[Music] [Music] [Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to begin please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1 okay good morning everybody and welcome to the July 30 planning board meeting um just a couple of announcements I am actually going to be here till 12:30 and then I've G to unfortunately leave for a flight but fortunately Jonathan is here so we'll have six um before I turn over to City attorney can I just get a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting the after Action Report motion to approve okay can I get a second one one question um I was actually here and it's saying that I was not for which item is that okay can we amend them to reflect that she was here may it's just when we took the motion yeah we'll correct that then okay all right with that correction can I get a second okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay great Mr City attorney thanks Mr chairman good morning uh members of the board members of the public today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a hybrid format with the board physically present in the commission Chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicants staff members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually in today's meeting the public may dial 1877 853 5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 86 61 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 raiseed hand icon or dial star9 if you're 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 the 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 speak 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 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 employ employe 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 lastly I'd like to swear in anyone who will be providing testimony today including staff 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 all right thank you and and just two small updates I am uh to accommodate some specific request we're going to move item 8 to now be item s and item 11 is going to be move to item 8 so with that we'll start with a requests for continuances first is planning board file PB 2306 25515 Washington Avenue new hotel Mr chairman just to make sure everybody's clear I'll give the file numbers for the items you noted because we have had some different agendas that were published and changed around so as you mentioned um after we get through the request for continuances deferments and other we're going to go to the progress report which is for 743 Washington Avenue after that we're going to go to pb2 24680 which is the 2201 Collins Avenue W Hotel change of name then after that we're going to do the lot split which is 16 18 22 and 24 lore Circle and after that we'll continue with the regular agenda which is the revocation modification hearing for um the Goodtime Hotel so with that going back to request for continuances deferments this application PB 23- 0625 for 1509 to 1515 Washington Avenue and 1500 Colin Avenue the applicant has requested a deferment in a deferment no action is required by the board and they have to Ren notice the entire application just preserves the file number and allows them to Reen notice when they decide they want to come back to the board at this time we anticipate them coming to the board in advertising for the October 29th meeting so no action is required on that item and the next application is PB 23- 0643 which is for 1212 Lincoln Road and 1600 to 1628 Alton Road this is the the paddle courts again this applicant is also um deferred the application so no action is required by the board it's anticipated this will come to the board um in December 19th um the next application which is is a request for continuance I believe um is the applicant here for the um Palomar Hotel at 1750 Alton Road this is PB 23- 0609 good morning Emily Balter bardell fernanz L tapenz offic is at 200 South bisc Boulevard um Michael I believe we also submitted a deferral for this application because we had exceeded the number of days in which to seek a continuance so we submitted the request for a deferral so there's no action required of this board but we are going to be Ren noticing to come back before you in September okay I didn't see that I didn't see that so with that I'll assume that you have submitted the defal request so again no action is required by the board on that item which is again PB 23- 0609 for the Palomar Hotel with that we do have a request for continuance now which is for the Anglers hotel which is PB 22- 0539 for 600 to 660 Washington Avenue um I believe your request ing continuance to the to the September um September meeting uh correct again Emily Balter ber F AR and tapinis opposite tter South bisc Boulevard uh yes we're working closely with our neighbors and we'd like to have an opportunity to meet with them when they return from their vacations uh so we'd like to come before you in September once we know um and we're able to meet with them and they know how they respond to the application okay anyone here to comment on this request anyone on Zoom give me a second let me just check can I what's the difference between a deferral and a and so a deferral is as of right so the board does not have to take any public comment and the board cannot take action to say you cannot um defer the application so it's allowed one time as of write the applicant pays a fee provides a letter and then they um at their own discretion or when they decide to notice it for a future date it's only allowed one time after that um they would have to request a continuance got it anyone on Zoom so um there are two people with are hand raised on Zoom now this would be only to to speak about the request for um continuance right um the first person I'll call in is Charles Fischer hi all this is Charles Fischer I guess I'm just going to speak against the continuance I feel like uh so sorry I live at 6:35 uid Avenue I spoke to a lot of y'all about the good time Hotel uh we've had you know as you guys are aware all the issues we've had with the good time Hotel one of the major issues we had is as the good time hotel's process was going through and I don't have a timer so just let me know when I hit two minutes but um when the Goodtime hotel process was going through there was all these continuances and so you know here's a couple of people have taken off of work to attend this Zoom meeting and now we have another continuance it feels like we're heading down the same path that we had had before and um I'm not on vacation you know I don't know what she means by get back up from vacation but I'm here and uh I know a lot of my other uh other owners in the building are here so um uh we we we we obviously or I obviously would oppose an outdoor entertainment on the roof for the angler hotel which is closer to our building and this whole kind of continuance game that that that that attorneys that we play uh ends up just delaying until there's a time when you know I can't take off of work and I can't speak against it so I I I I just want to make that point I don't know that it's a problem to have a continuance but it feels like here we go with a couple people take off work to come speak about the good about the angler and now we're doing the continuance to I don't know what to to get their to to Lobby more or something like that so that's my one point around I guess the continuance thank you thank you Char I assume that nothing's operating on the rooftop pending the continuance is that correct that that's correct I I don't have any approval for umro entertainment okay we do have another caller um Johan Moore yes good morning board members and staff um I too would argue against the continuing stance as being fundamentally unfair to Residents developers pay attorneys to appear at these meetings they have nothing else or better to do our residents take time out from their Pleasures or employment seeking activities in order to come to testify at these meetings uh Meridian Court Community opposes any rooftop uh entertainment uh being permitted and uh while Flamingo Park neighborhood association has not to my knowledge taken the position on the Anglers Hotel I believe I can confidently say uh that the neighborhood as a