##VIDEO ID:BdHZP8gTMuo## [Music] [Music] he he he he please take your seats the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1 okay good morning everyone uh welcome to the November 26 planning board meeting and wishing everyone a Happy Thanksgiving week um just a couple of items work just some minor changes in the uh agenda we're going to move the discussion item on loading uh truck sizes and safety next month and we're just going to reverse items 9 and 10 because of a request U from some attorneys that need to get out of here so um number 10 will be nine number nine will be 10 um with that can I just get a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting motion to approve we get a second I'll second okay all in favor anyone opposed okay great City attorney thank you Mr chairman um good morning members of the board today's meeting of planning board will be conducted in a hybrid format with the board physically present in the commission Chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicant staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually the public may dial 1877 853 5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 861 4342 6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 861 4342 6327 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if you are participating by phone if you're appearing on behalf of a business a corporation or another person you need to register as a lobbyist with city clerk's office if you haven't registered yet you should register before you speak to the board you don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific technical or other specialized information or test testimony in this public meeting or if you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item expert Witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose and writing to the city clerk their name address and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating if you're an architect attorney or employee representing an applicant or an objector you must register as a lobbyist these rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage defeat modification or continuance and lastly Mr chairman I'd like to swear in any members of the public or staff will be testifying today please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you thank you the other thing I wanted to point out is that items 15 and 16 which deal with the North Beach o Ocean Front overlaying development regulations are going to be heard at 11:00 time certain okay um real quick let's just get to the Motions for continuance um first item is planning board file 23625 uh 15091 1515 Washington Avenue and 1500 Collins Avenue new hotel so I believe the applicant is here and they're requesting a continuance of this till the January 7th meeting is the applicant here for the 1509 to 1515 Washington Avenue yes uh good morning Mr chairman War staff Michael Larin J South bis Boulevard here represen the applicant we simply request a continuous with the January hearing uh we had issues getting through the transportation department review process but that has concluded yesterday so now we'd like to here for you all in January okay anyone here to speak on this other than the attorney anyone on Zoom and there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay um any go ahead Matt yeah Michael just one question for you did you have an opportunity to reach out to any of the neighbors or anyone else that expressed any concerns at the hearing last spring um no have not done that yet I'll have to look at that video and see um but our imediate neighbors you know would be Club Madonna to the north um a nightclub to the South um we almost go all the way to Collins now we do go to Collins now in fact with the Joiner of Haden Hall but you know I will review the video with Emily and I'll see what neighbors we can reach out to okay appreciate it thank you okay uh can we just by acclamation we do need a motion in a second on that so we move to January I'll move it second you heal second all in favor anyone opposed okay move to January thanks Michael next is planning board file BB 24662 conditional use regulations for grocery and convenience stores in CD3 zoning on Lincoln I don't see the applicant here but I know that they're requesting a continuance till the January 7th meeting so unless there's any public comment on this item I would suggest the board anyone here on this item anyone on Zoom nobody on Zoom okay um someone want to move it what to what month to next month January 7th okay motion to move okay we got a first can I get a second okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay January is no meeting in December that's great there is no meeting in December the December 19th meeting was cancelled because we have the January meeting just two weeks later so oh okay makes sense all right next planning board file 23609 uh 1750 Alton Road the palar hotel oh good morning morning Mr chair members of the board uh here on behalf of palore Hotel uh we've asked for continu before for um this time we're just going to ask to February our client as you all know minini was their tenant they were going to be the rooftop restaurant operator that uh operation went away they've been very close to finalizing a deal with a what going to be a fantastic Restaurant They're days away but they're not there yet so we we're asking not just January but February so that we can get that applica that uh tenant signed up submit the city the operational plan menu and all those items so that you could have a full application before you so we we're asking for continu the February meeting to February February okay that would be the February 4th meeting okay anyone here to speak on this item we do have somebody with their hand raised online um Sarah dis Reus Sarah ree I just have I just have a question how many times can somebody postponed um continuance indefinitely no so the continuance request can happen no more than 120 days since it was publicly advertised so if it if it was going it's going to be longer than 120 days they would have to R notice the application okay okay I just wanted to find that that okay thank you so any how many days has it has it been actually was it so if they continue until February you would have to R notice it okay okay you you okay with that yeah because the last time it was it was actually o advertised for the September meeting so moving into February would be more than 120 days so we'll read advertise for the February 4th meeting all right it's obviously you can work out with the new tenant what's okay that's reasonable okay um can I get a motion to move it to uh February motion to continue to February okay I'll second okay Elizabeth all in favor anyone opposed okay thank you Mick all right the next is planning board file 22539 6660 Washington Avenue the Anglers Hotel me again uh good morning again Mr chairman M of the board here on behalf of the Anglers uh different reason we've been working with the association toward our media West uh spoking to the client they did some testing with them on sound they've asked for some additional testing we've agreed to do that additional testing um it's going to take a little more time so also requesting for a February continuance here we'll have to read advertise that as well you have um a public comment online Johan Mo we do Johan Moore yes good morning uh I don't know if I need to be sworn in as last time otherwise I can consider myself sworn in uh I want to uh emphasize the nearest neighbors uh opposition to granting a rooftop entertainment uh cup but also to encourage the Anglers uh in pursuing the possibility of residential conversion thank you anybody else there's nobody else anyone in Chambers on this item okay and you want to move it to you said February again that's correct okay motion to continue to February second okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay so moved uh the next I guess if the application withdrawn do we have to do yeah we'll just we'll just um the board doesn't have to take any action we just want to notify for the record okay that the next two items are pb2 24-65 and pb2 24- 0651 these relate to development regulations creating the Normandy Isles overlay district for cd1 Zone properties and the workforce housing comprehensive plan Amendment pb2 24- 0651 both of these application have been withdrawn so that no action is required by the board why are they withdraw it the develop the um owner is going to explore a live local um application got it okay okay next up um revocation modification here hearings item new number nine planning board file 21442 743 Washington Avenue Theon doome so I believe we have a quote reporter here who wanted to place some um no okay we don't need the mic the the mic so I'll just give an overview of the of our staff report on this item so this was last he said there's a core reporter here there is a core reporter here but he initially wanted to place some mics up here but he no longer needs to place the the mics up front so where is the cor oh there he is okay great thanks so this application for revocation modification hearing was before the board on September 24th at that time the board um did discussed the operation and approved some modification to the cup and continued the modification hearing to a date certain of today now since the September 20 24th meeting there was a queuing violation that occurred in the properties noted in page five of the staff report this related to um patrons obstructing or obscuring the sidewalk on um just a correction on the date it was um um Halloween evening the night of Halloween so um in terms of our recommendation considering the latest violations for queing on the property and the prior history of these violations staff is recommending that the cop be suspended for 180 days we do believe that the queuing plan presented by the applicant is clearly not working and The Limited queuing area previously identified is not sufficient on the on the property so we are recommending that the applicant provide detailed plans of the entire establishment and identify a much larger area for queing to occur within the building itself the applicant is going to be providing a presentation and you can see from that presentation there's very little area within the building for queuing most of the establishment is a large expansive area for the nightclub and there's limited queuing area on the public RightWay so we believe that it is warranted to suspend the cop so the applicant can modify their interior plans and provide a larger area for queuing within the building um we are recommending that the that the um that the board modified the cup to require this updated security plan and queuing plan which is to be approved by by the board prior to Future opening we recommending that the board include a Prohibition of special event permits or promoted events of any kind um with that I'll turn it over to the um applicant for their presentation good morning again uh if I could have the the presentation that we submitted put up on the screen thank you um over here so Mickey morera again LA from burky Del Hernandez Lin tap in is at 200 South Boulevard with me today in addition to the Vendome team which is sitting behind me we have my co-counsel Michael Lin and our co-counsel Robert zaro and Jackie beta from Zarin horn um here today and I will tell you to start preparing for this hearing has been one of the more bizarre uh preparations I've had to do for one of these things um and you'll see why in a minute so again this is Ben doome I'm going to tell you a little bit of the history very quickly because I think you've heard it all before the property is at 743 Washington Avenue uh was previously in his own cd2 it was previously a club called Rockwell that had been opened since 2012 it obtained cup 12 years ago uh about 2021 they closed their operation down the space essentially remained the same the improvements were mostly the same some aesthetic changes to the interior but our clients came in um and it was closed during the pandemic our clients came in to to take over the space we worked with them at the time to modify their Board of adjustment order their planning board order to bring in new ownership and they've been operating successfully since that time um this is the queuing plan that we submitted prior to the September hearing um we believe it provides a significant Improvement to the operations before and frankly we believe it's been working very well um we'll explain that more detail in a second here's the plan and I will tell you towards the end of my presentation that we would always be willing even if something works things can always be modified things can always be improved so our clients open to modifying the queuing plan in a way that works better um I believe it's working well right now but I think it everything can always be improved even the best things so we're open to working with the city we've already got drawings that changed things a little bit but we certainly don't want to be doing that under the conditions of the club being suspended because suspension of the cup is effectively closing this business down so here is Vendome and the reason I believe this queuing plan has been working we got there's been other violations which I've explained in the past the statue the tinting which were there prior to our operation that were cited after the city had already inspected and approved uh our our license back in 2021 but what I what I believe is B basically unprecedented and and I apologize there may 2024 not 25 but there have been 88 proactive investigations on this property since Memorial Day 88 they're only open three times a week generally they're 88 times sometimes it's once sometimes it's twice sometimes it's three times a night where the city sends code out to just make sure there's no issue of those 88 times up until Halloween there were exactly zero queuing violations after the first one in May which I can tell you I looked at other venues a lot of venues got que violations that night it was a Crackdown they sent the code to multiple locations wasn't just us get to that in a minute uh but again 88 instances where code went proactively without a complaint without you know without any other than to see things were operating well all 88 no queing violations um on Halloween as Michael said there was a queueing violation when I when I found out about it the following morning I contacted my client and I said what happened and they said you know we hired extra security that day we we we did everything we could to make it work there was a bizarre Rush of people most of them weren't our customers we tried to get under control as best we could ultimately I guess you know it was a violation issued code must have been there at that time that's that you know we were upset that happened I knew I'd have to be here dealing with it but and but that's all we knew at that point uh last week I found out that a disillusioned resident who I was not able to find evidence of this person online but a disillusioned resident uh wrote to the city copied the Commissioners copied you all copied staff that they were so disillusioned by the operation of this nightclub that they were compelled to hire a private investigator to to make sure that to see what was going on and it says here you can read it I have grown so tired and disillusioned with this process that favors nightclubs over residents that I hired a private investigator to document that Do's takeover of the public sidewalk so I tried to find this person couldn't find them no one with that name owned property Miami Beach couldn't find anything on Google um they submitted also an investigative report um with the name of the client redacted and if the person sent the email and they they hired the investigator I don't know why they would redact their name so I did what I've done in other instances because sometimes people don't redact very well I cut and pasted the redaction and then I found that the actual client was not a disillusioned Resident was someone by the name of Gerald buana who happens to be the owner of my client's direct competitor Mr Jones um we've already suspected there's been something going on here because these violations don't seem to make make sense but now we know that this m let me ask you a question though regardless of the source if there's a violation there's a violation right maybe but maybe not because here's what's happened here's what I think happened at this point so again we this is you can see the person who did pay for for this was not a resident but a competitor and the resident was sort of put as a proxy maybe that Resident exists maybe they don't but this was clearly paid by a competitor this competitor happens to have a queuing violation the same day we got one in May this competitor has a violation for allowing people under below the age allowed in their cup uh they haven't been called to the planning board this competitor has violation for vacant storefront without window covering similar to the Statue and tinting one that we got uh we got a violation for failing to notify by the city about a special about a promoted event one time they had the same violation for a Rick Ross event ours was 50 Cent ours was F was removed by the Planning by the special Master because they realized it was the clerical error I don't know the specifics of these violations but these violations at this venue are virtually identical to the violations that we have yet they haven't even been called here I don't know why but that concerns me but most importantly when I spoke to my client again this starts to come together 88 times not one queing violation the night that a competitor hires an investigator to take a video of the venue the night that's probably arguably the busiest if not one of the handful of busiest nights of the year is the only night there's a queing violation my client didn't understand why so many people came at once why there was commotion why they weren't even their customers I can't tell you this for sure but it certainly feels like this was a stage situation they created a violation they created video they sent something to the city right afterward and now we're here defending the life of this venue that has been operating suc successfully that hasn't had resident complaints that hasn't had noise complaints never had a violence issue because someone doesn't like that we're doing that we're doing good business and I find that offensive I find it bizarre to say the least I I I I didn't go to law school to be doing this type of stuff but here I am and I have these gentlemen that I speak to on a daily basis for the last two weeks trying to salvage their business that some of them invested their entire life savings in and here we are clearly a competitor has staged a situation that has put us before you with the club's Lifeline at stake and that's my presentation this isn't about them though this is about you guys so right I'm not like yeah no no they're not here I mean they may now that we' brought this to light they may be here in the future I don't know but my point is there was one violation that triggered the staff recommendation which I by the way a staff recommendation to essentially close a business that's the most extreme action I believe this board can take and to propose doing that to business that 88 times has no queing violation yet the one time they have it happens to be not only a very busy night but the night that a competitor has set up a camera and has paid for a private investigator to document queuing issues happens to be the night that the violation is issued happens to be the night that my client doesn't understand why all these people showed up that weren't even their customers I mean what does that mean by the way not the customers well I just so they have they they tend to have so I'm not sure but part of the reason that they have this under control most of their business is through reservations people call in advance they reserve a table it's not that huge of a place those are the people that come in do some people try and get in that didn't make a reservation sure that happens but they again 88 times no the case is that the case with promoted events because I keep hearing the problem is promoted events you get this mob scene show up because of what they're seeing on Instagram or whatever it is so and they're not they're not reservations so they well they the promoted events trigger the reservations again there are some people that will come but again 88 times there have been promoted events is something that I've always struggled with here because that's their business they're not having huge promote like they're not having promoted events they're passing out flyers they're just announcing this artist whether it's a local DJ whether it's an a model whether it's a hip-hop artist whether it's a celebrity that will be at the club it's not a full concert they might do two or three songs but they're just sort of there to greet people and be part of the of the event it's it's very different than a concert type of vibe but that's happens almost every night they and all those 88 times there was not one violation again except for the night that there's a compor paying an investigator to find a problem and the amount of people that were there that night at that moment was not normal for their business so they were like we don't know what happened we hired more people we prepared for this yet somehow something happened I would have been like well you guys made a mistake you guys didn't do a good enough job except for the fact that I now know that someone staged something which I didn't even intend to find I found it by accident but it was documents provided to us Mr chair mat so so one of the things that you had addressed um Mr chair is the promoted events um so promoter known as drama uh is potentially a serial rapist and I I you know one of the things that the police have told us is that um we are not the the problem is that they're not notifying police within the 96 hours and the way that's being done is it's being promoted as an appearance not a promotion not an actual performance so there are ways that are being uh gotten around with that you guys have also had uh a a 20-year-old who's been indicted in a $230 million cryptocurrency scam yeah and well thank you for bringing that up because what actually happen you guys are not you're not you're not saying you're not properly um vetting your your IDs no I think we are and and thank you for bringing that up because what actually happened that was a surprise i' not never heard about this cryptocurrency criminal or whatever it was so we looked into what happened that criminal cryptocurrency Criminal by the way terrible person um was like 20 years and eight months just under 21 he went he did go to Vendome that week and he had probably could afford a very good ID these guys do a great job security they have boxes of IDs they have confidence ISC over the years um that that same individual went to Mr Jones went to live went to Kiki on the river they actually researched this guy because it was a surprise for them so he's been everywhere and this person's ID was able to be good enough to get into every establishment in Miami they obviously had lots of money to blow and they they got their their idea was good enough that Liv probably the most successful nightclub in the world let them in so I don't think that our one venue should be held responsible for a really really good ID by someone who has a lot of money it happens they catch all the IDS but this is something that wasn't just us and we shouldn't be the only person responsible because some criminal has a very good ID Michael just a question clarify for me what qualifies a establishment who violates their cup to be in front of the planning board versus when it doesn't show up here so um if we're brought if it's brought to our attention that there's been complaints or violations issued and there's a cup then it's up to the planning director's determination to to send a cure letter and schedule them for a hearing so it wasn't until this morning that I was aware of these um violations for 320 Lincoln Road so knowing that they do have a cup we can now we most likely send them Aur I'll have to research the violations when you say it's brought to your attention who's bringing it to your attention either Code Compliance or resident or just somebody identifying us we don't do a a search of code every every day to see you know what's been issued for active cups typically takes um an active email from um code or a resident to us and what do make code decide they're going to you know flag one over the other to you guys for for the same VI I have to see what happened with this case I don't know why we were not notified that there were um violations that um relate to the cup and and and I want to be clear I I have no business and that's the important part is that the violation has to relate to a condition of the cup so and again I'll just point this out one of them is is specifically a cup violation the one issued in May regarding uh no teen night or uh underage events they have a violation for that but again I'm not I have no interest in closing down another club I don't I want them to succeed my client wants them to succeed but we're here because they created a situation that so you're suggesting that this competitor sent people over to the club just to create a violation I I here's what I know 88 times over the course of five months no violation all that but that's your bottom line suggest it appears that way to me it appears that way to my client I didn't know this till a couple days ago when I all this out I was defending it another way but we couldn't understand what happened this night what was different I thought it was just Halloween and maybe that's part of it Halloween is obviously a chaotic night it's a chaotic night in my small little neighborhood in South Miami I can imagine how it's chaotic in Washington Avenue that being said even with that they hired extra security they did all the right things that a business should do they knew this yearing was coming yet somehow it got chaotic anyway now that I know that a competitor stag the situation it makes sense that they wanted to make it look as bad as it could and that's why I do do I have proof I didn't interview people that night I was asleep but I think that's what happened that's the only thing that makes sense do you guys were still in violation that's that's the whole point correct you guys were still you received the violation I've appealed it because I've appealed it because I'm fairly certain it wasn't our fault I think it was a stage thing and I think circumstantially the evidence points to that but there was still a violation violation was issued yes okay yeah very good yes so should know um Mickey that this violation was appealed to the special magistrate I think the hearing is January 13th correct yeah I mean I it's on my calendar but yes it was appealed immediately I appealed it because you have a certain limit amount of time when I appealed it frankly I didn't even know what I now know I think my appeal is very strong now based on what I found but for them again let me ask I'm just curious when you go to the special how do you prove that they sent people there I'm just curious how you do that again this is this is not this is not a criminal case I'm going to prove that a competitor again I'm G to show 88 nights of compliance I'm gonna show this I'm gonna tell them unless something else comes out I'm gonna show them the same thing I'm telling you but I frankly believe that if look had code not been there 88 times and they were you know zero for 88 in violations for queuing I wouldn't have as good of an argument but it's the one night that there's a violation happens to be the night that a competitor who we now know paid for an investigator to have a camera and Stage the situation it's just too coincidental to me I don't know if you guys see it differently but I you know this is we're talking about shutting a business down where people have invested their life savings where people have invested money to make it run run perfectly and they for the most part have been doing that and then here we are and there's been other things that have occurred I'm not going to get into them now but these guys have been on the defensive with this competitor for years and this is just you know tip of the iceberg but I to close him down with this being the reason I find it just insane but Mickey regardless of that um you know you were here it was September and I specifically remember you saying we have this queuing plan because there were queuing issues in the past now we have this plan and it's going to solve all the issues um and you say you're a good operator and possibly so maybe during normal um times there's no issue but it does seem like anytime there's a a special event promoted event or something maybe a little different it does become a problem I I would disagree with you and I respectfully because they have the same type of thing that they had on Halloween again Halloween's Halloween so let's put that aside for a second all those 88 times where clo went they had an appearance of somebody yet there was no violation so again what I find here aside from it being Halloween there was a violation in May for queing everybody got one Mr Jones got one too since that time and since they made some improvements there were zero and end of May June July August September all the way through October to the last day in October despite code going every single night they're open once two or three times and I respect code they're doing their job they do a great job but they found no violations yet the one night the one night so we say they haven't been doing a good job 0 for 88 till the one night where we have a camera set up by a competitor and if you look at the report and you read the details there was a lot of commotion from like a 10-minute period that's when the violation was issued that's when the camera was working and now we're here for that reason and I think if not for that instance I can't tell you for sure but this board would be considering removing progress reports but because of that violation we're now going the extreme other way to suspend their cup and close them down that's a big leap and we now know that the circumstances are questionable at best so I'm here pleading with you to save this business under circumstances that are bizarre at the very least and do not warrant closing a business down you know we had to take the we had to bring in litigation Council was with me today Robert zaro because we're they're concerned about losing their business that's their livelihood that's Investments that they would lose these most of these guys have young children they're starting their lives they have a business that's been successful the rugs is going to be pulled under them because if some someone doesn't like that they're successful and that's not the way the city should operate in my opinion Mickey question for you are you aware of any other circumstances in Miami Beach in recent history that that someone has hired an investigator to to stake out of a nightclub establishment I am not aware I'm not saying it hasn't happened I personally can't think it okay do me a favor let's um let's go to the public comment first and we'll ask more is anyone here in Chambers speak on this item and Mr chairman before we open to the public I'd like to ask any board members if you have any disclosures to make as a reminder it's not just a a communication you had um about the application it's also whether you did a site visit whether you took into account uh any outside information I didn't know that these revocation hearings needed disclosure so okay any Disclosure by anybody we'll start with you Scott no I I did speak with Mickey a few days ago likewise I had a conversation with their attorney I spoke with Mickey M I just spoke to Mr zaro about moving the hearing up with Mickey no one okay all right anybody in Chambers speak on this item hi Troy Wright Washington Avenue business improvement district um you know this is difficult because I think that and I've mentioned before that Vendome um is a very well-run operation and it's been mentioned on several occasions they've really have managed over the last x amount of years to really have no violations outside of the queuing issue now which again could be a completely different situation so it appears to me that they're really more a victim of their own success um but yet I think they've done all the things that needed to be done to really um keep the crowds in hand um they attract the kind of crowds that we're looking for um they've done pretty much everything that they need to do so I'm hoping that there is a way that we can see through and a way to really fix this minor issue um to keep them around because like you mentioned closing them down um could be a big problem not only um just for them which I would really feel for them because I know they've spent their life savings here um but also for Washington Avenue um we we sort of depend on that crowd to come in and to spend and to really um support the other businesses in the area all the pizza shops the restaurants and so it would really be a major blow to the businesses on Washington Avenue so um if there's a way what we can think of however we can do it to really support them uh and fix this problem um let's try to do that um but this is um not a good situation thank you may I good morning Robert Zar on behalf of Vendome it is very evident that circumstantial evidence here would support the fact that this uh Vendome has been targeted targeted by its competitor Mr Jones and perhaps targeted by individuals who may be in association with Mr Jones when you have a record of 88 violations of which none of them Pro to have any active violation in effect and then all of a sudden you have a perfect choreography set up on an evening which you anticipate there's going to be a lot of people and then there are cameras set up on that particular day while yes it is true miss lanton that it there was an valuation if you count the number of people but that was not created by us it was not not our negligence it was not our failure to abide by the requirements of the previous CP that deals with the issue of queuing because during 88 visits there was no violation so how can this board undertake a Draconian measure of shutting down a business when the evidence clearly leads that this was a setup and I think we need and I think what we need to do is if you want to go ahead and address a queing issue and say look you know what can you modify it this way can you make sure that if we're going to have your promoter come in you give us some notice but yes you know Mr needleman there have been many other promotional events that were took place during the time that those 88 violations or INSP uh excuse me inspections were undertaken and at no time at no time was there ever a problem yet on and there were no cameras and any other time but yet this time there's a camera this time the the report has the name of the owner of the of that competitor I mean it's a perfect storm Perfect Storm created by the person who's looking to hopefully get this board to have the wool pulled over their eyes and shut down a business that should not be sh shut down this is these are small businesses I'm a resident of Miami Beach I'm very familiar with how this this city works and the last thing you want to do is take patrons away from the South Beach Community I mean if you go down Washington Avenue it's dead it's not what it used to be so now we're going to go ahead and cut off one of the legs I mean you know I really think that you have to really reconsider I'm not saying reconsider you haven't made a decision yet but you need to take into account is if this is a whole a setup and if it is a setup are we going to endorse people doing this because it worked because it worked and now we're going to set somebody up and then next this time it's Mr Jones next time it's the other store and by the way what happens if Chick-fil-A opens up a business on South Peach and all of a sudden you're going to have 150 people lined up I know this because I represent these people are you going to shut them down are you going to shut down Chick-fil-A because they're they're they have people in the sidewalks you should be blessed if we have that kind of business here in South Beach this isn't about Chick-fil-A though this is this is about the fact that you guys have promoters who are accused of being serial rapists are you guys let me ask you a question I want to know first of all I want wait please I would like to ask you are you guys getting around the are you guys getting around the 96-hour notification by by saying that there