architect we'll come up and walk you through some of where these changes have occurred what we're here on in this most recent submittal is just the conversion of the 30 hotel rooms to 30 multi-family units so nothing further is changing from what we submitted and worked on with staff last year I will say that we worked through the TRAD committee, multiple meetings with your technical different disciplines, which included providing an updated traffic study that found de minimis effect of the conversion from hotel to multifamily. We also went through the planning zoning board in April, and they recommended approval of this application. I do want to add now that we are proffering one additional condition. Just in talking with staff, we thought that it was important because there are some rooftop amenities. We want to make sure we're clear if there was any confusion that we're complying with the code in section 24-58. So the condition that we're proffering that we've shared with Mr. Ng is that the roof terraces, amenities, and covered structures shall comply with section 24-58S of the city code of ordinances. Enclosed structures above the maximum building height shall not be occupied by habitable units or commercial uses. That's the intent in the plans, and we just wanted to make sure that we are committing that we're not going to be using that space for any habitable uses, which the code would not allow. So with that, I'll just quickly go through a couple slides and I'll turn it over to Javier. Again, the site plan and variances were originally approved by the city commission in January of 2022. There was a minor site plan modification that your former community development director approved administratively April of 2025. And in this application, converting those 30 hotel rooms which are there's five on six floors that are lining the parking which results in a total of 374 residential units we are keeping the ground floor retail but again it's it's it's reduced in size there's no other changes to the building envelope height or footprint we are eliminating one variance which is for the minimum lot size for hotel use because we'll no longer have those hotel units And with that, I will turn it over to Javier just to walk you through the updated plans.

Good evening. Javier Font, Behar Font and Partners, architects for the project, 4533 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. Thank you for the opportunity. I'll take you through the design very quickly since I know everybody's familiar with this, but I am here available for any questions you may have. So what you're looking at is the ground floor of the building. At the top of the page is 163rd, and as you can see, the street there is lined by a small residential lobby, and by a retail component. And there was a comment at one of the planning hearings about making a wider sidewalk. So what we've done is basically make the whole piece on 163rd a little plaza area so that you've got all paved with some nice landscaping up on that. On the south portion of the plan, or the lower portion of the plan, you've got your main lobby area on the left. You've got your vehicular entrance and exit, a little bit of retail, and then some FPNL and some back of house areas all the way on the right-hand side of the plan. This is our typical parking level which happens for the next seven levels or so. Basically it is also lined, both streets are also lined completely. So you see the units on the top of the page, those are currently the hotel rooms. and that we are trying to redesign to or reuse as apartments instead of the hotel component. But the view from the street basically stays the same thing. It's completely lined so you don't see the parking garage behind you. And then on the lower portion of the page or 164, you also have the same condition where the entire street front is lined with residential units. This is our first amenity level, which is the ninth level. And everything you see in yellow is some sort of amenity, clubroom, gym, office areas, things of that nature. So all tenant amenities. And then obviously the pool is at the bottom of the page. And then everything else is covered terraces or trellises or things of that nature. So this floor is completely dedicated to amenities only. Then we go to our tower. This happens through the 24th floor. Basically it's units and it's basically the same floor plan that happens all the way up. There's varying balconies that you can see in the elevations just to break up and make it interesting. But the floor plan sort of repeats itself up the building. And then this is one of the floors that was added, which is some additional amenities on the rooftop. So a good portion of the rooftop is just mechanical areas, but there is some additional amenities, which is what you see in yellow. The red is the core of the building, the elevators and the stairs. The yellow around it are additional amenities. Then there's a pickleball court, which is in blue, and then some outdoor terrace areas on that level as well. And these are the elevations. They're basically identical. And then some of the materials for the building, some of the renderings. And as Steve mentioned, basically for this application, all we're doing is changing the use of those 30 hotel rooms to units. And I think that's it. Thank you very much.

So in changing from the 30 hotel rooms to the 30 units, there's no change in the floor plan?

None at all. Okay, thank you. They were sort of oversized hotel rooms, if you will, and we just made them residential units. So it's just the use, really, that changes.

Okay, closing thoughts before we go to the...

Thank you, just...

I do have one about the parking. No, I was going to wait. I was going to have the presentation be completed.

Okay. That's how we usually do it.

