So what is it? Chicken. Okay, we are we we'll be getting ready to start. Um, yes. Yeah. Good evening everyone today is Monday, April 21st, 2024. We are here for the planning is zoning board meeting for the city of Notmami Beach. Please stand for the pleasure of the board members please. Yes indeed. Mark Samlovit. President. Larry Thompson. Daniel Heisler. Gregory Thomas. Here. Julian Christberg. Janet Massaman. Massumeon. You can try it again. Ruth Ogden. I'm going. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'll second it. Motion in a second. All in favor? Here. All opposed. The eyes carry. Moving along to. Mr. Chair. Yep. Excuse me. I think a lot of people don't have their microphones or not. Mine's on, but I don't know if it's coming through clearly. Yeah, I couldn't hardly hear you. Right. All of us. Oh, yeah. here you hear. All of us. Yeah, pretty much. Including. Yes, including Mitchell. Speaking clearly. Moving along to section 4, the quasi-judicial public hearing. I would like to have everyone who's present that's going to be be speaking on of the quasi judicial items stand to be sworn in. Do you swear? Oh, sorry, go ahead. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. And the first item of business under the quasi judicial public hearing public hearing is Raisin, Canterbury, and Fingers, item 42. We're here for a site plan, conditional use, and very interproven. We'll be hearing from the city first. Yes, sir. Okay. Good evening board members Daniel, Los Andier, senior planner, community development department. City staff will be presenting the findings of facts regarding raising gains development. The applicant's request is for a site plan approval, including the conditional use and variances to construct a 3100 square foot fast food restaurant would drive through services. The proposed development will also include an outdoor dining area, would cover patio, 15 parking spaces, and landscape features. Here we have the general data pertaining to the site. The authorized agent is Tracy Slaven's ESQ Raising Cain's restaurant LLC is the business owner. Property address for the record, 1, 4, 0, 2, 5, this game, Boulevard. Fully one number, 0, 7, 2, 2, 1, 0, 3, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0. The lot size is approximately one acre. The future land use and zoning district is Arch Creek Mix Use corridor and the adjacent zoning districts are present on the border. Here we have the location map of the site in blue, which is west of the target shopping center and east of the Lexus of North Miami dealership along this game Boulevard. Here we have the existing site as of today pertaining to the property which is currently vacant on our case center. building building here used to be, this is a little history, used to be the old ABC wine winery. Here we have the proposed site plan outlining the site itself, raising canes. Adjacent to this game Boulevard in the front area will be the outdoor dining component. And in the rear, the two lane drive through bypass, which will be concealed from US one will be placed on the east side of the building. Here we have a few renderings from the raising canes, 3D rendering plans, this outlining the proposed development and what's to come. The applicant will elaborate a little bit more on that. So the site plan of development details will include four demolition of the existing commercial building with a new restaurant, two lane drive-through services, outdoor dining area, cover patio. Parking spaces will be included, included. Pavement and restriping and signage will be provided on site to enhance it with the landscape features and irrigation. Here we have the parking data table and compliance showing that the chart showing the required and what's provided. The applicant demonstrated compliance with the parking count as well as provided ADA, the loading zones, bicycle racks, which is not required by code, but the applicant is also providing that for different modes of transportation to the site. The site plan application approval process is just outlining the steps and procedures that the applicant took in order to get to planning and zoning board. So the pre-application conference meeting, which was held with our department, community development department with the directors, the technical review with the trad, and now we're at our planning and zoning board looking for the advisory recommendations. The site plan review standards from Section 24-172G is outlined here on the screen, which was looked at closely and the applicant difference to compliance with the eight bullet points here. The conditional use of review standards was looked at closely. The applicant's requesting conditional use for the drive-through component. Now, we're moving forward to the variances. This quick slides, this outlining pin pointing, the requirement and what's being requested about the applicant. So the fronted variance, minimum 70% is required by code. The applicant is requesting a variance for an 11% decrease. The site itself has current conditions that the applicant can pretty much provide, so they'll have to make that request. The four court variance is pertaining to the outdoor dining component. There's a certain percentage required in the front, which is 60%. The applicant is going a little bit more, just increasing it to 19% more than the required amount to 79%. The glazing variance, there's a requirement of 70%. The applicant is requesting a 14%, which is a 56% reduction. Variance number four is in reference to the window placement variance. The applicant is requesting a 36 inch above grade. The code is requesting 24 inches, so to just pretty much going a foot above for the window placement. These are the variance review standards, which was looked at closely by staff, and pertaining to the applicant's request. And the applicant has, when it comes to the variance requests, the applicant just provided their requests. And we were looking at the standards pertaining to the request, but the decision will be made by the board. Pertaining to that. Comprehensive plan, consistency. We looked at the future land use, the transportation elements and the infrastructure elements. These are just bullet points summarizing the policies which reflect to this project itself. Here we have the project conditions. So the conditions will go along with the project until City Commission. Condition number one is in reference to the access pump. I'll just go back briefly and you wanted the images. So you guys have a clear picture of that. Here there's access pump in the red, fronting along the property as of today. And it's going back. The condition is in reference to the city, city staff have an access to the access pump during business hours and 24 hour notice if any access will be along this game, what about if possible. Condition number two is in reference to the drive-through lanes making sure there's a clearance of 10 feet in the drive-through lanes. Condition number three is in reference to the applicant providing removable ballards within the ingress and egress access points of the drive-through lanes. Here we have the planning and zoning board motion. Moot to recommend approval to the Mayor's City Commission by finding that the site plan application filed number 24-36 for the raising gains development located at 140-25 Biscayne Boulevard, including conditional use in all requested variances and recommended project conditions by finding that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the applicable criteria of the zoning and land development code. That concludes staff presentation. The applicant will present and after that aboard decision will be made. Thank you. All right. Mr. Chair. At this point it's appropriate that you accept the staff report into evidence, into the records, because it does constitute evidence. On the set, it'd be noted in Mark as the city's evidence as a supporter of the item. I'm looking forward to the team from raising which includes representation from raising canes,, Kim Lee Horne engineering and Zebra design and architecture. For those of you that aren't familiar with Raising Cains, I'd like to start by just telling you a little bit about it. It's a popular quick service restaurant that is found throughout the country now. They've expanded a lot. They're famous for their chicken fingers. In fact, it's the only item that they serve, other than French fries toast and slaw. So it's a fan favorite, obviously, and they have a cult following. The company was founded in 1996 by Todd Graves. He came up with the idea while he was in college and went and worked a couple summers in Alaska doing the salmon fishing to make enough money to open his first restaurant. And then today they're currently in the process of expanding into Florida. And this is one of the first, we have, I think, three others in South Florida. This will be the fourth. So raising canes is obviously a rapidly growing brand and it has accolades from USA Today and Glassdoor as one of the best places to work and they get awards for community involvement and social responsibility efforts. On the next slide, you can see the location. This is the former ABC liquors that's located at the Target Shopping Center. The property's currently improved with a one story building that will be demolished, and we are seeking approval of our new construction today. As Daniel said, we have numerous requests. I'll walk you through all of them rather quickly, but essentially this is going to be a quick service restaurant with an enclosed drive through. We needs several variances to accommodate the outdoor dining design that we've provided and you'll see. And then several of the glazing and window height variances are requested because of the nature of the business to have seating next to a window and have the window start at 24 inches means that people can look in and see people's legs and potentially issues come up with that for safety and security purposes. Also because this is a drive-through and it's on Biscayne, we wanted to make sure that there was enough of a barrier wall between the customer and traffic to make sure that they were safe. So these are practical variances that we need because we can't really accommodate the glazing in any other way. But we believe that these are appropriate and the minimum amount necessary to help us accomplish the design and the unique conditions that our restaurant has in consideration of your code. So here's a site plan. This shows that 3169 square foot restaurant. It does have a covered patio for outdoor dining facing Biscayne Boulevard. It has a two lane drive through that's enclosed and that can accommodate up to 23 cars at a time. Access will be through the main entrance to the target parking lot, so there's no new driveway being proposed here. We meet high setbacks, parking, landscaping, and open space standards. The drive through, as I mentioned, can handle 23 cars and any overflows will be contained within the site on the target parking lot. But because raising Cain's only serves one thing. The service is very quick. There's less than three minute wait time from order to delivery, which is very quick compared to some of the other restaurants that you see in the community. These are the elevations, so you can see all four sides. You can see there are windows, there is lots of outdoor space. Part of the glazing considerations, as I mentioned, have to do with the height of the floor. But also, you know, we do have a drive-through and we have an outdoor seating area on the longer sides of the building. So that's where you will see less glazing in windows just to make sure that there's some consideration for the interior like the kitchen and bathrooms. Here's an elevation of the drive-through. So as you can see, the code requires that drive-throughs be enclosed in a structured parking garage in this zoning district, which is MUC. We designed this drive-through in the spirit of that. So it's enclosed with some ventilation and openings, but it's got a roof over it, and it's part of the entire restaurant structure, which is not something you see very often in a quick service restaurant design, but it does make for a much better design. And here's another rendering of it, so you can see cars will sort of drive into the tunnel to pick up their orders. It's the exit side. And this is our outdoor dining area. So there is a covered patio that will seat many customers, both along bar stools, picnic benches and tables, and there will be additional tables outside, which create a much needed outdoor pedestrian-oriented customer experience, which I think is the goal of the MUCs to make this walkable, to make the pedestrian interest at the street level. And so we hope that you'll find that this accomplishes that. Here's another view of the outdoor dining area facing the skein. So it's not your typical restaurant. It's I think done a lot to engage people and to attract people to come in both on foot and by car. Here's a little information. There's a lot on this slide, but what I wanted to highlight is the timing for the pickup. Jobs, this restaurant is expected to create approximately 125 jobs. And raising canes is known for their commitment to the community. So they get involved locally, you know, sponsoring things, coming to events, and really engaging with youth sports leagues, you know, local civic clubs, and with the city to provide goods and services as needed. So with that, we do ask for your support and recommendation of approval of our site plan, the waiver of the drive-through to be enclosed in a garage, and the variances that were requesting for the frontage, the forecourt, the glazing, and the window placement. And with that, I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Do we have any emails, anything that was received in regards to this? And as of, for raisin can, no. Okay. Did you have something you wanted to add no no this wanted to just imply that we didn't receive no public comment for reason games That's okay. No worries. Yep You want to start on this? I'm sorry is anyone from the public that would like to speak on the raising can I don't anyone here on the raising can item before us. Seeing no hands and having a confirmation from the staff that we have not received any additional items on the raising can I hear from you. No, I also wanted to note for the record that the project itself was properly advertised and the public hearing sign was advertised a month in advance. So the sign has been posted on the property. That's a thank you sir. Thank you for that. Would that information now be going ahead and closing public hearing? And we'll start on the left side with Mr. Hesswe. Sure, hi. Good afternoon or good evening. So there's four variances, right, that we're looking at. Correct. It's like a two deal with glazing and windows. One is, yeah, just the frontage one, could you have designed or built this building and complied with that first variance? I'm trying to- We looked at it very closely. The challenges were twofold. One that, that Daniel mentioned, is located on a portion of the property and there needs to be sufficient access for it to be accessible both from the interior of the site and from the game boulevard. So that pushed our building over. We needed to have outdoor patio space. So that also sort of compacted the building. And then the wall of the building itself is behind the outdoor dining area. So the building frontage is technically the wall, correct? And so the outdoor, even though our outdoor dining area does come up to the frontage zone to the step back line that we're supposed to have, it doesn't count. So is physical limitations that created that situation where you needed to reduce the frontage by 11%. And then I did look at everything. I mean your your drive through is in the rear so you're not going to impact US one so there's no traffic implications. What I did not understand at, maybe you can expand, is this whole parking garage structure that a So we have to build a parking garage to do a drive-through. Okay, so all right I've been with the city for going on three years and that's something that I noticed as well So in the permitted use table, in the mix use, in you see. It calls for the parking garage structure aesthetically to be built inside. So the queuing pretty much is going to be concealed. And it calls for it to be in a parking garage like structure in a sense. So it's more of a requirement for aesthetics so you don't see the cars queuing? Yes, that's correct. Yes. And do we have that everywhere? I mean, is that just, do we have it anywhere? Anywhere. Anywhere. Any, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the district, in, in the, in the district, it costs for it, but currently like on site, we don't have it. I see it in in other municipalities here, we just don't have it. Or maybe in the near future, we could update our code, tweak it a little bit and abolish it, but that's something they'll have to be looked at closely. All right, yeah, further determined. Yeah, I just found that odd. Anyway, I don't have any other questions. Good luck. Thank you. And to just sort of tagline on that, I think part of that came from the idea that the MUC encourages taller buildings that are vertical mixed use. And so the idea was you're going to build a big building, have a restaurant on the ground floor, and the drive through for that should be part of your garage, right, as opposed to on the outside of the building. Yeah. Yeah, it's really strictly aesthetics. We went through it, Mr. Ahmed and I, and staff and talked about it and decided that this really was what the intent of the code was to provide for aesthetic purposes a little bit of screening and still make sure the restaurant had enough business to stay fluffy. Hi. Can you explain what the four court variances, instead of 60 percent, at 79 percent? Yes. What is that? So the four court, I believe, is a feature of a building that sort of acts like a vestibule where you would have an entrance and and maybe some coverage around that entrance and create like a feature at the door at the entrance of the building because our design doesn't the wall of the building is behind the outdoor dining at patio. We don't have what's considered to be a forecourt. The outdoor dining usurps that area. And we met with the staff as well as the consultants that reviewed the architecture of the building and they agreed that the outdoor dining patio was preferable and it's something that as a you know a restaurant raising canes likes to have so we work together to make sure that the design is inviting and that there's you know access into the restaurant from there but it's not technically a four-court So what outdoor patio. So what is the variance for 79% instead of 60%? It's larger. It's larger. Right. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Mr. Crosford. I'm looking at the drive-through and it goes in a tunnel that means there's overhead that it's completely covered. Correct. Okay, and these two lanes so how is it how is it service the second lane? There's if you don't pull up to a window they come to you. They come to you. Okay, and you can get out of the line when they don't finish in 2.5. If you want to, yes. But I think you're going to want your chicken fingers. Here's the highlighted parking drive through areas so you can see there's a bypass lane. No, that was an issue when they built the drive in Starbucks and they they didn't provide that. And it wasn't gonna be a problem except when you drive by and you can't get by because they're queuing up on 160 or whatever the street is. So that's a good idea. In terms of, I guess they're sort of a blueprint of how you build these sort of, they all look kind of the same. And they're in college towns. And if, you know, if my son had come up with an idea like that in college for, we're only going to serve chicken fingers, I would have put them on a fishing boat, straightened out, but evidently it's a winning concept. Yes, people love it. People love it. You know what I heard? It's all about the sauces. That's what I've heard too. I mean, I've tried them. They're good. It's like a fry sauce. OK. Well, thank you for the samples. It's in that. All right. Good luck to you and to them. And so you're knocking down that building that we approved just a few short. I actually did that approval. So I feel like you're the kiss of full circle. I've been through an entire life cycle because of a liquor store can't make it You know a chicken finger restaurant should Okay, I'm sorry There's the drinks are just soft drinks correct Lemonade eliminate hard lemonade. No. Okay. Thank you. It looks like a great project you've done a lot of hard work to get this to us. One thing I do find slightly preposterous, though, is that the restaurant, this is your quote, and you're in the city, well, actually not yours. This is the, yes, it is, it's your quote. The restaurant will generate 42 total net PM hour trips from prior liquor store use. That's down from 142. So I just find it slightly preposterous that a drive-through that has two lanes has less traffic than a liquor store. What that's me. So I drop, I'm not contesting that other than saying I find that dubious. It is specific to the hours of 4 and 6 p.m. That's the p.m. peak hour. So the restaurant will probably generate more trips during lunch or during later hours, you know, later dinners or late nights, during Saturday night kind of thing. But during the afternoon, four to six p.m. It's not people like to drink. I guess. Yeah, they get it on their way home from work. You know, I don't know. Not enough people. I know you did your traffic studies and all that stuff, but I just was shocked. Other than that, I wish you the great success. It looks like we really need more chicken fingers in this world. That's for sure. And God bless you. Thank you. The people in the trailer park are going to really love it. Oh, it's a miscellaneous door. Oh, okay. We're speaking past. I don't have any questions. I like the project. It looks great. It looks functional. It's, um, like you said, it's like the best you can do in that limited space. And I wish you the best. Thank you. Real quick I had a question as it relates to the outdoor dining, what you're saying is being substituted for part of the four court. Is that something that's a signature to a raisin cane? Yes it is. Okay. I'm not familiar with the restaurant myself. If you'd like to visit one, there's one that just opened in D'Arral on 36th Street. I'm driving to it. And there's one in Homestead. Absolutely not. But thank you for letting me know. OK. That's why we're in one week. Yeah. Yeah, well, there you go. There was also, I saw somewhere, it says something about, it was a picture of a dog and it says variance, what is that about? What is a dog about? The dog is cane. Oh. So Todd's dog, when he was in college, and when he came up with the concept, he had this yellow lab named cane. And so the restaurant is named after the dog. And he's continued to have cane bloodline dogs. Must be. Must be. What's the significance of one of them? That's his motto. He's that's what he preaches and that's I think what his mantra is for success is being inclusive, feeding everybody, getting involved in the community and creating a sense of oneness for all of us. Okay. Are these franchise along the road? They're all owned by Mr. Graves. There you go. Okay. So on that same note on the brand book page four it does say subject E the dog it says subject to review as art may require variance. We identified any potential issues with variance as As I know, we have some limitations with the type of signage we can have on building. That's correct. When raising Keynes brought up the signage, the proposed signage, that was early during the pre-app of phase of things. And signage right now is subject to at time of building permits and they're aware of what's required. So that could subject to change when it comes to that. But right now we're on a green light for what currently exists. Yes. Yes sir. Yes sir. And who's here from right now? I see it. Okay. Thank you for coming here. And best of luck. I. I entertain a motion if no one else has anything else Motion to approve Second move in a second this must man just seconded We have a motion by mr. Hester and assuming in second That's what all the conditions of yes subject to the condition that the city is advised we have to follow a item up until Subject to the conditions that we've added Sameville for Larry Thompson. Daniel Hezzler. Approved. Gravy Thomas. Yes. Jubilee and Krizberg. Yes. Janet Mesumian. Approved. Ruth Ogden. Thank you. Janet Masumian approved. Ruth Ogden. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Ambassador. You raised some cane. Please. Motion. Parasixo. All right. Moving along to item 4 3 the moving along to item 4-3 which is the 174 mix you development. We are here for a site plan and variance approval. Do they have to Mr. Sainte? Right. On the note, I don't recall in'm in correcting if I'm wrong based on the fact that it was quaggied to this show But I don't think read the resolution into the record for raising Cain. Do we need to do that? I? Think we may need to know The resolution the title for raising Cain. I don't think it was read into the record. Yes it should be read into the record. Okay. Are you want to read into the record? I can read it into the record if you'd like. So the resolution for item 4.2 would be a resolution of the mayor and the city commission of the city of North Miami Beach Florida for approval of a development site plan, including conditional use variances, condition for the construction of raising canes restaurant with drive through services, the restaurant consists of 3181 square feet of indoor space covered patio area for outdoor dining, two lane drive-through accommodating up to 23 vehicles at a time and 15 parking spaces. Variances from section 24-58.4, parent G, parent 4, to waive the requirement that a drive through in the MU slash C district be located within a parking garage from section 24-58.4 Paran K, Paran 2, Paran A, and Section 24-58, Paran S, Paran parent B, parent I, parent 2, to permit the building frontage of 59 and four court size of 79%. From section 24-58, parent S, parent 1, parent G, parent I, parent 4, from the Glazing Requirement and from Section 24-58, Paren S, Paren I, Paren G, Paren I, Paren V, Window Placement Requirement for the Development, be located at 14-025 Biscayne Boulevard, providing for finding a fact, confirming expiration, and limitation of approval, and providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. Thank you for that, and I did be noted that that was being read into the record to a company item 4-2, which was the Raising Cain's Chicken Fingers that item was before the is on import it passed by a road of 6, 0 with vice chair Thompson being absent. Thank you. Yes sir. Back to item 4, 3. All right. Item 4, 3. And so for the purposes of not making that mistake again, I can read this resolution into the record. Yeah. A resolution of the mayor in the City Commission of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida, approving a development site plan application, conditions and seven variances for the construction of a six story and eight story mixed use tower buildings with a total of 500 residential dwelling units 19,000 to 22 square feet of ground floor commercial space and eight level parking garage 618 parking spaces variances from section 24-58 Table M U dash two to allow for a lot with greater than 250 feet from section 24-58 table M U N C-4 to allow for a maximum setback greater than 30 feet from section 24-58 parent S for greater than the maximum building length of 300 feet from section 24-97 to allow for three loading spaces where five are required from section 24-58.3 parent I to modify the street section requirements of UG UG-1 as per figure MU-NC-5 from Section 24-58 to modify the West Secondary Streets Section requirements of figure MU-4 from Section 24-58 to modify the central secondary street section requirements of figure M.U. Dash 4 located at 17400 Westercks, E. Highway, providing for findings of fact, confirming expiration and limitation of approval, providing for conflicts and providing for an effective date. Thank you for that. Daniel, Los Andier, Community Development Department. I'll be presenting on the city's behalf. Prior to this presentation, staff requests that the staff report be accepted and entered entirely into the record. All right, moving forward with the project. So this is a mix use development project. The applicant is requesting a site plan and variance approval request. The development itself will consist of two buildings. So a six story and an eight story mix use building consisting of 19,000 square feet of ground floor commercial and eight-level parking garage structure with 618 parking spaces and amenities. The residential units will be 500 residential units as being proposed. Here we have the general data. Authorized agent is Matthew Amphsert, ESQ. Property owner is Dixie investments and real TLC. Row Dixie, LLC. Property address 174, 0, 0, West Dixie highway. Folio number for the record, 07, 2209, 015, 0, 1 5 0 0 1 0 the lot size is approximately four acres Future land use and zoning district is makes use Neighborhood center and you in see and the adjacent zoning districts are displayed on the screen Here we have the location map of the property currently as of today. It's vacant. As you can see on the screen, the property is south of Greenfield's Park, west of West Dixie Highway and north of North East once, once seventy third street. Here we have the proposed site plan. On the next slide shows the illustrative site plan which is in green. It shows a green features as well as the ground floor retail facing along Dixie Highway. The property itself will also include a preserved area, which is south of Greenhouse Park. A dark park will also be included with residential and ground floor retail. Here we have the rendering plans, outlining the proposed development. The the site plan, development details is outlined below. The property is vacant as stated before with the bullet points identifying the type of development. Parking data table and compliance, what's required by code. The applicant is required to provide 552 parking spaces. They're providing 604. The ADA parking spaces 11 is required to providing 14. The loading zones 5 is required but they're requesting a variance for three due to the configuration. Bicycle racks 38, they're providing 40, which is demonstrating compliance. Variance number one is in reference to the building E setback variance. A minimum of 30 foot is required. The applicant will be providing 52, which is 22 foot difference. Variance number three is in reference to the lot with variants due to the courtyard typology. The code requires a minimum lot with 150 feet and a maximum of 200. The applicant is providing 660. The building lift of variants which required by code is 300 feet. The applicant is providing on the proposed site plan 323. The loading space variance, which we already addressed earlier. The urban greenway variance, 28 feet is required by code. applicants applicant will be providing 17 feet, which is 11 feet narrower, which is smaller than what's required. Variants number six is in reference to the West Secondary Street variants. The code, the mix use section 24-58, figure MU. Dash 4, request that the applicant provides sidewalks. Improvements to the site, however on both sides, however the applicant will be providing that on the internal street. Running along the west side of the property instead of both sides. So on West Dixie Highway, the applicant will be providing this requirement on the opposite side they won't be able to. Variance number seven is in reference to the central secondary street variance. And this is in reference to the reconfiguration of the secondary street. Here we have the approval process that the applicant has a demonstrated compliance with with the first two. They went through the pre-process, they received the triad approvals and now we're at planning zoning board. Site plan review standards, which was looked at closely by staff, the applicant has demonstrated compliance. The variance review standards, which was looked at closely by staff, per the applicant's request. Here we have the comprehensive plan consistency outlining the summary of the future land use element transportation and infrastructure elements pertaining to the development itself. Project conditions, there's a few conditions that's going to be carrying along as part of the development. I'm not going to highlight everything, but I will pinpoint 9 is in reference to the applicant communicating with coastal waste management, also waste and recycling, making sure that they get the contract agreement. Number nine is in reference to the applicant coordinating with my MIMI data fire to get their approval. That's part of the condition and review process. Project number 10 and 11 is in reference to coordinating with the county's public works and transportation division and making sure they get the county's approvals. Project condition number 12 and 13 is in reference to transportation. The applicant is required to commit and to provide a transportation demand management program that aligns with the strategies outlined in the updated traffic impact study dated for very 2025 as approved by stadium on Miami Beach, containers need to be in a enclosure not visible to the public. And here we have the Priting and Zoning Board recommended approval for tonight's project. recommend approval to the Mayor of City Commission by finding that the site plan application file number 24-30 for the 17400 was Dixie Highway Development. Located at 17400 was Dixie Highway, including all requested variances, by finding that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the applicable criteria of the zoning and land development code. That concludes staff presentation. The applicant is here to present on their side. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Matt, Amsterdam, with the La Pomeranica, Berkauber, and El Fernandez-Larkin, and Tappeniz, Office of the 200th-Houttuous-Gain Boulevard in Miami. Here today representing the applicant and owner of the Subbacquity, Dixie Investments, and Realt, C-L-O-C and RodexLC and road Dixie LLC. We have a team of people here, mostly sitting in the back of the room. From ownership, that would be Avi Dixie and Jonathan Dixie, our architect. I'm sorry to say he is alright, but had an accident on 826 on his way over here. So, may not be able to make it. I'll put it on the entry attorney if you need one. Do-doly noted. I just found him. He, again, he says he's alright, but he's obviously delayed. The police are there, et cetera. So, but that's George O'Brien from MSA Architects. We have the O'Brien Yule, our landscape architect. And we have both civil engineers and traffic engineers are from Kim Lee Horne. So that's George Balevin, Adrian Dobkowski and Derek Dadeski, and then from my firm, my partner Jeff Burkow and my colleague Michael Gennopoulos. So again, locating the project that's shown here in yellow, it is vacant, it is a regular shape property, a fronting west Dixie Highway, with Grannels Park to the north, 173rd Street to the south. Obviously, you can see the other uses. There's a three-story apartment buildings to our immediate west, which are roughly the same width of our property. And then here's just some photos of that existing condition. We, while not required in addition to the city's notice to property owners within the area, we have reached out to additional owners nearby. And in fact, we offered to have a virtual meeting and the owner of the apartment complex to our west actually took us up on our offer And we walked him through the project let him you know know what we're proposing He welcomed our you know presentation. Doesn't have any problems with the project and wished us well. So here on the left side is the comprehensive plan, the land use map showing the designation as mixed use neighborhood center. On the right is similarly the zoning map again showing mixed to use the neighborhood center. The actual history of this project goes back to 2019 when these same owners that are the applicant here today collaborated with the city to both redesignate and rezone this property to include it into what up until the time had stopped at 173rd this mixed use neighborhood center. So we worked closely with the city to carry forward that pink sort of cord or that you see the MUNC to include this property. And at that time, things like the density, 500 units, was what was geared towards that property at that time, and that's what we're here for today. There was also a prior project much earlier that was contentious because it was 10 stories tall that did not go forward, of which, again, outreach and public comment had shown that height of that wouldn't be allowed. And so we worked through, again, both with the city and stakeholders in the area to appropriately provide sufficient heights of buffer in the north to Grannels Park as well as in the northeast because that's also a portion of Grannels Park. And so there was a buffer of this setback to a three-story, another setback to a six-story area, and then the rest of it could be eight stories. So that nothing was even close to the 10 stories. And so that was established. The City Commission approved that in January of 2021 to to bring about a appropriate project that takes Into account the mixed use nature of this district along that West Dixie corridor But takes also is very sensitive to the surrounding park and the other areas nearby these are are the associated regulating plans that were very specific to this additional property being added to it. You can see at the top in the middle, there's some additional red lines, one going east west right through the property and one going north south on the left side of the property. Those are new streets that we needed to accommodate. That's for improved access, mainly for this development so that it doesn't just use the 173rd and West Dixie, right? It has its own interior access. And at that time, right, when this was being re-designated and re-zoned, there was a plan to show what the development would look like. Here it is. This is the concept plan. That wasn't approved at the time, but again, it was used to illustrate. You can see the green in the north, which is the right side, you know, as the buffer, as well as the bottom, you know, right corner. Again, those are the areas fronting Grennell's Park and that's what was established as the criteria for appropriate buffers and transition. And here's our project that we're actually bringing forward today. All we're really doing is carrying forward the intent of that rezoning effort in 2021 to the actual site plan itself. There's been some, you know, minor adjustments, but generally speaking, it has that roadway network, which is the top left and then through the center. It has the green buffer and the setbacks on the, you know, north, which is the right-hand side, as well as that little gray U on the north by that green space is a six-story portion, again, adhering to that the height transitions that were proposed and approved by the commission when they accepted this property into the district. And so here I am playing architect for you all since our architect can't be here. So bear with me, but this is a view looking towards the west right across the west Dixie. The main center and left portion, that's the eight story at the south east corner. Here you can see with the bird's eye view, a little bit better understanding of the project and towards the right side, you can kind of see where that center access road goes through the property. And on the right hand side, that's the, some of that is that lower six story as required. We have a number this is basically one large building with three different courtyards which will house the amenities for these residents and here's just a rendering of what one of those look like they're all at ground level there is no rooftop access here at all except for mechanical equipment so none none of the residents, there's no roof decks, anything on the roof at all. All the amenities are at ground level. Here again to emphasize that that street network that comes through the center of the property is helpful. The red is a vehicular circulation. The large triangular box kind of in the center at the top. That's our parking garage. And you can see the two red arrows. Those are the entrance to that garage. As you come closer to West Dixie, which is the bottom on the left side. We have two commercial areas, totaling 19,000 square feet. You can see a curve in the road in the middle there that goes towards the left side commercial area. That's a drop off. We're assuming that there'll be, you know, ride share happening, and we wanted to make sure that it was properly accommodated within the project itself. There will be at the ground level of the parking garage dedicated spaces for the commercial area and it's just a short walk down the street to get to those commercial uses. This really is just another way of envisioning the setbacks that have been required through that 2020 rezoning of which the project is accommodating. And here can give you at least in a colored fashion. This is the ground floor. You can see kind of the two light yellow areas at the center and at the left. Those are the two commercial spaces combining to the 19,000 square feet of commercial. The pink are amenities for the residents. The blue are these three outdoor courtyards that I talked about. We saw one rendering with a pool. Those are the outdoor amenities. Again, all at ground level. The green is the parking garage, and this level would be where I believe it's 38 spaces are gonna be set aside as required by code for the commercial use. And at the very top is the loading, we'll get to that in in a minute or two and the orange are units so as you go up to the building the the left commercial space is a double height space that's why it's kind of white and then typical floor level so this is three through six you have again an orange here's all the units you can can even see just in the void on the right side and at the bottom right, that's our large set back away from the park. Accommodating again that transition in height. You can see now that at the seventh level there are no more units at the north facing Granalds Park. This is more than the required amount of six-story height. It's not needed this much, but due to the design, this is how we've accommodated that. So it's, again, more than what was needed to achieve that. Here's again the way that the building has been designed. I assume if I had my architect ahead on, I'd be telling you that there's lots of architectural treatments here, purposely designed to try to break up both horizontally and vertical, the massing of the building. You can see though that there are significant framed elements using different colors as well as architectural you know projections there are balconies some of the gray area that is like in the bottom middle that's just a view of you that you won't see because there's a building sort of in front of it so just a cross section of basically where the street is the street actually in the center has a portion of of the building that goes over it. And that's really what that is a referencing. Here at the bottom, that's the parking garage. There are numerous materials and treatments. There's an emphasis including that the code does require that you of fenestration at these commercial spaces. In fact, it's a 70% of fenestration requirement. We obtained confirmation today. There is a reference in the staff report that we were requesting a variance of the ground level of fenestration. But again, we got clarification today. There is no need for that variance. We have the 70% minimum required just to ensure because there is some slightly lower numbers shown in our plan for the not to meet the 70%. We totally intended it to be the 70% so we would make sure that just a condition would ensure that the fenestration facing west XIway and the fenestration facing for the storefronts facing a hundred and seventy-third street which is our south those are the two areas that we would meet the 70% requirement and not have to provide a request of variance for that. And this is what essentially that will look like. So just making sure the record is clear we don't have an additional variance for that. At our ground level, at these commercial areas, there are much wider setbacks, especially as the angle of the property on West Dixie is difficult because of the irregularity of the shape. We will have actually treated those as additional plazas, right? We're going to embrace the pedestrians coming to these commercial areas, not just on the sidewalk on the street, but within our property itself. So there's a lot of these are images of, you know, concepts of what it will be, but the plan does show significant pavers, landscaped areas, you know, trees, as well as benches, which are part of those tree planter areas. And so we hope to create a nice, vibrant, very cool area to, you know, walk and be able to then access these commercial areas. Throughout, there's significant landscaping. We meet and exceed all the requirements. It's not just along the perimeter, but along all of the streets, right, both the public right of ways, West XI and 173rd, but our two central streets and that west street at the top. And then of course, there's many, you know, much landscaping also proposed in all these court yards to beautify the neighbor area. A lot of what happens in the north, right, there's a thick vegetation in the north against Grannels Park already. That will likely just be kept the same. We're showing just a little, you know, a walkway in the north closer to the building to help with pedestrian circulation throughout the project. But much of that essentially preserve like area will remain the same and not be disturbed. A little bit to talk about our variances. Many of these are due to the size and shape of this property. It is irregular, especially on West Dixie, where that angle, you know, makes it difficult to make for just placement and development. as well as this is the way this property has been platted for many decades. So this is not of our making, this is how the property has been well before we came here. The blue line that goes essentially north south because of the property size, we need a variance for lot width. That's just the way that the code was intending and just is an unintended consequence because this is the property that we have. Similarly, this is all one large building, but as you saw with the street through the middle and again all the different architectural treatment and the shape of the building itself, which has all these other courtyards. That breaks up the massing, but in length itself, the red is our full building length. And I think as a point of clarification for the statement and the amount of width, We are over 300, which is the max, and it is 571 feet 10 inches, is that red length. And I believe that, I'll call it a script, there's error that the staff report says 323. So it's actually 571 and 10 inches. It's a little bit hard to tell on this but as far as our setback, we again adhere to all setbacks where that triangular piece comes in. There's a little, you know, orangey colored triangle that is beyond the maximum 30 foot setback. So just that little sliver of the building facing or rather of the area that is fronting west Dixie. You can see the geometries here don't work well to put in an angled building in that little piece. So that is our small east side setback variance. For loading you can see and green up at the top. That's our three loading spaces. While combined, the 500 units and the 19,000 square feet of commercial are for five loading spaces. There is a challenge with the shape of this property, with the need to provide those two additional streets to place them where maneuverability works. Right, these are 10 by 30 foot loading spaces. We don't think that these are very large, you know, two separate portions of commercial, totaling only 19,000 square feet. We don't think that this is a large scale, and excessive types of loading needed. And so the three, which is what is needed for 500 residential units, through proper programming and operations, can certainly accommodate the five that are needed. And that's where we're locating them. Again, because we do feel that these are smaller scale type of retail commercial uses, it's something that the tenants will know in advance how the system works and obviously we want to internalize our loading which we have and people will have to move things on hand trucks through the sidewalk circulation that is there. Now the yellow, which is the next and the remaining variances are all about the way that the streets are treated. The code has specific requirements in the mixed use district. I will say that they are certainly very valid to try to create an appropriate streetscape of a green space, a walkway, obviously the travel lanes, but in the code, while it means well, when you put it into practice in reality, especially here on what is in yellow, which is west to see Highway, it's called an urban greenway. This is a county roadway that actually is currently subject to an approved project where they have already decided what to do with the roadway, totally outside of not just our control, but the city's control. And so you can see here that they have the as an example the code has on street parking for this area this plan that the county has already approved with has a bike lane that goes right through the on street parking we don't have any and this is a area this is many blocks of west xe highway I think it goes all the way down to 164th. So it's a large project of which this is just a part. And we really, even with the city, we don't have the ability to circumvent what they're doing to try to make the code work. So we have a variance to accommodate what the county's project is going to do. But I don't think that it's anything, you know, there's no actual problem with it, having these bike lanes that will now have that connectivity both here and all the way to the south and the north, right, to help people get to the park, for example, is a great benefit to not just this project, but to the community. So we don't want to stand in their way. You can see a lot of striping in the street itself where the code would want to have a landscape median. The county's project has just these striped medians, but it does have central turn lanes, not just here, but elsewhere to help with connectivity. So that's really the source of our variance for West XI Highway. And then the two other streets that we are required to put in the one on our west side, which is at the top here, and you can see that purple sliver. We meet all the requirements except for a second sidewalk. Right, there's