large at large and the neighborhood association do not support uh cups that will permit noise uh nuisance noise intrusion into our neighborhood when the business model depends on the noise the developer is the only one who profits obviously staff and employees profit as well but the neighbors the residents are in no way benefited by that noise and I urge that if a continuance must be granted uh that you reject this application in September otherwise I urge you to do something so now thank you very much thank you anybody else we have two more callers the next um person is George and George before you begin please State your full name for the record George can you unmute yourself let's go to the next caller we'll come back to George um next caller is Mark Antoine good morning to everyone this is Mark antoan deido I'm the president of the ho 635 ukl Avenue I just want to say that I am on a holiday but I'm taking some time off of my time off to uh be with you and to listen to everything that has to to do with the um good time Hotel the angers Hotel um I support what Charles Fisher said uh we are in the same building and um this is um the the good time Hotel um outdoor entertainment is disruptive has been disruptive up until now um I did call um Code Compliance last weekend uh was in in Miami on Saturday um last weekend and it was it was it was busy it was noisy it was it was it was going through my windows closed windows um on a Saturday the last cup was I think two weekends a month authorization for this noise and I just want to make sure that the board knows that we are here and we're living through this and we have to make sure that it is and stays in line with the uh the cup that's in place or or goes back to just ambient noise levels thank you Mr an let me clarify for you um the application before us now is not for the good good time hotel that you're speaking about we're talking about um um um the Anglers hotel at 600 on Washington Avenue correct the Anglers Hotel um has so far if I'm not mistaken a cup that provides and allows recorded recorded they don't have a cop that allows them to have um entertainment okay they have currently some recorded music that's being um being played on the on the pool deck Yeah the code so just so everybody knows the code does allow um ambient background music but there not no live music right no like entertainment level music absolutely absolutely and and and this so far the angas has been extremely uh respectful of this and we've never had and I've never heard a single complaint in oura about the Anglers Hotel that being said the request for uh live entertainment which means a live DJ playing music how it's been portrayed to to me by Fernando uh the GM of the of the Anglers was that it would be exactly the same level of U ambient music it would not have any elevation of noise which I find astonishing in a way why would you have a live DJ if it's not to up the ter a bit so we and I know this isn't the hearing on the actual Cup this is just on the request for continuance so we're going to we're going to move on but thank you and when the actual hearing comes up then that's when you would want to voice all these thoughts and opinions okay okay with that we do have we do not have any other callers um online and just to clarify based upon um the information provided as part of the applic our recommendation was denial of the application but we have no objection to this um this request for continuous this would be their first request for continuance right and that's my view you know are we done with the callers yes no other callers okay just my thoughts is it's our first request and as long as there's no pending activity on the roof during a time when they want to try to work and deal with the neighbors my inclination is to grant them the continence but I'll start with Scott if you have any questions or go down the row no no like you said this is their first first first request so I'd be in favor of the the continuance um we'll we'll hear it I guess in September okay yeah likewise I don't object I just want to know was there an attempt made to connect with the neighboring condo associations or neighborhood association so without going into too much detail yes uh AR that's actually why we requested the continuance are the general manager has pretty good relationships with the buildings nearby he was spearheading uh most of that those discussions and it was I was going to say Mr Antoine who just spoke it was a discussion again as as I was told by the general manager with him and Fernando Rivera which he mentioned and with that he said we because the time of year we were unable to get a board meeting together so that was the reason we all discussed we don't want to proceed without having that opportunity so that's why we're requesting continuance and we hope that between now and September that can happen and we can come to terms with them thank you excellent thank you if the city could just uh kind of face special attention make sure there's no loud music whatever it is between now and September if you got an ni code or whatever it might be and I would just add the the reason I'm inclined to Grant the continuance is the operator is a very responsible you think you've heard they've never had a problem there and um uh I know who it is and he's very responsible and respectful of his neighbor so I W definitely give him the benefit of the doubt on the continuance no objection to uh continue no objection okay someone want want to move to Grant it I'll make the motion to continue to September okay I'll second that all in favor yeah anyone opposed okay thank you all thank you for the speakers on uh on Zoom okay uh progress report item number eight planning board file 21442 743 Washington Avenue so for some history first on this um we sent a cure letter to the applicant on May 29th based upon some um violations that have been issued um and asked them to appear before the board on June 25th um last month the applicant did appear before the board and the board also requested that the um we have a representative of the police department and I believe uh major Robinson should be here today to answer any questions regarding calls for service of the property Additionally the board did request that the applicant present um operational plans to ensure that no queuing on the public sidewalk would take place and we also the board also asked them to provide the board with the number of promoted events on a monthly basis um as identified in our staff report the property received several violations including for the installation of sculpture on the property without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness as well as for violations related to the cup for the application of window tinting and for the obstruction of the public sidewalk due to patrons queuing in front of the establishment further is noted in our report um violation CC 20241 18066 was issued on June 25th of this year for for failing to provide written notification at least 96 hours prior to the start of a promoted event within the city to the Miami Beach Police Department chief for design for a performance that occurred on June 7th of this year this violation was appealed to the special master and on July 15 2024 the special Master denied the appeal with an adjudication of guilty we attached the special the special order to the staff report which could be found on page 15 of the board packages um staff does believe that additional requirements to the are required in order to um regulate these promoted events and this and resulting in changes to the operational plans because of this we are recommending that the board set a revocation modification hearing for the for the September 24th planning board hearing that'll turn it over to the applicant good morning again uh Micky morero T to southc Boulevard here on behalf of maner and Co LLC the operator of Vendome uh if you all recall we were here at the June meeting and talked about and some of the issues that Michael mentioned I'll just reiterate uh there was two violations for one for a statue that was on the property that statue had been there way before my clients took over the space there had been inspections by all the