Yep. I'll wrap up quickly. Just wanted to remind you, this is a developer that's familiar with North Miami Beach and has built projects here. The Highlands, Nexo Residences are projects of this developer. They're very excited to get started with construction. They've actually pre-sold 25% of the condos, so things are going well. And their hope is to start construction in Q1 of next year. And so with that, we're here for any questions or any additional information we can provide. Mr. Nee? All right.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. There's a staffer second that we put to our presentation for the staff reporting. Thank you, Wayne. Already. Okay. Mayor, Commissioner, this is from staff standpoint, the William Major's Modification of Site Plan Approval, Public Hearing Case Number 25-08 presented this evening that went to Planning and Zoning Board uh last month um during the regular board meeting and would recommend it for approval location for the record uh active before for the record edward ning internal development director okay uh maybe my phone is too close or maybe something electronic uh the local Location is at 2040 North East 163rd Street as folio number 07-2216-012-0220. This is in the mixed-use employment center district on an approximately one-acre lot. As you can recall, as you can see on the map, it is a regular-shaped lot, which is why there were several variances granted in the past. as requested is asking really for a conversion of the 30 units to be converted. Changing from the prior approval, you know, that had certain aspect to it. It removed the hotel unit. It's a change of views that must come before the commission per 24-172.1 of the city's ordinances. They did have to also make certain changes because we regulate parking for residential units and hotel units very differently, their aspects of traffic and so forth. You had previously granted three variants of the commission. These run with the land. This was hotel use. If you change the use, it no longer applies. The zero foot interior setback, and that had to deal with the lot size and the irregular lot size that you saw. That was the reasoning behind the commission granting of that. And the zero foot tower setback. all those are actually encoded into the site plan and as the applicant mentioned and staff is confirming there are no changes to the envelope with the building um you know that the envelope the building is shown right here um um as you can also see from this the uh but the envelope doesn't actually extend all the way to the end only in one particular point There are some aspects of modification considerations I've mentioned, change in the use, increase in density or intensity, or any other proposed change where staff is not comfortable. And again, a minor modification only really covers certain aspects of the internal aspect outside the use, and that really doesn't cover here. Now, there are aspects where you can exceed not up to 10% of the metric and staff have checked that. So we find that to be pretty consistent with the product. Now, when thinking about this modification of the dirty unit, there are very specific aspects to think about. First, basket of rights. Second, traffic impact. Third, parking. And fourth, hiding stories if you're changing the number of stories, in which case the applicant has gone from 23 to 25 stories while keeping certain aspects of the height. We have reviewed the application from staff standpoint and confirmed the applicant had not made changes to the facade previously approved by the Commission. It complies with the setback tower and lock coverage per your variances as granted and we'll cover parking in a minute. First is then the back of the right. With any approval of this type in the district, we just know to commission how many units are left. If you see commissioners, mayor and commissioners, there's 966 units left in the back of the right. So there's ample room left for the approval. It can really allow for those 30 units to be assigned here without really impacting any, other development within the area i mean you given your past approval that's anywhere from one to ten uh additional uh developments uh uh well actually three to ten additional developments based on what you have provided and of course the hotel rooms is calculated non-residential far that's reporting that for a reason because when you convert that use back that's where footage then goes back into the back of the right so with the trade-off here uh uh for the record traffic impact at the applicant notice de minimis. That's just a short explanation why. We utilize the ITA traffic generation manual latest version. And so what you currently have are two different uses, a high-rise residential use and hotel use. There are different land use codes that have different a generation of traffic within the manual. So think about this as going from something more intensive with this hotel at about 0.6 to about 0.4 for residential. So you're actually, when you do the type of conversion, normally you see a reduction in the traffic generation within the traffic generation, the traffic analysis. And this is why it's termed at the minimus because you're projected a decrease based on this methodology utilized by the city. For parking, now I know parking is something that when I was your director, the last time and the previous time. It's something we talked about. And the commission did pass changes to the parking ordinance on October 15, 2024. However, staff needs to note that those parking amendment changes would be deemed more restrictive because it required more parking spaces. And I don't know if the city attorney had briefed the commission on SB 180. SB 180 provides preemption from the state. And the preemption date from the state is any legislation that is more restrictive after August 1, 2024. Now, going back to the fact that at the commission, you passed second reading on this on October 24, sorry, 2015. Sorry, October 15, 2024. Sorry. Staff note that the state has preempted that ordinance. And therefore, the applicant must be calculating on the basis of what you have adopted beforehand. So based on that, staff went back to what you see in the chart, which is based off of the standards that we have in the MUEC district, looked at the number of bedrooms that they have and this calculation. it is compliant with what the commission has adopted into the code, which has a maximum and minimum. Now, if the parking wasn't preempted by the state, that would be a different required number. But because we have been preempted by the state, staff advised us that if we try to do something preempted by the state, the state will be subject to a challenge. And it's not something that community development staff would recommend in this regard.