is a uh appearance as opposed to a performance no they actually send that to I'm copying on all those emails once or twice a week that notice goes to the police I'm cop on them differently the police have said that the way that as a matter of fact I've seen it myself when 50 Cent appeared when all these other Kodak Black when all these other people have appeared it's it's as an appearance is not as a promoted event I'm happy to speak to the police I have all the emails I'm copied weekly on all their emails to the to the city of my police the only violation just to be clear the only violation they have for that was one time there was a clerical mixup the special magistrate removed the fine because they believed that it was a clerical mixup you could tell by the timing of the emails our competitor has the same violation for one time but we have I have multiple emails multiple times a week with all the notices to police I have them all my email I can read them to you if you'd like but I have them so I I don't believe that happen you guys if you guys had a a queueing plan which you presented how come that wasn't working because it was working it was working it worked 88 times the reality is it wasn't working because it was a setup to make it not work it it's no different than if you have the last time that you app it's no different the last time you appeared it was it was been 88 times no we the first one was in May Memorial Day weekend they would issue violation that day so several other venues including our our competitor since that day and again they're only open three times a week there have been 88 instances the reason it's so many is because they go sometimes multiple times a night there have been zero queing violations on all 88 the only one is on Halloween where I think I don't know what else I need to to show you here but all the evidence I I have not interviewed can't go back in time and interview the people that were at the sidewalk to ask them who told them to be there or how that happened but based on all we do know certainly appears that way because something was different something was smelly and now we know what it is all right last I got open is there anyone on Zoom by the way there's nobody on Zoom with their hand go very quickly information please hold on Robert are we here talking about the queuing plan is that the violation at issue or is there another another topic that I'm not aware of that were no that's that's the violation that's been issued since this was last before the board there was a um an issue regarding the promoted events that where the police department was not notified in the required time frame that's the one that was referenced that was appealed to special magistrate um several months ago and that was upheld by the special magistrate but is that the reason why you're recommending the um suspension of the cup no the reason we're recommending is because of the latest violation for the queueing okay now if there is any information about promoters can that be shared with the rest of the board as well I think if we're discussing that well just to be clarifi as um Miss Laton mentioned in terms of the notification required for the police department there's a definition for a promoted event as you mentioned that um that I'll read I'll read the definition it basically says a promoted event shall mean any Live musical performance or live entertainment in which an Entertainer is advertised or marketed to perform at an alcoholic beverage establishment so it's the performance that has to be advertised if someone makes an appearance that does not require the notification okay I would like to address real quickly the issue of the Robert before you go do you guys does the city ever invest at allegations that that a setup was happening like I mean it's a really weird situation like I don't know how you prove people were paid to go there you know but yet there's a lot of weird things going on this this is the first time in my 23 years um in the beach of of having a a pi report submitted to the planning board for a um revocation hearing so this is the first that I've heard about this um possibility as well well and can I also say that it was submitted to us sort of a quasi judicial entity under false pretenses you know you there's this email address from Aaron fredman who we heard from Council that there was he found no evidence of who it was he said he was a Miami Beach resident but didn't give his address and you know and clearly his email misleads us into believing that this you know un uninterested gentleman HED an investigator when the reality of it is that he didn't it was a direct competitor and just be clear in terms of our recommendation our recommendation report was finalized before any of this became came to light so it's not just to be clear our report recommendation was not based upon some private investigator but I understand you I guess my when we're talking about the investigation of the investigation uh we're talk you know I'm I'm I'd like to know what you know if there's anything the city you know can do you know to you know before submitted you know before things get submitted to the planning board for our consideration I mean you know you know how is it that people have to be sworn in here you know and then but we get these videos that are sent to us you know under false pretenses I'd like to see that video actually can we can we see that it's a long it was it I just I just I just think that there's something you know I I don't know whether there's and you know submitting something to the government to influence our decision under false pret the board can can take all evidence in weight and determine what if anything they want to do with the application so well and at the end of the day the the board is the is the is the tri of of fact right you you all are the triers of fact here so it's it I know what you're saying so it's it's up it's up to the board what weight you want to assign to to a particular piece of evidence are does allow extrinsic evidence to be submitted it allows board members to have xart communications it's just all of that needs to be disclosed Mr chair I just want to because you know the question I'll tell you what I'm grappling with is that you have had queuing problems that were legit right and that's why we're here but now you know now you're suggesting and there's a lot of weird evidence that my biggest problem I don't care who who complains yeah but if they were paid actors to go stand in line but that that's a real fact is nobody nobody complained except this fake person and and I want to point I I want to address one quick point the issue of the accused serial rapist being in there first of all somebody's accused they haven't been found guilty and if they were found guilty they'd be in jail so they wouldn't be there number one I don't know if they're in jail or not but it doesn't matter it doesn't matter the city is not in the position to be the government to decide who can censure to come in or out of a building number one number two if you go at an interview everybody doesn't have anything to do with somebody coming in or out they're promoting your business but you don't you don't know if this person has committed the crime or not they're simply accused the same way if somebody is in in the cryptocurrency scheme who cares they can go dance they can go s under AG that's what's the point and again no violation issued no violation has been issued one a time time it's not relevant to the issue of queuing it's said that that you had prepared this report prior to this planning board meeting and the violation okay no no we we we BAS report on the violation that was issued by Code Compliance on Halloween night okay is code code is here yeah yeah can we maybe ask I I mean I unless you want to do it Mr chair after believe um is Manny Val here from Cod is there and Jonathan just to one of your questions I've I've also been practicing in this realm not quite where Michael is but from this side since 2001 and I've never had a situation like this I was frankly surprised to see it my defense prior to seeing this report in figured out what happened was hey it was Halloween we're going to find a better way to deal with holidays I've talked to them about that and by the way they prepared some modifications to queing we didn't have time to submit it what I think is reasonable here again you mentioned Mr chair that there was an issue yes in on Memorial Day another really busy weekend there was a queuing issue that's the only legitimate violation that we have because I I deemed this one to not be legitimate based on what we know and I've appealed it and I have a strong belief my appeal will be successful but that's the only one they submitted a revised plan 88 times that it was tested it worked we still work to make it better and we're happy to work with staff so so what would you suggest I think we up and and have uh have somebody suggest something or make a motion what would you Su my suggestion would be decide we've they've been working because we didn't find out about this nefarious stuff though recently they've been working on improving their queueing we think it's working we think it can always work better I'd like to meet with you not under the pretenses of the club is closed and they're out of business anyway so who cares meet with you over the next couple months in a reasonable way hopefully get you to agree that whatever modified queing plan works better submit that follow that continue to improve our operation under under reasonable pretenses not under the situation that we've been asked to be under closing us and asking us to fix it is is a death now because if we're closed fix we're out of business why hasn't it been fixed though I don't understand it has been fixed there's been zero out of 88 inspections where there's been a violation this one stage setup was the only one we have I don't think it hasn't keep repeating So Co can you come up Cod they I guess they have questions for you good morning my name is Cella co- compliance administrator for co- compliance um so so do you know so what was the the violation that was issued on November 1st uh was that a result of a complainant or was that result of just a random check I can I was working that night but I believe uh yeah if you can speak closer to the mic be thank I got information for you now one second we did indicate just in terms of a summary of on page um five of the Bor packages it says there was an active Patrol and that's when the crow the crowd was observed so um maybe Ken can just verify that but that that's based upon the reason the reason why the citation was issued sorry just while you're pulling that up question for staff so when you came up with your recommendation I guess you had no knowledge of any of this you know someone might have called it was a competitor or anything like that you were basing it off of this investigative report was submitted after we had completed our recommendations so we didn't not based upon it was only based upon the evidence that we had at the time which was regarding the the citation that was issued for queing on the sidewalk on how Halloween evening night so Michael is there some sort of zero tolerance policy now with regards to to violations or this is our second this is their second offense um it's mentioned also in the violation so it's not like this is the first time this is the second time but at the end it's up to the planning board there's a whole range of things you could do in terms of just continuing it revoking it completely suspending it for whatever on a time frame um continuing and modifying so there's a whole range of things that the board could do as part this R having it as a revocation modification hearing basically opens up all the possibilities for boards to take action on on the file understood the the recommendation seems pretty drastic say it's up to that's just our recommendation the board can weigh the evidence as well as new evidence that's presented today and um make the board can make a collective DEC decision otherwise you you have information now yes I'm just looking at the getting the case up here I'm just having a problem with I had yeah I mean I just you know it seems like they came up with a queuing plan it seemed to have worked since there was nothing until November 1st I'm sort of you know looking at the video you know I don't even know I mean you see they clearly had plenty of security guards or you know bouncers that night clearly and there were periods where they're just hanging around because it was nothing to do I guess my question is sort of when people start crowding around what are they really supposed to do other than say hey you can't stand there keep walking keep walking at which point then it sort of it's a conflict between people and you know I wouldn't be happy if somebody you know strongly told me to keep walking when I'm standing in a public sidewalk and so you know there's that's why I originally in the first meeting said why don't you know you know why don't we you know come up with some solution here because there needs to be somewhere if they're not allowed to park you know patrons outside at all anywhere what are they you know what are they supposed to do and so when people are start crowding like so when a bus pulls up a party bus pulls up and drops off 30 people outside the doors I'm not I don't know whether that's you know was intentional or nefarious but say that happens you know people just get let out right there and want to come in how do they do that you know there's at least 15 minutes where they're trying to clear the sidewalk I just because of one violation of that um I understand there was a prior one but this one you know I don't see how that's something that we we shut down a a nightclub because of that when it's something that potentially could be fixed and and you know we've worked with a million nightclubs in the past in hotels and pools and you know with in the face of multiple violations mea had you know multiple garbage violations even after they gave we got had a garbage violation and they came before us we fix the problem then they get another garbage violation and they say they taken care of it and we take their word for it and I don't think it's right that we Target and you know not maybe not Target but U that we you know pick on an establishment like this you know when especially when by the way you know they had several violations earlier and they were good actors and they fixed them the problems we've had in the past with with establishments is when they kind of you know say po poo to us you know and say and they don't fix the issues and they don't act you know toward resolution and here they're clearly acting toward resolution they want to resolve this issue they've raised very valid concerns whether they're you know those will you know those concerns will come to fruition or not either way the concerns are valid enough to certainly make us you know look back and and think about is and then I just think and I think what sort of Matthew was indicating is you know how are we now looking for a six-month suspension when you know every other restaurant that's had violations or nightclubs that had violations you know we we say Okay fix it and we'll move on so I just think you know I'd like to work toward a resolution here this is my thinking um not suspend them I would I I'm in favor certainly of bringing them back in I guess it's not 30-day there's no December meeting can you can you make reservations like say whatever the other club's name was that that you were mentioning that they have reservations how can can you do something like that where you're we have we have reservations they have the same violations we have they just didn't get one on Halloween because we didn't stage a whole situation over there at their Club so we do think that this does work if they're they they're going to have a a queuing plan it should be like an emergency queuing plan or have a larger area for queuing I did I did research some building here and the area of the lobby was larger in the past at some point there was a spiral stair that was installed that might have been the prior oper sure about what point it was it's not wasn't recently so the lobby area was larger in the past we do think that there should be a larger area within the property for queing so I do think if the board is going to continue this that the board direct the applicant to work with staff to come up with some sort of plan to come back to the board to present to the board um we're happy to do that we love hold on stop a minute I want I want let him say what he has say and get out of here so he doesn't sit here all night so on that night um it was a patrol it was a a proactive uh inspection uh the officer did uh observe a large crowd outside of the establishment they made contact with the with the security guards and the security guards directed The Crowd inside at that point and then the violation was issued afterwards okay any question to him before CU we got to move on any questions of the code offic just one so proactive Patrol means TRS are proactive there's no complaint given mean you don't call it's just something you guys randomly go out you're patrolling the streets and you just observe and am I correct because we heard that there were 88 visits proactive patrols U but and then there was no issues with crowding you know you know queuing at that at those visits correct after the may u violation we you know obviously this location was on on our mind monitoring list and we did go out multiple multiple times to inspect this being and then on Halloween was the first time since then that we've issued is there like in for Code Compliance is there like a window of tolerance for the Gathering like for the Q and as Jonathan mentioned I mean there is there is at some point when people arrive there is a little window of time where people have to be ushered in or or ID has to be verified or um I know we're pushing for doing this in the lobby as much as possible but I mean there there has to be a small window of Tolerance I'm guessing that well it all depends on the sidewalk is being obstructed how much of the sidewalk is being obstructed and how you know if there is a conditional use permit in place and what that conditional permit uh can you check IDs that while they're while they're queuing and say sorry get out of here I mean how how can you I mean that's part that's part of their I don't know if micke if you want to go over the queuing plan just uh the cing plan you was submitted if you can just go over that for the board's information so everybody can understand I think it's it's a two-part a two-phase approach where it's I don't know so someone does H Patron H checking before they get to the um um um so if you want to put it back up uh it's I have I have it on that page right now I can share it with you yeah so here's the queing plan that was submitted prior to the September meeting they have the line within their property on the outside if you see that triangle that's the ID check they don't want to let people in without an ID check before they get into the main area while they're in the lobby they're padded down checked for weapons something that every responsible Club should do in the world we live in uh so that nobody gets in there they've never had a violence issue there they've never had a shooting there none of those things because they do a good job of protecting their uh their their sorry just to stop you there is what generally all clubs do they're all lining up outside that's where you get the ID check but that's within there's an area within our property and and no it might be within the property line I'm saying it happens all exterior you're checking them it's not like there's an indoor queuing area there is an indoor queuing area it's it's a two-step process we're actually I received from them we this has been a difficult week for them dealing with this uh they've modified this plan um to propose it I didn't want to share it today because I haven't shared with the city I want to I want to meet with Michael and go over it but possibly using another entrance to to to manage it better again this he's told you what I told you 88 times and I just did the search Pro investigation since Memorial Day I got 88 hits I went through all of them no violation observed it's you can do the search yourself there is another entrance though that there's a back entrance we're not it's not part of our plan now we're proposing maybe that's a way to that's we need to have building see where there are opportunities to improve I think it's I think it's working I think what I've shared with you hopefully you can see that it is working but we can always make things better and we're happy to do that um and whether we come back January I mean January is very short but we come back in February J whatever you guys are comfortable with we'll have time so we have time to meet with Michael and maybe if there are improvements that need to be made I'm just saying maybe as Michael's suggesting we we could do those when it's not peak time close for a brief period and do I don't know what what about having like an off-duty police officer are helping with the sidewalk you know just making sure that that that's there giving me a thumbs up love a thumbs up comment that I made I love that um all right I I would hold on any other he's gonna make a motion any other question okay just before the motion just and this is really for moving forward and I think Jonathan brought up as a good point you know they let's say there's a Club operating and they have a queue in front everything's good but let's say there's a promoted event at that club and maybe it's somebody famous and and all of a sudden people start congregating on the street or sidewalk that aren't planning on going in the club and Code Compliance goes by and and it looks like maybe there's a violation of the cup how do it may be a question for code but how is the city how would they deal with that I mean how do they make that determination who's there for the club and who's there just to see what's going on well when we observe large crowds outside of venues most of the time in V Do's case there's not many businesses open open at night in that area so when they're queuing and they are on the sidewalk they're in route to go inside so it's obvious that they're queuing for that location not going anywhere else one of the things and and and I know most of us saw the video I didn't I mean I didn't look at the whole video but a lot of clubs have a you know the ropes on the sidewalk and whatever maybe keeping people against the building I and in that video I didn't see that maybe it it was there maybe people blocked it but that's something to to that's because that the condition of the cop prohibit that okay okay maybe it's something that's part of the problem right yeah because maybe if if there's rope then people behind the Rope are there for the club and anyone else is is not so it's something to maybe look into well Mickey when you meet with the city I mean again I what I'm hearing from multiple people it's promoted events that create the problem it's also also oh sorry I'm sorry sorry and so um you know if you ban them I know that it hurts the business so that's something you really got to figure out is the promoted events because that's what I'm hearing is you get the the mob and that's the problem we'll work with staff on all those issues I think we can we can certainly improve the operation I think what's being recommended today is far extreme for even if we didn't have what I found but based you know in addition to what I found it just it's it's a really from the board they want to give you time so I appreciate that anyway go ahead and make a motion John I'm sorry Elizabeth I'm sorry just just have a quick question um how can you guys comply with promotion promotion versus appearance that's that's I think where you start running into issues is that you've got appearances that that are being announced as at the day of oh special appearance by as opposed to an actual maybe promoted event so how can we go back to and skip the appearance and say this cuz you know like it's what was his name um the baby I think his name was he appeared at Liv the night before he appeared excuse me at um Vendome and you know he's going to be there so how do we get to that point so what we do is and again I can read to you the emails I'm copied on all of them they notify the police uh the code says if it's a performance it's 96 hours in advance performance right so they notify 96 hours in advance and if for some reason what happens sometimes is they find out someone's in town they say I want to be there they come to an agreement if it the code allows if it happens within this 96 hours as long as you can show that the contract was not signed prior to your notice it also complies with the code I think and I've just checked with them they do this for performances they follow the code that's what the code says if it's just an appearance someone's just showing up you know we're happy to discuss that with Michael maybe making that requirement too think that's important but they're following the code and the only violation they did get and again our competitor got the same violation the one we got was a clerical mistake on the contract we showed that to the special magistrate they saw the dates so they said look it happened clearly it was an error you guys have been doing it good every other time so they removed the fine and that's the only one that we've ever had so the continuance you I didn't hear you earlier it would be till when I would suggest January so that they could applicant can come back to the board and show whatever progress they've made in terms of the queuing plan or suggested modifications to include for example language to talk about any advertised um person whether it's um a performance just the advertising or having a contract with somebody that also has to be notification of the police department so that's six weeks is that enough for us to get to I would do February so February because the magistrate hearing is then is in January right it's I think January 13th also look I want to move this I want to get this resolved quickly it's the holidays I need time for an architect to finish drawing something I got to meet with Michael I think February just makes more sense so we're really buttoned up I'm Fe I'm fine with February with the understanding that you'll be back sooner if there's a different violation absolutely I think i' encourage you guys to have Antion notice's there's a motion to move it to February is there a second yes I'll second it okay all in favor I I anyone opposed okay thank you all in February Happy Thanksgiving next uh R revocation modification hearing is item 10 plenty board file 24678 1100 West Avenue mandon Hotel so this next application has been before the board um this year since the since the plan Department issued a cure letter on March 28th this was last before the board on September 24th now as noted in our prior reports the most flagrant violations here were for one on April 6th the violation was issued for having a live ban including um precaution without a special event permit and on April 27th the violation was issued for having a DJ on the property without having a a special event permit as we noted at the September um revocation hearing those two cases were appealed to the special magistrate and on September 5th those were dismissed due to um technicalities with the um with the code cases now since the last meeting there was a noise complaint that was issued and that's outlined on page um 11 to 12 of the staff report um we are recommending that the board continue monitoring the property even though there's been no um um violation issued since the last time we are recommending that the board continue the revocation hearing the mod revocation modification hearing to the February meeting in order to continue monitoring the property that'll turn it over to the um applicants representative for um their comments honorable chair board members staff uh James R with great martyr offic at 600 bookle Avenue here with my colleague Adrian Noto um and the ownership and management team of the hotel um including uh Michael lewitz one of the owners so as Michael mentioned we've uh this process started eight months ago we're here on a continued hearing um for the last six months um there has been no there have been no complaints or violations Michael mentioned there was a noise complaint issued in November 8 there wasn't actually anything issued um to the contrary um the code inspector as noted in the staff report um indicates at no point in my inspection was any music detected so there was no music there were some people talking um is what the report indicates so essentially what we have here is a completely clear and clean record of operation for the hotel for the last 6 months um and for that reason and obviously we had a number of different progress reports and hearings in this matter so um we've talk through all of the past items in there um and for that reason we're asking that you conclude this matter today which I think you would be concluded as a success um I think this if there was any um um problem there regarding um cup enforcement it certainly is clear that it's been resolved as indicated in the stapff report as well that there's been no um no violations or record uh at the last hearing you made some non-substantive modifications to the cup so that's already been done um and our look the staff has actually contined this hearing to February but I think you've taken all the enforcement action that you need to you did take action you modify the CP you had hearings um and the the enforcement process is not designed as a tracking system or to be a penalty so if something happens in the future of course the board has continuing jurisdiction over the hotel under the cup um the staff the board co- compliance all have the ability to monitor the hotel um and you have the ability to call the hotel back here um in the event there are any violations complaints Etc um I would like to give Mr lewitz just Michael I was reading something when you were going why why does the staff want to continue it just because of the history we just think that monitoring is is important in case there is a violation that's issued that enables the board to take action otherwise if the um if this is concluded at this point and a violation is issued we have to send a cure letter again and the board will have to set a progress report well okay let me ask you I probably asked you a thousand times but um can you can and again this subject to public comment which we haven't had yet but can you can you continue it but if there's no violations then cancel that hearing we we've done that in the past um we could have the board continue it provide and provided that there's no um um comp complaints or violations issued not have them come before the board we've done okay the problem with the other way is that essentially it keeps you under Perpetual indictment yeah I mean considering saying what's going to happen yeah all right let's let's have the public hearing are you finished for now I would just like to um give some time to Mr Lee witz to say a few Speak now or do you want to wait for public comment once you wait and then you can address it is there anyone in the chambers to speak on this item anyone on Zoom we have a couple of people on Zoom with her hand raised the first is Susanna hey make sure she was sworn in please hi Suzanna can you state your full name for the record my name Suzanna perer and thank you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth absolutely I swear okay go ahead um let's please not move back to square one and um uh take that snake oil that they're trying to sell you there because it's been laying low the business for for the last few months after we've been at the planning boards and after you guys have thankfully started to understand and believe us and um there has been no major events and it's been quieter but it's been um suspiciously quiet and has been acting up in the last few weeks so there it's not true that there were no complaints because we have all called several times and um you can see from the previous complaint of the Vendome when there's 88 noise complaints this doesn't come from nowhere people are hearing it people are complaining and then when there's no violation um uh um applies then we need to look into the Code Compliance system because something is not working um it's um there was a DJ there um last weekend uh two weekends ago who packed up as soon as he complained and called packed up right away left then there was loud music and the code complaints officer heard it and uh I don't know there was no um fine applied no violation but it's been going on especially on the weekends the one complaint was actually about an unpermitted event not about um noise so that must have been a misunderstanding on the code compliance officer side there was a big wedding and um reception whatever it was with loud music a DJ Etc which counts as an event and it was not permanent so that was the U matter of the complaints um not music and please don't um don't seize this here and let's keep this open or let's finally have them have consequences we all um a lot of us have been here since before this place was a hotel this used to be our sister building residential it was a normal building quiet people lived there families and now it's tur into a total event space um that anybody can rent a music event place and um it's just it's just not designed for that we living in in the Greek Arena it's it's just sounding of in all the other buildings on the sides and thank you for being sympathetic to us thank you next our next caller is Gail hi Gail do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth all truth and nothing but the truth um yes I agree yes I I will tell you thank you you have three minutes um my name is Gail dorham I live at 1504 Bay Road I've been a resident of West Avenue for approximately 25 years um throughout the years the mandre cup regarding alcohol hours speakers music uh all those uses have been expanded uh the cup was expanded in 2008 2009 2013 2014 2019 I think all of these expansive uses in hours have caused the chaos and I think we have to go back to a more restrictive cup the pre-24 cup um you know we have in recent years a different city a different members on the planning board a new mayor who based his election on Law and Order and it makes sense to reign in these outdoor entertainment events and outdoor speakers that blast music day and night um I think what the planning board should do is reverse the hours of operation for alcohol and sometimes they're 2 o'clock and five o'clock outdoors I think specifically you should prohibit the special events permits um um prohibit um especially outdoor special events um the reason why there's a lot of complaints and less valid complaints by The Code Compliance is as you know planning board members we hear this all the time code goes in wearing a uniform they by law have to present themselves at the reception desk and then by the time they get the manager to excort excort excort them to the outdoor patio all of a sudden the music's lowered the band has you know run into the back room or into the bathroom and is disappeared so you know if code compliant really wanted to catch catch them they would have a drone they would have a boat outside I don't know how what else they could do uh they would be undercover but that's they're not doing that so that's why there's not enough uh valid noise violations versus the complaints thank you thank you anyone else there's nobody else online with their hand raised okay nobody else in Chambers you want to speak I'm Michael leitz I'm one of the owners of the monrean hotel I've owned it for five years I met with uh Susanna and uh Gail um probably eight or nine months ago before the first hearing um to hear out everything that they had to say I live in the neighborhood I care about the neighborhood um I encourage everyone to visit the property and on this board and see what goes on but the truth matters okay and I think the truth in life is important and what I just heard there was the exact same things I heard when I met with them in a very hostile way and I went there to help I didn't go there to fight with them I wanted to hear their concerns I thought it was important they talked about these events at the at the first planning board hearing they talked about three or four events that had nothing to do with the hotel I think that was shown um they talked about the chairs being moved in the morning the chairs don't move okay we don't put the chairs away at night but I said if there's any