Departments including planning at that time and it was passed they did not know that the statute was in any violation it's been there for as far as we know a decade um but certainly the entire five years they've been operating they've since removed it but they didn't know it was an issue the tinting they didn't do the tinting tinting was there before they took over the the space there were inspections by the city nobody raised the tinting issue they're they're addressing it uh because you know they've been asked to address it but again we did not know they did not know that that tinting was not in compliance with with the code um as to the issue that when we spoke last time there was a few things out and I'll address the special magistrate case there was one appeal that we filed regarding the 96-hour notice uh we appealed it because they intended to comply and there was an administrative mixup they actually I get copied on these emails so I you know see them multiple times a week whenever there's a DJ and and the way their business is there's always someone a guest a DJ someone there uh they notify the police religiously um for whatever reason because of the mixup on the timing of the 50 Cent appearance um he was here in town uh marketing got wind of the possibility put up an ad and quickly removed it and that slightly preceded the signing of the contract we explained to the special magistrate and they agreed that it was in good faith and there was a good history of notice to the police so they waved the entire fine but they found us guilty only because they said if you do it again we want to show it's repeat violation but we think you guys did everything correctly and intended to be fine so they wave the fine just want to make that clear you can see that in the order so the special magistrate you know it was kind of like a mixed bag they waved the fine completely now the issue that we spoke up and I know Jonathan I'm looking at you because you talked about it a lot uh the last time was the queuing and I asked them you guys got to deal with the queuing you know what can we do I know it's there you know there security reasons why queing exists so I didn't realize that staff was looking for like a written operational plan all they did it was pretty simple and I can tell you how it's clear that it's working um they they have folks that as every as every nightclub does and I know this because I used to be one of these people 30 years ago um they have folks that encourage people to come in CL promoters call them marketing people and they have several folks that you know fill the club what they do is they've now phased the arrival so if you your your 30 40 people please have them come at 11:30 your 50 people tell them 12 and what that's done is it staggered the arrival times of their patrons and it's appears to've gone a long way in resolving the queuing issues why I think that's true I went on the Code Compliance website and confirm this with Mr VR um there were 33 instances of proactive investigations for queuing and what that means if you recognize the code system is code is sent out not necessarily in a complaint but to see if the an issue all 33 of those instances resulted in no violation observed that means and that's 33 times in 3 months they're open three nights a week so that's literally every night they were open Somebody went and the client called me and said someone's here taking pictures we don't know what's going on I'm like well look just continue doing what you're doing so all those 33 yes there was one queuing violation that we talked about last time that preceded all this but since there's been 33 with no violation that means every night they've been open somebody from the city has gone to see if there's a queuing problem and every one of those nights there's been no queuing problem so I think based on that I I feel that they've made a great deal of progress on that one issue all the other issues I find to be relatively minor and they were resolved um so we were we know we' be hopeful that we just move on from this um if there's some something we want to put in the order to memorialize something like this we're happy to discuss that but while we deal with some renes that do have issues that we're working through this particular one we think has it under control uh based on the evidence um again two of the violations were things that were always there they've moved to fix them the queuing was a minor issue that you know could have become major issue they've nipped it in the bud based on the evidence in the record so happy to answer any questions um I I don't know if here anybody here to speak on on this but that that concludes my initial presentation Mr chair um I I have a question you said that they were addressing the window Ting but that violation was in May this is August right how come it hasn't been addressed well they they they have to hire a contractor have to but that doesn't take three months right or two months excuse me so they've already hired someone I I just don't think it's complete yet but so so but has it what is the progress there they've hired someone to fix it I think they need a permit they're going to get that approval the the statute was easy don't need a permit to remove tenting you know I'll get i'll get a confirmation they told me that they hired someone to fix it the the statute they could just take out that was taken out the tinting is going to be removed it honestly may have already been removed but but I was told can somebody confirm that that's been done because this is now August as of two days from now um I'd like to hear from the police department as far as calls for service if that's okay with you yeah do you want that or do you want public comment first I think we should if the applicants finish take public comment and then open up to board question thank you is anyone anybody in Chambers to speak on this no okay zoom and there's nobody online with her hand rais okay close the public hearing officer thank you uh good morning um major Ian Robinson um I'm Beach police I'm in charge of the Patrol Division uh here to speak on calls for service at 7:43 Washington Avenue also known as Club Vendome uh we ran a couple reports the first report uh was from July 28th of last year till July 28th of this year so we call that a rolling gear uh we had 45 calls for service there uh just as a caveat our average response sign to those calls was about 2.3 minutes um these come off reports that um can be provided um to uh Mr Mooney um then pass it down that way uh they also did a five-year uh run uh the runs are year-to dat so January 1 to December 31 and 2024 from January 1 to July 28th uh so I'll go through real quick in 2020 they had 21 calls for service nine nine officers self-initiated a nine officer self-initiated call is basically a traffic stop in front of there or a suspicious person or something like that those are those are officer initiated calls uh in 2021 they had 234 officer initiated calls 2022 35 four officer initiated 2023 um was a heavier year with 49 calls for service there are 12 officer initiated and 2024 year to date again January 1 to July 28 35 so far 23 officer initiated uh the majority of the time that we're responding out there is between our afternoon shift which is from 3:00 to 1:00 in the morning and also our midnight shift obviously in line with um when their business is probably open um arrest data out there for uh the past five years um basically only shows one in 2021 um and that was um a weapon firearm charge um using that address um when you're fin are you finished yes sir okay thank you very much for that um Elizabeth first I just wondered what types of calls were those were there any other other than just um self initiated okay so um this year um the majority of the calls were actually area checks by our officers so we instituted when there were um complaints coming in or we saw some email traffic either from a commissioner or citizen or something like that what our area would would come through the chain of command and our area Captain uh would then be advised to hey we need to have an officer out there spot check obviously we can't stand out there for our entire shift or outside an off