All right, before you move forward, I know there's parking, so let's see if we can mitigate those issues now. Commissioner Smugler.

Thank you so much. So I would like, Mr. Attorney, if you can explain that whole what he just said, please.

State of Florida has passed a series of very restrictive ordinances that interfere with home rule. We talk a lot about live local, but we talk less frequently about 180, I think it is. What that said basically is past a certain date that ordinances that attempt basically to restrict development were preempted by the state because they were, I mean, frankly, why it applies to us is very questionable, but that's how they wrote it. There were attempts to rebuild in the wake of that very devastating hurricane that hit the west coast, the southwest coast, wiped out like Sanibel and Captiva. And that's the law that they passed. It is not a model of clarity. I mean, it is possible that under certain circumstances it can be challenged. I happen to be one who thinks that it can be credibly challenged as it applies to us because we were not in the process of rebuilding from the hurricane. And it is questionable whether the ordinance that we passed really directly conflicts with it. But it certainly, at least as possible, it can be read that way. And people, frankly, have read it more restrictively than I read it. So, you know, I'm a little bit of an optimist about it. It is unquestionable that there's this state law that says that something that's more restrictive on development is preempted, past that date, is preempted by the state.

So the ordinance that we did on parking, what you're saying is it's no longer valid?

I hesitate to say that because we have approved some things in the past with that, under that ordinance. I hesitate to say that because there's not a clear judicial determination, but I can't say that the meaning that Mr. Heng is ascribing to it is, just wrong, there is this state law that purports to preempt what is more restrictive. Is parking more restrictive? There's an argument to be made that it's not. but I have to say more people in my business seem to agree with Mr. Eng's interpretation than mine. That doesn't mean we can't try to enforce it and have somebody sue us and take us to court and then we'll know.

So basically they don't even have to put parking is what this law is saying?

it's any development ordinance any ordinance that restricts development i think the explanation of us listening to it is mr gebbett

Right, but if the developer came and said putting up parking spots prohibits me from building more apartments, then we have to say.

Well, it doesn't mean we can't restrict it at all. It only means the change from what was the prior ordinance may not be valid. It doesn't remove our ability to regulate parking. It says that if we've taken an action that's deemed more restrictive, the action that made it more restrictive may be controlled by the state. And we go back to the previous ordinance.

When did this become effective?

Pardon?

When did this become effective?

I believe it was as, I think it was as, well, 2024. I think maybe... I forget if it was July 1st or October 1st. Do you happen to recall, Mr. Ng? I don't have it in front of me.

It was either July 1st or October 1st, 2025. Of 2024. That's been in effect for over a year.

Okay, so, but this originally came up to us in 2022. I mean, they were speaking last week about being grandfathered in, so now they're grandfathered in.

I don't consider it to be grandfathered, no. I think it is different. They are, if the state law has the effect of preempting our new ordinance, then they simply operate under the previous ordinance. That's not really the same as being grandfathered. They are controlled by the ordinance under which they were approved. It's just the fact that whether we changed our ordinance adopting a new ordinance, that may not be effective against them. And the only reason that would be an issue, I mean, if they had not sought any modification, they're already approved. They were approved under the ordinance that was in place when they were approved in 2022. But when we say, well, wait a minute, you want a modification, you have to comply with our new ordinance. It's not a matter of saying that their grandfather, that's really a different standard. That's where they become, they're trying to assert that they've had a use that's continued for a period of time. This has to do with the fact that they're seeking a modification. The modification they're seeking entitles us, arguably again, to say, well, based on the fact that you're seeking this modification, we have a new ordinance. You have to meet the new ordinance. And there is a credible argument that the new ordinance itself is preempted by state law.

So why did we bother doing the new ordinance?

Well, I think that was right when I was getting here. I think that ordinance had been in the works for quite some time, and it just went ahead. And again, the state, there was a serious effort this year to modify 180, because it is... Again, in my opinion, it's overly broad. It's been applied to a whole range of things that I think are more than what it was intended to do, which was to allow people where the hurricane had ravaged them to not be too restricted in trying to rebuild. So, A, there's a possibility that our ordinance could be defended in court. It's not controlled by 180. I don't think that's a closed issue. It's

Okay, so if we chose to then fight, I'm sorry, insist that they have to have X amount of parking, then we're entitled to do so because- We could take that position.

They could challenge that in court and we would see how the courts ruled. Frankly, as I said, I had hoped this past year there was supposed to be an attempt to dial back that 180 and make it apply in less situations, that might yet happen, but not in this session. Even though they still have some specials they may be holding, it looks like that's not gonna be among the issues.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Smith, did I know parking was an issue?