movement or a hose whatever you guys need we'll push it to 9:00 uh the head of the of wava of the association I ran into in the gym and he said to me you know sometimes people park across the street uh and there could be garbage I said fine every day we will have somebody from security go out and clean up any garbage that you think comes okay we do everything we can for this neighborhood okay the property does not make any money it needs a renovation badly okay we want to improve the property but if we're under attack body number one Gail does not live in the neighborhood okay Susanna lives next door we if you go visit the I don't even know what I'm defending okay um and I I would encourage everyone to see what's going on at the property in the morning and at night if we do a renovation and it makes sense because we feel like the neighborhood is with us and wants it to improve we'll build sound walls we will do whatever it takes not to have noise I actually met with a sound consultant back then I walked him through the building okay I'm at the property all the time uh I think it's truly unfair the attack that we're under from there's 800 people that live in those buildings okay and a lot of people use the property a lot of people are very happy with the property uh during I've owned it for 5 years that's 18800 and something days we're talking about one scenario where there was a percussionist that was basically hired and uh 20 minutes later it was shut down the employee that booked the event was let go okay and we took action okay and we've taken action in every single scenario that we've had and again in the 18 00 days that I've owned this property we're talking about one scenario okay the other noise that we hear there was not noise so we want to be a partner to this neighborhood okay we live in the neighborhood I have another partner that's here with me Perry whites he lives in the neighborhood um obviously you guys know Russell he lives in the neighborhood um we want to be a partner and we're a good citizen and I think we've been dragged here over and over again we've spent a lot of money on lawyers and we will do whatever it takes but we just want to a partner in the city we employ 250 people okay that all have jobs related to this property that matter also so I just wanted to finally meet all of you say my peace I'm happy to answer any questions I'm happy to meet again with Susanna and with Gail but I think they have their minds made up they're two people out of 800 we'll meet with all 800 and I'll meet with the two of them so we will do whatever it takes but I think as a business operating in this neighborhood that people that all live here we'd much rather own this property and be a solution then go sell the property some national company that's not going to care about it um that's it just want to say my peace and meet all of you thanks a lot thank you anybody else we do have another public comment um Alex online Alex please take your full name for the record Alex jarmas Alex do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth all truth nothing but the truth yes okay thank you you have two three minutes morning chair members of the board I have been a lifelong resident of Miami and have been living in Miami Beach for going on a decade almost I have been to the Mandan many many times uh with prior ownership with current ownership and for the life of me I just don't do not understand what the issue with the sound is the mundan is a staple to that Community um every time that I go the everything seems to be fine the service is great it's a great place to unwind I don't know why they're having so many issues and it would be a shame if um if this uh this problem continues to go that's it thank you thank you and we have Susanna back again if you want to let her speak one minute Susanna then we're done thank you so much for um letting me say my piece first of all of course I don't appreciate to be called a liar I live next door um if you have people um customers that like to go to the place to your um establishments uh call in and say how much they like it you can have that for vom ETC um that's going to be happening always but we live next door there is a lot more people we have Thanksgiving weekends everybody's traveling last time there were more people in the chambers there is another neighbor on um um online um with her hand raised and um it's really um a constant nuisance I live right next door and um every neighbor even the ones on the rooftop can hear it that lady is just with her baby at the daycare so she can't call in but if you in the future have another meeting we will of course rail on more more people if I've been here much longer than 5 years uh then Michael and uh when we met with him he compared us to Ocean Drive and he said oh I live in Mii Beach It's a Party Place um it's and then I said it's a residential Zone he said oh there's also people residing on Ocean Drive so so much for hostile it's something you just can't um negotiate with okay thanks Susanna that it I'll suggest we close the public hearing yeah we're closing it Mr sure if you will I just like the log of and I'm sorry one second do any board members have any disclosures to make since this was last heard okay no I'm sorry Mr CH I just want to Lodge a timely objection to the hearsay uh evidence from the folks that are talking and uh lack of cross examination person but we're here to obviously as Michael said we're here to answer any questions that the board may have um and as the one gentleman that called in in support was talking I looked at the hotel's general manager to find out if she knew who it was she said she didn't she's here to tell you that if you'd like but that's one of the many things that were said that did not sound True by some of the people that called in and Mr R I didn't I didn't hear exactly what you said but you do have a right to cross-examine did you say you you were being just I just want the record to be clear in person you you could do it over Zoom if you wanted to I wouldn't want to do it over Zoom okay I want to do it in person um I'm sorry I think there's one more public comment that didn't raise the hand good morning uh my name is Perry white uh I've been a owner of the bondan with Michael and Russell for the last four years and as Michael said I would invite everybody on this board to come there anytime day or night and see the level of any music there it's absolutely quiet and proof of that is there's over a hundred condo owners that live in the mandrian not one of them have ever complained about the noise to this board and so they're living there under that roof and have never ever complained so how could you justify listening and verifying what is being said by these two people it's it's not justified it's really not and I would really urge you to come there because we really do want to improve the neighborhood you have the bayw walk going in there right now at the ADP of this hotel we uh you see you know you see people coming there and enjoying the services of this place if we do the renovation that we want this place is going to enhance the neighborhood enormously it's going to bring up the value of the condos in the neighborhood um with the bayw walk coming by this is the only place where people could come and have a drink and sit by a pool and enjoy lunch or dinner and we want to make that even nicer for the neighborhood but we can't do that if we're going to be restricted in in in ways that are unreasonable can I ask you what are the restrictions that are unreasonable to you that are that you're not able to operate like you want to be just just just people saying that there unreasonable noise when there's not and having to you know be monitored by the board um you know it it is a hotel it is a hotel and you know there are certain Services there and you have to offer certain things to the hotel to hotel residents and to the condo owners who want certain services and so you know yeah I understand I don't mean to interrupt you no I'm just saying you know what's in the cup to all of us seems reasonable especially since we just modified it to kind of bring it up to date and keep it consistent with what we think should be going on and and I think that was the agreement the understanding is that that was what was going on um and I don't think my my thing I understand having to hire the lawyers to come back to this hearing I get that element of it it seems that there are still residents who are lodging complaints because of the excess noise so far we haven't seen anything like that we've seen a complaint when code went out there there was you know U you know people talking and that was what the noise was which wasn't a violation and I think just as long as there's no violation you know I think we're we're poised to close this out but um me personally I see what the I understand what the residents are saying they they've lodged their complaints um I think to me it makes sense to leave this open one last time and if there's nothing you know else um that ha you know no other violations um then I I I say you know I would think close it up but I just don't want don't want you thinking that there's these like new restrictions that anybody's placing I don't think that's I don't just but James I thought you were okay with no no I I think the issue is that um just to respond to that question um on on being in the midst of an 11mon enforcement proceeding that presents a risk of you know deprivation of property rights and it's hard that's hard to explain to Partners investors lenders when you want to make improvements I that's wait what do you mean 11mon investigation well this this started in March oh you're talking about the hearings so if we went to February that would have been 11 months of enforcement proceedings when in the last 6 months there has been literally nothing of record uh there hasn't been complaints there was complain I didn't know what you meant can I just can I ask one question though only point is my only point is I just would urge the to put everything in perspective mic is off I think your mic is off you need to turn there you go sorry Michael and I I just would urge the board to put some complaints promise we do okay we want to just make the neighborhood better we want to make everything just so you know our job is to balance your success with the quality of life of the residents we try to do that in every case just so you know that's all we could askk thank you all very much the residents had me one of the the speakers had mentioned that they've called multiple times and that you know obviously there's only one code you know that would code complaint that was opened do we know anything I mean maybe I know codee's still here but um I guess my question is what how is it determined that a code case is open versus a just a you know complaint by a resident yeah so since the the cups were violations were issued back in in April there's been three code complaints um called in uh none of them have been valid so um that's the only complaints we have recorded in our system other than that it goes to our dispatcher and our dispatcher sends it to us and we respond out there yeah know I guess so just if the residents are still listening I would suggest that if somebody does have a complaint that they follow up and ask contact code afterwards if that complaint has been registered and if there's a a a citation number a violation number just a number that can be referenced that's what I was going to say because whatever they're doing however they're calling only one of them got or four since that the last time we were well nothing has been issued uh at the location other than some individual an individual unit that has nothing to do with the proper right I'm saying in terms of the noise VI noise complaint there's only been one that's recorded in their system so for the residents are listening you need to follow up with code to make sure that they're receiving your complaints properly that's all there was actually three two in May and one in um right talking about recently yeah yeah okay but when they do call in they do get a case number for them to follow up on okay can I can I uh I guess make a motion sure con considering that there haven't been any violations I think we've been doing this for for six months and we've continued it I guess to give chance for there to be more violations I would make a motion uh to dismiss this obviously we'll we'll be paying attention if something were to happen happen they could always come back but IID make a motion to dismiss okay is there a second on that no second so then okay if there's no second is that because I want to make sure I want I assume it's because you all want to continue it but how about if we continue it but agree not to have the hearing if there's no violations would someone that okay make a motion to continue it well no violations or no comp but the here here's the here's the issue no listen I don't want to delay this on forever no one of the issues is that the residents are testifying to under oath is that code compliant shows up they they're greeted by the front desk and by the time they get to the back everything you know the music's turned down there's not going to be a code violation that you know it's just yeah but then Jonathan then you're living in a world where it's there's got to be some there's there got to be some definitive yeah or more videos or more say that about every venue in the world all right Mr I understand what you're saying it's a tough it's no I'm I'm good with I'm listen I think I agree with you that this got to come to ahead at some point so I'm okay with so I just want to make staff is okay with that we can continue it till February and if there's no violations you want to say violation versus complaints no viations no citations issued right you you could do that but just remember that any time a violation is issued we have to follow all the steps in the code the notice and Care letter to the applicant the progress report before the board at the time of the progress report the the board can vote to set a modification revocation hearing so all those but if we hold on if we dismissed it today and they got a violation next month what would happen that's the process I think what they're suggesting is that they right that they continue the ration modification hearing correct and if there is no citation issued by the February meeting then the applicant does not have then the case will be that's that's the bo will suspend Jan automatically suspend the hearing and the applicant does not have before the board okay I'll make a motion to uh continue this item until the January meeting uh and in the event that there are no confirmed violations or citations issued between now and then this item will be dismissed prior to I'm going to get a second then Scott I'll get to you can I get a second on that second sorry second Jonathan okay Scott you question it it's not I mean I'm I'm okay with the motion but just we can wait after this I can ask staff a question I was going to suggest February the motion is January and we have a second so let's vote do do a one by one uh Michael okay this would be to continue the application to January and the um revocation modification hearing will be dismissed in January if there are no citations issued by code um Miss Bey is spe sorry yes Mr freden yes Mr cement yes Miss Laton yes but I'd prefer feror um Mr gtov yes yes and Mr Elias yes motion passes 7 to Z a question um thank you and this is for staff you know I know this this application had some violations in the past nothing recently but we've seen a lot of other issues where there were noise violations numerous noise violations which I think are much more um detrimental to Quality of Life the previous application Vendome they had the queuing issue twice and you were recommending a suspension of 180 days I would hope and and and expect in the future moving forward when we have other violators in front of us cup violators and especially if they're they're noise complaints that you look at them just as harshly as you looked at Vendome because we've you know I can name them I know we know the ones were that have been up in front of us they're always in front of us with violations and they're good for a while then they come back so I would hope you we have and just just for the record for everybody knows we did have the good time Hotel the good time Hotel was continued till December since the December meeting was cancelled the good time Hotel will be back before you as a continuation of their revocation modification hearing on January 7th well I would just hope if there are violations you you you scrutinize that application or or hearing is that who you're talking about the good time there were there are some other I mean we've you know there's seems like every every meeting there's people that are violating their cup and they're in front of us but noise violations I think are probably the have the uh most detrimental detrimental effect on quality right but I thought you thought you thought they were too harsh on the Vendo yeah yeah I mean you just say be consistent yeah I mean you looked at that that's a queuing issue that's at 2 in the morning it's not you know nobody knows that's going on except Code Compliance and you were recommending 180 day suspension whereas other um violators have noise complaints that really affect quality of life and you know it seems like they get a slap on the wrist and then we just move on what happens again so us well ultimately the staff recommendation goes a long way true okay well taken just consistency that's always well taken all right we'll do uh one more item we their companion and then we'll get to the um time certain so we'll do 11 and 12 together planning blur file 24695 and 0696 Washington Avenue residential plant comprehensive plan and Land Development regulations so I'll go through the some brief history on these items as well as um recent action so because this this is for the Washington Avenue residential plan incentives this is to incentivize um the um change of use to residential uses or new or include new new residential construction La Washington Avenue since this does include an F increase there's a six-step process that these applications have to go through this is similar to what's going to happen later on today we have the do doel site application that requires um two public hearings before the planning board with a community Workshop in between and then two um City commission meetings with a workshop in between now there's an extra step for this these Washington Avenue um application requirements because initially the planning board reviewed the first proposal and that was to increase the F up to 3.0 for Washington Avenue and that was reviewed by the board on July 30th and the and the board continueed till September 24th on September 10th of 2024 um a public Workshop was held after that time the commission sponsor um increased the f um further in the proposal to a 4.0 so because of that the process had to start over again on October 29th so the board reviewed this proposal in October 29th that included the F increase to to 4.0 and because of that we had to have another another public Workshop that public Workshop was held on um on November on um sorry November 7th um after the planning board met on October 29th the land use and sustainability committee met on November 5th and they provide additional recommendations as part of this an ordinance and that's really I'm going to go over today the changes from the the last time the planning board reviewed this as well as what the land use committee recommended or asked the board to weigh in on in terms of um what they requested so um on November 5th the planning I'm sorry on November 5th the lusc met and they provided um some additional recommendation s to the board this includes um a couple new items first is the incorporation of a transfer of De development rights program or TDR program to require a portion of the maximum F from the sale or transfer of f from a sending District so the F would be increased from the contributing buildings in another historic district for example within Flamingo Park so the F would be increased for contributing buildings in that district and those properties could then sell their excess F to um Washington Avenue as part of that what that does those funds for the sale have to be utilized to renovate or restore the contributing building buildings in historic district so you're providing benefits for Washington Avenue as well as benefiting the um contributing buildings in flamco park by allowing them to have fins for renovating or restoring your building an example of this would be um having setting a maximum F 3.5 with up to a 0.5 additional F available through the transfer program so um in order to Avail themselves of that maximum f4.0 they'd have to buy 05 from a sending district from a sending building and for example mle Park to get to that 4.0 the second um requested modification is the potential inclusion of an attainable housing requirement for a certain percentage of the increased FL area for example a portion of the units will be reserved for household below a certain income level now for reference um Workforce or affordable housing has a um Ami percentage of no more than 40% so this would this would entail perhaps requiring that um up to a certain percentage of the units be a reserved for people at an income level below say 160% or another number that's that's that's looked at that's so it's not to the level of Workforce or affordable housing it's slightly above that level but not to market rate housing so that addresses some of the affordability that's been addressed with um Washington Avenue also because of these additional requirements we've removed the um the ma unit size that was previously in The Proposal of um 1,200 ft so the the primary um ask today from the land use committee and this the commission is to weigh in on the affordability requirements for in terms of what percentage of the unit should should be at a more affordable level that's below market rate but above um Workforce housing as well as what portion of the F should come from a TDR program from s Flamingo Park now these this this T TDR program will be developed as a separate ordinance but sort of the idea is that this would be incorporated into the Washington Avenue ordinance at this time so we would have like a a cap of of a certain F in order to get in order to get the additional you would have the TDR involvement as well as having a portion that's that that's reserved for unattainable housing um with that the the area Remains the Same the increase height Remains the Same and the F of 4.0 Remains the Same the um provision that now a portion would have to come from TDR and from um an obtainable housing component is the first floor still dedicated 50% to that's that's still in there now 50% that's something that the board can weigh in and suggest a different number like I say this this will also be further developed as it has been through this whole process um when it goes the city commission the first reading and then I'm sure it will be developed even further after the first reading and then the community workshop and then the final reading before the city commission so again and this is an application generated um by the city as opposed to the application we have later on today by the doell site which is a private application so I just ask for the board members primarily to weigh in on any questions that they have as well as the specific ask regarding the TDR program and attainable housing requirement okay we should at this point open up to public comment is there anyone in Chambers speak on this item just identify yourself in your address please thanks okay uh Roberto Lor I own some buildings on 16 and Washington Avenue a 1568 Washington Avenue uh just a suggestion on the height there was a consideration to go to 150 ft which I see it's way too long to too high but maybe 120 which will allow the unit to be higher ceilings uh if you know the units by itself itself far small and you have a higher ceiling it give a better uh uh could be for as larger unit also on the first floor you considering to have some commercial and you want that commercial to also have high sellings uh not 20 ft is not that much but it could make a difference on the design of the units thank you thank you anyone else in Chambers anyone on Zoom we have uh Johan Moore online yes good morning again um I want to uh Echo uh the board members skepticism as to uh some urgent need uh for 50 50% of the ground floor in fact to be dedicated to micromobility I think there is so much more value to this than just promoting walkability uh and I don't think we necessarily uh want to get into a situation where we're going to require a contributing storefront uh to lose 50% of its ground floor uh to micromobility when there's a different way to access Upper Floor Apartments the question of attainability I very much am looking forward to hearing those numbers but uh H an article uh that I read recently referred uh to a study uh which uh stuck in my craw but nonetheless seem seems worth mentioning uh I uh will review the study over the holiday uh and it argues that even building market rate housing uh antha to some of us uh as a solution does tend to to uh lower rental prices and or increase affordability and that in this instance in any case trickle down might actually work that being said uh I remain fully supportive of any efforts to regain lost population um I'm wondering if the board uh has in fact had forwarded um To You by Michael uh my nine questions about uh the TDR proposal uh and if so if you have any questions about those I'm also happy to read them I understand that that is nine questions uh and that that may in fact exceed uh your patience or my time and they may not in fact all be worthy of your consideration uh my bottom line is that I think a TDR proposal wisely crafted can do more than anything uh on the horizon at this point in time uh especially given US Army Corps of Engineers uh timeline for 28 fun requests which have to come from the white house uh this is a good way to get money to uh Shore up uh our historic buildings uh contributing buildings in our historic neighborhood to the extent that this residential model extends across the rest of the city uh that benefit to historic neighborhoods and contributing buildings can expand Citywide as we confront environmental impacts rising sea sea levels storm water and all of that so if there are any questions I'm happy to go into them I won't uh without being prompted subject you to my nine questions though thank you thank you anybody else we did have a caller Darren I think he lowered his hand so with that that concludes our public comment online okay nobody else in Chambers okay we'll close public hearing any questions from the board your heal um just before I forgot one last thing I forgot to mention also included now is a is the ability of the historic preservation board to wave the setback requirements that was not included previously okay so obviously I've always been very much in favor of this um just listening to some of the public Outreach you know I was a big proponent of the micr mobility I think that's a big deal for getting uh this accomplished but I don't think that the micr mobility should come at the expense of you know ground floor retail activating um you know the street and the residential up top so one of the things that we've seen in different cities is you know micromobility happens usually in either back of house space loading areas or uh they're allocated some type of you know space on the sidewalks right so you can kind of build out your your built-in scooters bike bike rentals whatever that is in order to accomplish the micromobility uh use so I'd love to see how staff can incorporate that going forward um uh and I'm also I mean I don't know kind of best path forward Force suggesting what the percentage should be um but I think that we should kind of stick to Workforce housing and above uh you know bans and limits um and and I don't know I guess I would defer to you know staff and and whatever developers think makes project would make a project like this feasible but I don't know the answer to that I don't know if anyone here would know the answer to that yeah I think definitely um in terms of the requirement that the percentage of the ground floor have that micro Mobility component you're not going to have you're right this this would be reserved more towards the rear of the site or um or maybe have if it has a storefront presence that it not be just you know scooters in the front and that's something I think would be part of the probably the historic preservation Board review process um for any sort of application along here on Washington Avenue sure yeah I just want make sure that anything anything that we do we kind of keep the you know main goals front CER it's how do we activate the street and how do we you know get people back living on the beach I agree with you and I think that that um I don't want to see our ground we we see all over the city that we have ground floor retail space that's underutilized and in fact has been empty for going on 15 even 20 years in some cases those spaces need to be built out properly and uh useful um with a minimum depth of at least 70 feet with a 20 foot uh Frontage um I would like to see also um that we set a number of units for each size I don't think we want to have one bedrooms uh throughout the whole project I don't think that we need to have I also think we need to set um uh slab to slab height limit for each I someone in here brought that up um and also so we need to set a floor minimum saying we you do want to set a maximum floor to ceiling height or no I think so I think maybe you know 12 to 15 feet um but but as long as 10t there a minimum for the sizes I know we have there's in the code already of a minimum of 550 and a minimum average of 800 I think we need to have a little bit higher um to make it utilize usable for families if we're really serious about having families live in this area then we need to make the units actually liveable so sorry I didn't missed that M the minimum was the minimum is 550 square feet for new construction and that's just not I don't think that's enough well Michael as usual we we need to vote to pass it favorably then we can do a second motion with recommendations I would suggest if we have talk about if there's a consensus we can include that in the recommendation so I think we come to this is definitely a I guess contrarian point of view but if you look to the cities where people are moving you know like if you look to the city of Miami I believe they have a lower um minimum unit size Don't They isn't it in the what fours well in terms of if someone's going to include the renovation of a a historic building here then that unit size goes down to 400 square F feet so that's sort of the benefit we don't do a minimum ceiling height and then we just we have yes minimum ceiling hi I I agree with but in terms of the minimum unit size I mean the city of Miami has you know units that are in the fours and they're efficiently designed designed it's a great entry point for you know these young working professionals to come into a city and kind of you know so how many do we have that are that are that then that you know how many do we have then we don't want you know what percentage of the projects do we want to have you know I think those are well I think that's I mean that's going to depend on I guess each each specific you know project is going to have a certain floor plate and they're going to try and fit if we're setting those standards now so if we were setting standards I would if possible I'd say instead of having a 550 minimum unit size can we bring that down to 450 so that we can maybe start to get some additional density and where people can really start to move in reactivate the businesses uh and start to have units that are actually attainable for young professionals I think you're doing that by by already utilizing the income level uh you know 160% of the Ami are we not so that that would that would I think definitely help but if we could get let's call it 450 you know square foot units developers could probably fit a few more units on there which again just by having some additional Supply will also hopefully help bring pricing down I think if you have if you um set a a lower minimum you need to make sure you also have a an average otherwise you're going to be left with all don't have all Studios right that's Hotel size I'm not I'm not favor that I would also have concerns I have concerns with the removing the the average or excuse me the maximum unit size right Michael that that's been removed 1200 square ft correct and 1,200 square ft today is a large two-bedroom or a small three-bedroom it's a small bedroom because I live in one okay that's being built and um so uh you know there's a lot of things that I think are going on here and and and micromanaging the entire formula here I think is is going to set us up for failure AG agree even going to the Ami level you know I think is really going to to have an issue um so I think you know I spoken to a lot of different stakeholders on this and many are supportive of this but when you start doing things like taking out the maximum unit size not going to vote for that increasing the F increasing the height you're you're starting to look at like a live local type thing here so go ahead and move it uh so well I don't think we're ready yet to do that but I would recommend that we we we keep a actually I can um you know U you know one thing concern is the maximum unit size you know I'd recommend keeping a maximum unit size maybe it's not 1,200 square F feet there were some concerns but if you remove that and you combine it with the extra height you're going to get luxury units which is the not the intent so whether it's 1300 or 1400 those are in today's market those are three-bedroom apartments which are what are needed in this city and which are a luxury for many families do we want to like vote on each what we could do I've seen this in the past we could vote on each recommendation especially the unit size I mean I would suggest coming up with got I um Echo a lot of what what Matthew's saying when this started out the idea was to bring residential Washington Avenue which is a good idea um but it started out at uh 3.0 we could debate that you know I do like the idea of a TDR because you're not really increasing density in the city you're just moving it that's a good idea started at a 3.0 now it's 4.0 started out at 75 ft now we're talking 150 ft 100 feet it's 100t well well um um in certain in certain um uh um zoning districts I feel like you guys are trying to manage what's being developed and and losing sight of the goal but the that's my point the goal was Workforce or or affordable or attainable housing Nows 160% of the Ami it seem that make basically what that's saying is you can make even more money and then live in the so do you want to so you're so this 160% is well let me I'll get to that I mean there I just want to go through the the different things you know we had the maximum unit size which was basically eliminated now um or at least that's the recommendation um we had the the um uh where was it the the Ami we talked about now basically you're you're you're saying that um well actually going going back a little bit it was supposed to be that all the units were going to be affordable Workforce or no there was never there was never no unless unless you put it in the code you no one's going to build under market rate units unless you put it in the code they're always they're always going to get to the highest and best Market that that it will that it will provide so unless there's something in the code that restricts it it's going to they're all going to be market rate units just going to matter what what level of market rate and that was from the beginning because I know the normally for Workforce or affordable is 120 the city the city has a the state the state's different so in terms of the state and live local it's 120 the state's Workforce and affordable housing is 140 in terms of that percentage and now we're at 160 so you know it's it's bumping that up um um and then I you know I do think that you know we're not we're talking about not having any parking at all you have families even if it's 20% of the families living in these buildings at least 20% I think are going to have a car and that's going to wreak havoc on the surrounding neighborhoods because they will want to park somewhere that that's that's but the the idea here is that the people the F if a family wants to move here and they have a car they're not going to be moving the building understand