duty but the majority of those calls that I mentioned uh the 45 calls the majority I didn't break my glasses is um as area checks out there so an officer went by everything's okay and they go back in service are they there no illegal activities or anything like that or is it just sidewalk queuing um queuing we would refer to code um if we saw a queuing problem where the RightWay was being blocked or things like that but I don't have indicated um anything where an arrest actually happened over there um so this past year going back to July was pretty much area checks there were some um investigation I don't know what those are without drilling deep into it some disturbances over there so I don't know if we were called over there because uh Club security ejected somebody from the club and they didn't want to leave or things like that but to answer your question that's the majority of the parking walks out there thank you CH how does this compare to other let say clubs in the area or generally what you see um we have some of the bigger clubs out there I didn't run any of the other numbers no just like from you know anecdotally um anecdotally um this is a pretty low number to be honest with you I mean these aren't crazy numbers to me I mean if you were to run not the club live is a bad club or you were to run Club exchange or whatever you would probably see more numbers and that's based on the number of people that they have going into the club whatever relatively low compared to other yeah obviously more people is potentially more problems like that so thank you anybody else any questions Scott when did um for the applicant or or Mickey um when did your client take over was it 21 it was 21 okay um where for staff have there been because I'm seeing all these these violations now all in the last two months going back a few years um were there any other violations um I only looked at the I only looked at the violations in the just in the last year to set this progress for I didn't look at the entire history or if I did I didn't include it because we're just looking at the most recent ones yeah I'd be interested to know if if there you know to see if there's a pattern see if there we you know there have been violations from when they opened up because all of these like I said are in the past um two months um and they are relatively minor um a lot of things can be easily taken care of although Elizabeth brought up the point about the the window tinting that's something that uh just have someone scrape that off and I'm trying to get confirmation it may have already been done but you um I'd be interested to know you know if there was if there was more more of a history here with violations first um and um well I think just to your points got so I think I voiced this last what I've heard is that the bigger problems are that you started out as a as a like a high-end lounge and that it slowly became a venue for events concerts and special that's what that's what I'm just telling you what I've heard and that that's where the problems really are is is with the queuing it's when you have these special events that seem to have engulfed almost a majority of the time that the place is open sure so that would be my concern it's just the number of events you're having and and that that's creating the the queuing problems and as opposed to just a normal night to go have a drink or well so to respond to that it's always been what it is it's never really been a place just go have it I mean when I say promoted events I think in other places it's a bigger thing this is a small space what they have is whether it's a DJ whether it's a you know a musician they have folks make appearances and it's not like a two-hour concert someone will get up and do two songs three songs and folks just want to be in the room with that person but again it's a small space it's a limited period of time that's how when they took over that's how this business has always been and every time there's any guests of any kind of that's not just a normal employee they do notify police I have I get these emails multiple times a week and I think as the officer pointed out you know there are you see look at the number OH 43 calls whatever number it was it seems like a big number but most of them are just area checks like the code checks that they do and what we've been told in our conversations with Troy Wright from the Washington Avenue bid and the folks that code and police have spoken to this is actually parison most of the other it's a pretty well- behaved Club these folks cooperate with police we had meetings with the police department and the chief Chief uh Mr Clemens at the time uh Chief Clemens when we opened Troy Wright was there he helped with that meeting we had they've always had a good dialogue and where there was one arrest over four-year period it was probably something that they called in I mean they whenever they see someone being being unruly they very quickly eject that person they deal with police they're not the police from my understanding he can confirm otherwise aren't being called because the club is a problem the club is cooperative in in all respects as of as what we've heard so you again it's it's it's it's a it's a challenging business but based on the record and what we've been told by everyone we've spoken to they've been doing it the right way yeah that's what um what I was getting at if they've been operating and for a few years with no no problems and then maybe they're doing something a little different their their their business uh model is a little different maybe Scott just I'm I meant to address the reason there's been an uptick and I think I was told this by when I spoke to someone at code and he can confirm that was a shooting at another club it wasn't then but when that happened there was a directive to like let's make sure all the clubs are operating well so it was you know that's when these minor issues on the Statue and stuff came up which had never come up before because C was asked to go check everything so they found out about this stuff fairly recently they're dealing with it they've dealt with it um but that's why there's an uptick also the queuing and that was Sol the only thing I'm getting is maybe we you know maybe we can look at it a little bit more if there's there something that we need to change in the C to address that we can do that I going to point out the only thing we're dealing with today is either you either dismiss it or you set it for a hearing and determine with more evidence whether you need to modify the cup at all the only thing I would that I would suggest is that you modify it to at least be clear on how many of these events you can have because again Mickey I'm just telling you that that's what I'm hearing is that it's morphed into more of a special event thing than a than it's just a normal Lounge that again and not notifying the police I mean that is that is 50 cent in Miami Beach and the police don't know and to be clear they notified the police immediately when the contract was signed uh that was days before police were at the event to have the whole email chain the only reason and and why the special magistrate waved the fine uh what happened was and I don't know if the gentleman knows the history but but I I did speak to to the folks at police and code what happened was there was a meeting at Vendome and they told their staff hey we 50 cents in down uh we're talking to him uh get get promotional materials ready if we sign them you know we're going to go through the process uh somebody one of their employees jumped a gun created a a little Instagram page and posted it when my client saw it they said no we don't have a contract with them yet remove it and they removed it it was up for like you know an hour maybe two hours but since someone at the police department did see it and there's someone that checks their web page every day they did refer to code unquestionably the minute we had a copy of the agreement the minute the agreement was 50 Cent was signed notice went to the police minutes after that which is what they do every week whenever they have anything and this happens all year round but explaining that and that little bit of of an