The meeting began with a discussion on the noise complaints related to the Goodtime Hotel’s outdoor entertainment. The debate was centered on the ambiguity of the term “unreasonably loud” as it pertains to the current noise ordinance, which has led to differing interpretations and frustration from nearby residents due to noise disturbances. The board discussed the possibility of implementing a decibel monitoring pilot program to provide a more objective noise standard, as well as the implications of stricter noise restrictions on the hotel’s economic activity. The Goodtime Hotel representatives argued that the outdoor entertainment was an important part of their business plan and assured their commitment to adhering to the permitted operating hours. The discussion concluded with a call for staff to propose a less subjective noise standard and a warning that the board may revert to a previous, more objective criterion if a satisfactory solution is not presented at the next meeting.

In addition to noise-related issues, the board deliberated on a request by the Fisher Island Association to increase the height limit of parking garages on Terminal Island from 40 to 75 feet. The aim was to address the parking needs of employees who use the garage before taking the ferry to Fisher Island. The board considered the potential traffic congestion alleviation that a taller parking structure might provide versus the impact on the aesthetics of the proposed structure and the construction process capacity. The application raised concerns regarding the transportation issues, impacts during construction, and the aesthetics of the proposed garage, leading to no clear consensus among the board members.

Further examination of development proposals included the introduction of a flagship Whole Foods store and Wells Fargo bank. The staff raised concerns about the street layout’s impact on pedestrian safety. The applicant’s team presented a detailed project plan, emphasizing pedestrian experience, integration of plantings within the garage levels, and compliance with the city’s resiliency code. Public comments during the meeting largely expressed support for the project, highlighting the community benefits. However, concerns were raised about the potential impact of lighting from the rooftop parking on neighboring apartments and the integration of existing vegetation with the proposed landscaping plan.

The board also discussed the conditional use of a new office building’s rooftop, addressing concerns about potential sea level rise and the impact on the neighborhood. The project presentation outlined features such as parking, restaurants, and retail spaces, with the representative emphasizing the project’s alignment with the city’s plans for the area. The board considered the staff’s recommendations, including conditions related to the rooftop usage, and proposed changes to some conditions. There was a conversation about the operation of the building’s garage, including the need for 24-hour access for tenants and the exclusivity of parking for building tenants.

In the realm of zoning and residential development, the board contemplated amendments to the city’s ordinances to encourage residential uses in areas currently zoned for or housing hotels. The proposed amendments aim to increase floor area ratios and height limits for properties that convert to residential uses under certain criteria. The board considered the potential infrastructure impacts of the amendments on population growth, traffic, water consumption, sewer usage, and solid waste collection. A public workshop was scheduled to gather feedback from the public, with the potential incorporation of public input into a revised ordinance.

The board discussed the effectiveness of incentives for Class A office space development and expressed a desire to explore similar incentives for residential development. The discussions included brainstorming potential tools and incentives to encourage more people to live in Miami Beach, addressing the loss of residents and traffic congestion. The board requested recommendations for residential development incentives, with a focus on addressing the loss of residents and traffic congestion.

Additionally, the board discussed the proposed limitations on the outdoor sale of alcohol to midnight for properties in certain districts, the impact of development on public transportation, traffic congestion, and the importance of pedestrian safety. There was a motion to approve the proposed modifications, including the prohibition of special event permits for rooftop spaces and the clarification that parking should be exclusive to tenants of the building.