Mr. Ning, I wasn't here then, so I want to be caught up if I could. The rooftop.

Yes, ma'am.

Was there a variance given that they could go higher?

There is no, there was no variance that they could go higher. However, I have several slides subsequent to this that may answer your question, ma'am. We're only in the parking portion and there's a section on height which I'll cover shortly.

Okay, I would like that because he was saying that the rooftop will not have any commercial and will not have any residential. But the rooftop has quite a bit of living up there with racquetball or pickleball and there must be restrooms up there and a bar up there. So I want to know if that was an invariance.

If at the pleasure of the mayor and commissioners, if you wish, I can continue on with that presentation. That may answer some of Commissioner Smith's questions.

Okay. I'd like to ask you to bring up the slide again. And if it's possible, are you able to zoom it?

IT would be the one to ask to put up there. Give him a second.

Is the slide on the rooftop? Is the slide on the rooftop? Could we talk about the rooftop being as I had the floor?

Well, we're talking about parking right now?

No, we were talking about the rooftop.

We paused because Commissioner Smuckler wanted to talk about this parking. So now I'm just continuing the parking conversation just to complete that. IT, is there a way to zoom in on that one? Or can you print the file? Can you send it to us or something that I can take a look at closer? Because I can't see it.

Didn't we get copies of this presentation?

I thought I had them. No. We have copies? I don't think so. The agenda came in two pages.

Mr. Mayor, I think that she did ask for something, so she can't ask the staff for something else if she already asked her for something.

Go ahead, Commissioner Charles, can you repeat what you said?

Phyllis asked the staff to put up some screens, and now Lynn's asking them to put up some screens.

No, but we were talking about parking. Right, but Phyllis went off the parking. But then I got the floor. But he's talking, he's still talking about parking. He said we have to go back.

We're going to continue his presentation and then address the rooftop that Phyllis went to.

Well, okay, so this is what I'll do. So in the meantime, because I don't know how quickly they can zoom in or zoom out.

There we go. Okay, great.

Okay, so if you can be a little bit quick and explain this.

All right. Commissioner, when zooming to the section you want, I just need to know how to zoom in, right, where to zoom in on the chart.

Thank you. Okay, no, so the explanation is what we approved is the three, So minimum, we need 391. This is according to the old parking code, correct?

Yes.

Okay. And then they have 448 parking spaces.

Can I go see what are... My apologies, Commissioner. You have to add these together because they are... They are, the retail is calculated differently than the residential. So you have to add the retail and the residential together. So they actually have 457 because you see here they have 448 and nine. And so that's where they get the 457 in the proposed this evening commissioner.

I see. And according to the number of rooms with one bedroom, two and three, right, that one is already the minimum of 391. Is that what was required?

Yes, that is what is required under the minimum and maximum plus one space for every 20 rooms is the calculation. They were required to have a minimum of 391 spaces or a maximum of 767 spaces. Without the modification, the applicant actually would have been compliant even with these changes. They are simply adding more spaces of their own accord to account for the changes in the residential aspect and perhaps the guest parking. But they're not actually required to do so.

Got it. And also the 10 ADA is not included in the 457 that we're talking about. It's extra. Right. Okay, great. No further questions.

I have one more question. So for, so how many parking spots are allocated for 30 hotel rooms? It's like eight, right?

It would have been 10, Commissioner. Isn't it one space for four rooms? Well, they were required to have eight, but they originally gave it more commissioners, what I'm saying. So originally they had 10 spaces allocated.

But they're not adding any spaces now that it went from 30 hotel rooms to 30 apartments?

Right. So they have moved those spaces to residential and added the spaces because they originally had less residential and less parking spaces.

Right. But if it would require instead of 10 parking spots now would require at least 45 parking spots. Right.

i'm not sure because it's 30 apartments so 30 apartments so yeah they would need actually 31 spaces because remember well we would round up from staff standpoint to 32 because in addition to the fact that these are studio apartments uh a commissioner so one space per part uh per unit plus one for every uh 20 units right so you got 30 plus 30 divided by 20, which is 1.5. We round up to 32.

Okay. So we should be getting 32 instead of the 10. So 12 more.

Yeah. So the applicant had, well, 22 more. So the applicant had compensated by going from 417 to 457, which is 40 spaces.

Right, and you had, I know we're talking about the parking, but you had mentioned something about the basket of rights a few minutes ago.

Yes, ma'am.

So I thought the basket of rights was only for that area that the city had done a few years ago, which was like Biscayne Boulevard and West Dixie.