that but it's it's I I just think that's going to be a problem because they they say you say they may not move it they may move move there and then say well we'll just do what we can we'll find parking that's what people do in the in the in the local in the Flamingo Park neighborhood anyway that that any anybody just to we're clear um anybody taking advantage of these um incentives and bu building a project those residents could not get a residential parking pass in the neighborhood true but it doesn't stop them for looking for other parking or parking illegally um and it'll also um you know have that many more cars on the road I know you've talked about the the sort of the INF structure uh impacts and and you you didn't seem to be U like it seemed like you were concerned about that so that's part of it um also in terms of the the overall massing of these buildings um I you know it's in the it's in the report um they all look like basically just big rectangular boxes and that's what I'm afraid they're going to be because we're eliminating the the um um we're we're adding I guess a waiver for setbacks so when they these projects do go in front of the hbb you know when the developer says I need to build out to the street or I need only a 10- foot setback from Washington Avenue to make it work you know a lot of times that happens so I'm concerned with what Washington Avenue will look like um if if this goes through as proposed um you know Heights we can talk about F height increase but I just think this you know what what's being proposed here is is very large I don't think it's a one-sized fits-all for Washington Avenue and we could talk about a certain section of Washington Avenue and try something I think I think definitely you know this these studies are just based upon the developable area that of course any specific application is going to have their their own um application to be submitted one of the things that that I think is important to talk about in terms of I think um Michael touched upon this or Matthew touched upon this last time is taking over square footage of parking and doing replacing that with like residential the problem with that is that a floor plate for parking you can have you know these dark spaces and expansive parking garages once you go into building residential units you have to think about light and air so the footprint is going to be much narrower so you can't build you can't take the square footage of a parking garage that say would be at the second or third level and replace that with square footage for residential because then you're not going to have light in air so necessarily if you do have a um a setback reduced along Washington Avenue it's going to be formal either a bar building along Washington or something that's that's has that has a limited you know a floor plate you're not that's why in the massing studies you see the the tower portion is always narrower than the the ground floor pedestal because otherwise you're not going to it's not going to be conducive for um attractive residential units no I I look I understand that I just you know I there was a presentation a few months ago and I think the there was I forget who the architect was and and you know that question came up you know these buildings look like just going to be a flat facade and even the architect at that point said well maybe we can push push a little percentage of it back a little bit even the architect seemed like you know to get everything that to get the square footage they that's needed um would be very difficult with with um without being I think that's why we basically just put a box up and maximize the space but so this that's why we included that flexibility so it's not a variance and it's something something that theor Pres ation board who's you know very knowledgeable in approving new construction and historic Renovations and adaptive reuse do think that the historic preservation board is knowledgeable enough to to weigh all those issues and without I I just think that because this is all new and it's a rather huge upzoning that certain things should be sort of etched and stall and said yeah you can do if if we go ahead and and move this forward you can do this but there are certain things you need to need to um abide by without having a a varing sort waiver I think that being one of them but I mean col I think if someone wants to make a motion on an individual suggestion and we can you know okay hopefully we can have some consensus or or we can just provide you know some of the comments but I think it'd be good to try to pin down um issues like the TDR program I think I haven't heard anything negative about that and maybe comment down you know what is appropriate appropriate percentage of the F to come from a TDR program so I'd like to make a motion on the maximum unit size I think it's important that we keep it in this proposal and I would make the motion that the maximum unit size be 1300 Square F feet so in other words you're making a motion to pass it on favorably with that I think we're gonna can we include other meaning I agree you can we include what Matthew's suggesting is we vote on each item one by one yeah all right okay what do you think Mr chair yeah that's fine okay I'll second that I mean ultimately we're going to pass favorably and then we're going to vote on specific recommendations we'll include which ones then then the vote and the consensus do we need to vote generally on passing it let's vote on each item first okay so this was to to increase the units to to establish a Max of unit size of 1300 square feet um Miss Bey yes no sorry sorry repeat the question this would be to establish a maximum unit size of 1300 feet no no um Mr freden yes Mr cement yes Miss Laton yes Mr ganof yes Mr needlman yes Mr Elias yes reluctantly yes so that would be so that that including consensus we have a consensus to but it's a recommendation right yeah it's a recommendation to include Max yeah okay can I go for another item sure well who was it Scott were you finished um yeah go ahead first motion I'd like to make a motion um that instead of the 50% for micr Mobility we utilize something along the lines of let's call it 15 to 20% um which would hopefully incentivize ground flow activation with retail I'll second that could I make a friendly friendly uh some suggestion depends how friendly okay well so the micr mobility is a is an extremely important component to this and absolutely and it it really should have front of house visibility um this is how people are going to be coming and going to to the to the building predominantly so I I I've said this before and I continue to say this micr Mobility component needs to be further developed high level right now don't really know yeah I agree and what is proposed and I I think depending on you know what the retail needs are in other words you could have enough micromobility to satisfy an entire building and and I just don't know what that percentage is I I'm mean it could be 5% 50 is too high corre house I think the consensus is that 50% is too high and the number needs to be looked at and revised number needs to be looked at needs to be lowering to figure out kind of what works send to satisfy you know the the residential use and the retail use and it needs to be in the back of the house not the front where retail the front of the house sorry it needs to be on the front of the house it actually doesn't and I'll tell you why okay amendment was front of the house okay well I appreciate that okay let's vote on hold on we can have debate about it Elizabeth tell them why you I'm telling you why because retail has been my my business for the past 30 years and this is where people walk and people walk along and you want to drop into stores and you want to do all these things they're also parking places all over the place one of the biggest problems is that is what Scott was saying earlier is you are going to have families that have cars and so you know I think parking is going to be a real issue this is not you can't just this is a this is an ldr right this is comprehensive plan you can't just say no cars I mean that's unrealistic people have to drive to the doctor they have to take their cars I mean their their pets to and their family to places and you know look this is a discussion that we need to have and we can't just you know blanket have a a motion we have to have a real discussion about it this is the proposal that's been that's been uh presented to us by the commission SP we're discussing it so uh I invite you I'll spend some time with you around South Beach you'll see many families getting South Beach though we're all well hang on Washington Avenue is South Beach Washington is Washington it is not all of South I think let's just vote on the motion um so um and this would be to um look at the micr mobility component number downward but have a front of house component this doesn't mean that the entire Frontage is going to be from mity I think I think we're all in we're we're all in agreement that it should be less than 50% and then the commission can deliberate as to where it is whether it's front of house back of house at the end of the day we're just we're all trying to accomplish the same thing should be enough kind of micromobility to service right particular your motion though the motion is that the micromobility needs should be significantly less than the 50% and let them decide and let them decide what that percentage is but it should be enough to service the residential needs in the hopes of reducing you know the vehicular traffic in the surrounding area I'll second that does anybody oppos previously anybody opposed to that okay so tou us on that okay any other suggestions I think that um know never mind I'll also and I don't I think uh we also have to make a motion for items one two and three or are we kind of bit with what we've done yeah I think the the the um commission one specific recommendation on the TDR and the percentage involved as well as the attainability um requirement if so I I think uh I'll make a motion that we uh let's see we we pass number three three with a favorable recommendation in terms of the percentage of attainable housing how are they defining attainable housing I assume it's not going to be affordable is it Workforce is it above Workforce that's that's what that's what the um commission is asking for a recommendation I mean so how I mean aren't we kind of now pigeon hoing and I I've been the biggest proponent of Workforce housing uh so I I it's not that I want to limit it I'm just saying aren't we now going to pigeonhole development community in terms of what's a feasible project 160% is what I'm looking maybe you want if you want to suggest that there' be something for below market rate and let the okay so so so I'd like to make it with I'd like to pass it with a favorable recommendation with the inclusion of you know some type of percentage of attainable slw Workforce housing and and if possible let's call it I don't know 10% shouldn't it should it be a lot more than that what do you think about the I don't know what makes these projects feasible so if you come out to development Community say that you need 50% Workforce housing they say okay we can't build it because land is too expensive true but then all we're doing is basically up zoning Washington Avenue to allow big luxury buildings well I think to to Matthew's Point what he was saying you still can make money off of Workforce housing you're just not making as much money might not make any money I mean land is expensive nowadays and construction costs are through the roof so I just don't know the answer to that basic economics is that the quality of the building is directly correlated with the pricing that can be obtained so Workforce or a affordable housing is going to um be basic construction and I think that it's been given for 160% and we maybe have 10% to 15% and may maybe I misunder you're talking Workforce Workforce affordable not attainable no I'm talking about the the technical Workforce hous okay then yeah I can it's a smaller I can I'm okay with that I guess I'm what I don't want to see is high-end units or or as as a current member of the planning board I mean the last thing that I'd want to see as part of what the city is trying to put forward is another high-end condo project trying to kind of revitalize Washington Avenue with some attainable don't think it can be so I don't know how we could accomplish that but if hopefully the maximum unit size would help the introduction of micromobility some type of mandatory inclusion of Workforce housing I mean that's my goal I put it to staff as to how to accomplish that I don't think we're able to I know what you're going to say no that's not what I'm going to say is that not is this right I just I just have one comment on on your last recommendation is uh the city commission is separately uh looking at um at creating development incentives for housing that is above what we currently Define as uh as Workforce in our code which is up to 140% of Ami um it's something it's an initiative that commissioner Fernand is is sponsoring and is pending before the land use committee so I mean those discussions are ongoing so you don't necessarily need to nail yourselves to a specific number to below market value would keep that open enough for the commission to be deciding the direction of that that one time one at time so for number three you know so my motion would be to pass this with a favorable recommendation and and I guess the city commission will advise no Pine on on what additional you know Workforce housing would be included based on you know the items up for discussion I think do you agree that it would should be above Workforce above Workforce but but below Market yes uh I'm not necessarily agreeing to that I don't know let's see below Market I think should Market Market yes what is market I mean I think these number we throwing these terms around here what is market rate on Washington anyway or in I I don't think there is much of a market rate CU there really isn't any there I know I think we are kind of pinge holding us ourselves a little bit here by prescribing certain percentages of no we're not so we're not we're not ascribing any percentages we're just saying there should be some Workforce housing I think the commission has additional items up for discussion and and based on the additional F that's being offered for this which I think is Meaningful to really get the development Community incentivized let's see what makes these without a specific okay without a specific percentage okay you got that there should be some sort of Workforce or attainable housing requirement yes any second I will who said yes all right anyone anyone opposed to that I'm a no I think it should be all all market rate okay anyone else opposed all right so that that is a consensus that it anything else Michael um I think everybody agrees in terms of their should the T program is is valid um is a good thing but do you want to weigh into um what percentage or what what what part of the F should be part of a a TDR program this would this take the F above the four that they're talkinging no this would so 4.0 is the max so the issue is should a portion of that be from a TDR program for example one or 0.5 so basically be giving um for example Singo Park an increase in F but that that increase in they are could only be used not to construct in Flamingo Park would be to sell it for a construction along Washington Avenue I guess why do we care if they could build up the four right now they can do it well because then you're benefiting you're not just giving the benefit of Washington Avenue you're getting you're giving a benefit to um contributing buildings in a nearby historic district so it allows somebody um nearby residents or Property Owners to um get funds to renovate or restore their property this TDR program so is there any downside I don't see any downside just a matter of you know um what percentage you think should come from a TDR program how much f is available I know this was asked before and I don't think we have the answer right is there a lot of f available in the Flamingo Park well the idea here is that you'd be giving Mission would be increasing the F Beyond what's allowed now say 1.25 from Flamingo Park increasing it by a certain number so then that that could be sold to um Washington Avenue and of course if the property is already above that amount then they couldn't they couldn't sell anything so they would lose their their F no they're not losing the F no no in Flamingo Park okay so they're not losing anything that they have right now they'd be getting additional F that could then be sold no okay that's the problem so I guess I'd make a favorable recommendation then that uh the TDR program be allowed and the portion again I have no idea we have enough day that to mandate any of these percentages with you okay yeah any object to that TD program yeah that they do an analysis as to what percentage should be devoted to TDR and ultimately we'll be able to vote on the specific percentages of the commission I guess decide on right the city commission will decide this is not after this recommendation um it's not going to come back it's not going to come back all right okay so all right anyone opposed to that okay I'd like to also discuss the minimum floor size minimum floor area size um for units um I don't think that we should have hotel room size uh Apartments if you've already limited the the maximum unit size to 1300 square ft² or which was the recommendation by uh this board I think that we should set a a floor for the unit size as well and I don't think that you know a hotel room is right now the code would allow um within an existing building that's reconfigured for a square feet um but for new construction it' be an average of 800 and minimum 550 minimum it's I think that's okay even go so that's the case I would say there's no need to then modify okay I'm good with that okay all right there was an applicant based on their project that wanted smaller you minimum unit size they could apply for variance okay as long as they still with it they still have to fit Within the maximum density that's allowed that variance goes to the planning board or which that would go to the um historic preservation board got it okay could I um I mentioned before that I don't think like like for Washington have a one siiz fits-all I think when you look at maybe the southern end you have good time Hotel the Angler's taller buildings there you don't have much 8th 9th 10th uh well The Moxy is there but in certain blocks you you have sort of smaller scale and then when you get up to city center you have some larger buildings um I so I don't think one you know when you do this up and down Washington it makes sense I think it should be broken down maybe certain blocks should you know maybe we can go a little higher in other other parts of Washington not um I would make a motion that the that the commission looks at um um sort of break I don't know how to phrase it but varying Heights well just Heights and Fs overall massing right look at different sections of Washington Avenue whether two three block stretches and say maybe this particular stretch warrants a larger building or larger F whereas somewhere else um maybe doesn't and just if I could just give you some some some context in terms of um what would be allowed under a live local application so um since this is all commercial most of it's primarily commercial District this would not you couldn't do a live local application in the autum 2 District which is a small portion so live local application could come in and do as of right a 6.3 F and 150 ft in height so whatever we do here today is not going to prevent um corre local application yeah because they bypass all those local ordinances so so that's why we think that 100 feet you know appropriately reviewed by the stor preservation board you're not going to find 100 feet at the setback along Washington Avenue you're typically going to have you know maybe you'll have a two or three floors along Washington Avenue if there's a um a waiver by the hbb and then you have like a a 30 5ot setback for the tower so there we have that built in steep if you want to if you want to um you know look at that those setbacks and more detail or that was going to be another motion I make about the not allowing a waiver you know everything I mentioned before I'd like to see it I'd like you know let's take a vote on it as until we until so like this is these are all just you know out there in terms of incentives until somebody comes in with an actual project I'm sure not everybody's going to want to you know follow these restrictions and do project so it's going to be up to Property Owners to want to take advantage of this or not sure but it's also and it's also up to the neighborhood that the surrounding residents to you know kind of um I want to say put a check on development but you know be involved in what the neighborhood looks like um so you know I think that's what we're supposed to do up here as a board um so again I I don't think it's a one siiz fits-all for all Washington evidence you want to recommend that the the commission look at buying Heights varying Heights and F I would like to see that no le no more micro units though I I would definitely that's the whole point of I think doing this so yeah but I mean as far as that just look at um again make the motion go I would make the motion that that the city commission um look at different sections of Washington Avenue and and I'm trying to think of a way of of considering very and consider varying fs and Heights on in different sections because not because the one size doesn't fit all okay second on that anyone want to second that I will okay sure right is anyone opposed to that I have a question for Michael is there a sunset provision on this proposal there is a sunset provision yes um 2032 for2 for building permit or for for land use for a building permit or I think um full building per by September is it September so the reason I'm asking is there's only going to be probably in this time period a handful of buildings anyway and and to to prescribe certain Heights and F ARS throughout this this 10 12 block stretch I think is perhaps stretching a little too far here um you know I think maybe we need to wait and see even what's proposed by the market if anything yeah and then the commission can always you know amend the regulations downward or yeah I mean I understand your concern Scott but I think realistically we're not going to you know there's not going to be 10 proposals coming out or 15 proposals so I think it might just be you know how do we determine even what what is the height for a particular block right if we can barely agree we can recommend I can go you know and say you know you can look at um uh I think 10th 11th 12th you have more smaller scale buildings if um you know two and three story buildings maybe those blocks you shouldn't be able to build 125 ft or whatever whatever the height is now whereas City Center you have further up north and further down south you have taller buildings it would it would they fit in so I think did um Mr Lon did you second um Scotts yeah um does anybody oppose um Mr needleman's proposal I'm a no I would I'm not opposed to Mr needan yes he's phenomenal okay jonan you're in favor you're in favor all right so three so four are favor three are opposed so um we'll include that in the recommendation and I'll go back to the waiver I don't think there there I think set you know with with what I'm looking at in the in the um these massing studies here I mean to me they're they're all looking like just large cubes Washington Avenue and my fear is that you know developer may come in afterward I need to be a little go to the HPV I to make this work I need to be closer I need to be closer to Washington or whatever the case may be so um I think those setbacks um the tower setbacks or whatever however it's phrased um should be set in stone I think once they're determined that's how they have to build I mean we're already giving a lot so you know I think that that will help to protect the car the the walkability of Washington Avenue so you're recommending no um waiver for the setback from HPV correct is there a second on that I don't see listen to the Michael repeat it this would be um Mr needman's recommending that the HPV not be um granted the ability to wave the setbacks they could still ask for variance but it wouldn't be a waiver I'll support that it's a second and it's a second does anybody else support that no sir so that does not pass Michael I think there's you know we saw this with another application previously on Washington especially when you take in account uh raising of the street future levels this can new projects can cramp the sidewalks and you know there might be an opportunity to increase ground level setbacks and reduce tower level setbacks and to your point that increases the walkability especially if new construction so I me I think if it's done carefully you know looking at setbacks it's a give and take or could be a give give and take and we you could even make make a recommendation if you are seeking a reduction in the tower setback then you must increase the ground level setback yeah I just I think we don't have enough data we don't have specific project in front of us so I think the overarching goal is you know how do we accomplish more attainable housing more you know kind of retail activation that's the goal if we start to I mean to your earlier point if we start to put in these specifics we're killing it before it even starts I'm I'm I'm I'm from that view too I just think that have a general guidelines and let sort of the the the projects it's not like we we won't have a say in any of these projects in the future so I think we we don't want to discour some of this um you know the benefits of the attracting some of this investment in that neighborhood so I I I understand some of the um hesitations and we all want to make sure the setbacks are sensible but I I think by now all these boards that are going to be reviewing are uh going to you know are are smart enough at this point to to make sure we don't do some of the Mist we did with some of the past and the planning board will like we we've seen for the application that was continued um this morning the planning board will still review projects that are over 50,000 sare F feet that are large like that so that would still come with the planning board as well as the histor preservation that last recommendation failed so okay any other recommendations just find groups that are ready and willing to help us solve this issue so I think all in favor I so um was is that a motion to recommend with a favorable re recommendation transmission of both ordinances with the consensus items that we identified correct yes all anyone opposed to that who we need a second on the motion I'll second it all in favor I anyone opposed great okay great thank you all right um so we're past 11:00 so we're going to go to items 15 and 16 planning board file 24070 8 671 Collins Avenue North Beach ocean overlay and uh 24693 development regulations for the North Beach ocean front overlay District so before I turn it over to the applicant I'm just going to do a brief um overview of the site and the proposal and um just our basic recommendation or concerns for the application so just in terms of some history of the of the site I'm sure everybody is aware that the former do doel hotel was demolished recently it was constructed originally in 1956 and designed by noted Miami Beach architect Melvin grman in the post-war modern style and was designated as contributing within the North Beach Resort local historic district now back on it seems so long ago now on July 25th of 2017 there was a fire in the do ville's electrical room and the city took extensive action to attempt to ensure that the building was not demolished by neglect through enforcement action by the building department and by filing suit to attempt to force the doville to meet its obligations to with respect to the 40-year building certification process and pursuant to a 2018 unsafe structures board order one of those obligations was for the owners to submit a structural condition assessment report from a licensed engineer after years of enforcement action and litigation this structural report was submitted by the city and unfortunately the report which was which was verified by the building official made clear that the building was unsafe and could not be saved due to structural defects and the building was sub subsequently demolished on November of um 2022 almost exactly two years ago um in terms of this proposal like I mentioned for the Washington Avenue incentive ordinance this this proposal requires the six-step process today is just the first step in that process after today's meeting there is a um public Workshop scheduled for I think it's um December um 17th after that there will be a second review by the planning board either the January or the February meeting now again this this involves um a proposed overlay for the doville site at 6701 Collins Avenue this proposal includes up to 400,000 square ft of additional bonus floor area which would equate to an F of four 5.5 for the property compared to the current maximum allowed of 3.0 um Additionally the applicat is proposing up to 200 ft of bonus Building height which will result in new towers at a height of um up to 400 fet we've included the proposed modifications to the setback requirements on page um six of the staff report other proposed amendments which I'm sure the applicant will go through in detail include modifications through lable encroachments um reduction in the off street parking requirements um the allowance for subterranean parking and for mechanical parking with without review by the planning board lastly they're also requesting exemption from the requirements of the long um front and standards now in our staff report we um mentioned that we don't object to the concept of what's being proposed we did have some concerns in terms of the level of detail that's been provided so far we did note that there's some discrepancy in terms of what actual square footage of the doel site was previously we have um an application from to the stor preservation board from 2013 which indicated the had approximately 309,000 ft the applicants now indicating that there's approximately 500,000 ft of um that was existing on the site prior to its demolition so I do believe that we need to have more accurate um or accurate F drawings to establish what is the Baseline of of um f for reconstruction in terms of the maximum um bonus we also believe that the Ming study provided is inadequate with one simple um ACD ometric drawing we do believe that much more detailed information should be required consistent similar to what we saw um last month for 1250 West Avenue where we had um more contextual renderings and elevations of the of the building and site we also believe that in terms of the long Frontage standards those are put in place to to um to have the long-term resiliency of a site and especially when you have a frontage here of I think um around 500 ft we do believe that um those front CH standards should be maintained or at least we should have details to show um which um which vage items and which resiliency standards um cannot be um complied with we do believe that um additional information is required to support the tower setback on the South Side 50 ft is required now they're proposing 30 ft we do believe that that the board should be reviewing um the footprint of those Towers in conjunction with any sort of setbacks and we do believe that since the site is vacant there's some opportunity to push and pull in terms of the the the setbacks for the reconstructed portions we are recommending that they provide at least one grade level pedestrian access point um to the beach so we are recommending that the Board review The Proposal take public comment provid any recommendations and we do think that um the the board should continue this application probably to the February meeting to provide the applicant more time to respond to the comments today as well as any comments that are unprovided at the public hearing at the um public workshop on December um 17th at a minimum we would require any sort of updated plans be provided no later than December 20th if the applicant was going to continue this application for the Board review in January well I'll turn it over to the applicant for their presentation hi uh David Martin uh 3310 Mary Street uh thank you so much for uh being here today and doing everything of what you do for our city um I'm um I'm really excited about what what you guys are going to see today uh I think um I think North Beach has uh so much uh you know opportunity and I think this property is is is truly a a a vital piece of of the revitalization of North Beach and uh and I'm excited uh to be working with uh with Alan Schulman uh local architect that's really probably an expert for us on on the Reconstruction and replication of the uh doville hotel I think you know our firm really feels that's something that could be really positive uh for for the city and the community uh and also to celebrate our heritage and and also we have uh uh a Foster and partners that are going to be also working with Allen uh on the project so so today without further Ado just wanted to say hello and and I'll be here to answer any questions and obviously we have uh Michael and Nick here from uh Burke alel that can answer a lot of questions as well but with that I just wanted to get Allan to do a quick presentation thank you so much if you could pull pull up the presentation please sorry good morning Alan Schulman with offices at 7300 biscane Boulevard I'm very pleased to be here today on behalf of Tara and our team and I'm going to start by telling you a little bit about the Baseline of the project which is the um which is the Reconstruction of the hotel and um just to give you a a sense of our team um David described my office uh we've been uh in Miami uh for three decades and our office is about uh 28 years old working primarily in Miami beach but also in Miami and then a few other municipalities as well um Foster and partners is a well known you probably already know them so no need to describe but um uh starting with Norman Foster they've really made a mark on the history of modern architecture globally and it's great to be working with them and our architector of record is ODP very professional firm that we've all worked with uh as a team uh before so um we're really excited about um working together on this project uh so I'm just going to start by um with the site and with the history uh you all know this site I know but uh at the end of 67th Avenue the doville really play played an important part in the development of North Beach as a resort district and Collins Avenue as a resort Corridor um and it fit in at one point with you know the Sher Frac and with the carolan and a number of other Resort Hotels um but it's also kind of a important placemaker in this particular part of Collins Avenue with its retail across the street and areas behind it's a little different than the areas to the north and to the South um just you know one of the interesting things about this site is the layered history it's not like a single history it's many histories and that history begins with the um mcfaden doville which was built in 1926 as the first Resort Hotel in North Beach on this exact same site and then like before the Hotel celebrated its 30 30th birthday it was demolished to make room for a whole new idea of Resort Hotels which was the um which was the doville resort and hotel uh the architect was Melvin grman uh an architect who has done uh hundreds maybe thousands of buildings uh in the Miami area and uh very important architect of Resort Hotels uh it you know the com I won't go into the details but like the components of it were really standard components for the post-war big Resort Hotel like the fountain blue the Eden Rock You Know Etc the the cevil uh you had the big pedestal you had the tower you had the big Port CER you had the great Lobby entrance and all that is present here and the hotel was kind of um uh uh it it really um presented a kind of a glamorous mid-century idea when it opened and we're you know we are right now in the process of bringing that back and also reinterpreting it for the 21st century so um here in this view um this kind of aerial view you see one important uh or two other important aspects that you couldn't see from that frontal elevation one is the size of the pedestal you know these pedestals were huge because they had all these big ballrooms and you know theaters and and it's a landscape