a sidewalk on the building side of that street. The code does require another sidewalk on both sides. We're proposing to, you know, do away with that in order for more green space that can front our neighbor and not have the, you know, public and or the residents here walking right on the property line of our neighbor's property. Obviously, we decide to walk on the what is now the east side, the bottom of that, you know, helps everybody with the appropriate connectivity. So we will definitely provide for that. In blue, our center street, we are shifting it a little bit further south so that it by forcates right on west xe highway right in the middle of the frontage and if you remember the loading zones are at the top just to the right of the blue not the best place to have pedestrian another reason not in purple to do the pedestrian walkway is to also not have them walk in front of the loading zone. So that is a deviation of the required streetscape in front of the loading zone. There's also supposed to be green space in front of the loading zone, which obviously we can't have. So those minor little changes are the reason for the variance for that. This project is a very big undertaking. maybe may be familiar with what originally was called the five park project. Not very far from here, also in the same district. It's at West Dixie in 170th. It's under construction. It's roughly the same size. I think it's a little smaller acreage, close to 400 units. So that'll give you an idea of sort of what we're looking at. It's eight stories tall, I think in total. I think collectively it is just uniformly eight stories. That just gives you an idea, again, in the zoning district, what scale we're talking about here. But we're not doing the same thing. We're going to be doing the different. We're going to be doing the different. We're going to be doing the different. We're going to be doing the different. We're going to be doing the different. We're additional jobs when both the rental and maintenance of the residential portion, as well as those 19,000 commercial square footage. But then during that building permit process, right? There's lots of building permit fees, 1.3 million in fees to the city for the building permit. Almost 500,000 is going to the city for recreation and police impact fees. Additionally, over 2.8 million goes to the county and the school district, which does then funnel back into the city. A tax revenue, I think the most important thing here is that the city will see 48 times more. The first year that this is open, then they see today for the vacant lot. So incredible help and benefit to the city for receiving that, which would then be annual property tax. The residents of the project are estimated to spend 2.3 million annually in you know retail and food and other services which essentially will you know very likely be in and around you know the city of North Miami Beach. So with that we're our entire team is here to answer any questions. I just the one thing that I've kind of added in is just to make sure that we are on board with this additional condition that we will meet the 70% required ground level glazing requirement along Westixi and 173rd. That again is just more of a cleanup to make sure that we don't have to ask for a variance for that. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Amster. Before we move any further, yeah, we do. Is the applicant proposing to submit his report as evidence to him? Is that where you ask him? I'm attorney. Okay. Um, but it's genuine. Yeah, that's when I get ready to do it. If we could have genning disclosures, uh, Miss Arden, I think this might, I'm not sure if we addressed a matter with a genning disclosure previously, but, um, I'll let the attorney chime in but this is essentially just if anyone has reached out to you about the project and advanced to the project this is essentially, just if anyone has reached out to you about the project. In advance of the project, this is a time to address that and then let them know that nothing about what's been presented is going to sway your decision and you make in your decision based on the competent evidence presented before us today. So let's go through and have the general disclosure. Sure. I haven't spoken to this for a minute. It's sufficient that you disclose and you spoke with when and the general substance of the conversation and that you know you state that nothing that you've heard not in this hearing will prevent you from making an impartial decision based on the facts and evidence presented. So I did speak to Mr. Amster last week, could have been any of the week, I don't remember. And he basically just told me what he said here, very similar, nothing extra. And I can make my decision from what I heard today. I haven't spoken to anybody. I did receive a phone call but we didn't talk about anything. I just told them that I would make my decision here when I looked at the project. There did reply with one question regarding the improvement of West Dixie. He replied. I told him that after my review of the project on Saturday, if I had any further questions, I would call him. I did not have any further questions, and I can make my decision based on what I hear tonight. Thank you. I did receive a text from Mr. Amster and Ms. Mitch Lovius. I had already reviewed it. I didn't respond in my decision. We made based on the company evidence presented before us today. On that note, I think they're close up Jennings. Okay. You want to open the matter for public comment. If there is anyone here that is going to be presenting or speaking on this item from a public comments standpoint. Please. We just have have to you guys can I believe the gentleman may have been sworn in I don't think the lady was sworn in she made came in after this one so if you two could just stand up and be sworn in before you present to us please and and while that's occurring, just for the record, we do have some email, public comments. I don't follow them. Thank you. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Thank you. OK. If we'd like to hear from the lady first. Lady, sir. And just please do us a favor and introduce yourself and put a address on the record. I appreciate it. Deborah Bacar and I live at 2-3-3-0. There you go. Deborah Bacar. I live at 2 3 3 0. There you go. Deborah Bacar. I live at 2 3 3 0 north east 1 74 street north high beach for 45 years. So I don't have anything prepared. So I'll be speaking off the cuff a little bit here, but I live in a home right behind where this building is going to be built. A single family home 3 2 and I have multiple other neighbors who wanted to be here, but they couldn't because they have small children and everything. We have like about maybe eight to ten homes on my block right there, right behind the proposed building. And of course when I moved in, there was a one story nursing home on this lot, which was torn down. And of course, that's historical, but anyway, I have multiple concerns. First of all, I think that this building goes up. I think it's going to greatly reduce the value of our properties in the few blocks behind this building. Because, well, for multiple reasons, but that eight story, a part of the building, those carousers and windows are gonna look right over our homes, our pools, everything. It's gonna greatly reduce our privacy also, not only our home values. So it's, I'm concerned also about the traffic, like probably many of the residents are, and I'm sure they're going to produce traffic studies, but the traffic already at one 72nd and in West Dixie is absurd. And now we have the building north of the tennis courts with 500 units too, that's going to all in and date that corner. So I don't see how the traffic situation can possibly be safe. But I'm more concerned from a personal point of view of the privacy for my home, the value of my home. I wish I had my neighbors here to speak tonight, but I don't. And those are my main issues, but it's going to, those are the two main issues. So, I don't know if you have any questions, but that's my story. Thank you so much. We had two additional hands. Good evening members of the board. Mr. Geller, Mr. Amstere, and staff. My name is Charles Baron. I live at 17890, Westixi Highway, apartment 317. That's the condiment he built and called the Grinnell's Park Club. It's just over the border from North of mighty beach and the unincorporated. And excuse me once again, I'm gonna get a little swig of water because I pull a little marker rubio there with the water. Anyway. I'm an attorney and I have my office in Hollywood and I have a few objections to the project and several remarks in support of that. But before I get to that, I have a question for Mr. Amster and it's one that we actually discussed on the phone earlier this afternoon. There seems to be an inconsistency in the architects Set of drawings which I'm bringing up now on my phone so I can give you the page that it's on It's that well there's a set of The architectural plans and drawings. First I'll give you the PDF page, which is PDF22, but the Architects page is called A-3,1C, and it's the building, it's showing building elevations. And at the bottom of that page on the left hand side there's a drawing that's supposed to be the east elevation and then there's a, what appears to be a drawing of a bird's eye view just to the, just to the right of it. And I'm confused here and I need clarification and Mr. Amster said he would look into it. I don't know if you had time because we were short on time before you had to come here. But we were short on time before you had to come here. But I'm concerned about this the way that bottom left hand drawing looks between where there it's supposed to transition from the six story to the eight story and it's showing a six story section there you feel up you see six stories of windows and then a big white area on on top of that going up I guess eight stories. And which Mr. Amster said is probably the parking garage, but it kind of doesn't make sense when you compare it to the bird's eye view to the right of it. But it looks like it's supposed to be a circular, like a six story with a courtyard in the middle, which supposedly would be, you know, which would, supposedly would be blocking the section you see on the drawing on the left, where you see this like blank white area that's between, there's a six story section on the right, then there's this blank white wall, and then again, a little six-story section. So there's an inconsistency there. Just so we can better follow the points that you're making, each of them appear to have a solid elevation, east elevation, and a number. So I don't know if you can see it on your phone, but if you can just identify, are you talking about the East elevation number five at the bottom? Is that what? Yes, sir. Okay. And, right. And if you go to the right hand side, that drawing the far right hand side, you know, all the way to the right, you see a palm tree, then you see a six-story section, then to the left of that, a little tree, and then up from the little tree, you see this solid white section, no windows going up. It looks to be eight stories, and then to the left of that, again, you see a little sliver of six stories, and then to the left of that, it goes eight stories with the windows. And it kinda, it doesn't really make sense compared to the drawing on the right, which is supposed to be, I guess, I hope you can answer it, but it looks like it's supposed to be the sixth story building with a courtyard or something in the middle pool courtyard, whatever it is, with the parking garage behind that. So before I go on, can we have me answer that question? No, you can just go on. All right, okay, okay. So all right. So Mr. Amster talked about the prior proposals for this lot, which were monster 10 story proposals that he said didn't go forward well the reason they didn't go forward is because I Personally litigated against successfully litigated against the city The developer would not back down the developer Thought us tooth and nail when I say I litigated I represented not only myself, but several other people in the neighborhood. That developer went back down, we took it to the circuit court where the developer actually prevailed. But then I took it to the district court of appeal, which reversed the circuit court based on the fact that that project violated essential requirements of law under city code. And that's why the 10 story never went forward. Now, turning to the problems with this one. These variances, taking one at a time, 23 foot difference, difference, 11-foot, different, it doesn't sound like much. But when you put it all together, it's shoe-horning in a project that is too big for this lot. It's too many units, too many cars. And in addition to that, you have the problem that Ms. Bacar, who lives in a single family home to the West, mentioned as well, you're going to have this, it includes this tower of with windows and terraces of people looking straight down into what up to now has been her private backyard. So, you know, that's a, before I go on, that's a design flaw. There could be a design where there is, there's not windows facing that particular side overlooking those homes. But turning to shoe horning this whole thing in there. Well, okay, what I have objections to are the variance number three, maximum building length is 300 to 3.323. They can, I urge you to recommend and to have the developer come back with a design that makes it 300 feet even. The maximum allowed by code instead of 3.23. I urge you to have them come back with a design with a green way that's 28 feet, rather than the 11 feet that are shrinking it to, in violation of the code. And I urge you to have them come back with a design that has a sidewalk on two sides of the street. Now, here again, like each one, take it like like if you just had one variance, let's say you just had one of the sidewalk on one side and everything else met code, you know. Then it's not so bad, but when you put it all together, it's enabling them to do a design that is shoe-horning in a project that is too massive for the area, for that corner. I don't think there's confidence substantial evidence that has been presented here that proves to you as is required that the following elements are met in order to pass variances. One, that it must not adversely affect the stability and appearance of the community. Two, it has to be otherwise compatible with the surrounding land, surrounding land uses and three not detrimental to the community. You have here across the street a one story funeral home, one story structures going from there down to one 70 second street. You have to the west of it a three story complex for about a block, then you go to all that huge single family home area, which will be adversely affected, including with their property values as Ms. Bacar mentioned, which would in turn, I mean, I know you get more taxes, you'll get more taxes, property taxes because of this project, we're going to reduce the property tax base for those homes. And to the north is Grinnell's Park. Now, so I don't believe there's enough competence substantial evidence to prove to you that it has met all of those elements with the compatibility of those adjacent sides. And on the traffic, okay, so I know there's been zero mention here about traffic. I believe there is a traffic study it filed. It's the developer's, it's the applicant's, traffic consultants, study, which of course is going to say it's not a problem. Add these 500 units with how many people is that what's, that's probably like, between 1,500 people in this thing. And the hundreds and hundreds of vehicles. I apologize because I didn't- Yeah, yeah you, your name sir? My name is Charles Bounds. Okay, Mr. Bounds. Just keep in mind, I want to hear what you're saying and it seems that you have some input, but this is typically relegated to two minutes. So if you could kind of. I will land. I was actually at the Cleaning part. Oh guys, so thank you. So the you know It's bad the traffic is bad now. This is before you add the Mac and project south of one seventy second That's you know nearing nearing construction completion with all the vehicles that that's gonna add coming into that intersection at one seventy Second in Dixie. One 72nd in Dixie gets really bad right now at particular times of the day and at particular at times of the year, during the snowboard season, with the train coming through and the traffic getting all backed up there in all directions approaching that intersection. That's right now. Now you're going to add all the from the Mac and Project, and then adding the hundreds and hundreds of vehicles from this project. And mark my words, it's going to be a traffic nightmare. I bet you anything that you have never seen an apple can come before you and say, I'm sorry, our traffic consultant just told us there's going to be too much traffic generated by this project. We have to turn around and come back another time with the downsides