No. Commissioner, the back of the right applies separately to each of your mixed-use districts that's adopted by the city. So each mixed-use district, mixed-use town center, mixed-use employment center, you know, the different districts over by where the Riverwalk towers are, they all have their separate pool that staff has to track differently for the commission.

I thought it was just those two areas, but you're saying it's any area that has a mixed use.

Right. Because in order to provide you with the accurate picture of what you may approve at the commission, we have to go back to what you told staff we can approve in particular for this district.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. We can move on with the slides. Yeah.

All right. Now to heights and stories. Bear with me while I find, ah, here we are. The roof level, while the overall height is 272 feet and 8 inches, the roof level is actually at 254 feet and 4 inches. And the rooftop contains a proposed amenity. Why that's important? That's important because of the rules that the commission adopted. So the commission has several items that are adopted in our code that cause applicants to react a certain way or design a certain way. One of this is you don't count the mechanical portions against the height limit. That's under section 24.83 of your code. And that's a significant portion of what's being proposed. The permitted height for the racquetball court, the court itself is open to the sky and it's at 254 feet. Now, there's also an aspect of, oh, they got extra stories. You won't allow 20 stories. But your code also allows you to have extra stories underneath that 254 feet as long as, you know, you meet certain requirements. So that's also accepted for as well by what the commission has previously adopted. Now, in addition, the commission has two other sections where it pulls a certain rule for the rooftop that would affect how staff is able to evaluate this. uh in terms of compliance one is that um rooftop terraces that are open to sky portions like the pickleball court are allowed on your rooftop so many that's under section 24.51 s1p The other aspect is that there's, you know, under that rooftop amenity, there's aspects where they want you to provide shaded seating areas and stuff, right? So, wait a second. I thought it was supposed to be open through the skies with this racquetball or pickleball court or whatnot. Doesn't this seem contradictory? Well, that's where the commission went in and put another section in regarding cover structures and amenities. Now, that's under Section 24.58 S1Q with the two sections later, where it provides for certain rules on cover structures, including those bathrooms that would be naturally required if you have those amenities under the building code and other climate control structures. How do other cities deal with it? How did we deal with it in the past in terms of approval? Well, it's a difference between habitable space and non-habitable space. We treat that differently from a living area standpoint. That's because it's occupiable does not mean that it's defined as habitable space. And that is where the applicant has come in on the distinction and direct citing of the city's adopted code in order to support that condition of approval where nothing on the top based on our code can be utilized for non-habitable space, but it can be used for non-habitable space, such as bathrooms for the pickleball court and other amenities. What the staff is always concerned about is whether or not an applicant will build out a space, enclose it, and suddenly make it into a bedroom later on. They're not allowed to do so because that makes it a habitable space. What this condition does is make it enforceable that the amenities they're proposing up there remain part of those amenities only. And under the code then, you're allowed to have those covered structures, you're allowed to have those rooftop terraces, and you're allowed to have the mechanical aspects not count against the height of the building. Commissioner Smith, does that answer your question, ma'am?

It does. You know, again, I wasn't here, and I did ride by the project again because zero lot line. Yes, ma'am. If the property on the south also wanted to build and they build zero property line, they'd be abutting each other. Is that what we want in North Miami Beach now with no space in between? So then the reason the rooftop became part of it because like pickleball on top of the roof, what kind of netting are they going to have so that the tennis ball doesn't go flying everywhere? And what kind of privacy will the zero property line have next door?

So, Commissioner, there are several things that relate to this question. First is the irregular size of the lot. So in terms of this square right here, If something were to come in here, you won't want it to, but otherwise you have a really weird alleyway in between the buildings. Now, up to outside here, there is an alleyway here already that allow for the, they're a lot like they're not having an effect. And on the other side, that is for the determination on how to proceed if that building come in. And other major cities, sometimes they are next to each other because that is how the development has come into play. In other places, as you've seen me argue before the commission on other projects, we had to say, okay, you know what? This development came in first. But you know what? We want to make sure we have a pedestrian walkway to cut through the block. And so the commission saw it fit to recommend in its conditions of approval that the building would be designed a certain way. And so that's still within the commission's discretion for any future project that comes in. Certainly what you've mentioned, Commissioner, it's a valid question. It's a bit more nuanced from what we see here.

Right. And I'm wondering, Looking at this project and the project being improved tonight Do we want to change our code? Uncertain areas 163rd Street 167th Street to have zero lot line as not a variance Not asking the city for a favor but that would be the new norm and that would bring us a more profit for a developer to have more land to build on. I'm just saying if it's gonna work here, it could work. And I think I would like the manager to consider bringing that forth maybe as something to change our code that on certain streets, 163rd, 167th, that it would not be a variance if it could apply to have a zero property line. Now, what about the tennis balls? We had to vote, some of the commissioners may have been here or may not have, but we had to vote about the basketballs on the, The Jewish school, were you here? Was the screening gonna be high enough? Is there going to be a requirement that where that pickleball court is? I played pickleball once and I'm asking for a friend that maybe doesn't hit it as well. Is there gonna be a requirement that there's gonna be a fence around that?