administrative mixup to the special magistrate they understood they said okay clearly you guys have a record of doing this right this is just one small aberration I'm going to wave the fine but I'm going to keep the violation in place in case so it doesn't happen again and we said fine and they didn't have to pay any fine because the record showed that intent was there and all the history of their notifying police is in good faith I guess I sorry go ahead uh I guess I have a question in terms of these events I mean personally I don't care how many performers there are could be whatever the days of the week that you're allowed to operate you can have a performer in my opinion as long as you're in compliance with the cup and there's no queuing outside and so I don't know I'm curious in terms of limiting the number of events just what's what are your think what are your thoughts on it I I didn't I didn't know because I I figured we'd set it up for a hearing and determine you know later if we need to limit it I don't even know how the how the events are working I I guess that maybe let's let's take a step but I'm just telling you what I heard Jonathan is that they that they started as a nice little Lounge that people go drink and then they started having uh 50 cents coming or this one's coming and that's where the problem and I think maybe that's the the issue that the isue what I what I would suggest is we continue this progress report and you bring us an operational plan to kind of so we can really get a sense of what the venue looks like how the seating arrangement is because I know like the in the original cup the seating arrangement and everything was was submitted for approval it may have changed you know not going to gpe with you about that but let's see how it's changed let's talk about these things I want to see I'm curious you know that it was very clear in the cup that the there should be no window treatment so that you can activate Washington Avenue I know that that's an important thing for us right now as you know we have the Goodtime Hotel we're putting new restaurants on the street we're trying there I'm curious how you're going to have a ven a club that you can see into that activates Washington Avenue without any window treatment so I think I don't I think we should continue this let's bring back an oper let's bring an operational plan let's actually talk about the queuing that goes on and showing us photographs of how you have it organized um you know because I it's an it's very clearly prohibited and I'm sure you know as a lounge like it was originally meant to be maybe that was probably even something that was agreed to you know by the applicant at the time but now that everything's changed um you know maybe there's a way we can make it work with however you want to do it but I think we should take a step back continue the progress report to you know I guess well we you'd be moving it with their recommendation to a modific ific ation hearing where you can do nothing or do something yeah mean there's there's no harm in that as opposed to I'm just saying technically as opposed to postp progress hearing to set it for correct and our Our concern is that if we just do the progress report continue this yeah my my bad yeah could you bring back a queuing plan sure yeah because Mickey what seems tough is that when you have an event like a special singer coming I don't know how you will preent prevent that because isn't a first come first serve and the people are racing to get there that's we now but I'm just saying that's that's what I think we want to hear in September it's just kind of a plan to address that because that's clearly I mean it sounds like everything else has been done properly but that's the real issue you can have the public right away is it's a big problem right and then they've addressed and that's why there's been 33 investigations zero violations issued but we're Happ to bring up just want to see a queuing plan and um get those get the uh tenting removed and it's a plan to make sure there's no queuing not a plan to correct provide queuing a plan to ensure that there's no queuing correct all right with that someone want to move it to September Is this where they um to set the modification hearing for September I will I'll move it okay second okay all in favor anyone opposed okay thank you guys thank you so the modification hearing will be for September 24th and Mickey please make sure you give me information that was requested by the board um um as soon as you can I'd like to thank the police department he left he already left thank you very much thank you all right as I mentioned we're going to go a little out of order we're going to move now to planning board file pb2 24680 2021 Collins Avenue wotel which should be a quick one okay an application have been filed requesting a modification to a previously conditional use permit for a neighborhood impact establishment specifically the applicant is requesting to check change the owner operator and it Dees on page 89 of your board package so we're recommending approval this is relatively minor application um Alfredo can provide any background information that he wishes good go good morning Mr chair and board uh fer Gonzalez with greenber targ on behalf of 22 Collins FL LLC um there've been the the owners of the property for since the CP was approved 15 years ago and we haven't had any issues since and we haven't been before the sports since 2009 um what we wanted to do is because there discussions about a potential sale of the property um the current condition is one of the outdated from 2009 it's been it's evolved over the years and requires presenting before the planning board any new owner not Operator just owner and the staff has determined that that means a full modification which would take three to four months in inid of a transaction of a half a billion dollar transaction having to wait for coming to the board uh since this board has routinely included a condition where an affidavit has filed with the planning department any change of owner and operator so we would add operator to it uh bringing it in line with current uh condition and then come back for a progress report we wanted to have that condition modified in addition staff is recommending condition number 23 which would um allow City personnel to inspect the site which is not a condition that's in there today again that's a condition that evolved over the years and we're happy to have it included on our order so um happy to answer any questions okay by the way I like the new bands to come into City Hall I feel like I'm in a club um anybody anybody in Chambers speak on this anybody on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised do any board members have any disclosures to make on the on the application Scott any disclosure no Matthew okay um seems pretty simple but does anybody have any questions I have a question for staff can't we just make this kind of standard going forward yes we have to do it though for each application so um whenever this happens a new application that's been or it's an older application we do modify the conditions of approval so in the future they just have to submit an affidavit to us confirming that they will comply with the conditions of C all new cups yes have in there as a yes great except for um some cases where the venue may be highly contentious or it has a lot of um entertainment component and the board really wants to see the operator we don't we don't do it for those those cases but for a for a hotel like this that would be the standard condition to allow an affidavit versus having to come before the board thanks although with the code recent with the pending code change it would required um for any entertainment venues to submit on an annual basis um an affidavit ensuring that they're understanding and complying with the conditions understood motion to move it motion to approve okaying it okay thank you roll call or can we do it by ACC we can just say all in favor all in favor anyone opposed thank you all fre thank you have a good day thank you okay and now uh we're going to move to planning board file 24669 the gor slot split this application is requesting a division