project. That's never going to happen ever. Okay, so it's going to be a traffic nightmare. And for that reason, for all those reasons, I urge you to just have them a little bit modify the design to satisfy these concerns. On this, thank you so much. Okay, thank you very much. All right. And I believe we had one more. There we go. Good evening, everybody. My name is Jean-Cloffian Asia. I live 178.90, West Dixie Highway, apartment 117, not my enviage for them. For information, I am a realtor for 35 years, and I am a commercial and residential broker for about 35 years to. So I got a lot of experiences what I am doing is why I know also the problem that we might have with this building, which is the car. I'm sorry, the one? The cars. We have a lot of cars, a lot of traffic already. I live in this building for about four years. I'm Greenhouse Park. I work in a park almost every building for about four years, a green old spark, a walk in a park almost every day for about an hour, an hour and a half, the morning. And there is, there are already a lot of cars getting through. So if we have all this traffic with this new building, Moslach is going to be more targeting through the park and is going to create a big problem. Now, number two, not of this new construction that we have here, we are already a beer bar with 350 seats and requiring according according to the code, about 75 parking space. There is no 75 parking space. Next to it, there is a big breakfast restaurant who uses a lot of parking and if you come on The weekend you are fucking all over on West Dixiaway, on the left, on the right. And most of the time they are also very parking and very parking sneak inside our building to park their own car. And the board has to take a decision, but the board I'm talking the association. And my main concern here is the traffic that is going to create. And there is also, I just had you because I work on it for about two, three years. I am a good citizen. I call many times 3-1-1, I call Miami-Dade. And finally, I was calling Miami-Dade. And I was calling also not Miami-Dade, to take care of something very big. Just cross the street of where this building is going to be at the entrance of the park. Three times the Miami-Dade has to send somebody to clean. There was garbage. It was a lot of furniture. It was mattress. And it was, it's ugly. So this is a problem that not Miami Beach has to put his nose in it. I know it's not your jurisdiction, but it's something that is concerning all the human being living in this area. And this is what I want to say. I'm not going to argue on the project is too high, too big, it's fine. For myself, it's a nice project. But what I'm concerned is a traffic and also the need for space for parking that we don't have. So the problem here is when you have a situation like this spot, this spot is in not my image. Just next to it, you have the park. The park is unencorporated Miami-Dade. So it means that there is nobody who supervised it. There is no police to come there. There is no inspector to come there. There is nothing like that. We are living in the dumping zone. And I had a lot of email that I can send, the copy or I can show you copy if you are just created this authorized Miami date dumping zone. And every time I send an email, I have an answer for Miami date and they give a case. But does it matter? Even tonight you can go by there and you can see already a mattress there. People come at night and they just dump all their furniture. One day we might find also maybe a body of people there. Let's hope not. Thank you for your comments. Thank you very much. Thank you for your sharing. Before we bet you, Mr. Amster, I know that we had the three hands and there was reference to emails that was received are those emails part of the packet because I didn't see emails. Okay so are we gonna read those into the records so that they can be considered as well or how are we presenting those emails. Yes sir we can read those into the record. I mean are we talking about. So there are three emails we can either read them into the record or the we can provide them as a supplement to the agenda pack. One of them is the lead. Okay. Everyone, Deborah need you. Okay. Oh, so one of the three is Ms. Becker. Ms. Debra. Yeah, has already spoken so that does not need to be re-regnant to the record. And there are two others. Copies provided to. Right. So we can make reference to it. Do you want to take a stab at that? Just giving us a sum of substance. I do see that they all appear to have been received by today in the cutoff. Yes, so I can definitely do that for the board. So the first is from Jackie Dubuno, a Monday, received Monday April 21st at 117 PM via email. It talks about decreases in water pressure, increases in noise pollution, disruption from world work, and confused increased traffic. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm there. Right, right. That email will not be summarized since you did speak. So this is Jacqueline DeBois. No, no, no, there wasn't. Yes. Yes. So she wraps up by urging the city to consider integration of this parcel into a Grey Reynolds Park preserving the green space, which of course, Grey Reynolds is a county park. That's complete. The other email is from Danny DeBuno. Again, Monday, April 21st received it to 20 p.m. Again writing an opposition to the proposed development, talking about overburdened infrastructure in terms of water pressure, traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on other public resources, and the potential for quote significant environmental damage to Gray Reynolds Park, and they're concerned about those impacts. Strongly urging the city to reconsider this proposed development and to consider adding this parcel to the Grey Reynolds Park. And is there anyone else who is here for public comment that has not spoken? I wish it. Mr. Bacar did you. I suppose that. I don't know. to show this to. You can put it on the screen. You can't put anything on the screen. Yeah. ever book our two two three o north, Northeast once on New Forest Street again. I wanted to note, I wanted to note on this and also, particularly from Miss Ogan, to note on this. Did you notice, did you read what it said? Yes. Future connection, only when adjacent property to the west, that's the Arbors, low rise apartments. Only when adjacent property to the west that's the arbor's low rise apartments only when adjacent property to the west is redeveloped with a street connection so there's a possible thought already or in planning to already put to take down that building of the arbor's what raise it or whatever they're gonna do and put a street straight through up to 174th Street where miss open lives off of also it runs past the golf course and I can't even imagine what kind of traffic that would form going through the middle of those cutting it through the apartment complex so I just wanted to make a note because I didn't know if everybody read that, noticed it, or because you know, that's a major, major street change and a major change to the entire neighborhood. Wave passed my home and all the way up past the golf course. That's all. This one, no if everybody noticed it. Thank you. Hearing us, seeing no one else, I'll go ahead and close public comment. Mr. Amster, I know that there were some questions specifically directed towards you. I would recognize you to have opportunity to speak further and support of the item. Thank you very much. So I want to point out that two of the three people who came to speak in person here this evening do not live in the city. They both live north of the park, which is an unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The 2020 and 2021 approval of by the City Commission was multiple hearings. In fact, it came to this board for recommendation. There were lots of outreach to, again, provide for the proper framework by including this property into this mixed-use district, how it would be developed, how many units, 500, with the street network that we had to add, which helps significantly to address issues that would otherwise be a burden for the surrounding area. The buffers, especially on the north, both the setbacks to provide green space from the park as well as the heights of the building and at that top. both the setbacks to provide green space from the park as well as the heights of the building. And at that time, there was substantial discussions with the county parks and recreation department. So they knew exactly what was happening, what was proposed. They urged people you have heard both back at the time and even this evening basically basically reflecting, there should be these buffers. And so they were supportive of that and we, with the city's work on including this project, incorporated that to, and that's what we're here before you this evening to make sure that we are following through all of the efforts right for an appropriate development at this place. We are not here to ask for anything further. We are in furtherance of what was already well laid out and significantly vetted. There is an extensive technical review at the time of the redesignation, circulation, both the vehicular and pedestrian, again, all of the setbacks, the buffering, the types of uses, the treatment of loading, and insignificant reference to that future connectivity that the woman came up here, Ms. Bacar, I believe, to identify. I don't want anybody to be sensationalizing. As we worked through with staff, there is a recognition that the street network that exists in the single family neighborhood to the west doesn't connect through the apartment property next to us, as well as our property to get to West Dixie highway. And in having that discussion, there was talk about there could be. It was just a mostly a thought exercise that if the apartment building would ever be rebuilt, that yes, maybe there would be a need to provide some connectivity, that connectivity as expressed in the note on that plan is for pedestrian access. We have commercial that would be neighborhood serving. That would be a way for that neighborhood to be able to come walk through our property. And it was for life safety issues, right, to have fire only access. It was never intended to have a road go through there. It's just an exercise in that if that were to ever happen, could this property, as we are proposing to you, accommodate a connection over there, and that's all that that connection was meant to be. And that was us working closely with staff to, from a planning perspective, this is the Planning and Zoning Board. You sometimes have to think 10, 20, 50 years in the future. Well, that was what we were doing. And we really just wanted it to be an emphasis that we could. We're not planning for that at all. The apartments are not our property. We are not trying to take them over. We are not able to predict if and when this could ever happen, we are just accommodating what would possibly be an issue for our project, which we should be addressing now. Can we add for pedestrian connectivity through the center of our property on the west side? Yes, yes we can. So that was all that that was meant to be. So we're hopefully no one's getting carried away, thinking that a street or those apartments are going anywhere. So regarding though that's that neighborhood that is to the west, the are closest. Okay, so on our west property line, we have a setback. about the single family homes. The single family homes that are West of those apartment buildings are over 360 feet away to our closest unit. The apartment property itself is 335 feet and our units are substantially set back over 30 feet more onto our property. So it's over 360 feet to any of those apartments. Our entire west elevation is not all apartments anyway, right? There's the parking garage there. We have zero rooftop activation. You know, being over 360 feet away, that's quite a far distance. I do not think that that really impingens on people's privacy. And again, this is the project, both heights and unit count that was approved by the commission for rezoning to allow for this project. And that's what we're following through on. As I mentioned, a vacant property, sure, it's perhaps a place where people may be dumping. The redeveloping it is going to improve the neighborhood, be more safe with all the people, the eyes on the street here. The commercial will definitely be an added benefit to the neighborhood nearby. Like I mentioned, our property value will increase substantially when this is built. That has a direct impact on the entire neighborhood, so that is something that everyone should be paying attention to, that a vacant lot does not provide in the least. As far as the variance for building length, again, the width of this property, North South is quite large. That's the plated condition. That's what we took to the concept in 2021 and have provided here. It is, the intent of that is to make sure that you don't have a very, overly massive building. And we have, so that center street, which is built over, right, is a breakup in the building. All of the, if you look at the elevations of the building again, you'll see great articulation both vertically and horizontally, to break up the building lengths. Thank you. There's different colors as well, to and framing that all, again, deemphasizes the massing. Those courtyards also break it up. The building actually has you shaped in the north and definitely is all of what is used to meet the intent of the code that again our property size will not allow us without the variance. But we again do what the code is asking us to do in the practice and the design of this project. And on that same page, Mr. Amstler, I know that I apologize, but the attorney that presented, he made a few references to this slide, I guess, to the bottom left photograph the far right. Yeah, certainly. About the drop off and high. I know you've went to Hatch tonight as attorney in architect, but if you have anything that you want to opine. Yeah, I do, I do wish our architect was here. And we are, we will take a, I spoke as Mr. Baron did say, we only spoke this afternoon before I had to hit the road and come up here. So we'll take another look at that for sure and if needed we'll reach out to staff and Mr. Barron. In fact, I'll let you know. I did reach out to Mr. Barron before this hearing. Similarly to reaching out to those other neighbors who live nearby. Since we knew that he was a person who was involved in the 2020-2021 as well as he is the gentleman that opposed those other projects, which were not ours. And I reached out to him knowing that he may have some concerns and we wanted to talk about it and he got back to me today this afternoon. So we'll take a look and address with him and staff as needed. And one quick question before I let you conclude, I know Kimmy Horn is on here from staff, do we have any issues based on the report? I know we viewed the report unilaterally as to what their projections are, traffic. I know that they're not asking for any guarantee that's to the parking spots or anything like that, but did we have any red flags, anything that was raised, because that was a reoccurring theme amongst the public comment was issues with traffic and parking. of the traffic study does not show significant adverse impact relative to the zoning that was previously approved. So they're exercising the entitlement that was granted by that rezoning. So the travel demand is the travel demand. Right. And I think that's something that we all have to consider that, you know, ultimately while we will apply and we're going to give our two cents and miss it after unless you have anything further that you want it to add and I just wanted to clear that point up. Yeah, I think I want to add one thing to that and one more point. And I'll be done. You know, the traffic, I do think it's a little, it's again, part of the cities which I commend is very technical review, which includes traffic. So we have our traffic engineers, Kimley Horn, that are here. The city has a consultant at Corardino Group that thoroughly vet and go back and forth to make sure that, you know, this project is through area wide, not just at this particular intersection. So it goes far field to do a traffic study, do counts, figure out the impacts, obviously address our internal circulation. Those two new roads are major benefit that I think it would turn out differently. But I think it's a little disingenuous to insinuate that the traffic engineers are only trying to show that the project works. They are beholden to the city's own consultant of which I think that process is quite rigorous. And the five-park project, I think it's called Aura now, is while not built yet, that traffic study was obtained from the city and incorporated into our traffic study. So we had to analyze this project as if that one is already built and operational, as well as any other ones that may have been approved that are not yet on board. So the traffic study I think is actually should be commended because it does take into account all of the situations in the surrounding area. And my other just last follow-up point, about our variances. Again, many of them are because of the size of the property, the regular shape, but as I mentioned, the intent of the code, the mixed use district is essentially a form-based code. And it has, again, guidance really when some of its regulations that meant to be applied area wide. But when you look at them on a specific, you know, project basis, that application becomes quite challenging to achieve. So that's why I was saying that, well, in way we've designed it, we didn't come here, oh, we'll just ask for variances. No, we tried as much as we could to comply and where we're unable to comply, then we show how we can best achieve the right design that is compatible with not just the code, but the neighborhood. As I mentioned that sidewalk on the far west side of our property next to our neighbor is going to empty people out in front of three loading zones. That really isn't an appropriate place to do it, but we have the appropriate connectivity on the other side of the street getting to the central street. I think that that again is what the code is looking for about the urban greenway, west Dixie. That county project is totally outside of not just our control, the city's control, and that's the reason for our variance. It's not because we don't want to provide what the city's code is requiring. And yet, I think that that that project is not harmful and it'll be helpful by again, pedestrian as well as bicycle connectivity. That the city's code doesn't actually accommodate the bicycle path. And so that's a bonus and should not be looked at negatively that our variances are shouldn't be approved. So you may have more questions as you go through discussion. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. I heard from the did you have something that you wanted to add? No. OK. We'll close public hearing and hear from the board. I'll start on this and miss them for me On the the retail deliveries where Is there a section in the back of the retail where they're going to be loading? Product or is it or they coming around the front? I doubt they'll come through the front and I don't I would say again I'm not the architect who's designed this but I imagine that it's a little early for that level of specificity of design but I think that that's typically right so these the front west front west Dixie, mostly, that's the intent. But obviously they go along our central roadway, right on both sides. So I think that that's likely where there'll be a back of house corridor perhaps, you know, for staging like you're talking about. I imagine that's what they'll do. It looks like the pool is there. Well, what I'm talking about is the very back of the commercial area itself. Actually, you know what? There looks like to be a corridor, going down a little bit down and out to the left. The left is the pool. And right, right below that is actually, you do see a corridor actually through the building there. So that's probably where they'll do that access for on this side. And on the other side, I'm sure they'll do something similar that is internal to the building and not on Westixie. They shouldn't. and I don't think anybody will add. Because my fear is that people are going to, you know, pull off on Dixie to, you know, jump into the retail real quick or something. Yeah. And that's, well. And also to, just on a personal note, I think that those two points of the retail that touch the property line it looks like is a bit much. If it was if there was a if it was just back a little bit, it would make me feel better for safety goes. car accident just my opinion next bridge. There's a car accident on Dixie in that area that retails. Those two spaces are are just right there. Mr. Smith, I'm assuming just so that we have the benefit. Are you looking at a paper particular? I'm looking at the site plan. It's the bottom right corner. I'm sorry, the but the should have a. Well, it's on it's on various. So basically SP three if you look. That's people. Right, if you look at the and you can even pull it up. These two these two areas right here are my concern because they are just right there at the street level. Now. Right, right. I see what you're saying. Remember there'll be a landscape strip and a sidewalk and then there's the bike lane before you actually get to the travel lane. So while those pieces touch the property line, it's I think what's intended here is to create the unique plaza environment that you have there while trying to address a what is in this area angled property line versus the the north and west you know and parts of the property. seems like you know any drawing it's, I understand, but I think that it's limited as well as the setback here is actually zero feet. The entire building could be right on the property line from an urban design standpoint. That's really what this mixed use district is meant to encourage urbanistic design, which is storefronts right at the walkway. So we are, there's a maximum of 30 feet setback. So we have decided to entertain a variety of these experiences for the pedestrians along this. And I think that you're, where you're talking about our very limited areas. So there really is a zero setback. There's a zero foot setback, yes. So then never mind. I still hate how close it is to the street, just for record. I do understand your concern. Yeah. What is that? At the moment, no. Thank you. Mr. Thomas? Yes. Okay so I commend you guys for all the working done with lots of different things. Sounds like a very difficult hall. However some are, you have so many parking spaces and you exceed what it's required. Do you have, have you listed any EV spaces included in those parking spaces for electronic or electrically charged vehicles? Oh, Mr. Thomas, make sure you're micr-done. Oh, look like we got there. So the question is, did you include charging stations for electronic vehicles that require charging? Is part of your parking schematic? I don't think at this stage we have provided that. I'd have to look at the plans to confirm, but it's also not required, but yet you make a good point. And I'm sure that they will look at it. And if not, provide spaces to allow for that electrical connection to the base. My only concern is that we're in 2025. Electric vehicles are more and more part of our day to day. And Mr. Heisler is very good at pointing this stuff out but I still disagree with and I agree with them that that that part of the issue is that if you're going to be building this beautiful place all these people that will have cars that need to be charged have no access that seems kind of short-sighted. So that's number one, for me at least, a question that I want. I don't know. It also, in terms of parking, even though you meet the requirements and stuff, you got retail as well as commercial property that is part of this development. And the total number of spaces provided are 618 am I correct in that? Yeah. Minimum parking spaces total maximum 618. So, and you have 500 units. So that's less than a car and a half for a person that lives there. And you have retail space. Just a question seems like not enough. But what do I know? I'm not an engineer. And I also have to accept and listen to our community's input in regards to traffic. And traffic is a serious problem. I live in North of my native If you, as certain times of the day, you cannot get out of my neighborhood in Sky Lake. And I mean this. On 19th Avenue, it's a mess. On 22nd Avenue? It's a mess. Dixie Highway, let's get more specific to you. Dixie Highway going north. Forget about getting anywhere past what is it? The juice place. Main squeeze. Bimes squeeze. It backs up beyond coming the other way. So there's our traffic issues that I think are legitimate concerns for the community. And certainly I understand developers need to develop. I mean, and the city needs to encourage that. My only question is at what point does the city decide to look at this stuff and as a holistic thing and say, guess what, we're building a lot of too much stuff for our community to be able to absorb. And it's messing with the quality of life that we have here because we can't get around. So I'm pontificating on this issue and I apologize for that but and I certainly respect the work that you put into it but it does concern me that it seems to be traffic is always never a problem always. I haven't't seen one. And for that point that the attorney made, it's pretty accurate statement. And I believe there's any collusion there. I think they're doing legitimate work, but it's never a problem. But I live it every day. So the never problem does exist. How you reconcile that in the future is something that I think we should really as a city should look at and say, okay, holistically, all these streets feed to all different kinds of areas. We need to look at it and decide whether or not we can alleviate some of those issues. Otherwise, we're becoming prisons in our own neighborhoods from traffic. Anyway, I wish you good luck. I hope that this development does contribute the way you do. You say it will to the neighborhood. Oh, one other question. The walkway that goes along that street off a 173rd street along the the enter the driveway that leads into the unloading docs. There is a walkway there. Is that correct? Or there is there is a walkway on the east side. If you're talking about the essentially the street that's on our west. It would be on the west side right so on the east side there's a walk on the east but not a walkway in front of the building which has residential units right right so there is a walkway that goes to the center street right that then goes east towards you know west dixie okay and then so essentially and then along that property line that runs the whole length of the building on the West side That is some kind of green area or whatever So the people that live there and want to get to Dixie Highway. How do they access? through Your property or is there no access? No, so if you you may be thinking of that connectivity that we talked about. I'm just asking now. So the sidewalk on 173rd, which the drawing is up on the screen, that yellow, basically from it, we connect to the existing sidewalk by the apartments, which then keeps going to the residential neighborhood. Anyway, so you would come on, you either walk all the way down to Westixi because that's where the commercial area is, or you could circulate through the property. You go on a sidewalk, you see where the... Oh, you come through the sidewalk that runs along the, I see that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, there's a sidewalk on a hundred and seventy-third that then goes by the front, you know, I'm talking about West East. Yeah So just for clarification the the the internal streets here the L Essentially runs through the center of the property and then along the west the western boundary of the property That internal street has a continuous sidewalk connection along it. So what I'm saying is to the neighborhood to the west. They have no access to Dixie Highways, that correct? No, no, no, no, I'm sorry, through the property. So on 173rd, you can walk down the sidewalk. Then you have more. All the way to. No, you can property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the property that is the Yes, and then across east west across that street to Westixie highway. So the through the center of their property you could get there as a pedestrian or in fact as a matter. Right. So yes. So basically you go off 173rd street. west dixie highway so the through the center of their property you could get there as a pedestrian or In fact as a matter, so yes, so basically you go off a hundred and seventy-third street walk Quarter third of the way through the property and then east To dixie highway so all I'm saying is if I lived in those buildings on that side the the West side of the property I would probably want better access. And for instance, that walkway that goes to the north side comes around to the parking garage it looks like. And it seems normal that you'd have access, you should have access from that neighborhood. Should you want to walk your dog or take a little stroll, maybe even get over to Grayland's Park, those are things that might be a better community-friendly idea for the development. Otherwise, you end up with this large, I don't even know what the length of the property is now. I'm doing it. Yeah, you can't, you know, you have to walk a long way just to get around it. And that to me, that seems shortsighted. End of comments. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may. You can. Yeah, just this street network that is internal to our property is these will be private streets but available as we've been talking about right for the public to both drive on and to use the walkways, you know, to access whether it's just a different way to get up to Grinnell's Park. But today, there is no access, you have to go around this property today. There is no requirement for two private properties to have a public access. So we are providing, right, that apartment building and not no fault of theirs has zero public access. Yes, they can have guests come to their property, but they could also tell them, you know, not, please leave. Whereas we are, and from the traffic perspective, we have two new streets that we need to build. We will build them, and we will basically have an easement for the public to use them, both again for vehicles and pedestrians. So I think that that's over and above what is normally required. It is part of our, I'll call it a burden and a benefit, right? To allow for that access for the community. And so we are providing an improvement to what is there today. And there's no access to the park to the north anywhere here. You do have to go along West XC to get to the park. And I think part of it is, some of it is wetland as well as. No, I understand and that was the thought. I think that was the thought experiment that we were working with staff as far as through the center of our property right by our tree. Could you do that? So that could be arranged. I just, I don't want to, we're not committing to it because in part, you know, that's basically an agreement between two private property owners today. We're not trying to dictate what will happen. We're just trying to show that that could happen. But we have improved connectivity with these central streets with their sidewalks. As well as, you know, I think that the benefit really is that there's now commercial uses that aren't there today. This helps the public get to both whether they're by car or walking. Mr. Crestro. I'm with you. Can we take it with five minute break? Listen, we can listen to this in the restaurant. You don't have to stop. As long as we don't want to. No, if you got a brochure, your mind will not on. We'll take. We'll take five minutes because if they both leave, we won't have quorum. I'm going to my train of thought? You know, we're sitting, we're here to hammer out whether this project comports to what City, staff looked at and what the commission had approved. I know there was ideally you would have built a nursing home there and everybody would be happy. We would go back to the 1970s and we'd have a quiet rehab center. But somebody bought the property, somebody knocked down that building, somebody designed a project that was 10 stories high that seemed to anger a lot of people. And there was a lot of discussion about the shadow messing up the raccoons in Grenel's park and fortunately or unfortunately, there was a feisty attorney who lived in that area who I had no idea that he would be successful because I thought we're gonna stop a project because of people's concern about feral cats in Grinnell's part. But anyway, he succeeded and this thing's been dormant and then new guys came along and they put this project together. Is it going to be a good project? Well, I mean, architecturally it's okay. Is it going to be successful? I don't know. I don't know if anybody's done a market study forward. Seems like we have an abundance of apartment buildings. I don't know how successful those apartments are on West Exe highway. I don't know why anybody would want to live there. 