What the applicant be amenable to a constitutional approval regarding to pick up our core and ensuring that appropriate fencing are getting it provided she's asking for a friend.

Okay, do we have a height reading do we have a high restriction. Mister name from the city that it we should require the fence to be how high. So that there is not problem?

There is no regulation on that. So it's at our discretion if the applicant. We can work. Yeah, we can work with the applicant to ensure that any such netting is at an appropriate height to prevent any falling objects, as would be normally the case in other cities.

You also need to be certain from a liability standpoint that whatever is there is not just making sure that the pickleball balls don't go over. We need to be sure that there's something to make sure the pickleballers do not go over. There's got to be adequate, from a liability standpoint, there have to be some adequate barriers that someone's not gonna run up to it chasing a ball and accidentally go over and go plunging over the side.

For, sorry, Steve Warnick, applicant, for sure in the building permit process, like the building code will require certain safety measures on the roof.

What was the vote from the Planning and Zoning, please, Mr. Nang?

70, Commissioner. Yeah, 70. I believe it was 70, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Mayor, move to approve ordinance number R, 2,026 stands for 73. Hold on.

He didn't even finish.

What do you mean we didn't finish? We've been going for, this is a nothing that they're asking for.

I'll second it because I understand this is, how many other more slides do you have?

One last slide, Mayor. Please, please, the last slide. Oh, there's a commission option, motion to continue with direction, motion to approve including all prior conditions from resolution 2022.14 with the exception of the hotel one, motion to approve with the additional conditions as mentioned this evening, or motion to deny.

You got the final thought, Commissioner Hsu, go ahead.

Okay, so according to the architect that was answering the question just now, he said that the floor plan hasn't changed, right? But you're adjusting from 23 to 25 stories, is that correct? So if the floor plans doesn't change, the room numbers change, that means that the rooftop, we're keeping the same height but reducing the number of stories. Or sorry, increasing the number of stories.

To clarify, Commissioner, I think what he meant was the changes from last year's submittal. When we submitted for the minor modification, there hasn't been any changes in the plans since last year. There has been a change since the original approval in 2022.

So the number of stories increasing is happening from last approval?

No, it's happening from 2022. It happened between 2022 and last year, yeah.

Okay, so now we have increased the number of stories from 23 to 25. Yes. Right, this is the new, so if no floor plan has changed and the ceilings are getting lower, how are the rooms, does that make sense to you? No.

Let me have Javier address that, he knows better.

All right.

The original design that came to commission was 23 stories. The changes that were done were done administratively through the ordinance that you guys had passed. So we worked with the city and city staff for about a year to make these changes. And they were all done administratively because your ordinance allowed them to be done administratively. So the site plan or the approval that we have today is for a 25-story building with exactly the same plan that we're showing you today, except that 30 of the rooms the hotel rooms that are facing 163rd that line the podium, the first floors, the parking floors, we want to make into residential units. That is the only change because all the other changes have been already approved administratively. They didn't have to come back to commission because they met the administrative ordinance requirements.

How many units are there per story?

Per story, shoot, somewhere in the mid-20s, I would imagine, somewhere in there.

So now you're increasing two stories. Is the rooftop one of the stories?

Correct. So what increased the number of stories?

The rooftop with applicable floor is one story.

Right. What increased the number of stories was one parking level, one parking garage level. So we added the same floor with the same floor number of units that line the floor we added that on the eighth floor move the original um amenity level up one level and added the rooftop which was 100 mechanical before but since the project went to a condo we wanted additional amenity areas and additional terrace areas and the pickleball court et cetera et cetera

Okay, now I understand. So the 23 to 25, all the floor plans are the same. You reduced ceiling height because hotels need higher ceiling height, I understand, right? No, we didn't reduce ceiling height. You didn't reduce the ceiling height? But you increased two stories but kept the height the same? No.

No, the height is higher than it was originally on the 23 stories, but that was approved under the administrative. Oh, from before. Variance, correct.

It went from 255 feet to 272 feet, 8 inches. Okay.

So what we added was one level of parking.

For parking and the other one for the pickleball.

And the rooftop amenity areas.

Okay. Okay, clear. Thank you. All right.