of landlord split to divide the one existing site which is comprised of five plus flatted lots into two individual buildable Parcels this is on page 100 so as the board may know that typically on these types of lot split applications you know we do an analysis of the unit sizes in the general neighborhood and typically if the um if the um if the unit sizes are consistent with the with the rest of the city with which is a unit size which averages about 30% then we recommend that the any new home have a lesser lock coverage in unit size than what the code allows which is 50% and however in this case we did an analysis of the water from properties and found that the average unit size is actually 37% versus the standard of 30% so in this case sta does not object to um allowing the applicant to proceed with a maximum lock coverage of 30% and maximum unit size of 50% for any potential new new home on the subject sites uh with that I just want to make one correction to the staff report um which is can be found on page 110 of the board packages we referenced the maximum lock coverage for a new home should be limited to lesser of 45% actually we're going to delete that that condition because the maximum lock coverage for the code is 30% and we have a condition above that addresses that which indicates any proposed new home shall fully adhere to the review criteria and development regulations identify in section 7.2.3 of the Miami Beach resiliency code um further enhancements of the applic development regulations through drb R approval shall not be permitted the board may remember typically um you will impose a condition saying no variances or waivers unless the board has seen the new home and sees what those variances or waivers um are being requested now just um um disclosure here the applicat is going to be requesting that that condition um be removed because I do believe they want to ask for some variances of waivers but we do not know what those what those are yet so we are recommending that that condition um remain in place that'll turn it over to Mr before you start any disclosures on this one I made a site visit okay anybody else okay sir good morning members of the board Ethan werman with Greenberg Char 333 Southeast 2 Avenue here on behalf of the applicant uh we are here this morning on a lots split application to legalize the existing conditions of the late Dr Pierce's lorse Island uh property specific speically focusing on lot 16 I'll show you that in a second our goal is to separate lot 16 for zoning purposes from the rest of the estate uh in connection with the sale of the property now just some quick background on who the applicant is um it's not an individual or an LLC but the estate of Dr Pierce who passed away in 2017 Dr Pierce assembled the properties um over a period of time originally in 1983 with lot 18 and then assembled the rest of it as as in 2008 and are you seeing the slide okay no we are um here is an easy to digest uh overlay of the Lots divided by Deeds as Dr Pierce assembled them over time lot 18 the original is in blue and lot 16 which were is the focus is on the right in red uh the properties are owned in a living trust and the beneficiary of this estate is a not for-profit entity the Dr Pierce Foundation which is dedicated to the support of classical music and medical research all sales proceeds from this property will go to the Foundation uh since Dr Pierce is passing the foundation has given over $6 million in Grants to local institutions uh New World Symphony U Medical School Frost School of Music and the Cleveland orchestra's Miami Residency program um and just recently I'll close on on on this about the foundation the foundation's board approved a multi-year $1.35 million partnership with New World Symphony as the title sponsor of the wallcast series which I would urge everyone to go and attend so turning to the properties themselves um the estate is comprised of four properties on the island made up of six and a half platted lots and I'll explain that in a minute um this is an aerial image that shows the collective property and you can clearly see four docks four driveways three homes and a park property on the left here's the street view showing the different and individual entrances to each property and these entrances are not connected internally meaning a car cannot pull into one driveway and access the neighboring uh homes or Lots the properties have separate utility connections and accounts as well now as an aside um there was just to go to the park property for a second there was a home and that was originally built on that property when Dr Pierce purchased it he wanted to have a passive uh park for his use so in order to do that as you all probably know you can have as a primary use a park on that property you have to have a single family home so that lot 22 and 24 were um combined through a Unity of title app approved by the city and recorded it in title so that he could have a park on that property now this is a survey showing the existing conditions this is in your packet so I won't spend much time on it um and I've as I've stated before uh these four properties were individually built and here is the building card showing their original constructions um so what I've done here is I've tried to show you the effort that these were all approved individually and built individually as single sites over time um the controlling HOA the home owners Association also does not consider this a unified site um we have had an open and constant dialogue with members of the association including um Jared galet an HOA board member Esther agoi shakrun who is the manager of the association and she also happens to be our direct neighbor so she kind of carries two hats um when when talking to her our Outreach to the neighbors was through the association and through Esther and we have been advised that there are no objections from the community and specifically from our Direct ly AB budding neighbors um to the contrary the neighbors seem pleased to hear that this application is strictly to legalize what is there today it is not to demolish all the homes and rebuild six individual Lots which was what the original ploted Lots were I think there was a fear that whoever bought this property would chop it up into the Six Original and that's not the case we're essentially legalizing what is there today and what was approved by the city so while that sounds unusual that's that's exactly what we're asking the board is to bifurcate or separate lot 16 as its own lot as it's always been um through this application lot 16 will be eligible for sale separate from the remaining Lots the remaining Lots is essentially two homes and that Park property that will remain unified so turning to the staff report uh I want to thank Tom Michael and Nick luris for working very closely with me and buyer councel uh and for being very patient I I must have asked a million questions on this file uh because the fact pattern here is very unique we are just asking to approve what is essentially always been the case with these four properties um and the staff report reflects this dialogue we have no objections to the conditions in the staff report other than our request that um variances and waivers and other relief be allowed at the drb level um staff imposes this condition as a as a matter of policy on every lot split application that comes before you given the unique circumstances here where we want to be treated equally like our neighbors because the sites are essentially as they were approved by the city we're asking for Relief on that condition so just by way of example for lot the purchaser uh plans on living in that house and retaining that house if he wants to do an addition or wants to put a gazebo in his rear yard uh and needs a a permeable yard variance or a setback variance he should have that right no difference than his neighbor has that right and so we'd ask for that to be accommodated here um we don't have any Varian as mine I just want to be clear but that's something we you know 5 10 years from now we'd like to have that flexibility to do that turning to the last slide uh and I'll close with this there is a general concept that where there is a