500,, 500, no offense. It's a 500 square foot apartment which is needed for a lot of people. Hopefully the cost will be reasonable. But blah, blah, blah, transportation, traffic. It's an age-old story. So we're here just to decide if these variances make sense. Does the project make sense? I don't know. That's a problem for the owner, the guy who is poning up hundreds million and not hundreds of millions, but millions of dollars taking a flyer on 500 units. Can he fill it? Can the retail be successful? I have my doubts. But that's why there are some people are developers and some people live in a 500 square foot apartment on Dixie Highway. So be that as it may. I think we should just try and do our job looking at this project, not rec, not deciding that there should be a sidewalk on this side and that six people who live in a apartment, a Jason should be able to cut through to get to West Dixie highway. That being said, my only question is what is what is that white Building what is that white on your plans? We we ever settled that is that the garage that is that a, seems to be, I think other. Othering Mr., is it Mr. Baron? And is there? Yeah. I think you mean. Yeah, I need to take a look at that with that of it further with our architect. It makes sense that it may be the garage wall, but of course we're not the architect and we'd enjoy these plans. Yeah. any event. I don't like this project only because of the size and the architect and we'd enjoy these plans. Yeah. In any event, I don't like this project only because of the size and the density and the fact that it's on Dixie Highway and that it's going to add a lot of traffic, but I'm not in a position to judge what may be successful or not be successful. So that that's the way I said both. I don't have, I can't conjure up a reason to say this can't go forward because there's not a sidewalk and because the property touches isn't set back from a line that may or may not be an issue. That being said, I can turn it over to our thank you, a fearless leader. Mr. Crestberry, Ms. Ogan? Yes, okay. I actually live around the corner from this property and I walk to Glenville's park very often. I don't understand. Right now I walk along one seventy-third street to West Exehaiway and I enter the park. Why is there no sidewalk on one seventy-? There is a sidewalk. So why would I, why are you suggesting we walk through the property? No, I'm saying that that's an added. There will definitely be a sidewalk on 173rd. It's inquired in the the the the streetscape for 173rd. In fact, that we don't we are fully compliant the street scape in the city's code on 173rd, which is, in fact, there's a very wide swale that will remain as well as a sidewalk. I think it's a six foot sidewalk is required. We were just mentioning that you as an additional pathway that doesn't exist today, you could go through the internal street network of this project, which gets you through the different way to access the commercial. It's a different way to get to the park. I don't know if it's truly any quicker. Now it doesn't look like it would be just to a comment that Miss Bahar made That the windows on the back of this project would overlook her property There's basically like 300 feet from this property to her property. I mean I don't and they have to look over over the other buildings behind it. So it's not like the building is here and her property is right there. It was a long distance. That does not bother me. My whole concern is the traffic. That's the only thing that does bother me. And the traffic study was done, I believe in September of 2024. So they did not, when they were counting the cars, they didn't count the new buildings under north and side of this property. Did they take that into consideration? Yes, he said they did. The traffic study always takes into account any other approved in process projects. Of the other properties. So the other projects and it treats it as if those cars are already on the streets today. Yes. That's the only thing. Also the projected the future connection that was one thing that I noticed too, but you're saying I mean this is way in the future connection, that was one thing that I noticed too, but you're saying, I mean, this is way in the future. But you're saying that this would be a pedestrian, not cars coming through. That would just say. Well, I can't guarantee that, but that was what we thought would be the appropriate, right? Because the cars. We don't't want to run that. So while our new street network is very important for our scale of the project, and I don't think it would work otherwise without that, that is because we are in a mixed use district, and this is where the higher density is allowed. As you go further west of us, that density decreases. I think it's RM23 is the department, the three apartment buildings, but then it goes to that single family neighborhood. So that density is not supportive of that. And so through street, as we were working with staff, was not right now you're going to and down your, you know, front of your property, and I think even some of the other people who spoke or wrote in. So that's not the intention. That's why I was thought that because we have sidewalks, essentially, very close to that center point of the property there, that, sure, pedestrians are a welcome type of traffic to allow them to circulate through there. But and life safety is always a concern. It was thought that that should not be precluded. There could be a gate essentially that only the fire department way it would access, so only their vehicles would be able to get through. That's all the questions I have right now. Thank you. Mr. Hatcher. Right. Hi. Good afternoon or good evening. I don't mean a traffic. And I was going to say something about it. But I think it's extremely frustrating to live in the city in the way the traffic patterns have developed from Miami Gardens Drive to everywhere. It's un, you can't continue. This has to stop. And part of the issue is that the infrastructure usually follows development, which is horrible. I mean, that West Dixie or the plans for West Dixie should have been done before, actually before two developments ago to try to prevent this traffic nightmare that we are experiencing in our city right now. And it's up to the commissioners and ourselves I think to try to mitigate that the best I can. I'm very pro development, but traffic has become quite a bit of anxiety just to get out of our house. I live right down the street. I can't leave my house during certain hours of the day. So I think traffic needs to be studied. And I think what are the improvements to Dixie? Is it going from two lanes or and when are those improvements going to be done? And you're asking about the counties and movements. We have any to make people as to how, you know, how much more we have to suffer on Dixie highway? Well, currently right now, staff doesn't have a complete deadline of when exactly. Heria Tubman, highway will be fully developed, restripe with the new bike lanes. But we could further coordinate with the county to see if this is going to be done within the next five years, next 10 years or less. I'm not too sure. Yeah, it needs to be done within the next year years, next 10 years, or less. I'm not too sure. Any, yeah, it needs to be done within the next year. Maybe, maybe year, it's in the works. Yes, so just to put it in perspective again, this project on Harriet Tubman Parkway, A-K-A. Westix, C. Highway is a county project. In city staff's communication with the county, we know that they're working through some issues, minor design issues, as well as right away acquisition issues. So right away acquisition can be a year long process or a year's long process, depending on how much time and effort they want to put in to contesting that process, the private property owners. So it's really up in the air right now from our perspective based on what we've heard to date. So we will probably not know an answer. Yeah. For a while. So then you've asked for seven variances, I guess one out of the seven were created by supposedly the county's improvements to Dixie Highway. So then you have five other variances or six other variances that couldn't the developer meet or design a project to eliminate those other variances. So part of what I explained, right, the lot width of the property is based on how this is a plated lot. So that is a variance that's unavoidable, that feeds into our build, this is one building. But we have broken it up so that no major portion of the building is greater than the 300 feet. It's just that collectively. It is over that requirement. And yet, as I mentioned, that is fully meeting what the code is looking for as far as the design, which has the appearance of multiple buildings. For the other streets, as we've mentioned, making sure for pedestrian, you don't have them to go in front of loading zones and things of that nature and the rest of the entrance to the parking garage, it's easier to make sure that they are on the safer side of the street, providing more green space next to our neighbor to not provide that access either are just ways to accommodate a reasonable development and the code is just a little inflexible because it's just that's the intention to have you know walkway on both sides like 173rd you have a street sidewalk on both sides no problem west xe have a sidewalk on both sides. No problem. West Dixie. You have a sidewalk on both sides. These internal streets are narrower and have these other uses right next to them that we're trying to accommodate appropriately. So we feel that that's a appropriate, compatible with no adverse impact. And those are the criteria that you need to meet to satisfy for a variance. Yeah, I mean, I think the one that I was had issues with is the variance where I guess the setbacks from Dixie. It just seems like the project is like right on Dixie literally. Well, that's zero because it's zero. It's zero to 30. Right. And I don't know, approximately 90% or more of the building meets that. There's that little sliver where the property kind of makes that angle towards West Dixie, that with a straight building for appropriate and economic building design, we don't meet this little triangle piece. And we're not closer than we could otherwise be. I know at zero you can't be any closer. But that portion is only 22 feet further set back. But it will be imperceptible. Nobody walking there will even know that you have, because that's the of basically a side yard versus the frontage on west xe. So the building does, you know, tailor away at an angle. Again, it's not the most efficient building design, but they've they've accommodated that intersection as best as they can. But if it's just a little sliver of area, I don't even know what the square footage is, but it's very minor. I thought some of it may have been related to the fact that you have a boundary between the park and the project of buffer zone. So that really set the project more to- Well, as you are correct, as you go further to the north, in that northeast corner of our property, yes, that buffer is required along basically along the park, frontage, not West Dixie. So yes, there are competing interests. You're helping me create a better argument for that actual variance. Yeah, no, I saw that and I saw that as a reason for the vac. Yeah, yeah. Well, at least a good point. But the liner on the parking garage, your letter said that the liner was on the majority of the parking structure. Now is the liner on, so is there a liner on that parking facility? It's not an active liner, I understand that. But there's a liner. So, right, so this is not a variance request. There's an administrative basically through the staff, administratively they can approve a waiver of the liner requirement, fronting parking spaces. When where parking spaces are fronting a street, there should be a unit of some kind, an active space that is in front of parking. And for the most part, we do have that. But to the west. The west is not required because that's not facing a street. What's the residence spec there? I'm just, the code doesn't require there would be liners. Now, we have framing on that building side. We have screens so that the lights and headlights of the cars, in fact, even the cars won't actually be seen. So we have screening. There's no requirement that it be an active use like more units. So that we have compiled to. So the only, I wanna finish and answer your question. Yes. The parking garage, if fronts, I don't know if we can call up one of the diagrams, like the site plan probably, as you are looking at, yes, thank you. That's good. So here you can see the street, this is the ground level view of the plan, right? The parking garage everybody sees that large rectangle. There is, there are two lines at the connecting basically to the building, to the south, that is the units that are above the street, right? So there is a thin area, basically when you're on the west drive at the top there, coming in at the garage, there's no unit lining the street at the width of the street there. So that's where we've asked for architectural screening to when you're basically approaching the garage there. And then a little part below the two red arrows that are the ingress, egress to the garage itself. There's that little corner of the garage there also would have decorative screening instead of units. Because the units are above and only match the width of the the the sea of the building to the left. So that's the two areas otherwise the otherwise it's not only lined but you won't even be able to see the the liner units because it's that connectivity between this is really what makes this all one building. It's pretty well screened right yeah all the way around that That's correct. That was my main concern is that the residents, I guess, on the west don't see a parking garage. They just see the screen. They're screening. There's architectural framing elements there. And they may explore to do more of that as they finalize for a building permit. And I guess you didn't do the rooftop amenities because of the concern over overlooking, why didn't you do the rooftop amenities on this? I mean, I can vouch for the owners' complete thought about that, but I think that the more privacy is actually inside those courtyards, right, you know, that they're and much better access, right? You don't have to get in an elevator or go up the stairs, you know, to go up to the top of for rooftop amenity. And it's windy up there too, so they have wind protection by being in those courtyards. That's true. That's true. I don't think I have anything else. The only other thing I just remind the architect to add in some electric car charging stations. Sure. I'm sure that they, from a practical standpoint, I agree with you all that will be needed. The state has made the rules about electric vehicle charging up in the air, but you all make good sense and I'm sure I'll pass that on. I thought there was a code requirement that required. Yeah, that's the percentage of the parking. And the state in its infinite wisdom preempted that. So it's like that's why I'm. It's a little up in the air. All makes good sense. I'm sure that, so while there isn't a requirement per se, because the state didn't then say, here's your requirement. I think that the owner will very likely include electric vehicle charging and or the capacity to provide it. I'm sure it only makes sense in today's society. So I will pass that on expressly to them so that they are aware. All right. I don't have too many. I mean, I want to echo the sentiments that we keep in mind that I think Mr. Cresberg touched on this a bit. And he likes to touch on it. He says that we represent things. I don't think that we represent things so much, but we are limited as to which be for us. And what's be for us are our variances. Now, Mr. Amster, it'd be perfectly fine if you presented a project that had no variances. Then there'd be no no one who can have a public comment and you would make this process non-existent but that's just not the reality of the situation. And another hard to reality is that this has been litigated but you have a basket of rights. And those baskets of rights in title you two certain privileges which include being able to build a project that has a density of 500 units. That's just what we decided on as a city when we decided to rezone this to MUC. So we kind of have to deal with that. This board doesn't have the will to change that because it's not within our purview. What that being said, what we are looking at are these individual variances. And I think that, um, he makes a relevant point because there's such thing as, you know, death by a thousand cuts. And at some point, multiple variances while looked at individually don't seem egregious, but in the collective they can be. I don't necessarily feel like that's the case in this particular project, but I just want to be cognizant of that. And we're looking at what our job here as a unit is and what we're supposed to do. We're kind of handcuffed to a certain extent when we have a situation like this where there's an identified basket of rights. And this has already been litigated and re litigated. So the last thing that we want to do is, you know, rehash things outside of our purview. With that being said, I know there's a lot of concerns about traffic, and that was the reason why I wanted to clarify and have you put on the record that, you know, based on our internal review and our, in our traffic studies, that there wasn't anything running a file. But any time that we're talking about new developments, this is going to be a real current thing. And it's a real current theme because this is what the people care about. They care about being able to leave your