up there and it was just an asphalt roof before Our intention is to um reinhabit that uh pedestal for for New Uses but also this pedestal is kind of the starting point for new development that will happen on top of the pedest um leaving the other element that you see here the the PO deck Garden to be free and open and to continue its role as as a garden um the all the images that you see here you know the kind of iconic images of the doville will be reconstructed the main entrance court with its you know parabolic uh Port CER the the the very dramatic Tower with its curtain walls and eyebrows uh the pool and pool deck area not the pool itself but the pool deck area as an area of the building uh you know which um more than most hotels of its type was kind of enclosed on the East End by this kind of screen wall of an oceanic deck which um provided some really iconic imagery and the the history of the doville which is also really let's you know face it it's global history johnf Kennedy The Beatles You Know Etc this will all be um reinscribed uh into the um history of the new building we're we're basically weaving that history into the art and the story uh lines of the new building so um as David mentioned and um as Michael mentioned the building um had been demolished in 2022 it exists now you know basically in our Collective memory and the starting point of this project is the Reconstruction of the doville uh and here you see the you know all the same components of the doville will be reconstructed the the pedestal the tower the Garden area the port caser Etc um and so here is a view of that uh of that uh entry court and the port Kare and you can see that you know we paid a lot of attention a lot of detail to making it to making it right to making it authentic and to bringing back that Spirit of the post-war Resort Hotel um now on the inside side we're also taking the same you know approach to being very serious about the authentic uh Recreation and Redevelopment of of these spaces so here you see the original plan with all those really huge rooms and um basically our approach is to basically adaptively reuse all of them the lobby is basically being fully reconstructed all the other rooms are being reconstructed but with some new inventive touches that bring it into um the spirit and usability of the 21st century U 21st century requirements also at the northeast corner what you see in Orange uh is a former back of house area it was three stories of back of house with a stucco wall facing the beach uh we propos to open that up with a new Terrace so when we're done the ground Flor or the main floor of the doville will be a suite of great public spaces really um Capital Public spaces that will all connect with each other and will be sort of the you know the Baseline for bringing in a first class um operator into this um and uh just to give you a sense of you know some very preliminary U perspectives of some of these spaces this is the grand stair leading from the from Collins Avenue pedestrian entrance up into the lobby uh this is the lobby itself which spans from Collins Avenue to the beachfront sort to the uh Garden which you see on both sides so it's kind of sandwiched in glass uh this is the Casanova room which was a kind of a dinner theater we're reinterpreting it as an Atrium it's being recreated but reinterpreted as an Atrium Green Space that brings light down into what is otherwise a very dark uh pedestal space and then one of the really cool features of the building was this space called the Peacock Alley which had this zigzag glass wall which looked down on the pool and it is also being recreated but with a new element and Atrium that um comes in and again brings more light into the space uh and with that I'm going to pass to my colleagues at Foster if they're on oh yes um yes era Fiero thanks thank you Mr chairman would would you like me to give them another what 10 or so hello can you hear me how how would you like me to set the timer yeah okay go ahead you can go thanks very much um so uh the site is bridged uh Bridges the gap between the the beach and Collins Avenue and uh of course the beach was the reason for for for the creation of these Resort Hotels like the doville but we've uh paid special attention to the public realm to Collins Avenue uh and we tried to uh tap into uh the transform City from what was there in the ' 50s to today and actually enhance it and provide spaces quality public spaces for for The Pedestrian next please so you can see on this slide in Orange the historic uh public space towards Collins and the black line that defin the the historic facade uh and in the next slide you can see how we are uh widening the sidewalk and effectively creating a new space a plaza that goes beyond being a buffer from Collins but a real public uh space of quality next please the on this uh slide we can see a photo from 1964 with a narrow sidewalk uh with the the ballroom hovering over the the sidewalk with a strip of retail facing Collins Avenue and in the next slide uh this is our idea of how we could transform this space pushing the the retail uh front back uh and uh and allowing for a a Bullard with shade and green to emerge with a very very light uh presence of vehicular uh drop off uh and activated and in the next slide as we move into the space within the volume of the historic building now doubled in height uh we use this not only as a spill out for food and beverage and Retail but also as a way to solve the the the the uh the problem of raising the the ground for resiliency the next slide um in addition to this uh uh response to Collins uh as a as a response to uh commissioner bat's suggestion and developed together with staff we we uh designed this uh concept for a South uh Beach Walk on the south side of the or along the South uh uh boundary of the site next slide from looking at from we thought well on top of this uh idea of connecting the two the beach and Collins Avenue could we turn this into a a space that actually has its own value and adds to the to the to the sequence of the public realm uh we could add uh we could include art and history in the walk the next slide and as the the path widens we could create spaces for people to use uh you know for for uh for there to be a cafe or a or a space for the community and in the next slide as we look now with our backs to the beach looking uh looking West uh we can see that this this path widens enough that it becomes an inviting access and connection to Collins with a life of its own and we've tried to respond in a similar way Alan if you want to describe the north the north uh path sure so you know again Collins Avenue in this area is kind of known for its pretty narrow sidewalks uh that intention of widening the sidewalks widening the public realm it continues all the way from the South to the north so on the North side uh just in the same way as we're doing the south side we're kind of pulling the public realm into the building into the ground floor um and this is also improving the resiliency of the building and uh and then uh another element of what's happening at this point uh is that staff also asked us for a second Public Access way uh on the North side because the site is 500 feet long uh so this is a complex uh maneuver because this the North End is where we also have our our service entry our our truck docks our um vehicular entry Etc so we've come up with a plan to basically bring the public uh realm over the top of that so we have the uh we have a stair from that public Plaza on the North side which you see an orange there uh that would go up there' also be an elevator uh bring you up to this kind of high line type structure that would um travel across the north side of the building and down a grand stair on the east side uh to the ocean so this basically creating a mirror to the South uh on the north side of the building and basically allowing uh circulation to run around and and the character of that would be trellist and green and public uh and you know there could be a connection to the hotel and then as you arrive on the ocean fronts back as you come back to the beachwalk you would have a um this is the area where we reconnect with the beachwalk which is very close to the building here and we've created a Terrace in what used to be the back of house uh the three-story back of house uh which you see in the bottom left photograph um you know kind of a big solid wall basically opened back up to create more um public and and private amenity both and then at the South End of the beachwalk you you see the continuation of that uh Oceanic deck that Terrace that was a historic elements of the building but is now more perforated and on the left hand side just to bring it back you see the connection to the um South Beach accessway uh do you want to take it from here Eduardo than um so effectively on all four sides we have connected public realm uh it connects with the existing public footpath and it really creates a paracity uh at a Urban level next please so we also looked at the center of the site at the main public open space of the side the what used to be the the pool deck and in the next slide we we think there's an opportunity to bring in the Ecology of the June into that space and create a real uh heart of the site uh which is open to a wider uh a a wider audience next slide so in in this uh view of the historic uh pool deck we can see a a presence of Hardscape an absence of shade and the architecture very much in the fall um we think that attitudes have change so in the next slide you can see uh how this space could be transformed to bring in shade uh and and bring it a passive Cooling and even uh you know extending the area of permeable um floor bringing water down to the aquifer so the next Slide the main addition to the uh site is the residential component uh and in the next slide you can see what it would mean to uh condense all that in a single uh volume became apparent very quickly that if we split the volume as we show in the next slide um we have a much more sympathetic result in the next slide as as these two elements split uh gaps uh between uh appear between them and the hotel which are really very similar as the Rhythm that you can see along this elevation from Collins uh Avenue and the slimness of these towers really is much more in tune and sympathy with uh with the rest of the buildings along along the the skyline on the next slide um this this section from Collins Avenue to the water shows uh what the opportunity or what this separation of the two towers actually brings to the pedestal it brings the opportunity to bring daylight um and and uh and the breeze through the building uh in the next slide um you can see the arrival from Collins Avenue going into a courtyard a green Courtyard in the middle of the pedestal what used to be the the dark space of the ballroom uh providing an access acquired access for residents the next slide uh this the space shows this connection to the room above which becomes a Napolean Club one of The Suite of rooms of the hotel and and below grade there would be a drop off for for residents that is also dayit uh as you can see in this slide uh providing uh not only a really discrete arrival for residents but also relieving the pressure from the ground floor uh arrival on colums the next slide um in order to achieve this some uh structural gymnastics are required bringing all the columns to the main core of the building means we can respect the historic Lobby create this uh new club space and and really reduce the footprint of the towers on the historic pedestal uh respecting the you know the the Contours of the original building and the relationship between the two in the next slide uh and providing this idea uh providing this possibility for for spaces in that in that old uh what used to be the ballroom the next uh slide so now looking from the water we can see uh you know this sequence of of buildings along uh the the skyline and the gaps between them think that the two uh additional elements really uh work in in sympathy with with the rest uh I think that that's that's all over to you m hello great so Michael L South King Boulevard representing the applicant so when you combine the obligation to reconstruct a Historic Hotel and then you merge that with building two residential towers and you try to travel under current zoning regulations it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole it just doesn't work so what we do is we create our own zoning District it's an overlay zoning District so the R3 Zone remains in place and the R3 land use designation remains in place but what you do is you create a brand new zoning District here it's called the North Beach ocean front overlay district and this first slide is the comp plan ordinance the comp plan is meant to be more Broad in its nature of Regulation you have to put in there any difference in floor areas so here we're asking for 400,000 foot bonus to reconstruct the hotel the complain aordance also is what regulates density so we're reducing our density to 75 units per acre we're also voluntarily agreeing to lower the hotel unit count to 280 units and reduce the accessory use square footage down to 35% and then the HPV would you know be in charge of substantial reconstruction we have to get a COA for demolition design from the HPB next slide so this is the zoning ordinance and the zoning ordinance is more detailed um if youy travel down the left-and side bullet so it would authorize new ground floor editions no more than 30 ft in height The Zone code right now says the minimum driveway width has to be 22 feet we're asking for 20 fet we don't need 22 feet and then in order to achieve ourf and do the 400,000 square ft we have a series of uh requirements that we have to meet that's a bonus structure we do that for a variety of reasons but one reason is that if you if you use a bonus structure for hide and F then any developer wanting to use live local act can't use your property as a precedent by which they can base their development program on because the way the live local Act is structured if you use a bonus system to achieve your a faren height then it's unavailable to a live local act developer um and again we're asking for a height of 400 feet um we're modifying some of the setback setback encroachments in order to actually reconstruct the doval hotel we're asking for a parking exemption for all the uses within the reconstructed building this is no different right now under the code there are no parking requirements for any uses within a historic building we're asking that mechanical parking be approved on administrative basis next slide and then with regard to the traffic study as you all know if we traveled under current regulation we could build almost a thousand hotel rooms so based upon the limitations we're seeking for our density and for our hotel unit count actually on the weekends which it can be very busy in this stretch of Collins Avenue we're having a a reduction of vehicle trips to 379 on the weekend rush hour which is approximately from 4: to 8 when people are trying to get to dinner go to B Harbor shops or whatnot next slide so with regard to the community benefits we're prohibiting shortterm rentals within the residential Towers there's going to be a tremendous economic benefit to the surrounding businesses that have been suffering since the DOA Hotel was demolished and we're providing our Public Access Fe to the beachwalk that Eduardo and Allan uh ay described next slide and of course when you reduce your density and reduce your hotel unit count then every impact upon City infrastructure is reduced starting with water sanitary sewer solid waste our student population potential of course goes down and the demand on City recreational areas of course is reduced next slide I don't know David if you want to the numbers gu yeah real quick David Martin again um one of the big things about this project is there's different types of development we have some that are higher impact more density and they maybe provide maybe less taxable value in this case this this development would be a really low impact high value so when we look at that um the the the incremental tax revenue from this project is is going to be significant if we go to the the next slide maybe um you could just see here uh two things one uh through the life of the CRA the CRA if obviously hopefully were're able to to build build this and move forward um we'll be able to to contribute around uh give or take you know the numbers around three over $300 million net uh to the CRA over the life of the north beach CRA um and so a lot of our vision has been uh not only about uh our site but we're also thinking about the rest of the district and and how we could greenify the neighborhood we can make it more walkable uh and and really uh you know really thinking about Harding as well so so we really think that that the um incremental tax revenue uh we probably will not be doing the 280 I think in our uh hopeful uh you know this is a long process but you know we're targeting around 150 keys in our T Target program with the hospitality uh partners that we've been uh interviewing and working with so it's actually going to be less density uh and then our residential count will probably end up around 120 residential units so uh just believe that uh this is a low impact low traffic low infrastructure and also we're going to be investing in a lot of storm water uh management uh not only for our property but we're going to be overdesigning for the neighborhood uh but anyways just wanted to share that with you thank you so much and that's it Mr chairman we're happy to answer any questions good timing okay um I just want to say preliminarily the project looks beautiful You' had a great great team David's a tremendous developer you guys are all great team so I'm happy the team's been assembled if we can work out the details so um with that uh we open it for public comment are the people in Chambers speak on this well start I'm gonna I'll look give you next this lady had already started coming up and everyone that comes up please identify yourself introduce yourself with your address yes uh good morning everyone uh my name is Sandra CA and I live as 451 Harding Avenue uh my family and I uh we've lived in North Beach for 32 years and we also coincidentally uh lived in uh the dille for a period of time as well and so um when the DeVille W disappeared uh that uh neighborhood and area was greatly affected uh including the local businesses that are still um unfortunately affected by uh the the duville not being there anymore I I myself when I pass by there and I see that vacant lot I get a little sad uh and a little nostalgic uh and I'm hopeful uh with this project uh that uh is being proposed uh because uh it would bring uh the daily uh foot traffic that I used to witness when I lived in that area and also it would greatly help the local businesses and and local cafe in restaurants and I would bring back families uh that would uh go to the beach and go to these uh local businesses and and cafes and restaurants and uh it would Revitalize the area again because uh when the DeVille left um it it's you know it's that area is just missing something were you happy with that presentation uh I was I was um you know it was great to hear that they're going to do uh certain things uh that are going to resemble the duville the former duville but also with uh new improvements to it uh you know that will uh you know match as obviously you know with as the years gone by you know changes occur uh so I'm very hopeful uh with this project I really hope that it will um bring back the energy that was lost when the devil um was demolished I you know I when even when it was demolished uh that day I I couldn't bring myself to witness that uh because uh my family and I when we lived there uh we have some very nice memories of when we lived there and when we lived in that area um and so uh I hope uh with uh the board's um help uh this project uh will be approved and uh North Beach can move forward thank you appreciate your time sir thank you so much good afternoon my name is ausman 6565 Collins Avenue I'm here today with my brother and my father my dad was in the Miami Beach veterans parade not last week and uh thank you you very much uh we're the owners of the Sherry Frack hotel which is the property just to the south of the doville property and we've been faithful stewards of that property for over 50 years we support the Redevelopment of the dovel property we thought it was a beautiful presentation I just saw it today just like you did and um as you can appreciate is a large property and um as a vacant site it does not a positive impact on our neighborhood so we support David Martin and the development effort and hopefully it'll be a success we also want to encourage this board to take a more global view of the neighborhood of the North Beach oceanfront Historic Resort District when considering this legislative proposal the legislative proposal should inure to the benefit of the historic hotels as well that are in that District as well as to those that replicate the significant elements of those historic hotels um one other thing I'd like to raise uh we are planning to develop on our Sherry property and uh looking at the uh legisl proposal uh as it was mentioned the dovel is a very wide property it's 500 foot wide and uh there are issues about sidey yard setbacks and uh we would appreciate that uh they could move as far away from us with their new towers as is feasible uh so that uh we saw in the presentation they proposed one large Tower and then they divided that and moved the sou southernly Tower closer to us uh I was looking at the legislation the proposed legislation and it says on page 10 I have the November 8 version it says an enclosed loading Andor raised public beach accessway may be set back zero feet from side property lines now I don't know if this is the ultimate uh resolution of of side yard setbacks but it continues and says a raised public beach accessway or screened enclosure may be constructed up to 40 ft in height as measured from base flood elevation plus minimum freeboard to the top of the railing and it goes on to talk about other elements that could be in that District in that area so we would encourage that there be sidey yard setback and that they can't build a 40 foot structure right up to the property line H having said all that and realizing that my time has expired I just want to say that overall we are supportive of David Martin's effort thank you thank you and thanks to your dad for your service okay who's next good morning my name is Dominque vasos um I live next to the dille site on 6067 Collins Avenue and I'm a local real estate agent as well and uh so I'm confident that this project we've been discussed today uh is one we need really to continue to move forward I think it it makes this project so exciting and it complement really the character of North Beach and uh is a kind of project we bring a long-term value uh attracting new buyers renters and businesses and uh so I will we will proove inum it will improve tremendously the neighborhood and I think this is veryimportant what we need right now and so the Flor plan they propose and uh and the height will fit beautifully into the neighborhood in this in that site and by preserving the doil ionic charm it will it it will our neighborhood will benefit from aesthetic and and functions and uh so Tera is leading this project and is they understand the history and purpose of the the space of this project so from increasing property value and to we renew the energy of our neighborhood so this project is exactly what North Beach will need and uh so we hope the planning board will approve this project and uh we look really U we look forward really for this EX project and for the future okay thank you thank you anybody else hi my name is Sheri Ruben and I live at 1615 Pennsylvania Avenue and just celebrated my sixth year of Miami Beach being My Chosen home but my love affair with Miami Beach began a long time ago when I was a little kid and every single spring break we came down from Milwaukee to Miami Beach and my family spent lots of time at the doville and I have a lot of warm memories as do some other residents so I'm extremely excited to by this project and the wealth of opportunities that it brings to the North Beach Community because I was a firsthand witness to the decline of that property and it was so sad and to see it become just a gaping ugly hole was was really kind of heartbreaking especially given the history of that iconic property so in any case having heard the presentation I'm even more excited by the potential for amazing opportunities to build community and provide beautiful green spaces for family and residents of the beach because that's what I want to see and having said that I would also add and feel even more optimistic about this I hope we can all work together to continue to increase accessible housing for many different types of families here on the beach because I believe with all my heart that adds to the vibrancy and attractiveness of this community so I too hope that this project receives support going forward and I'm very excited to see what the finished project is actually going to bring to the community thank you thank you any m'am hi Janet Silverman I live at 6899 Collins Avenue which is is the carolon which is directly next door to this property and um I just want to say first of all I've been to a lot of these meetings where proposed development is on the table and I've never seen one where there hasn't been somebody that came up and said we hate it don't do it so well done so far um uh we um Tara came and presented at the at the carolon um and there were probably 150 people that attended including many of my neighbors and um I just want to say that I've had discussions with a lot of my neighbors after that meeting that attended it and basically to a person everybody is very supportive of this at least who I've spoken to obviously I haven't spoken to everybody but um the neighborhood really needs um this project or a project to be done there and I think this project with its rebuilding of the doville and the way it's imagined is um uh quite a tribute to the neighborhood thank you thanks and if I understand Michael after this this meeting there's going to be a second public Outreach meeting right there's going to be yes a a community meeting on December 17th um 5:00 pm via Zoom okay anyone else sir sure good morning my name is G I'm 6767 calling 7 which is Sterling which is the second property north of the doville and uh we're very glad I am very glad that the property is being developed but there's only two things that I would request to be taken into consideration because I hear a lot of conversation saying we're replicating the do there's a couple of things about I think preserving more well yeah part of it but I've heard replication of the do yeah yeah okay and uh as far as uh uh I'm concerned that I mean that the Ville the way that it was located in the site it was I don't know what setbacks it had if any the tower was almost at the boardwalk that I hope that they respect the new setbacks required by the city uh it affects the our building and actually the building that's going to be the hotel is going to be built next door the fact that if they put that the big tower all the the way down to the boardwalk or minimal setback it affects the view for all the residents over there so again set back in the at least on the east side the rear of the property I think it's very important secondly if they're going to replicate the uh the doville the north facade of the doville was not a particularly pretty facade it was just a wall with with Windows uh it would be nice if they would consider maybe doing some applications for the north facade so it's a little more attractive than the doil used to be that's what I he's nodding his head yes I know and I also encourage all of you to participate in these public meetings so you'll get more information but thank you all right appreciate your thoughts there constructive criticism anyone else in Chambers okay Michael is there a lot of people on Zoom we have six people on Zoom okay five hi Tom Richardson 6450 Collins Avenue um I just want to say I'm president of our condo board I'm a founding member of the Allison Park neighborhood association which is the association from 63rd Street to 71st Street en encompassing this project and I'm also a member of the north beach C I'm here speaking on my own behalf but I have a long history of being involved in uh North Beach and trying to improve it uh since I moved up there 10 years ago I've been a reluctant activist trying to promote the revitalization of North Beach there's an old saying that Justice delayed is Justice denied and I am implying that to North Beach because it's been revitalization delayed is revitalization denied it's been years and years and years of struggle to try to pull North Beach up and I want to put this project into the context of all that going back to Ocean Terrace which were over a decade waiting for that to be developed the 72nd Street Community Center which was approved a long time ago and looks like it will be denied and killed we had the Town Center which is still not have its first project although it's very close to be coed we had a previous project here that was voted down and delayed this empty lot has left a psychic and a literal hole in the all of North Beach it's the center of the development it not only is a spectacular project and I applaud you guys because it's somehow you managed to make it way better for the community than what existed there before the public facing amenities from the beach walks and the cafes and the it'll have the best views of any hotel because it will see the ocean from the lobby so it's really spectacular and will be amenity for anyone who lives in the area just to just to be able to see it is great it also is no longer a dead hole of retail on Collins Avenue that used to be where the Napoleon Ballroom was and it was just a concrete block for the most part so that's really fantastic but the ripples do not just go the the effects of this are not just on the 67 Street duville site you saw the money that it goes into the CRA it will have wide and far in benefits for every aspect of the community in North Beach $350 million in benefits that go into the CRA and the CRA needs funding for it's it's part of the Mandate that it has part of the money has to go to affordable housing so people might say well it won't help me at all because I'll never go in there and have a cocktail at the duville but it will it'll make the sidewalks better it'll make the green space better it'll make the affordable housing more efficient all throughout North Beach besides being a spectacular project it will lift up all of North Beach which has been delayed for years and years and years back to the original plan that was almost 25 years ago that Roger aberson s showed me one time they've been trying for decades to fix this area up this project will go a long way to doing that and I I support it I hope you will support it and move it along so we're not delayed even further thank you thanks anyone else in Chambers all right let's go to zoom okay the first person on Zoom is David seon hi this is David seon can you hear me yes okay uh I'm the I'm on the CRA board as well I'm on the geobond and I'm the president of the Normy F Business Association and that's really what I want to speak to today we've talked about the doville um being demolished two years ago but it closed seven years ago uh in 2017 and as a brick and mortar business owner and someone who leads brick and mortar business owners that are all mom and pop shops here uh it was devastating to the north beach economy the you know the doville brought in hundreds of people who had worked fresh to North Beach every day as Hotel tenants and they were discovering things they were shopping in our in our stores they were frequenting our restaurants and when it shut down the the Ripple effects on the economy were were devastating and and we're still struggling with it so as many people have pointed out there's been a hole in our community for seven years now and I think that this Recreation of the doville is is the best scenario that I have seen thus far and I I love the idea of it coming back I love the doville um and I I hope that this project moves forward thank you thanks our next caller is uh Gloria and Gloria please say your full name for the record Gloria yeah my name is Gloria masua from 5750 Collins Avenue and uh like the rest of my H fellow residents I'm very happy to express my excitement about this new project in in North Beach uh the renders are fantastic and the benefit to a community of being able to access the beach uh from the property is is something that we always wanted to have uh the design is much softer impact than other uh potential development proposals and I look forward to um you know for this development to happen so thank you very much great job in keeping a lot of the uh history alive and and that bringing something back to um to North Beach thank you Gloria our next caller is initials DB and please St name is David Borg res do you hear me hi my name is David Borg residing at 6301 Collins Avenue I lived in north beach for about three years now and I'm favor of this project um it will definitely help the retail help the walkability reduce crime I think two things is we have to make sure that not only does this developer benefit but all developers and future Developers North Beach should benefit additionally um looking at the massing study that was provided I think we just need a little bit more work to make sure that there's clear and obvious setbacks so future developments not hindered um light and Views so we don't turn into a another semi Isles make sure that the it's open and ay to all developers and other sides as well um again super supportive of this project very excited to see it happen thank you okay again I'm just encouraging everyone to participate in the community outreach thanks who's next next caller is Nicole AOA hi my name is Nicole AOA my address is 1426 Bay Road um this delu Redevelopment Redevelopment is an exciting update you know to this location the beach access that they're proposing is exactly what this community needs and I'm looking forward and grateful that they're trying to engage with the community and give us what we want um I hope you guys can support this project and vote approve thank you so much thank you and our last caller on Zoom is Jimmy's iPhone Jimmy's iPhone I knew iPhones listened I didn't know they could speak Jimmy maybe you're on mute Jim still there yeah Jimmy has his hand raised but he's un mute Jim we're going to give you five seconds to turn off mute all right we got to move on anybody else okay Daniel we have well after Daniel there's been there's um somebody else now all right all right thank you Daniel S with Miami Design preservation League I won't bore you all with the 10 plus years that we've been involved with the doville or the fact that 15 years ago the owners got approval to reconstruct and build a new tower at 200 ft we're not there we're here today unfortunately there's been a lack of leadership in that neighborhood with some of the property owners and I wanted to thank the Susans for the Sheri Frontenac who have actually maintained their property unlike the owners of this current property I also know the owners of urbanica are here as well and so I do think that some thought needs to be given to if we do this what will be the impact on the rest of the community the other thing is that we reviewed the project with Allen and the team um before we got the staff report so I'm going to first talk about the concept of the Reconstruction we uh our advocacy committee met with the Foster team and they even flew a model in from London and it was really fun being with uh our experts and theirs looking at all the different possibilities um and so we had a threshold that we wanted to First decide which is do we believe that there's a public benefit in reconstructing the doville because often times historic buildings are reconstructed poorly and they don't really have uh the benefit that they should but we felt that in reviewing all the details that urbanistic this new project was maybe even better than the original things like having the restaurant on the Upper Floor you know when the dville was built originally the the back wall on the East was right on the ocean so that was before the boardwalk so there are many things uh the beach axis on the North and the South is amazing um there's so many good things about the project that we like and so the committee did decide that they endorse the concept of the Reconstruction of the doville um as far as