folio assembled over multiple properties um and that's a real estate tax mechanism that the lot is also assembled for zoning purposes and there's there's reasons for that assumptions but that is not applicable here um lot 16 has its own folio separate and distinct from the remaining Lots in this case so in conclusion we respectfully request the board's approval to bifurcate lot 16 from the master assemblage uh and ask for a change in one condition to allow future relief um whether it's variances or other enhancements in the code so that concludes my presentation I'd like to reserve some time for rebuttal if needed and happy to answer any questions you have okay thanks a lot Alex are you speaking you're okay anyone in Chambers to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay close the public hearing any questions from anybody on the board yes good morning regarding Lots 1822 and 24 what are the intentions for there is there is it going to be for sale yeah there's a purchaser uh for that Collective assembly um I don't think they have a plan yet of what will be built what will happen to that site um those plans will progress and go to the drb if there's a need for them to let's say shrink that site in the future it would obviously have to come back to this board to this body okay but they don't have uh to my knowledge they don't have a design plan in place thank you and then for Michael the question is does the conditions that are outlined in the draft order here do they also apply to that other uh there's other lots that are being contemplated yes Bally basically says that um any new home has to comply with the current requirements of the code if they want to split the lot they'd have to come back to the board for the same process and also would prohibit variances when associated with um new construction but it's highly unlikely someone's going to come in and build one new house at spans um which would still be one of the largest single family lots in the city yes so that would be 30% lock coverage would be allowed 50% unit so 50,000 plus Square ft right house would be allowed are there any other examples in the city of of houses at large single Star Island on Star Island we have some that are um 50 to a 60,000 square feet that have been approved that's very rare okay but are you comfortable is Staff comfortable with with possibly allowing on theor island a home up to 50ish th000 square F feet is it I think that that's probably something that's highly unlikely um you know based upon um just the size the size of the lot I would add the neighboring lots are um you know the the raw number is is a large number but from a percentage perspective both sides of our property have homes built at 50% unit size 50% but not 50,000 plus square feet their lots are not that big no and I think Michael's explaining correctly that I I don't anticipate someone would build that large of a sing single family home but uh we are um in support of a 50% up to a 50% unit size did staff contemplate this hypothetical situation because like right right now if they don't do the lot split they could come in and demolish everything on the site and build a home that's 50,000 Square fet so this is actually going to be lessening that by reducing the the width so um I think this is this is a positive step to make the the lots more consistent with what's there right now and I want to clarify something too that if the board agrees I would clarify the condition saying that the request or approval of variances will be prohibited when associated with new construction to not prevent the current home from making an application to ask for variances or or design waivers okay good with that okay someone want to move it motion to approve you're approving without the staff recommendation correct motion to approve with the recommend that they be allowed to go for a variance in the future so we're going to so if that's the case we're going to modify um condition F to remove or to cross out enhancements of the applicable development regulations through design Review Board review and approval should not be permitted and then we'll cross out um conditions G and H okay would those some modifications all in favor anyone opposed nay okay so one who was the no on that Matthew Matthew no all right thanks a lot appreciate it okay uh we're up to the revocation and modification hearing um planning board file 1675 the good time Hotel good morning Mr chair members of the board before let me just introduce the um application first go ahead again this is pb1 16- 0075 um 601 to 685 Washington Avenue the Goodtime Hotel this is a continuation of the revocation modification hearing um for some updates on this the board may remember back on April 25th of this year the board made modifications to the cup these modifications are noted on pages 9 to 11 of the staff report which is on page 34 through 37 of the board packages sorry 3 34 through 36 of the board packages as also noted in our report it was brought to our attention there's some conflicting language in the cup related to audio levels and that's because the initial application was approved um had limits on the audio level um in relation to the nearby residential units over time the cup was modified so he noted the conditions that we believe should be should be modified in the final order which are conditions um 107 and 108 and these conditions are on page 36 of the board packages we also noted that we continue to be concerned with the unreasonably loud standard maintained in the current cop we are recommending that the cop be modified to include the requirement that noise from outdoor sound system not be plainly audible at a distance of 100 ft or more from the subject property now the board may also remember that um the when the when the board modified the cup in April they did require that an updated sound study be prepared and submitted to the planning board for review um this support this report was submitted although it was over a month late it was submitted and it was reviewed by the city's uh peer reviewer arpeggio um arpeggio noted that the applicant study only took measurements at two locations on the pool deck and at one ground level location on the west side of Washington Avenue in front of the Anglers Hotel approximately 20 ft from the edge of Washington Avenue aro's review indicates that it does not appear that any of the sound measurements were made concurrently uh the review by aegio also concludes that the sound level measurement report does not represent a convincing argument related to the audibility of sound from the Goodtime Hotel upon the nearby environs now staff is recommending that the applicant revised the sound study addressing the concerns noted in the report prepared by aegio which is also provided in the board packages and the revised report which is also to be peer-reviewed again be presented to the board at December at the September 24th meeting so with that we are recommending that the board modify the cup now with a modified conditions noted on page 36 of the board packages and continue the revocation modification hearing to the September 24th meeting date that'll turn it over to the applicant for the presentation greatly appreciated thank you again good morning Mr chair members of the board staff Thomas meeting good time Hotel um sorry what's your role there I'm the acting general manager okay thank you so considering that we did not have any noise violations since March um and we adhere to everything that has been put Upon Us and got some modifications um we haven't gotten any other infractions we haven't heard any other complaints um from our neighbors the community um so I respectfully ask for the removal the closure of the revocation modification hearing and the progress okay anybody in Chambers speak on this no anybody on Zoom yes we have right now one person with our hand raised uh Johan Moore good morning Johan do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes I do thank you you have minutes thank you Mr attorney City attorney uh I am skeptical um but uh in the board's wisdom it may choose uh to take the period of calm uh and the absence of complaints uh as an indication that the good time has reformed uh we'll see