house, they care about being able to commute. So you don't wanna have a project that's gonna cripple you. But the reality of the situation is it has to be an equal balance between positive development and community benefits as well as sufficient traffic circulation. But I wish I could chastise you, but it's not an issue on this one per se, the parking is what the parking is. You're within compliance, and I don't think that there's, it's an exercise and futility to certain extent to hash that out any further. So with that being said, my questions were particularly as to that eight foot story. The area that we've touched upon, and you said you'll speak to the architect to figure out what's going on with that. I understand the zero set back. I do appreciate that you guys offered the L shape to allow for pedestrian commute through the property. And it's also advantageous because if you have retail on the first floor, you want people to be able to come to your area and actively engage with that. It's really activating the first floor in part of this whole work, play and live criteria that we're moving towards. So those were my comments. I don't I don't have anything further Individually, I don't have an issue with the variances and you know, we are where we are with it. So I entertain a motion one way or another I'll make a motion to prove. Motion to prove subject to the conditions added to the city by the by staff. I have a motion. We have a second. We have a motion in a second. We'll hear from. There's a roll call. Yes sir, roll call vote. So, same vote. Four. Larry Thompson is absent. Daniel Huster, Hezzler. Against. Gregory Thomas. Penn. What do we have a choice to pen? No, pen. No, pen. Pen. Gregory Thomas We have a choice to pen I thought we had three choices we can either prove deny or no no no so you have to vote on the motion for approval Oh, cuz there's already a motion for unless someone okay Janet jennet has seen you keep in mind we're voting on the variances that Okay. Okay. Janet Masimian. Keep in mind, we're voting on the variances that that's what the motion is for approval based on these variances subject to the conditions that are being suggested by this guy. Right, we're voting to say that we don't agree with the variance. Right, right. Okay. Yes. I approve. We thought you're who worth oh yes the Julie and Christbrough. We left it in the improved. Yes, sorry, Julian Christberg. We locked it in the improve. What's the motion banking for two for two for two. Right passes for two. Thank you all very much. Good luck. Don't ever come back. Right. I know that we have item five, the legislator item, but I do need to release myself. So I leave you. Can we do like a seven minute break? Right. Yeah. We get do. We got it. I could take it with the meeting. I think Miss Miss Jimmy wants to use the restroom as well. Yeah. So are we a journey? No, no, no, no. I'm just going to have to do this. Yeah, I have to do what we did. It's longer. Yeah. It's like a way to see things. I don't think we have much of a choice. I don't know. Right. This is my love more house.. Why is that? That's the theme. Let the theme go. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. I need a task. Keep my mouse. I'm just going to explain a few ideas. I'm going to explain a few ideas. I'm going to explain a few ideas. I need a passport. Keep my mouth shut. I need a passport be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. I'm going to be on the staff. We're going to be doing a restaurant and do their time at the community. ways. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. But that's really expensive. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. you What do you have, hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? Hella? All right. Lord, Lord, please help. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Well see this impenetrable us, I don't know why you guys but I'll say no but it because we're let something in the reason why they're doing this is they want to be able to run six But they're also doing it because they're required under the uh Well, if you're playing ahead, now it's a nightmare. If you're building a different gas, and they use the tool that is threaded at like or a mud-to-ground. They were in and out of our neighborhood. You know, you want to sky-lake and you have sub... and they use the tool that it's redded it like warm underground. They were they're in and out of our neighborhood. You know, in a lot of sky lake and you have something. Yeah. Just don't remember where stumping it. Why not? I do it all the time. All right. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to tell on something like this. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. Okay. you No, no, no, no, that's not true. The smuggler's been here. Smuggler's been here before. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Okay folks folks folks let's get back on so we can wrap this up. Back on the. In the morning we can't get to. I don't know. Just Thomas let's get back so we can wrap it up. We are back on with Section 5, which is the legislation. And we have item 5.1 to infrastructure, element comprehensive, tax amendment ordinance. This is not a quasi-judicial item. We'll have from staff, you just start by reading the ordinance into the record. Alright, so reading the ordinance into the record. All right. So reading the ordinance into the record and ordinance of the mayor and the city commission of the city of North Miami Beach Florida, amending the text of the comprehensive plan, infrastructure element, amending policy 1.3, 0.13, and objective 1.5, creating new policies, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, 1.5.5, and 1.5.6 to address the upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities and prioritize advanced wastewater treatment, providing for adoption pursuant to section 163.31.84 of Florida statutes, providing for inclusion in the city of North Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan, providing for codification, conflicts, skirmish there severability and providing for an effective date. Thank you. We're providing a brief presentation on the, oops, sorry about that. On the state mandated requirement, we're currently out of compliance due to the state. Florida Statues 163.31776C3. City staff had created a text amendment ordinance to satisfy these requirements. The purpose and intent is to amend the city's infrastructure element of the comprehensive plan Plan and the policies and objectives as displayed on the board. We're also going to be introducing new policies as well. Policies 1.16, 1.17, 1.152 through 1.56. here we have the Florida Statutes where local government are covering through 1.56. Here we have the Florida Statues where local government comprehensive plan infrastructure element must identify the following. The deadline for this was July 1st, 2024. City staff received correspondence from Florida Commerce, referencing that our current comprehensive plan infrastructure element has to be updated. What we're doing today, we're addressing those above requirements and the draft comprehensive plan, Texas Amendment. Some of those requirements will identify the location, the name and location of wastewater facilities, wastewater facility capacity and related transmission facilities and areas where most areas where more than on site sewage septic sewer per acre exists. on this as you can see, the city sewer areas are located in green and the county sewer area, which is currently serviced, is indicated in orange. Here we have the proposed amendment, just a brief summary. Objective 1.1 is in reference to the sewer and water infrastructure. We have the policies. I don't know. Could you guys hear me? Yep. All right. We have a policy of 1.16 and 1.17 displayed on a screen. Just a brief summary. I'm not going to read all the bullet points, but policy 1.16 identifies that the city will coordinate with Miami-Dade County, North Day District wastewater treatment plant in coordination with sewer capacity and future development. Policy 1.17 talks about the construction timelines for sewer projects depending on funding, materials, bidding, and the Miami-Dade utility master plan. So when it comes to this, we're going to subject to Miami-Dade County. That's what we currently have. Objective 1.3 is in reference to water conservation policy 1.3.13 is being updated and it reads that follows. Some of the updates is in reference to the water use permit from South Florida water management district and it also promotes water use as an alternative supply. Objective 1.5 summary is in reference to existing infrastructure that we currently have. And it also encourages the extending of sewer and water lines to vacant lands at the developer's expense unless it serves as a public need. Policy 1.52 and 1.53 talks about, 1.52 talks about the sewer master plan by 2028 to assess feasibility for existing residential areas and policy 1.53 talks about the capital improvement program with the master plan to prioritize projects and seek alternative funding, CIP projects. Here we have a continuation of policy 1.5 and the policies which were pretty much summarized here and updated accordingly. So we have the planning and zoning board motion as the local planning agency required by the state of Florida. The planning and zoning board of the city of North Miami recommends approval of the tax amendment to the infrastructure element of the city comprehensive plan to the mayor of city, finding that the proposed tax amendment is consistent with the city charter, comprehensive plan, and the requirements of the Florida state status. That concludes our presentation regarding the tax amendment to the infrastructure element. Thank you. Quick question, sorry. Yes, sir. A 1.5.2 could that be, you did 50 units. Can we look at tying in everybody that's on a septic as a source of just 50 units or more? So just point of clarification, the Florida statutory requirement specifies that threshold, but a portion of that threshold also relates to areas where septic systems exist at a density of more greater than one septic system per acre of land. All of the areas within the city of North Miami Beach that are currently not served by central sewer. Meet that threshold. So really we're talking about the entire area of the city of North Miami Beach in order to be consistent with forest statute But the language in the statute is geared towards the entirety of the state and in many municipalities in the state You have a rural fringe and they're talking about expansion that master plan requirement. Perfect. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and ask the mayor to do that. I'm going to ask the mayor to do here. But to approve. Yeah, we're in the same. It's Thomas. No. No, it's not. I do have a quick question. Not necessarily related to this. But where are we with our stormwater master plan is that up to date This just gets me thinking about it because this is the waste water not to throw you on the On the spot, but I do remember coming up a couple years ago I know the big thing when I was at the city of Miami. So is that something where we are? So the Miami-Dade County has recently passed some ordinances, which actually will require some adjustment to our zoning code or processes for reviewing development, as it relates to storm water. So there are other policies that are in the works are already being applied that will impact our storm water master planning specifically to where where our storm water master planning is I can't speak to that off the top of my head. No worries, no worries, but we might see some additional things coming down the pipeline. Okay, I'll entertain a motion for against. I said, Luke, clearly hope is four. Second. We got a motion and a second for approval. All right. Well, roll call vote. Same bill. Four. Larry Thompson's absent. Daniel Heisler. Approved. Gregory Thomas. Approved. Julian Kreisberg. Approved. Janet Massaman. Approved. Ruth Odin. Approved. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. And then we have item, it passes. The fours have it. It's just item six upcoming meetings, which is our next planning and zoning would be Monday, May 12, 2025. With nothing else on the agenda, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion. We have a motion in a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. I just carry meeting adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much. I'd be amazed. I love it. like I'm ready to go forward with it. Because to me, once you start with new technology, you're going to advance even further. Like, there's going to be so much more that we can do as a city for our citizens. The scorching Florida heat can be difficult to bear. Often, the only relief is the air conditioner, but turning it on all day could mean a higher energy bill. And in this economy, keeping bills low is important for everyone. Florida Power and Light Company has a team of energy experts dedicated to helping customers save money and keep bills as low as possible. Hi, my name is Rolanda Moreiro, and I've been an energy expert for over 30 years helping customers save money. We're here to help you. Our team is always helping helping customers save money on their monthly bills. Through our tools, in our knowledge, and our programs. There are tools and information available online to help customers find ways to save on their energy bills, including the FPL Energy Manager, which provides each customer with their personal energy usage information. One of the best tools is the energy manager that breaks down by categories, how much money your appliances are using. It calculates your estimated hourly, daily, and monthly energy costs. All customers can log into their FPL account on the FPL app or a computer and click usage. Awareness actually creates savings. As you can see at night, you use more power. By you adopting several changes in energy usage, you can actually see a savings. The FPL Energy Manager tool is easy to use. Just answer a few questions about the appliances in your home and then you'll get specific details on your energy usage. It also tells you how, when and where, your energy is being used. It is important to know which appliances use the most electricity. Like your air conditioner, each degree you raise your thermostat above 74 degrees Fahrenheit will help you save 3% on your monthly cooling costs. FPL also recommends doing maintenance on your AC and making sure the filter is changed once a month to make it work more efficiently. In the summer months, you'll notice that your bills go up higher and that's a reflection because of the outdoor temperature, which is a lot hotter. So the house has to stabilize that temperature so that it actually runs longer. Energy expert Marrero recommends using a ceiling fan when you're in a room to help you keep cool. But make sure to turn it off when you leave because fans' cool people, not rooms. We know the hardship that can be caused by an unexpected high bill. Through the app, you could actually see the projection of your next month's bill. As well as compare bills from previous months, FPL also has rebates available to put money in customers' pockets. Combined with the Inflation Reduction Act tax incentives, these programs can lead to real savings. Re-bate program for our participating contractors where you can get $150 rebate. And there's also the rebate costs at the end of the year for this equipment. You can get up to $2,000 rebate credit on your taxes. There are also rebates available for ceiling insulation. If the air conditioner and ceiling insulation are working well, Marrero recommends taking a look at your water heater and large kitchen appliances for added savings. Small changes, washing your clothes with cold water and set of hot water and shorter showers. Using your air fryer compared to your oven, make an impact on your electric bill. Unplugging appliances and devices when not in use can also help save. Do you have a pool at home? FPL recommends you have a pool pump timer set to six hours a day. Perhaps like myself that could actually assist you over the phone or at your home where we basically we could sit down with you, go over certain tools and show you where your savings will actually be and just give you an overview of how things should run to make your home more energy efficient. FPL's residential on-call program can help customers save more than $90 a year. On-call programs gives you an opportunity for you to receive a credit and it also provides us the opportunity to cycle off and on your air conditioner, pull-up and water heater if necessary. FPL also offers a budget billing program. Although not a savings program, budget billing can help customers manage their monthly expenses by evening out their energy costs throughout the year. Budget billing is something that we're basically going to avoid those high peaks in the summer months by levelizing your payments throughout the year. So you'll know what you'll have to pay. You can learn more at FPE.