a new tower there the proposal we saw is actually higher and so they did take our um feedback into consideration and now the the new towers are proposed at 400 feet um we haven't yet reviewed though this latest version and we're glad there's going to be public meetings about it but we did recently find out at the staff report that there's a question of I don't know if it's 300,000 square feet of of how large a dille actually is and so we think that we really need to know that information in the future meetings because if the doville is 200,000 ft less then that would mean the new buildings also go down so I think you know we definitely want to get that correct information that's obviously going to seriously impact the size of the towers and the setbacks um so overall though if you compare this to the prior owner the prior developer who came and denied that it was historic now we're sitting at the table meeting with a local developer I think we're in the right direction so thank you thanks Daniel um okay we have two callers we have a Jason mman Jason yes hello yes hi my name is Jason mamman I'm currently in owner of Norman stver located at 6770 Collins Avenue and uh we're really looking forward for this project I think it's bringing it's going to bring some life to the area for the past five years it's been very a little it's been a little dark in the area another problem another solution they're bringing I think is sparking um there's not much sparking in the area the project looks beautiful there's beach access I really really hope you guys can go ahead and uh approve this it's going to be a very very big plus for our little nor Beach area I'm also a resident of the of nor Beach so I would really want to see this moving forward thanks thank you for listening to me thank you and that concludes our callers online so I would suggest if nobody else is here that the board um Clos the public he we're going no one else in Chambers right okay we're going to close the public hearing questions comments I've got sure um first of all I mean when you take kind of first proposal second proposal seems like you know the first go around was just you all listening to all the public feedback so you can come in and really kind of incorporate everything for hopefully a much more seamless process I mean really doing the Outreach you hear about meeting with the associations nearby community organizations so hats off to you all I think hopefully you know you've kind of done a lot of the ground workor on the front end so you don't deal with again hopefully the outcry on the back end um incredible project love your term green if ey hope I can use that going forward uh but I mean seems like really we've only heard two two comments right how can we kind of include it going forward to create a real District not just for one project uh and to work on the setback so I guess I would ask whether it's you or or you know David what can we do to either a work on the setbacks both from Beach kind of access and also the side setbacks um and also what can we do I guess it's a question for City staff to include this kind of you know whether it's the neighboring projects or you know call it a few blocks whatever it might be to really create a real District um to incentivize further development so first question for you all also second that Amen to that I'll make a motion we could be quick I mean you know there you go what I don't want to see you sit down what I don't want to see is you know come back and come back and come back and just you know let's just cut to the chase tell us what what we can do and let's yeah it's I mean honestly this this is a is great this is a city redefining project and it's Monumental I mean how often do you have a project with increased F meaningful development and there's so few people coming out I mean Danny was somewhat positive look at the smile on his face I mean this is crazy that was that was amazing really we and we I almost fell out of my chair it's just it's it's a honestly so it seems like there's two things so let them answer go ahead so uh Mr chair B we could go and answer all your questions one by one or we could write them down absorb them when we come back in February we could have everything you know in sequence and I don't because we've been here now almost hour and a half two hour I don't want to soak up your whole day so I want some direction listen I agree you're going to be coming back and you're going to have there's a whole process outlined in here so yeah I mean I think what the goal here would be is to is for the board to give you their thoughts and comments and then you you know marinate on them meet with the public and then happily come back with all the answers that's fair in other words I'm sure there be other questions if I were to make a motion out I'd say pass us with a favorable recommendation with the goals of a seeing how we can work on the setbacks and also to include an entire District this is this is we're not voting today right so that's I said if I were to make a motion that that's that's what it would be don't get nervous Mel that that's why this is more like informational today so I mean I I want to absorb all your questions and we'll come back with very precise answers for everything and and I'd like to say something um I don't know if it's of any concern to you but um I ask for the following information the aoia uh is 460 feet tall it is super dense it is had a 4.5 F and the carolon is 400 feet tall it had a 4.5 F and at the time the code allowed for 6.0 um um a lot of the you know people in North Beach have have waited and waited and waited and we've gotten pushed back and voted down and voted you know all of these things and you know at some point you can't look at a hole in the ground anymore you've got to you've got to have thousands of jobs back and that's what this will do for the area for the businesses for the the for all of North Beach and I I support this so anyone else and and i would support the setback modifications get ready for the motion all right I'll just say um you know this is a unique property I mean this is not like any other property in the city so I mean there's there's definitely a it warrants you know um changing the ldrs to do something there rather than just you know whatever whatever could be allowed but you know in your presentation and I mentioned this when we spoke before I mean I don't think anyone's against uh reconstructing the doville and you showed all the bells and whistles that'll come with but what you're really asking for today is is a big um you know an F increase height increase and all that and in your presentation you know I think there was about 10 seconds don't uh dedicated to showing the towers so you know I concur with staff we really want to see what's being opposed you know Sidelines and and all that all that good stuff setbacks and everything we you know it's not only us I think the neighborhood the neighbors um would like to see that too um so you know before I can take any position I'd like to see all of that yeah I agree with my uh colleagues accolades on the proposal as well um urbanistic I think it really does elevate the area I remember the old doville and it was just a blank concrete wall along a large portion of Collins Avenue it wasn't fun to walk by and uh you know a lot of people arrive to North Beach either it's Collins Avenue or it's the beachwalk and the two beachwalk access paths that are proposed I think will be a huge win as well for the neighborhood and for the businesses and people that are coming and going it's it's half a mile right now between 60 and 69th which is the primary way to access the beach uh so I think that's a big win I've shared with you all you know some of my thoughts on the North walkway obviously working with the program and and the loading um you know it's conceptual right now but I think you know it's um the idea of having a North Beach Walk is something that should be preserved even if it has to be elevated because what you're doing underneath is important you're taking the trucks off the street and you're not blocking Collins Avenue um so that is definitely a a big positive um you know I've spoken before about the term like Deens deification of of areas this is different right this is you know today uh it's nothing first of all um in previous years it was you know 400 or so hotel rooms um it's going to come back a a a nice mix of of transient and and residential and I think that is important for the economic success um so you know again we're just giving you feedback I think it's definitely a step in the right direction I appreciate that you've come down in height you know it's not it's not going to be just a wall of 400 to 500 foot Towers you're at the lower U lower end of that that scale so it gives you a slight varying um especially with the other properties along that area so uh I think you're going the right direction and hopefully you listen to the feedback from everyone else um again Echo what everybody else is saying about how what a wonderful project it is um you know I I have concern I I guess I I'm looking forward to hearing more about parking requirements and the exemptions I mean not only is this you know a big hotel but you have to also understand I me I'm sure you do but uh everybody has to understand that there's a huge con vention Center you know or Ballroom element to it and I'm sure the best events in the city will be hosted there which comes with a lot of parking parking needs um and so you know given there's two residential buildings going up there uh a big hotel um you know I I would like to know more about the plans for parking and why this the exemption is absolutely needed um especially nowadays with the robotic parking and everything like that so um and U and then the the other thing that I mentioned to you all when I when I met with you was you know I really would love to see some you know affordable housing or you know market rate housing uh you know Workforce housing element to this I mean it seems like there's so much space here we're giving you so much f um you know even if it is just you know some portion of the property as a you know to get things going but I think that we really need to start looking at these plans and these projects in our city you know that where we're giving these you know huge F increases we really have to start thinking about you know where you know at some point we need to start requiring some elements of of Workforce housing because these these huge pieces of property get taken up uh by these beautiful develop ments at some point there's no area left I mean right now there's no area left and we have a big blank canvas to not include Workforce housing here I think it's just you know shortsighted and and not looking to toward or forward for the future of the city Jonathan the $244 million that's coming into the CRA is going to build Workforce housing because it's required no it's not going to be on the beach front I don't think ever in this part of the city but I do think that that um having Workforce housing is important and it is required by the CRA to contribute okay and but my point being I guess this is you can have all the money in the world but if you don't have any properties for Workforce housing and nobody's going to be spending they are that's the the baron Carlile is going to be Workforce housing how many how many units we don't know yet but it's going to but it's going to be significant enough that it's going to at least 75 I think my my I I get that and I think this is a great Mo step forward I just think you know the instead of making major Financial contributions to funds for future housing I think we need to start thinking about in these projects doing it you know some areas of New York City what they do where they require certain parts of buildings live by local same concept okay um um there was a wasn't there a parking didn't we talk about parking can you address that a little bit Yeah y real quick there there is a a parking garage on 67th and and so that garage one of the one of the public benefits are two one obviously is to satisfy the parking requirements of the hotel 100% And and two also um potentially having a portion of that parking be uh uh publicly accessible parking and public parking so we're we're studying that now and that'll be part of our proposal proposal thank you um yeah I think we're to move on but just one question so after this public meeting it's coming back to us do you want it to be in January or February good question so you know I don't object to Michael's recommendation for February but I just wanted to be aware we have to go to City commission for first reading in February and I don't the date of this hearing February is what is it February 4th February 4th City commission is February 5th right that they changed it this recently last few days no the date I don't have the date how quickly do you get our recommendation no I think it's up to if the applicant can provide us with the information we requested in terms of Fair drawings and better mastering studies and things like that by December 20th then we're okay with continuing it to the January meeting we we would prefer the additional time I just wanted to make sure it didn't alter our schedule in a way that February it's February 3rd actually meeting yeah so it's before our meeting yeah so that wouldn't work say that again that wouldn't work the commission meetings but there are two meetings in February so the second meeting let's see is February 26th okay they can do first reading then yes oh okay that works then and also I'd like to point out to the public whoever's listening that the next uh Zoom meeting which will be open to the public will be December 17th December 17 1th okay and that's going to be a zoom meeting and everybody will be given that information so I would encourage as many people as possible to zo yeah so Mr chairman back to your question so provided that um your hearing February 4th will present you all that'll be your transmittal hearing to the city commission and then we can do first reading toward the end of February we're totally fine with that correct okay board okay with that yep okay absolutely Tom I don't know if you want say something thank you for coming I saw you get up sorry now he object no it's it's uh it's it's a tight deadline so to meet the manager's print deadline for February 26 we likely will have the memo done and then we'll update the commission on the action of the planning board at the February 26 meeting so the time me will work for you for us to hear it on the 4th yeah and there's also a meeting in March and then that would allow for the second hearing and the adoption hearing would have to be in April we just want to okay get it going all right so nothing else for us to do we'll schedule for February 4 we just have to have a motion to continue this to February 4th all right motion to continue this to the February planning board meeting I'll second okay Elizabeth second all in favor I anyone opposed no okay guys thanks great great presentation daveid glad you're involved all right we're going to take a 10-minute lunch break and then we will be on the new applications e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e proceeds the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1 Welcome Back everybody thanks for the break so we could eat um we're moving on to new applications the first file is planning board file 24686 6747 Collins Avenue new hotel oh okay we're on on pb24 the new hotel- 0686 yeah this is for 6747 started without you I'll let jezelle if you can can just read the the notice yes planning board 24- 0686 6747 Colin AV conditional use approval for mechanical parking and a neighborhood impact establishment that includes a restaurant located on the rooftop of a building which is located on the property that is within 200 ft of a property containing a residential unit so um on May 9th of last year the his stor Pres board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new 16 story 160 unit Hotel building with a 104 seat restaurant and 112 um parking spaces on the vacant lot and this light this lot has been vacant for probably over over 20 years now so this this application is before you today for two reasons first is for mechanical parking and the second is for the requirement that whenever you have the an activation of a rooftop use and it's located with than 200 ft of a uh property containing apartment unit that constitutes now a neighborhood impact establishment which requires review by the planning board in terms of um staff's recommendation we did have some concerns with the application first regarding the um the driveway access the applicant is showing very large um one-way drives on both the North and South sides of the site recommending that they be reduced from the 20 ft that's proposed to no more than 12T we Al are also recommending that um the parking be F fully screened along the north and south sides of the property to minimize visual impacts as well as the um the noise from the large vehicular circulation under the building regarding the neighborhood impact establishment that's proposed um there are three food and beverage venues including 194 seat restaurant located on the rooftop of the pedestal structure this includes 94 indoor seats 60 outforce outdoor seats on the Southeastern portion of the fourth level as well as an outdoor pool bar with um 40 additional seats the applicant is proposing this is indicated on page nine of the staff report the applicant is proposing the operation of this um outdoor venue from 11:00 a.m. till midnight um due to the close proximity of the Sterling Co condo hotel it's in the north we noted our concerns and are recommending that the the rooftop bar and the associated seating and the pool deck be closed from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. this is consistent with the hours of operation that are required for any um outdoor bar counter when it's located adjacent to a property with residential units we're also recommending that there be no outdoor speakers located on this P de level except for those um required for Life Safety purposes we did note that even you know background music played all day long on the roof top could be TR could be a nuisance for adjacent residential units we're also recommending that there be no special events no special event permits allowed for the property and that the pool deck and Associated bar not be open to the public and only be open to Hotel guests we're also recommending that a a um the pull Deck bar be covered by a solid structure to further minimize um sound transmission upwards from patrons in this area and impacts on the um residential building to the north these recommended conditions are included in our draft um conditional use permit which is can which is can be found after our staff recommendation I know the applicant is going to um suggest some modifications and we're um generally not supportive with what they may be proposing to modify except for maybe some modification to the requirements for um special event permits on the property that'll turn it over to the applicant for their presentation good afternoon Mr ter members of the board Nicholas Rodriguez 200 South bis G Boulevard beral Rell Fernandez Larin and tapenz um I we did pass out a proposed modified conditions they are being further modified as we uh speak with the Sterling so we'll get to that at the end but I just want to let you know that there's even further modified from what we've discussed with staff um and what's on your handout but at least that'll give you kind of a road map when we get there um so if we could call up the presentation thank you you uh so I'm joined by Charlie porchetto and Diego KERO they're the principles of urbanica development uh and they are responsible Hotel operators of two other hotels in the city and this will be their latest brand it's the mimay hotel uh it's a hotel by a renowned Chef Maro kreco what are the other what are the other two hotels the the urbanica fifth Hotel on Fifth Street where the old Walgreens used to be and then the uid hotel 426 uid so smaller projects this is their uh biggest project to date but uh they are experience in the city um so the MIM Hotel being uh a a product of a world-renowned Michelin star Chef it's really focused on a a high-end food and beverage program um it is not cons is not a hotel a large Hotel attracting people for events it's more of a resort Sanctuary Oasis type property U intended you know consistent with the character of the North Beach Resort District uh Resort historic district so as I touched on the urbanica uh folks have been developing in Miami Beach for several years and they own two hotels that are currently operating and if you look them up uh through the city's code enforcement site they have zero violations in The Last 5 Years they do have a a roof uh elevated pool element they do play background music um and they do have food and beverage components they're a little bit smaller uh but they have been responsible operators and it's uh something that you know we think responsible operator should be rewarded for continuing to to you know adhere to the city's laws uh so you know there was another vacant Ocean Front site in this area on today's agenda but they're not the only vacant Ocean Front site uh in North Beach that could help Revitalize uh the businesses in the area this site is about an acre just under an acre of ocean front land and as staff mentioned it's been vacant for even longer than the doville site has been vacant and in May 2023 the historic preservation board approved of the design of the new hotel uh it's about 160 rooms which is a a significant reduction from the prev previously approved project by the same developers there was about 200 uh a little over 200 rooms and less parking spaces they came back they decided they wanted to do uh a smaller less intense Hotel uh more amenities and more parking uh that's the project that we're moving forward with now and they're actually in building permitting already for the project uh minus the mechanical parking and the neighborhood impact establishment uh so this side view rendering just kind of gives you a good perspective of the hotel uh you see the five level of pet pedestal and then the pool deck on top the parking is all contained in the pedestal and you notice on the ground level bless you uh there is a a um a very deep valet uh circulation Zone and it's kind of the ingenious part of this design is that all of the cars and all of the loading is getting pulled off of the street and circulating within the site and then on the Eastern side of the property uh the towers maximizing views for the hotel rooms and you see there's a ground floor pool deck a small Cafe in that area on the third level there's kind of an elevated Terrace that's going to be the hotel bar it's going to be like a small cocktail bar 60 or so seats and then on the fourth level pool deck is the signature restaurant that's going to be operated by Chef kreco um and the pool so this is uh as I was touching on the internal circulation that architectonica came up with which is is really ingenious in keeping all of the valet circulation within the site uh and then an internal ramp that goes up to the parking garage so uh it's a really effective and and clever design for a pretty narrow site uh on level two there's traditional standard parking and then on level three is where the mechanical parking is going to be located it's only 30 spaces that are going to be outfitted with mechanical lifts doubling the capacity to 60 parking spaces uh and you know that I think that request is pretty non-controversial but just to show you what it looks like and and how that operated will be 100% valet uh for the hotel and this really allows them uh to bring in uh uh you know handle more vehicles for the the hotel operations so just to summarize there's 16 total parking spaces with the stackers 56 of those are going to be traditional spaces so it's not like an entire garage full of stackers uh that sometimes you know can be a little bit slower to retrieve um there there's also a significant micr Mobility element here uh a 75 bicycle parking spaces scooter and uh they have basically have areas in the garage that are dedicated for scooter micr Mobility parking and also dedicating five of the traditional parking spaces the non- mechanical lifts for car pool parking uh for their their employees and the way that will work is uh the employees will receive a valet pass if they are carpooling with their fellow co-workers so uh just to touch on kind of Transportation demand management which is a a big thing for new development and new hotels uh this property is required to provide a hotel guest shuttle uh they're required because they're benefiting from a 05 space parking requirement for the first 100 rooms uh in addition we're providing car pooling spaces as mentioned micr Mobility uh spaces and we also are committing to provide at least two free Transit passes to start and to participate in the Miami day County corporate discount program uh which is actually a really great program that uses pre-tax income to pay for the discounted Transit passes to benefit both for the employee and for the employer uh and also willing to to commit to City bike memberships if anyone uh would like one but most people tend to have their own bikes uh this is just a summary of the venues I think we'll get into this when we get into the conditions and the hours but uh just to touch on the fact there's a ground level small restaurant only 38 seats all outdoor um in the kind of covered Terrace area uh cocktail bar on the third level again very small uh and then Artis the signature restaurant will be on the pool deck on the fourth level pool deck that's the only really significant venue and that's the only reason that we're required a neighborhood impact establishment permit uh we're are not at an occupancy that exceeds 299 persons it's just because we're on the top level of the pool deck that we're here today for these venues and then satino which is the pool bar only open to Hotel guests uh it's really going to be serving the guests of the pool so just to go through quickly that's the ground floor pool Cafe the pool the cocktail bar on the level three and then uh Artis and satino which are on the fourth level of the pool deck you can see that the restaurant is on the Southeast Corner away from the Sterling uh and then the satino pool bar uh is on the west side uh adjacent to Collins Avenue and that's only 40 seats it's going to serve mostly the pool and have a small seating area uh for people that want to sit there and then this is just uh touching on Maro Chef Maro kreco uh he's a multiple Michelin star chef and he's has restaurants in many you know World reown hotels one and only four seasons around the world uh so just that you get an idea of the type of operation this is going to be so uh just getting into the conditions uh orally we were going to ask for another hour for the satino pool bar we're not going to ask for that so we're going to we're totally okay with closing the satino pool bar at 8:00 p.m. out of respect for the Sterling residents um however we would like to make some modifications um to the hours that the pool deck can be open for hotel guests uh while the bar May close at 8:00 p.m. we think it's a little bit uh strict to be closing the entire pool deck for hotel guests only it's only 160 room Hotel just a place where people uh can sit and you see the view towards the city uh realistically the the benefit of this pool deck is that it faces West and it's a sunset pool deck and it's going to have a nice view during the evenings uh potentially of some new towers at the dville and of the cityscape to the West so let me ask you I see there's no entertainment um but is there music so that that's the next condition staff has recommended absolutely no speakers at all on our pool deck on on the uh on the fourth level and we think that that's a little bit harsh especially given the fact that these are good operators with a proven track record we're proposing to do is just ambient level background music following a sound study with a noise level limiter and directional speakers we're going to pull out all the bells and whistles just for ambient level music um particularly for the seating the outdoor Terrace seating on the Southeast side for the resturant sorry who's the neighboring is it a res Sterling condominium it's the neighboring building yeah so and I should touch on that we we have been um we have a good relationship with them they've been in in communication with them we were just speaking with one of their board members is here and I'm sure she'll speak uh we have we've been going back and forth on agreement on an a mutual support agreement there is no agreement signed um they need some access to our property to do some work on their uh one of their retaining walls we want them to support there's lots of thing they want us to pay for the waterproofing so this agreement is still being worked out um but there is a very positive working relationship Charlie and Diego have been communicating with them for years as this project has come forward and it's really kind of a pick up the phone and call type of relationship um so we're not anticipating having a a kind of a uh we want to have a harmonious relationship with them and they have not objected to this application at least as far as uh we know how many people have you spoken to in that building I haven't spoken to them Charlie and Diego have spoken to them I've spoken with their attorney I think that the whole reason that that 200 square foot or 200t noise limit was put into place was specifically for rooftops right so I think more I mean at least from my perspective you're going to need to get a lot more support from people in that building actual Neighbors in that building because I know a lot of people are concerned about their even though they haven't had a view for 24 years they're still concerned about you know obviously but there's some more feedback I think for me yeah and we're definitely uh sympathetic and that's why we're going willing to go the extra mile um but I think as Mr chair Elias mentioned earlier uh you know balancing the needs of the businesses and the quality of life of residents is kind of what this board does and you know saying that a pool deck for a hotel can have no music even if we're proposing to limit it from 12:00 p.m. and I should mention we want to add to there's also a lower pull deck too so this this is not the only pull deck right but the one it's the one that's on the roof that's the concern right right and we're willing to do a sound study before uh use directional speakers and a noise level limiter to confirm that the noise won't Escape um and limit it to 12 12 p.m. to 800 p.m. so just a very limited uh amount of time when music background ambient music can be played is this AR taste is that the same as s sentino is that what's the difference sentino is just the pool bar um Artis is the signature restaurant so it would be but you want 12 a.m. on the bar no no that's 800 p.m. okay which is so I'm confused do you have this the conditions that we passed out the chart I'm wondering which one is which not I have this but I don't have which one is the bar and which one is the act so the bar is in pink here I see that but which one is which one is Santino is the bar yeah and artist is the restaurant and it's enclosed Yes except for these outdoor Terrace seats that are on the Southeast Corner property but so that is really kind of outdoor that moves to when the restaurant closes is that right right well I'm sorry I don't really understand your question what is what are you asking what time does the restaurant close and it becomes an outdoor the new it does not become an outdoor venue the restaurant closes at midnight and the seats will stop being served at midnight and it's all going to be we don't have any entertainment enclosed the indoor portion so these are walls no no the Terrace part of artist sorry uh no the Terrace part is is not enclosed from the sides or it's overhanging the building is overhanging above it but it's not enclosed it's you have a 3D view that can better show maybe the relationship or the volume of the tower in the building yeah yeah I thank you so here this is the this is where our te will be and this is where the outdoor seating will be along this Edge right it's on the other side and the tower will be blocking this noise presumably what is next door to that the doville oh okay yeah hopefully got it okay keep going so we're in terms of um the conditions we're hoping to be able to have ambient background music at our pool deck from 12 P.M to 800 p.m. provided that we comply we know with providing the highest technological Solution that's available to us um the condition 3D staff had requested a concrete canopy I think we're okay with it saying a solid canopy I don't know if staff would be okay with just removing the word concrete and then we can work on providing it may be modify the condition solid canopy that is sufficient to reduce sound transmission right and exactly there maybe some other materials that could be included that would that would balance right if it's ambient you know anyway we'll we'll get into that go ahead and finish your presentation right so ambient and then the last condition is staff had had put a Prohibition entirely on special event permits um you know special event permits a process that you apply for uh it's not this is not the south of Fifth District where special event permits are prohibited um we would request that we'd be allowed to to request four special events per year at a maximum um just reminding the board that a special event doesn't necessarily mean a headliner DJ a special event could be a grand opening for the hotel it could be a fundraiser for a nonprofit it could be an art basil event um but four per year is pretty limited uh it's pretty reasonable for a hotel of this size uh prohibiting special events entirely it it's just a it's a Prohibition on of being able to make a request for a permit that is reviewed by the city Administration uh so we think that that's going a little bit bit too far especially um this it's kind of being punitive before this hotel has even had an opportunity to show you that they're a good operator so with that you know we're I know the discussion will be mostly focused around these conditions so happy to try to work something out and come to a compromise and Michael um ambient is still defining the Cod is you can't hear can't interfere with convers right correct correct okay because the problem we have with the good time is this the language the terminologies like not audible AC so obviously you understand ambient what that means means people at the pool deck can hear themselves talking one of the sent say the applicant shall submit a noise impact study demonstrating that the proposed sound system shall not be audable beyond beyond the boundaries of the property and so I I mean from what I'm are you saying that you're you agree that beyond the boundaries of the property you will not be able to hear this ambient music that that's what we're profing in this condition we're not uh has to be we're not profing I mean my whole thing is like if you can't hear it outside of the property then who cares I agree that's why I pointed out but but it gets tricky though when you've got neighboring units above and you're standing at street level measuring and so I think it should be from the I mean and it's difficult for you because right from the balconies of some of those units that are closer to that level it's going to be really easy for the sound to travel and so I think I don't care I mean I don't have an objection to it as long as it doesn't escape the property is just hard for you guys have the onus on on them to demonstrate that that fact right and I would suggest that we probably should have access to one or more units of the Sterling to ensure that is in that sound test it actually works and the sound is not and make sure when it's open I I I I I so we're going to be already be doing a precu preconstruction survey of uh the the Sterling so I don't think that's going to be a problem to all right before we go into this let's finish because I want to open it public and then we'll are you finished I'm done okay is there anyone here other than the applicant to speak anyone on Zoom we have one person on Zoom with our hand raised okay and before before we open the public are there any disclosures yeah I was just going to get to anyone have a disclosure to make no I just okay all right let's go to the zoom call um James Frank hi James do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth all truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you