Commissioner. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor. Floremont, the final thought with Commissioner Jacques. Go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor and Madam City Clerk, thank you. When it comes to community benefits, it's been a number of years. Can anyone refresh our memory as to whether or not there were any community benefits that were proffered outside of impact fees?

My apologies. As mayor, I was not with the city at that time. I did not recall any specifically in the conditions of approval when I reviewed it yesterday. It was before my time on that.

What? Just said I wasn't here in 22 either when it was approved.

Yeah. And Steve Warnock again. In looking at the resolution, there were not. This is, even though it's in the CRA boundaries, there was no application for CRA funding or any kind of support in that sense. So that's probably why there wasn't any community benefit.

Okay. And in addition to that, the the sales office that you guys have, are you leasing or do you own that parcel? They're leasing the parcel. Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much. I had a question about I think there was a public comment about tenants. How many tenants are currently in the in the building?

So we don't know the exact number of tenants, but they're aware

construction and will be starting at some point early next year so i think they're expecting to be moving out end of the year i guess the question really kind of plays into you know giving people ample time to make provisions so obviously if you said q1 what are you looking for in q1 to actually start the what's happening in q1 of 27. the hope is to obtain the full building permit to start the construction in q1 Okay, so I would hope that if you go backwards, when do you hope to at least give them a notice so that they can? Because if you have more than a dozen businesses in there, it's going to be a challenge for them to relocate in less than six months. So I'm hoping that there's some due diligence done there to ensure those tenants are properly noticed.

I think the tenants are aware, but we will certainly continue to communicate.

All right, Madam Clerk.

No, I had asked him for permission to speak and he said I could. Thank you. So again, I said this last week and I'm gonna say it again. My comment right now has nothing to do against this project, but if my math is right or if I'm right, we gave them 80,000 square feet through administrative waiver to the manager. We gave them 80,000 square feet administrative waiver, but Ruth, had to come here last week how many how many feet did we give you in the right away yeah in the right away four 40. wow she had to come here for 40 square feet but but our residents have to do this for 40 square feet she had to come and get our approval but for 80 000 square feet anybody can do anything that's wrong we don't treat our residents right This is not your fault either. I'm not blaming you. I'm just trying to tell you, I'm not blaming you. I'm just trying to say that our residents deserve a little bit more special attention. For her to have to come here, we couldn't have done 40 square feet administratively, but we can do 80,000 square feet.

Just saying, but thank you. Final thought, Commissioner Smith, please.

I heard what you said that you're in the CRA and you're not asking for anything from the CRA district, although we did just do some major sewer work there, which will make it so it's buildable. But I want to ask staff, without anything promised to the city, does the art still apply, that they have to have art? that they have to do the regulation things in reference to the other simple aspects 2022, you didn't ask for it.

Right. Commissioner, unless it was specifically stipulated in the original approval as part of site plan, because this applicant has not applied for CIA fund and the city code is written away where the public arts benefit is directly tied to the CIA fund request, or other aspects? The short answer is no.

I believe city attorney and city manager over a month ago, I requested that we put in a new ordinance in reference to that art so it wouldn't be tied in strictly to that. I'd like that to come forth soon because now we're stuck. Now we're stuck. I mean, I would like the developer to be a good partner with North Miami Beach and some of these things that are just simple, whether it's for the more people using the library or the transportation, that there's community and developer partnership. I would like to see that come forth. I don't know if the developer has anything in mind that he can contribute, but I would certainly like to see something. Thank you.

Commissioner, if I might, and you and I have talked about it, so we are working on something, but you need to know that there is Is there some reading possible about imposing that kind of restriction?

No, I'm not imposing restriction. I'm for the project 100%.

Not on this one. I understand you're speaking generally, but the same Senate Bill 180 that says you can't restrict development, could be read when you add requirements to development as being in conflict. That doesn't mean we can't do it. It means that it could be changed.

Well, I need then you and the manager to get together and find out where's the loophole that we can start to beautify North Miami Beach. I need you to do that. The zero lot line, now that I looked at it when I saw it last week, I was so against it. The more I see it today, I'm so in favor of making that a possibility down the whole street. Because I think that'll be a beautification and an upgrade for the neighborhood that people will want to develop here. And the sooner we bring that forth about the zero lot line also, the better. Thank you. Okay.

You want to call? Call the question. Madam Clerk.

Are we supposed to do public comment?

We already did public comment.

No, not. We did public comment before. We didn't do it now.

No, we're ready. From my understanding, we did public comment.

We did public comment at the beginning of the meeting. We didn't do public comment for this.

And actually, I had the opportunity to speak to him two times.