you have three minutes okay thank you um so uh James Frank I am a um unit owner in the Sterling I actually own multiple units there and I'm a former uh board member I was a member of the board for two years so I'm pretty familiar with um with our neighbor and just uh a couple of um I mean you guys have brought up some really good questions because the noise is definitely a concern um you know you one of the one of the beautiful things about living at the Sterling or having having some units there is that you do get to hear the ocean you do have um you know a really good sort of natural sound going on for a lot of um owners and I would really hate to see that disrupted by because I mean the fact is we're real close I mean 200 feet is very very close between the residency and and the hotel so you know I think that getting the testing done making sure that it's not just street level testing that you're actually looking you know you're you're you're doing your tests from different uh Heights in the building is uh is extremely important so um maybe you'll volunteer your unit to do a test no problem I actually face I have one unit that would be facing there so um I would be totally open to that that's that would not be a problem as far as I'm concerned so happy to help out on whatever level um and then um go ahead I'm sorry no you're right I mean we live in a neighborhood we don't we live in you know condo Canyon and we are neighbors and we do hear the we live up there so that we can hear the ocean and that's sort of the point I'm just you know yeah I want to give you music and I just want to make sure they're not disrupted corre like we always talk about and and you know I haven't listened to a lot of your calls but I mean the fact is um I mean probably 75% of the initial meetings you had today were about noise so you know this is we don't want to be in that uh we don't want to be in that queue uh complaining about noise for our for our neighbors and and I don't think it is unreasonable for these guys to be asking for you know four four special events um you know it's it listen the place is a beautiful design it's gorgeous it's absolutely stunning um I look forward to having them as neighbors and you know they they certainly have been good folks as far as working with some of the people on the board but I do think that you know certainly noise after 8:00 making sure that ambient noise is exactly that is is is a really really big deal so um I appreciate you guys you know taking this uh very very seriously Thanks James anybody else on Zoom nobody okay sorry nobody else on Zoom all right I thought you said didn't you say you had the homeowner rep here did I hear that we were speaking she just doesn't want to comment but we were speaking with someone from the board who uh is here I thought you said there were someone wanted to speak okay so we'll close the public hearing um Scott Jonathan or want to start yeah I guess maybe for staff could you explain the the special events permits and I guess you know part of it is we have we don't I don't know this property yet and so I don't know um you know maybe you can in terms of a special event where would it where where do you anticipate doing Special Events is it down in the bottom pool is it on the deck do you have a other than the restaurants is there an event space sort of thing and and if you don't mind can you bring back up the plans so that we can take a peek and while they're doing that Michael remind me so in a special met permit does the cup sound restrictions stay in play um the the planning board can be specific in terms of what can be exceeded with a special event permit so the special event permit unless it's specified the occupancy can be exceeded the entertainment could be could be exceeded so I think it's important if the board is going to allow special event permit that it be specified where on the property the special event can occur indoors or outdoors and if it's the just the occupancy levels that can be exceeded just the hours of operation that could be exceeded or but I don't remember doing so but don't doesn't the special event permit come with certain rules because I don't remember addressing specifics with respect to the special event permit typically the occupancy the hours can be exceeded but but not none of the other is that in the permit is that in the in the code about permits or we have to do that no it's it's um I don't know if it's in the regulations for special event permits I thought they were so through the chair so it the Special does it does it like for example if if the board says on the on the Hotel pool deck it's only for hotel guests only the special event permit is not going to supersede that it may allow an increased occupancy for that pull deck but it would still be for hotel Gus only if that's a condition in the all in the CP all right go ahead so the the special event process you apply through the city Administration and then they put limitations on what you can do of course they review your cup and if there's limits on your cup those are automatically implemented but uh it's a pretty rigorous process and if you have even one code violation any code violation an elevator you can't get it you can't get a special event permit so it's pretty tight process um and we haven't seen many other applications where you basically prohibit someone from requesting a permit from the city um so we would be willing to maybe limit the no special events on that fourth level pool dech because we understand the concerns with impacting the Sterling um but for example a special event on the rear yard um kind of ocean facing pool uh we don't see anything wrong with that um and the limits would be set by the city Administration through that so if we allow them to apply for four special permits can we address those at the time or the staff does that no we don't so planning staff does only only the special events Department um reviews the special event permits they may ask us a question or ask is there a cup on this or is this allowed according to the cup and then we will respond but right but I'm saying if we allow them in the cup to make four applications a year for special events that's restricted they will be right then they can do that and then who's going to review and determine what they can do with that special event the special event permits um okay there's there's a city Department that does that yeah all right so what would you what are you suggesting we would do if we allow them to to clarify exactly for example the special events may not occur on the pool deck okay and you're talking about the the fourth level and so and the bottom pool there's no you're not proposing a limitation on Hotel guests because I know the for yeah we're not we're just we're proposing a limitation on just the rooftop pull TI that's the reason why if they were if they didn't have this rooftop rooftop act activation this would only be before you for the mechanical parking right okay so you're going to have 62 look can can I just ask a couple questions bar uh level three is that a pull deck or no no so it's on the level three mechanical parking plan you see it's it's kind of at the end of the garage so this is their spa and then this is the bar um internal and then the terce seating very similar to it's on the Southeast side away from the Sterling where would you have any special events I think we're voluntarily stating that it wouldn't be on the pool deck I think it really depends on the nature of the event right that's why we don't want to get too specific you know it depends who's at what event are we I'm trying not to disturb the neighbors but I'm also trying to give you guys what y'all want but I I honestly don't want the residents Disturbed but I also I just I'm having a tough time with this because I feel like that should be inside I don't want to you know the I'm going to use an example the doville is four buildings away from me or was and also the shering has decided that they want to have pool parties but we're very narrow you know we're narrow and it echoes I don't want to hear four stories away and call code and say why am I hearing this and have this Con this problem over and over and over again and I don't want that for the residents that are even closer to you because it does Echo because of how you know that open space is so even if you're on the water so it's bar Muse on the water it's on the waterf facing side of the building correct okay so that when the wind blows it blows the sound back so do you have 30 people indoors and 30 people is or is it just those 30 on the Terrace is it it's 30 indoors and 30 outdoors in terms of the and they can move back and forth like this so it could be 60 at any point right um there's a floor plan here for it somewhere here it is so 60 people at ambient level is still still not conversational I'm trying to no the music's ambient yeah I know but conversational level at ambient music you're still with 60 people you're talking over and over and over each other is my point um it is on the Southeast uh corner of the building and and we would uh you know I know when we have these applications kind of everything becomes subject to the planning board but this is not an ni it's not I'm trying to be considerate of the the residents and you know um could we could we if we um you know in the eventual order it says you know um any noise from the property can't be has to be at ambient levels and can't be heard let's say outside the property lines um and they apply for a special event permit is there something that we could put in our order that says that special event permit cannot I mean must abide by that in other words anything they do for their special event has to can't have a DJ they can't play anything louder than yes you can include that as part of the these conditions okay yeah but that's what fun is that special event I'm my I guess yeah I mean what he was saying earlier is you we can specify that there are restrictions in place in in the general special events permit concept but but we can add additional correct and they mentioned that they I mean they mentioned um I forgot what you know may have a special event that's maybe a wedding or something that's maybe not you know it's not going to be a DJ it's not going to be a party something that's so more of a lowkey type special event but still a special event but no DJs or any of that so we had so our recommendation I'll just read our recommendation in terms of and see if it's if it's acceptable to this is what we had uh also emailed um the applicant is we're okay with special events held fully indoors concluding by 6 PM with entertainment so we're okay with if there's four special event permits for year with entertainment indoors concluding by 6 p.m. or if there's no entertainment they can have their special event permit indoors till 10 p.m. well 6 p.m. with entertainment indoors and 10 p.m. if um there's no Entertainment also also indoors so only indoors so it would only be special indoors okay but that's just for is that are you say limiting that to entertainment indoors or you're saying you can't even have like people standing outside in the bottom no they can have the special event the entertainment if they have a special event permit the entertainment can only be indoors and if there's entertainment that that event has to has to conclude by 6 p.m. if there's no entertainment then they can they can um conclude till 10: p.m. entertainment inside would be done at six yes that's with the special event permit would they still be able to get a special event permit for something outside not for entertainment out not for entertainment outdoors and um not in the pool deck I mean no I think would that draft the condition to be only for indoors unless this condition would prohibit any special so this is from the this is like for special events currently no this no this is our recommendation oh your okay this is not if we're talking about narrowing down just I'm just throwing something out there you know when we're talking about inside events I'm just I mean it is a hotel if they're going to have a wedding I don't know of a wedding that that's inside that doesn't have entertainment that finishes by 6:00 p.m. why are we being so restrictive on the inside um event just because if you have a special event you're probably having more people come to the establishment and it's just usually a higher occupancy going they going in and out it's I think it's more important the outside events I think that's what's cor the inside nobody hears it that's I'm okay I think it's a bit unreasonable for a hotel to have inside events that they they have to limit to 600 p.m. with entertainment I mean you're how many of y'all have been to North be can I finish yep thank you how many have been to North Beach like how many of us have been there no to to our like seeing our like our specific how our buildings face and how you have the the canyon where the sound comes but is there is there a canyon right here what's on the other side of Collins Avenue there it's lowrise cd2 right they our our our argument here is that this is not like was like Washington Avenue is a commercial District right um this is a residential multif family District so that's why um we we have we're recommending stricter conditions than we would otherwise recommend if this if this was in a commercial zoning District it's very different well can I ask what I know it's a little premature but we just had a a a first hearing on a on a big project to the South would similar type restrictions be recommended would you say like in a year when they come to you for a conditional use permit well if they were if they were to come for a cup that would come before the planning board but would would you make the recommendation to the planning board to conclude entertainment by 6 PM I think we probably look at where on the prop that property is so big okay if you had something that was focused towards the interior then probably they could have expanded hours but something that's on the periphery will probably have to close um sooner their hours are 8 o00 Anyway by by just by right by 8 o' is there a ballroom or similar type space in the plan's just okay so it would be these these venues that are that we have right that's the only assembly space within the property hotel rooms those decks and those so the only only wedding possibility would be on the beach then or in the in the pool area outside essentially yeah that's there's not much space for an indoor special event maybe the lobby but it's not very big um not to jump around your your presentation says 116 parking spaces uh the staff report says I think 164 so 164 would be our requirement um where with the stackers would be 116 um but we're reducing the stack okay go but we're using the alternative parking incentives which allow you to basically replace parking with other types of parking bicycle parking moped parking um we're balancing providing 116 conventional parking spaces for vehicles and then providing all of that additional like a micro Mobility parking and that's how we're achieving our parking requ requirement of 164 spaces okay so since we're on this subject now can you talk more about the the guest shuttle where you know what what what are the requirements for this and what is your uh proposal right now so the requirement is just the code says to provide a guest shuttle um to for transportation hubs and areas around the hotel um I don't have details on how the shuttle is operating so give me one moment you guys we'll have to work that out this is the first I've heard of of this this U this particular one I guess it's a parking reduction right there's a a right so you get uh five spaces per unit for the first 100 units and then for every unit in excess of 100 it's one space per unit and the only way you qualify for that 05 space per unit is by providing a hotel guest shuttle okay so we're going to have to figure that out and so the idea is that you may have a shuttle that goes to the airport for example so people don't have to run a car for sure at a minimum I think it would go to the airport the airport and then maybe one to South Beach or one to 41st Street uh or to Design District for examp it could just it's not a very big hotel it could be you know upon request of a guest yeah with depends on how things work definitely an interesting idea and I want to thank you I I asked about the the TDM uh requirements because they weren't specified in the plan I know that you provided them to me last night I haven't had a chance to review but I did see that you uh you included the slide there um on this topic the bike parking which you looks like it's on the ground level is that a secured room or facility or is it open to anyone walking by it's a secured room um there's multiple I think there's also another bike room on the second level and that that's where the employee showers are going to be U so we have showers for an employee wants to bike to work they can uh shower and get rid of so that's also part of your your your parking reductions right you get for the the shuttle for the carpool spots the showers and the bike parking all those combined the intent is to reduce the the need for people to drive and provide Alternatives I think uh you know it's it's a good legislative intent and we've seen a bunch of um you know hotels and other commercial venues take advantage of this including I think the ones on on Fifth Street I think I think your clients have also taken advant there probably they're pretty Savvy of that as well I have seen the stackers by the way when you walk by Meridian Avenue um you know the hotel has been open for a couple of years and they seem to be utilized so I know there are concerns about mechanical parking that's why it comes to this board but you know they do work and they do save space u while still providing required parking so it's yeah I I guess I don't know I mean I know there's 180 rooms or so0 160 and then and you're going to have 116 parking spaces um the there's something car employees receive free valet passes for car pooling right there's five spaces dedicated for oh so it's only five okay so so really already You' kind of cut it the 116 down to 111 and then uh you know just I don't know I I I I get concerned with the parking there you're we're you know limiting the parking there limiting the parking next door at doville the parking garage is going to be at capacity and so um but I think you're doing a good job in terms of the transit passes the the city bike memberships for employees I think that's important um and so in terms of the uh special events and so number one I think we're I personally in terms of the fourth the fourth floor Terrace as long as the the speakers you know that you don't hear the music or you know whatever from the balconies I I don't think it's a problem for it won't be a problem for residents um you know so you know that that to me isn't an issue um as far is there going to be ambient level music on the first floor pool deck yes yeah because I I mean given the proximity of that neighboring you know uh building I can see that being an issue too even just it's not that far away that ambient level of Music there so I would want the music there equally not to be able to be heard on the balconies um I don't I think you know I think we need sort of need to have a this this special event permit thing is is difficult and I I honestly think this is like the first time in my three years I'm being on the planning board that we're discussing the number of the special events for a for a new property uh maybe we have discussed it before uh but I I think they should have special events I think it's an it's we're all silly if we think that the doville hotel is not going to have special events and so I think we need a comprehensive plan for the area I I get it that right now it's a nice quiet uh residential focused area and there's a a c Canyon or what you know even when the doville was there though it was still there's that wide open area so I'm not quite sure how I explain this to you except that it's sort of like a you okay so the doville is going to be down lower right then you'd have those Towers in the back but then you have the other Towers like the Monte Carlo and then you've got the other ones and then Sterling it's like a it literally is like a horseshoe we're talking about four times a year Max right so I don't see that I think everybody who's problem with special events as long as they're monitored properly well I guess the the next question becomes what is it that we're comfortable with in the special events right I think it's I don't agree with in residential areas what has been done before do you know Nick or Michael typically the board will not not get so into the details on special event permits right I think based upon past history and sort of questions we received from special events Department it's better off to clarify the language so that there's no there's nothing that can be misconstrued in terms of what can be approved with a special event perit just to be clear we voluntarily prohibiting on that fourth level so it would only be special events inside or the ground floor but for you know for the residents next door and I wish we had a better presence from that building today but you're in addition to these four then you're going to have the additional you know special events permits from the doville and you know if you're adding it all up it you know it it becomes you know more invasive four times a year isn't that bad but when you've got it you know maybe if the doville gets 10 per year I don't know how many you know that's 14 times a year so they they're going to be hearing noise so I I don't know I I don't see see a problem with the four events um but I agree and Michael just so I understand so if we were you know in light of their history and these guys obviously have been good operators and good neighbors and if we were to agree to 3C these requirements that they do is that something that has to be done before what the cup becomes official no um it'd be a condition in the cop and it would be tested prior to the getting a BTR to operate okay so you would be able to in ensure that these conditions are met before they get a BCR staff would go out there to the site with them their sound engineer we would um have the sound system on test the levels and ensure that that you know going to the Jon building that the noise was not audible it's a pretty strict standard can you me a can you write down the name of that guy I think it was John that spoke that offered Frank James Frank James if he cared enough to speak i' I'd like you to maybe use his unit that you know as a test because you know listen I'm all in favor of of you know I know their projects they they actually know them they're good operators and you know I think as long as that's done I don't have a problem with it I'm okay with Section six on page three um which is commercial uses on the rooftop are prohibited entertainment is prohibited anywhere in the property and within the building and then modify that to say except for special events as applied with I'm sorry Elizabeth where are you on page three page three yeah section six the following shall apply to the entire Project M okay wait where are you now on number I see trash containers number at number um e and f and g e f and g commercial uses are prohibited that's the rooftop is there a rooftop entertainment is prohibited you're not asking for entertainment right okay I'm just sorry real Qui the commercial the rooftop is there a rooftop yes no I know there's the Terrace it's considered the rooftop yeah the rooftop of the podium I'm not sure commercial uses I me a resta we're referring to the rooftop of the ofof tower the highest level which I think is just it's it's not it's not um there's not there's no venue up at the rooftop of know refering to clarify that can we add Tower to that one to e yeah for the tower as well as for the the the pool deck level okay yeah so commercial uses on the pool deck level permitted IE the restaurant but commercial use on the rooftop of the tower would be prohibited right right so right but I guess a special event permit would be the exception to that exception to okay all right that's fair was it just so I understand we're we're prohibiting entertainment anywhere on the property corre if they get a special except per accept that right here okay and then um if yall are right with that and then um Hotel guests only and I see invited guests but I've seen that run into problems before how do how do you get around and invited guests I could have 15 you know if I'm staying at the hotel and I have 15 friends that live in South Beach or whatever and they want to come hang out how do you how do you there's only so much we can special event there'll be an occupany this one doesn't this one would that would we move the special event to apply to G as well do you see I'm saying No it's it's the hotel guest it's a hotel guest their invited guest right it's like's they're not going to be letting somebody bring 20 people because that would disturb the other hotel guest and so we kind of have to when you have good operators you have to kind of there's a way this came this 200 ft came about and it's because of exactly that so I'm not quite sure they were bringing a lot of people in so I don't know how I don't know how to mitigate that I I really don't I'm asking for for feedback what are you saying that what 200 when it says Hotel the 200 fet limitation for for the reason the reason so the reason why this is before you today if there was no apartment building within 200 ft right then this this rooftop pool activation would not be before you it's only because they're they're they're less than 200t from our department building that's why you're here today that's why we're trying to make sure that we you know control the noise so I don't know how you she's just concerned about the open-ended phrase and their but the applicat agreed that there's going to be no special events on the pool deck right on the level four pool deck and just uh a point on the invitees they have do have room occupancy limit so as a typical hotel if you try to come in with 10 your friends and your two guests they're not going to let you use the amenities all right someone want to move oh I was just going to say I'm I'm I mean I we talked about speakers I'm okay with the speakers again it goes down to goes back to um you know can noise be heard outside the pro off the property and that's what we're trying to avoid um you know you can do all the sound study you want with the engineers but all it takes is um someone that's operating equipment to turn the dial up and the noise is loud right so the it'll be interesting if well I think there's a mechanism to lock that we've heard about that a million times with all these other venues and they keep coming back so that's what they're proposing except the ones that are good and don't come back and you I don't expect you will so you know but it's interesting that you know we'll see whoever comes back here you know down the line how we handle it as a board if we're that concerned about noise so since this is an ni and um with our latest code this will require like annually coming back to the board on an annual basis so whatever y'all want to do I mean I've already laid out what I because say there'll be an annual progress report automatically MH yep all right so before you move it I have one more question the staff analysis talks about a discrepancy in driveway width from uh 20 feet versus 12 feet yeah that was a mistake that we made on our submitt we've already corrected that so the driveways are within the setbacks and um I think we've reviewed that as part of the One Way Drive widths are are within the required 12 ft for both both entrance and exit yeah got that thank you it was so and and just so I understand sorry I hate to belabor all this but there's so much in here uh so the Santino uh pool bar I think staff was recommending 11: a.m to 8:00 pm and you want 11: to 9 we're fine they agree agree and same thing with the you're you're fine was fine if we allowed music the deck also you've got 11 to 12 but that should be eight also and then Brea restaurant level one I'm okay with 11 and bar Muse I'm I would be okay with 11 also so 11:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m. 88 so 11:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m. and then 8:00 p.m. for outdoor okay that's fine okay wonderful all right great someone move it let's go changing clear let's just recap we're changing the we're changing the hours for the other venues right and then we're agreeing to their to stop at 11: p.m. versus 12: a.m. right and we're agreeing to their proposed modified condition for the sound right you're moving it with the and I think just to clar like with the clarifying point that it should not be heard beyond the boundaries of the property and in the in the on the balconies of the neighboring Tower right does that include both the lower pool deck as well as the upper pull deck yes all right we have a motion can I get a second was there was the change of the the word canopy the canopy so not just delete the word concrete and leave the word solid you wanted a retractable but so you're agreeing to a solid we can do solid it's just we were trying to work through a potential setback issue but if it's we can work it out so okay we'll do solid wor yeah I mean look I live up there so I'm just like can we clarify I still I'm not um clear on the so we're going to allow four special event permits per year um no special event permit on the actually that that um rooftop no special event permit will allow entertainment anywhere on the property that turn special events wait no no I think it was the opposite it was it was entertainment is prohibited except for a special event okay right the only limit on special event is the prohibition on the level four rooftop unless we guys want to impose more but that's right right so no no special events on level four the outdoor area then and then ambient non hard be um excuse me Beyond so you guys want non entertainment no entertainment outside associated with a special event so outside of the special event this is outside of the speci there's no special events on the so no no no out no the only entertainment that can be approved is indoors with the special event permit right even in the ground floor pool deck no entertainment as part of a special event who made the motion well I mean this kind of like the first we're talking about so uh I don't know I mean I guess that includes like a DJ yes right so yeah Elizabeth moved it so I just need a second well she need we need the answer he needs to know what what are we limiting it to no entertainment outdoor on the first floor there's no entertainment on the property at all no I thought we said Indo except during special events indoors right so during a special event could we have a special event in the outdoor ground floor pool as long as it ends by 11 so we that's fair I think that's fair so the the limits on special events are none on the fourth level roof deck we're allowed entertainment for a special event only and if it's outdoor it must conclude by 11: p.m. yes Fair we can Fair yeah okay all right good neighbors can I get a second the M go ahead you Shield second roll call um is there anybody opposed to that all in favor I okay thank you all very much I know it was tough congratulations all right guys okay next matter planning board file 24715 18001 1810 1818 Michigan Avenue single family home lot split so let's see this is um pb23 0715 this includes um um an application for the division of land or lot split to divide one existing site which is comprised of four pled Lots into four individual um buildable Parcels so staff would note that even though there are four folio numbers for this property that there's construction that spans all four properties that's the reason why the applicat is before you because U they want to separate out these lots and allow the construction of of four single family homes um typically St staff has concerns regarding the maximum lock coverage in unze on a site however in this case and I believe um Mickey's passing around a proposed amendment to our um our conditions of approval typically we recommend that there be no variances or um wavers associated with the property because of the historic nature of the site and they are trying to recall the the the building that was demolished along the the Waterfront and that exceeded the the lock coverage limitations of the code so we do not we do not object to the applicant proposal to allow the historic preservation board the ability to Grant a variance for um for lock coverage in order to be more consistent with what was originally constructed on the site like I say due to the regular shape of these sites we do believe that there could be um a warrant for um um waivers or variances on these properties that are very unique located within this very um small unique historic single family primary single family District so we don't object to the applicants proposal we don't object to um the application to divide the lot into into four divide the one property into four individual sites and that'll turn over to Emily we'll probably go through the history of the site and um why you're why there before you here today thank you Michael good afternoon everyone Emily Balter bardell Fernandez Larin and tapenz offices at 200 South biscane Boulevard I'm here today with my colleague Mickey Moro I think Michael Lin has stepped out uh and our project architect Jennifer McAn gayoso uh we're here today to request uh lot split approval returning these four lots to their original platted lot lines uh we understand that there are concerned neighbors here today in person and maybe on Zoom uh we've been in contact with these neighbors Mickey Moro has attended a number of their neighborhood association me meetings uh we are sympathetic to the issues of this neighborhood and we're in agreement with working with them to move forward and in order to do that this is step one the property is located at the intersection of the Northwest intersection of 18th Street and Michigan Avenue the current lots are o all over uh 78,000 Square ft they range from 78,000 Square ft to the largest one is 12,000 Square ft um the I guess where I'll start with is uh lot one uh this is a vacant lot that's been vacant since 2004 lot two and three which are these two uh lot two and three we've submitted uh they've been they were deemed um unsafe and subject to an emergency demolition order approved by the building official they're currently vacant and in the process of finalizing a demolition permit uh what's pending for the demolition permit is a a uh picket fence and shrubs the picket fence is currently being fabricated and the shrubs are being ordered to be installed uh then we'll close out the demolition permit and finalize a special Master uh case on those two properties but they are vacant um the lot one which is the the last remaining structure in this assemblage um has been boarded um and we're currently working with historic preservation staff to analyze what of this contributing building um has historic value uh can be preserved if anything uh we have a structural engineer uh currently preparing a report um and we hope to move forward with with a new project um there as well uh I forgot to mention for Lots two and three we will be going before the historic preservation board uh next month for after the fact Demolition and uh certificates of appropriateness for the new design so that's the current state of these sites uh as I noted we will be the the intent of this approval is to return them to their original ploted lot lines uh these properties were ploted this whole area was ploted in 1920 um and that's what we'd like to achieve this ensures what are you saying you said there's opposition what is the opposition and the concern by the neighbors so the the neighbors concerns and and not to misrepresent them I'm sure they'll they'll speak to you all today uh is the state of the properties so I have a few photos um these these sites were as I noted two of them were deemed um unsafe they were in very poor condition uh I'm sure some of you have driven on Dat Boulevard these are the sites that are across the public but what is the relevance of that to the lot split um if I can I don't know we did we did um forward an email that was sent to all the board members regarding the maintenance of the properties and so I just want to include and I talked to Emily about this previously we're going to include these two conditions in the order which will state that the applicant shall comply with Section 58- 299 um of the city code entitled responsibility of owners of vacant buildings vacant structures and vacant or unapproved Lots just making sure they comply with that code requirement as well as should comply with Chapter 58 article 3 division 4 entitled The bment and vacant property registry which requires so it's been languishing and nothing they don't think it's being maintain right got it okay so there there is so they're not opposed to the laot split they're opposed the way it's been maintained correct got it that's what I was trying to understand okay correct and on behalf of the the trustees that that are currently uh managing the properties that's what we're trying to achieve and this is the first step we we applied for after the fact Demolition and certificates of appropriateness for the new for the new homes um but through that research we and I'll keep going um we came to this very technical aspect of the zoning code that whenever there's a permitted structure and any improvements that cross property lines you essentially create a building site so with all the illegal additions of this site which I can go through some of the history of photos of all the illegal additions and driveways that crossed and fences that crossed and canopies that cross this was essentially created into although it is for folio numbers for addresses is they per the code created a a one building site and we can't move forward with the certificates of appropriateness until we achieve the lot split we're requesting today um the back to the the context of these sites as I noted um all the sites range you know from exceeding 7500 uh to 12,000 uh per staff's analysis the the Lots in this area range from 7,500 to 16,000 so we're within the the context of the neighborhood um the minimum lot size for RS4 is 6,000 which which we're exceeding uh the current homes in this area have a unit size of approximately 1,00 to 4,400 square feet anywhere from 15% of the lot area to 59% of the lot area for the two homes that we'll be moving forward with in uh December the proposed unit size are 43% and 50% uh we're not proposing to exceed unit size and actually for one of the the homes were were significantly below the maximum permitted as I noted the why we're here today is because of this technical requirement of the zoning code um I will quickly go through uh some of the photos here uh our project architect extensively researched each of the four lots and kind of diagrammed out for us some of the illegal additions and where things were added to get us to where we are today so here's a diagram for lot one and you can see what were the additions the additions for lot two which is the middle lot the additions for lot three and here you can see the the property lines really get funny um in the in the middle of the site where there's a a boat Notch that was not permitted in lot four uh the the proposed condition that that we passed out um as part of our certificate of appropriateness we're proposing to reconstruct and I say that in quotes um because we really are reimagining these prior contributing buildings um which which Jen will show you in a minute and in order to do that for 1818 Michigan uh the based on the prior design of the home and what we're proposing we do need to exceed uh the block coverage slightly uh and I'll I'll let Jen keep going but this is the what we called the existing this was what the site looked like before for the demolition of lots 2 and three and here you can see how the structures and the driveway and everything crossed over the flatted lot lines hi everybody Jennifer mccan Studio MCG architecture 7500 Northeast Fourth Court in Miami um keep going through and I'll make it short because I know everybody wants to go home um this is what the lot looks like today there's some drone shots after the demolition this this is on on the top uh is what the the um contributing home on 1800 which is the Corner House uh look like back I think in in the in the 40s or 50s um it was built in the 20s and um it's been you know uh very modified over the past years uh the previous owner found some windows uh and then just blocked up uh whatever the windows did fit then anyone so all the windows are different sizes than they were originally it's it's uh it's a mess um this is a home that's on the Triangular lot which is lot four uh these this this house is was demolished several years ago and then this is the proposed the proposed site plan so um let's let's go here um 1800 1818 Michigan was was designed actually by Schultz and Weaver same architect as the builtmore the Freedom Tower the feron palace really interesting it was actually a sales Center believe it or not for a um an apartment building in Miami Beach that was never built so it's really interesting and we're proposing to um reconstruct that Residence at a higher height so right now it's at um about 6 ngbd I love how beautifully you make that Waterway look well those are postcards from the 20s so really I like I like the gondolas personally but it's it's a really cool I mean to to not reconstruct that building it would be and we all stared at that for years when we were sitting on the corner of in front of Publix's you know looking at that corner and wondering what that was um it's gone now uh but to build it back the seaw wall needs to be um you know at 7 ngbd that seaw wall shown there is probably at two or three so it's going to be significantly higher um these are images these are older images from the 20s of of that building and um yeah 1818 and then we're proposing to build U reconstruct the building back with steps in the front and a retaining wall so the building will actually look very similar to what it did um previously because we've just raised the elevation and we're proposing to put back those decorative walls along the Waterway and the trellis is and um and and really to screen that's a very you know well-traveled um roadway dat Boulevard so that additional pool housee building that we're building which was not original but it it kind of does help with the screening of of that lot if in their pool nobody wants a pool deck looking at date Boulevard that's on the 7,000 square lot right that that's on the one is 12,000 squ this is the biggest well the second biggest lot the biggest slot is the vacant one on um on the on the west side so we would we would be Rec reconstructing what existed previously 1920s and bring that up that's this is what we're proposing and this is the um the the facade I won't be much longer um this is the facade the front facade of 1818 again reconstructed just at a higher higher elevation uh 1810 um the the earliest photo we have is top is on the top right um what we did and you can see on the on the bottom left what it looked like a year ago and it was I mean you would never know that that's what was there previously they had added several additions over time so we what we're proposing is a is a new building with that kind of three facade um three- layered facade that you see in the original photo and setting the main building back like it sat um in the 30s now so this would be the um proposed plan again it meets all the setbacks um and law coverage and this one we would put a garage in the front instead of having all that surface parking that was there originally um single family home uh and then again it's it's a similar massing to what it was in 1930s uh and this is a view from an aial view from D Boulevard to to what that would look like and I'll leave it here so if you have any again we will be putting the Lots back to where they were can we change the boats to the gondolas um would love to just so just those are really cool m city staff have any issue with the proposed no we're we're accepting of the okay changes yeah with that we'll conclude our presentation anybody are you here for this sir yes sorry yes I am and Mr chairman before the public before the public speaks do we have any disclosures on this application any any disclosures no okay okay the chair we'll just Reserve time for a bottle if needed sure okay my name is Paul Freeman I live at 1776 Michigan Avenue across the street from this property and I'm here hopefully after listening all day to what the chairman said to balance success with quality of life so we have no problem with the success we have problem with quality of life and I have the only problem I have with the photos that were done and I passed the one out is that what they don't show is the wood slatted the the lack of maintenance on the property the houses that were there in fact the neighborhood was designated historic primarily because of the one house in 1999 the one house that had the gondola is the most historic home that was in the entire neighborhood and that was demolished for neglect not for any other reason I don't have a problem with them rebuilding I don't have a problem with any of the plants I don't have a problem with the rebuilding to code at 10 feet or 8 ft whatever they're going to do I think that the house that they're not going to demolish should be demolished because I don't know how you build at 10 feet with the house that's there at six feet because that's a problem but what I do have a problem and we do we do development so I've done a lot of platting in my life we do it I'm I'm in for three plats right now in different localities not here I've never done a plat where we haven't had to bond and and guarantee all of the improvements that you're supposed to do in this case there's a seaw wall that needs to be that goes across three of the lots that if you divide this and you do the replant without requiring bonding of that seaw wall then then that's going to be a problem we could never do that we also could never get a permit to do any of what they want to do with with having a house that looks like that in disrepair I had a property on Northwest 7th Avenue Vue that had a 40-year certification needed that we were knocking down was vacant I had a cut off electric I had a fence it had to do all sorts of things in order waiting for the demolition order because it was going to be a gas station and it was a one story unoccupied building so our problem is number one I think they're going to put the fencing in we should we would like to see you put requirements in there number one for bonding to seaw wall which is the only real Improvement and number two for maintaining the property one of the pictures shows when they had to put the fence they put the green stuff over it and the homeless people and the vagrants come in they did that and the I think you addressed that by the conditions you're right so there's a section no no what what one one thing I I understand the conditions the one picture that I had there which showed the green up which was homeless people undoing it that that that has been like that for a month so the conditions don't all they got to do is send somebody three times a week to make sure that what's there isn't there that there's no vagrance and to and to and I talked to we we talked with Debbie T just before the meeting about getting that wood slatted area knocked down which I think they will do if the owner will require I would like you to maybe require that but from the standpoint of putting the Lots back where they work we don't have a problem so um what about the seaw wall what's well they're going to have to sent this new construction um each of the each of the properties will have to when they come in for building permit will have to construct the seaw wall to the minimum required which is like seven point all right so the city will ensure that before they're okay it'll have to be done as part of their building per the seaw wall the seaw wall right now there there's a my understanding is that there's a a code violation issued on the wall the problem we had part of it was sold the one of the houses was sold and now there's a dispute over where the leak is in the seaw wall that causes flooding during the king Tides so that wall if if if you require bonding and required a seaw wall to be done as part of the subdivision improvements then you don't have three owners then going back for three separate permits from the core of engineer years from Derm from whatever to I understand what you're saying I don't know if we can St Michael I think they're talking about it right now yeah I don't know that we can require that as part of the lot split but it's just I mean it would be a standard for your points are well taken it's a matter of mechanically executing but let me hear what I think what we could do is require that the seaw wall be reconstructed to comply with the code requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the the entire seaw wall I can I have a lot of information on the seaw wall been because I so we we got brought in our firm at the beginning of 2024 may have in the very end of 2023 right um we you know this thing was a mess and I and I I understand Paul's concerns and other neighbors I've spoken to we have really tried to expedite as much as we can here seaw wall we immediately recommended they hire uh a SE wall contractor and Engineers they hired Coastal consult I mean yeah Ocean Consulting their great Kirk L we've work with for years they immediately applied to durm FD Army Core of Engineers for the whole part because what he suggesting they own the right but one parcel was sold so there's a parcel that we don't own that we never owned it's just a neighbor adjacent to us they're based in Ohio I've heard about them they don't want to do the level of work that we're doing we're what we've proposed to do what our consultant has supply for this permit is imminent um the derms already approved it the state's already approved it Army Corps I think is approved approved it it's now at the city I've spoken to the city engineer as recently as last week to help expedite it's they told us from day one it's about a year the SE wall because of all the different jurisdictions uh different agencies so we're at the we're rounding third and hopefully getting that permit soon my suspicion is either very end of this year or the very beginning of 2025 that sea so the seaw wall That's owned by you all or the that's it's our responsibility for all the properties that we own and you're going to we're way ahead of the other neighbor all right so the other part I I agree with it's it's a year per for permitting Pro and the core of engineers is not easy right we've gotten permits from based on what you just heard but the one no the one thing that he said that they have gotten involved at a certain point and I love their Law Firm they're really good but one of the misstatements is the eight Michigan Avenue goes in dead ends at the canal they own the properties to the west of Michigan Avenue okay there's one property where where Michigan Avenue ends and and to the east there's a property on a canal there they did own that that was sold now and and like a year and a half ago or a year ago and and now there's a question of well no the leak is coming from that property the guy lives in Ohio but they never did it before they no I know but now that they don't own it I don't know what really we can well they can't but but we can TR hopefully make sure that they don't do that to the rest of the properties got it so okay so I apologize I was corrected by him we we they did own it it was before we got involved so I wasn't even aw they own it but I I know that those neighbors um who tried to reach out they're based in Ohio they're trying to just kind of patch it not really with with a permit so when I spoke to our Consultants I said hey some of the neighbors suggested that we patch it can you do that they said what they did with the neighboring property is a violation we are so close to this permit for the really full seaw wall replacement that if we get hit with a violation by Derm it's going to delay the issu of the permit so we were advised by the consulted not to P even though it's cheap and easy not to do it right so you're going to make sure that your property is compliant with his concerns absolutely yeah seaw wall is all right very close can can can we make that an additional requirement he says he's doing it anyway I think you want to say that the the permit for the seaw wall is issued prior to the issu of a building permit for any of the homes is that yeah yeah because we the seaw wall permit's going to be issued very soon so I care that condition yeah okay yeah and and I believe um is there anybody on Zoom Michael because I there's nobody on Zoom I just to be because he did send you as an email we were in touch with a gentleman named John Courtney who was his neighbor very nice guy he's got two young kids he's very concerned about what's going on there I would be too he had some conditions I think Michael formulated those in way that makes more sense but these are essentially the vacant property standards that the code requires right and we're in the process of complying with that uh there's a the fence is being constructed as Emily said the shrubs have been ordered so Demo's been done we can't close that permit out until we get those other things that addresses the fence that that he was talking about that the fence and the Landscaping go together y we would like yeah the only thing that we would like is that that they at least try and get the that wood slat which is tempor it really is it's isore which removed and it's in disrepair I mean you can see from the picture I'm assuming you're going to have to do that at some point as part of our analysis the structural analysis and gen reviewing um the historic of that 1800 Michigan the the one structure that's remaining we haven't had the opportunity to basically what what what Mr freedman's asking for is removing the parts that are illegal additions that are in disrepair because it's so intertwined with with the contributing aspects of the building we can't just go in there and get peace meal permits uh but we met with Debbie taket this morning and she's willing to work with us to before we go get that certificate of appropriateness to figure out which portions of the structure we can either and you're saying there's a lot of homeless that are going and sleeping there is that did I hear you correctly they have they have electric on in the house so there's air conditioning if you're homeless and you want a place that's air conditioned it's hot in Florida you you go there problem is the there's alarms but you know all I'm trying to say is be a good neighbor and if it's it's if it if a bunch of I don't know what to call homeless whatever and they're there and they're disrupting that you know maybe you put your private property that maybe try to do something about AB all right sir I appreciate you coming because all of your comments are very constructive thank you um any questions from the board or someone want to move it so so moved with the uh modification okay can I get a second I'll second it all right anyone opposed to that all in favor okay great thank you thank you all and another point I mean when we have more time maybe consider a recommending to the commission that before applying for a lot split or something like this that the property has to be up to date on all you know maintenance code violations we have we have had cases before for example before the drb or hbb where the board sees the state of the property and says we're going to continue replication require them to clean the property up and then come back to the board before the approval is issued this they are schedule give us that option but they are scheduled to go before the historic preservation board next month all right next is 17 planning board 247 to three far exception for gender neutral bathrooms very important this should be relatively quick um this ordinance would create an F exception um for um gender neutral bathrooms now these genter neutral bathrooms would have several benefits including creating a safe and accessible environment for all people this includes accommodating people's special needs families with small children elderly individuals with a caregiver as well as transgender gender and gender non non-conforming individuals except accepting such areas from F will allow that square footage to be constructed somewhere else on the site um we're recommending the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation this also allows more Equitable um bathroom so you typically would have say a common area for handwashing and you would have um um like stalls that would anybody can use so You' have a common area for for washing your hands and then anybody can go and use the the restroom it's not specific so you don't have you're not going to have like a um a line outside of the women's restroom when the when the men's restroom is is empty so I never do the line iird I do too I have a question um so we're we're H how many how much f are we talking here it's not much you know no one's going to build more square footage than what the the code requires for bathroom 20 you know a whole floor of them if you wanted I mean come on there there be no reason for doing that because um I'm just I'm just asking a question I don't have I don't have a problem with it it's going to be proportional to the um size of the is there anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom nobody in here on this okay I'll move it all right I'll second it and I I want to there were some grumblings when it got brought up and I just want to point out how important of an issue this is for many people in our community may not be for all of us but for many in terms of making our community a more inclusive and welcoming space so I I do commend commissioner Fernandez for bringing this uh forward and and commission magazine as well agree okay so we have a motion by Jonathan sorry a motion I moved it oh you seconded it okay all in favor I anyone oppose great okay let's see 18 planning board file 24724 Hotel approval process an ordinance just find this location commission approving all new hotels gazelle Michael who's presenting oh me I got it just had to find I had to find the uh staff report so again this is a PB 24- 0724 this is a a new hotel approval process currently any hotel development consisting of ground of construction or additions to existing structures requires a review and approval of either the design review board or the historic preservation board some cases such application may also come to the planning board for for review the attached proposed ordinance would establish a city commission warrant process for future Hotel approvals this would require that any application for a hotel use be reviewed by the city commission prior to the review of any landies board application that which include drb hbb or planning board now there is an exception for um Hotel developments on Ocean Front partials they'd be exempt from this process the ordinance which begins after the staff report includes the criteria which would be part of the commission warrant so one of the things that the commission is reviewing is the impact on um on H existing housing and existing affordable housing or Workforce housing units um basically the the commission wants to make us a a stronger effort in a more more active effort in reviewing impacts of of hotel units on the surrounding neighborhood and want wants to take a a first step in that review process but mik I have a question so if if the property that that that the proposed Hotel wants to go on is zoned for hotel I don't understand that interplay like like if they're allowed to do it what is the commission well it's almost like right now we're um in some cases a an niie is a conditional use permit so it's allowed but it requires you you know the commissioner the um um in the existing case the planning board can place conditions no I get that but if the concern is is replacing residential housing I I don't see how that accomplishes that if it's still a matter of right and all they're doing is conditioning it I mean maybe there's um um conditions that the commission could place can place on the not want to do it um I mean we already did remove for example we removed the um f bonus for hotels and Commercial districts Citywide so okay so it's maybe creating disincentives to actually do the hotel in Lou of residential there already there are dis incented this would make the process longer and probably more expensive and okay so that's one thing we did note in our staff report we don't have an objection to it but it would you know make the process longer and probably add another layer and time and more more Road Blocks okay it's an indirect way of trying to encourage more residential and there's also you know there's a wide range so you're looking at you could have a small small hotel operator that's only doing say 20 units versus you know 150 Hotel units that's a much bigger or much different impact right now there's an exemption for ocean firm properties I don't know if the planning board wants to consider other exemptions or if they're okay if the planning board is collectively okay with this warrant process um Citywide for um Hotel units and the effective date would be once it's approved 10 days later well this yes so we already so this would go into effect with a favorable recommendation um by the the planning board this would become a soting in progress It's soorting in progress oh okay all right um Mr chairman to to to a point you raised this effectively would make hotels not as of right you know except on the ocean front because if a public hearing before the city commission is required to approve the use it would not be as of right anymore it wouldn't be as of well it'd be as of right but it' be subject condition almost like AAL use I get it I get it makes sense is there anyone on Zoom there's no one on Zoom with their hand raised okay any questions or comments just a quick question would the commission be able to um just be out right you know it's approved or not approved or could they put conditions on that's what it is Condition it's a condition correct okay so would it go through the same it go through similar but not the same criter there would be a there would be it' be a different criteria that's said that's on it's in the ordinance and it' be the same noticing requirements that the planning board and the landies board be um mailing all the um affected prop proper owners within a certain radius and there'd be a hearing at the city commission so is go ahead okay the intent I believe is conversions of existing residential stock right that's what that's part of the impact look at the impacts of that conversion like like an actual building that people are living in to to prevent that um I'm not going to propose this but I'm just concerned about vacant land and then removing that by right ability to if it's zoned for it today right uh to develop a a a hotel if that's that's what the property owner intends to do but um other than that that's just a concern I wouldn't propose that we we make any recommendations unless someone else shares similar I agree so in other words if if let's say um you know item four criteria whether adequate off street parking and loading spaces will be provided maybe an applicant goes in front of the commission and says um only providing one loading space commission could say no you really need three and we're not going to approve it unless you offer three so they're taking all work from us that's okay corre I mean I they don't have work yeah it's another it's another um layer but it's it's all to disincentivize hotels correct okay they want to do that yeah that's it exactly all right anyone want to move it I'll move it okay second favorably ium favorably okay second anyone opposed I'm sorry who was the second on that Jonathan anyone opposed no all in favor okay all right last but not least planning board file 24726 visibility triangle requirements ocean front property so including our staff report is is language that that the city commission is considering for the specifics specifics of visibility triangles and Ocean Pro properties this would entail um establishing like a a triangle Dimension mostly for safety so that when somebody's accessing the beachwalk from say private property there's visibility to anybody walking running jogging along the beachwalk so that ordinance is already before the city commission what this ordinance that the planning board is reviewing is just a reference to that code section so that that code section is is is um modifying um the city code in general the planning board only has to Pine on amendments to the Land Development regulation so just to make sure this is not overlooked we're referencing in the ldrs to the city code section that references the pacifics so just so for informational purposes I did provide a graphic that shows the triangle and this is at the towards the end of the board packages and when this was reviewed by um um the Landy committee they recommended that we have different triangles depending on the size of the property so You' have a larger visibility triangle for a property over 100 ft in in width versus one that was left now the diagrams were developed before that um that proposal so they're both reference a property that's over um 100 feet in width but basically if the property is less than 100 feet in width they'd only be required to provide a 6ot triangle with no landscaping or structures within area versus over 100 ft it' be a 10t put um visibility triangle requirement this and this would apply to existing and you know prior um landscaping or in installed landscaping and future Landscaping so once this becomes effective property owners that don't meet this requirement would have to modify their Landscaping to comply with this requirement Michael question please walk me through why the visibility triangle um the intent how or why it would be less at the just based upon the property I guess it's taking more you're taking more of the um area of the property away from the property owner since you're you're they're they're proportionately have to having to modify more of their property if they have a smaller property versus a larger property okay you're taking the property no I'm taking the property but they're we're requiring modifications they're requiring this visibility they can't put Shrubbery in they can't put Shrubbery if they have if they have if they have shrubs there now they have to cut it back so why would there's lots of properties that have like you've probably seen it where there's clusia or Hedges we have that right yeah so so so you guys are 6 feet tall I'm not like by long shot why would we not want it to be a little bit more so that you could have more visibility it's horizontal not not vertical no horizontal yeah so why would we not want I'm just using y'all if I la you pl we looked we we knock this over exactly we looked at we looked at 6ot 10t and actually 25 foot options okay and so the land use committee recommended this varied um 6ot and 10 foot what if we did 8 and 12 this is not like a traffic people like you know contain this on how much safety we need well I think a lot on the beachwalk Melissa your um mic's off oh sorry you have the property as well that you know that has to to Michael's point you know there's a limited amount of greens you want to take away they need the barriers too in the protection and all that stuff but I think that you know Ian unless we we can pinpoint a real problem why we'd have to take much more I think that's a pretty good Safeguard at six feet six feet I'm just saying that we have problems now like you were saying with the cusa it's it's if I laid no you're too tall um you Matthew if I laid you flat I mean what if I what if you know if you're at an angle like this and I'm short you know you're kind of tall but but if I but if we but if I mean two Feet's really nothing it's like what do you think well it's look it's zero feet right now and there are many examples of zero foot uh you know visibility so this is certainly an improvement I think the reason why they they moved it down is because there were some concerns from some of the property owners right I believe so just in terms of the size right I mean that's the first I've heard of it so I'm just trying to I on the side of more safety than no and I get it if there was some traffic involved at this point I just think those got people walking and and yes potentially bikes too I get that but I I I run the boardwalk on a regular base and there's areas where we don't have that and it's you know I like I said it's a pretty contained danger but it's good in preventive I like I like it I'm just know it's a good idea now for for when you out you just want to see if somebody's hang out there or someone a bike really fast but I just one thing that I'm thinking of now is wouldn't it make sense instead of basing the the size of the triangle on on the lot width which I I mean I understand the reasoning but what happens if you have a a property and the the actual gate is maybe set back like six feet behind the the the Hedge line which you you do see on some properties we have that and then it's six feet and then it really it does a little bit but not not much now or you could have a gate set back even further even let's say and um this does this doesn't modify the location of the gates because right now the gates have to have visibility through so um anybody that has a solid gate along the the beachwalk that's something that was not approved the code requires you know a transparent um visibility through through any sort of gate along along the beachwalk yeah I'm not I mean I'm not qu I'm not saying to move the gate I'm just saying it just makes sense to or maybe govern how big the triangle is by how far back the gate is but this is an improvement anyway so right you can't so I think the the gates have to swing out so basically they have to swing out but they can't swing out into the into the beachwalk so some if somebody has a um an access point directly on the beachwalk their fence H has to be set back to allow the gate to outswing and not impact somebody some of them are set back more than just maybe the width of a gate like three feet some are set back 8 feet Maybe you know if you walk up and down you'll see some like are like that not not a lot of them but you do see some yeah and this sometimes is because the the beachwalk varies and its curves so in some instances somebody can't place the gate closer because that is now um on city property or state property so they have to keep the gate at the property I'm just misunderstanding just just help me so if you have the gate set back there and the Beach Walk is here right and you're you're saying if the gate is further back yeah let's say the gate's further back and then and let's say you're only having a six foot triangle right does that does one leg of the triangle start at the gate or does it start at it's independent because the the gate is the the gate doesn't cause violation with the triangle because the gate is visible through it it's the landscaping or other structures that are solid so they're in the the the location of the gate is independent of the triangle wouldn't wouldn't you if you're coming out of the gate like doesn't it does it really matter how set back it is you're you're walking down before you yeah again I'm not I'm not questioning this at all I'm just trying to understand so the concern is what I'm just trying to understand if you're get g a step back more you're walking out you're going to still make a pause before you engage into from so if you look at if you look at the diagram just to point out so if you look at the diagram on the pages provided if if you look at the the bottom of the page you can see how the the property line is the dark line and then you have the beach walk so in one case you see how there's there's some Lance there's a um the the walkway extends out from the property line into the beachwalk so in that case that property owner canot Place their gate closer than the property line so in that case when their gates at the property line there's going to be um room for someone to Traverse between the gate and the the beachwalk whereas if it's in the middle of the page of the property line is at the intersection of the Beach Walk they're going to have to set their gate their gate back because the gate swinging out so it's going to be it's going to depend on that specific site condition no it's I look again I'm not I'm not questioning this it's all good as long as there's more visibility when you're walking out and you know this is something that um I'm sure that um once it's started something can be Revisited in the future and maybe it'll be expanded upon if it's if needed all right can we move it let's move it um as in favor or is that what we're doing here yep second favor second all all right anyone opposed all in favor okay passes all right guys happy thanks Thanksgiving yeah we'll see you um in the new year January 7th January 7th year wow Happy Thanksgiving be 2025 e e e for