We never, after we called the motion, we never did public comment. I mean, probably nobody wants to speak anyway. No, no, no. Like when Whitney spoke, he spoke at the beginning during, at the beginning, item number three, public comment.

Okay, okay.

We didn't have public comment when we called 5.2. Madam Clerk?

The Mayor and Commissioner of the City of North High Beach has opened the floor for public comment at this time. Please speak only on the subject matter. If anyone would like to come forward, you have three minutes to speak. No one has come forward.

But now we did it the right way. That was very important. All right. Madam Clerk, can we do a roll call?

Thank you. So you have a motion and a second. Commissioner Sharnoff?

Gladly, yes.

Commissioner Jean? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Smuckler? No. Commissioner Hsu? Yes. Vice Mayor Mackenzie Floremon? Yes. Mayor Michael Joseph? Yes. It passes 6-1.

City Attorney, two more items so we can... The other item is a pretty pro forma item. We discussed it the other night. We've since distributed this to everybody. Law firm has brought suit against the state over the property tax thing. They've invited our city to join in unlike previous requests where they say you have to ante up and pay $5,000 or $10,000. They've invited us to join free of charge.

Move to approve.

Second. I need to place on the record the odds. There is a slight chance there could be a judgment for cost if it failed completely. It's very unlikely, and our share of costs would be very low.

Commissioner Hsu?

Thank you.

I think that removing the homestead property taxes, I'm actually for. I think that we have so many expenses in terms of our homeowners insurance, the cost of construction and whatnot. um since we have had the situation with 1451 i see how creative we can get about how we can generate more money in the city through various other avenues that actually are effective and long term we just haven't done that and we all know it's not about an income issue i think it's about uh to me it i think it's an expense issue If we can hold our breath and do how we manage our own money, like in our own home, when we're choosing between groceries and gas, go to work, etc., I think that we would be more efficient. Like right now, I wouldn't prioritize luxury goods over food if I was running out of money. I think that I would probably decide to do things a different way. Now, the way that the city has been run, I feel like if we do tighten our belt a little bit, I see the managers doing a great job with cutting down expenses that are completely unnecessary. I know that there are some things in here that are changing drastically, but for me, I am not supporting this lawsuit against the state. I do want that relief to come to the residents and to the people of Florida, especially those that are homesteaded. Now, for those people who have second homes here and come by three times a year, if they want to pay full taxes, I'm good with that too. So those are the people who can afford it. It's the everyday Floridians, it's the everyday North Miami beachers that are living here, own property. When they bought it, it was 10, $20,000. Today it's worth like seven, $800,000. And they're taxed on that assessed rate. So when we look at that, I think it's better to give the relief where we can. And if the government's willing to give up their money, so that you can have more, I'll say have at it. But that's my stand.

Okay, we've got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Next. Opposed. Okay, one opposed.

The record should show one opposed. Mayor, that's all.

Motion to adjourn.

So moved.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you.

Mayor, I think the city manager's office had an announcement to make.

Oh, you can have the announcement. Whatever that is.

Sorry.

Good evening, honorable mayor and commissioners and public, honorable city manager.

I'm Greg Williams, public. I am the chief communication officer for the great city of North Miami Beach. I'm honored to be before you tonight. We're excited because Washington Park is moving forward with the official demolition that will be happening Wednesday, June the 24th at 10 a.m. We're honored to have everyone to come out to see us continuously move forward with Washington Park. Yay. And I think those are the sentiments of our great residents of that great community. Also, Safety First Town Hall, Allen Park Edition will be happening June 25th, which will be happening this coming Thursday at Allen Park Community Center. On June 26th, we have the Senior Luncheon that will be happening at McDonald's Center from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. And last but not least, the Centennial Audition Neighborhood, Wynwood, June the 28th, this coming Sunday. It will be the block party in Wynwood at Milton Littman Park, 600 Northeast Miami Gardens Drive. We're inviting everybody to come out this coming Sunday.

That's it? All right, thank you so very much. Excuse me one second.

I thought we got something that it was canceled.

It was, I think there was an issue regarding the calendar, but it's still going on.

And could I just say one thing real quick?

Yes, ma'am.

On the communications, those that did not come out to see the Brazil-Haitian soccer game, I just want to commemorate, I just want to thank the staff, and the administration, that was an amazing, amazing, amazing event. And events are over, so if you didn't get to see it, you didn't get to enjoy our best.

All right, thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, there will be a recap video. We had over 700 residents to come out, and the beautiful part about it was the diversity of the community. We had the Brazilian, we had the Hispanics, we had the Haitian, we had the total community. It was phenomenal.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can we adjourn? All right, thank you.