uh the neighborhood continues to keep an eye on the matter or rather an ear and we thank the board for for its attention to this and other such matters before you thank you thank you we have another caller Charles Fisher good morning Charles do you swear affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth it is the truth yes I do thank you you so okay thank you I will try to be brief obviously I think everyone knows my point of view on the good time Hotel I looked for a little bit of details about what the actual changes were I've been looking at the website this should exist and I've not seen the planning board agenda on there so I I want to speak in generalities unfortunately I'll have to figure out how what exactly we're talking about I do just want to say with the good time Hotel uh couple of weeks ago one of my neighbors was home I was traveling at the time said the good time was very you know very loud I believe they called code I can't I I don't want to say that for sure but we do have less good time noise than happened before so I want to be frank about that you know it it is less it it is sporadic um I believe there was a change that allowed the good time to have parties a couple of weeks weekends of the month and not every weekend um I think that is a tolerable compromise I mean it's not what I would want but it's a compromise you know it's less than I want but you know more than the good time wants um and I would just say that if if that is where we up uh there needs to be a little bit of a mechanism like who's tracking that the good time is doing it their allotted weekends because it can't be us the residents that are um that are supposed to be tracking it so you know we we did have noise from the good time a couple weeks ago it is a we live in South Beach we understand that we just don't want this to return to where it was before and we also don't want to be on the hook for enforcement so thank thank you very much for letting me speak anybody else we have another speaker um Mark Antoine good morning Mark do you swear affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do good morning to everyone um I did I did meet with Thomas about the good time hotel and um I would love to be in more communication with you just so we can know in advance which weekends will be the uh elevated music and that the cup offers and which won't be so that we can tell our community what to expect when to expect it so you get a little bit less you know of um calls if there are any calls because um it was Friday last last week I mentioned earlier it was Saturday but Friday last week I did I did call because it was El elevated music uh penetrating my home and um I would love to be able to show you during these times um if you want to come home to see what what's going on so that we we're on the same page I'll let you speak in one second I'm going to say just by total coincidence last night I was at a dinner with one of your employees who had no idea this was going on so I just tell her tell me about the noise at the pool and interestingly she said Brian customers are always asking us to turn it up and we say no so I was very happy to hear that her name was Julia and again she had no idea was going on so I I want to commend you to continue to that's the happiest I've heard the Neighbors in a long time and just want to throw that in there so was happy to hear that um greatly appreci goad sir yeah this Troy Wright Washington Avenue business improvement district we're just here to you know support what the good time hotel is doing and the changes that they've made obviously we can hear from the community that they're doing the best that they can do and everyone seems to be happy now we can just hope and pray that the the hotel continues to benefit and actually fill up the place pretty soon that's it thank you okay um any questions frombody Scott you want to start I me yeah I'll jump in um yeah obviously I mean with all everything that's been going on they've been uh a better um operating a little bit better maybe no noise we did hear from Charles he said he heard it was kind of loud um but you know I'm I don't want to go through the whole history again but you know he's asking that we we cancel whatever the term is the the revocation hearing um I'd actually be in favor of that however I wouldn't want to do that unless we did modify the order as per staff uh to make it uh make the um the unreasonably loud uh standard go away and make it 100 fet West of the of the property line um you know again Charles did mention he doesn't want to have to police the Goodtime Hotel um because it's been difficult in the past um with a standard um that noise can't be heard 100 ft west of the property line um it's a much easier task for code to um to determine it if there's a violation um so I again I'm at this point yeah we don't need to see them again but I'd want to change to for me to vote that way I'd like to see the um the standard change in the cup Matthew yeah like Scott I'm happy to hear that the neighbors have noticed that the noise levels have gone down and there have been less issues um I also I think I agree also with that other notion that scottt made there which is that perhaps we can cancel this process and conclude it but maybe we should also take action on staff's recommendations I'm open to uh potentially leaning that way I obviously want to know what my colleagues think about this but I think we're heading in the right direction and we might be able to bring this in for a a final Landing can I ask uh why was the wording in the staff report says staff remains concerned about with the unre reasonably loud standard we believe that's that's too subjective and it's it's it's hard to enforce that so okay and so I mean this goes back to the change that we previously made that I had initiated with so of course I don't have any issue with changing this so that 100 feet from the property line it can't be heard I mean I think that goes that's back to where we were previously so I I've always thought that that's what needs to be done and and I mean hear that the complaints are it sounds like it's better of course these are the summer months um but it sounds like there still was a complaint called at least like last Friday night um by the last caller did I misunderstand that not aware of this you didn't hear about it um so um I'm I'm I'm not in favor so I'm I'm in I mean what are your thoughts on the the recommendation from staff in terms of the 100 feet it it has to do with the climate and the weather as well um there's also the garage that's on the East there used to be Greenery Shrubbery um that's control of the Cities was taken down completely which there's no more noise buffer either so everything might accur depending on how the wind goes so it's going to be probably a little bit tricky but if I may and again Mr Mo Mr Fisher and Mark anine um if I meet with them again and maybe we can get together and come up to an agreement see how it goes and then maybe see each other in December again so it gives us like a few months to stretch it over and come up with something that or a solution that the planning board and staff would be as well as the community would be agreeable too yeah I mean when when I did my site visit with you that was one thing I you pointed out and I noticed obviously very noticeable uh doesn't look good either uh when the city removed the foliage from that garage and that was really I mean my thinking behind why we needed a sound study and so you know obviously I think the sound study that was done clearly based on the city's you know sound Engineers wasn't sufficient um you know we appreciate that it was done and I imagine it was done in good faith it just it needs to there's some fine-tuning that we need to do truth truthfully I mean if if it's not bothering the neighbors I don't there's not really a need for this s study uh but if it is still bothering the neighbors and you want to be able to push it to the max maximum level uh that you can which rightfully so I'm not blaming you for that there needs to be a more comprehensive sound study so that we are you know uh factoring in how the weather affects it how that green wall or lack there of affects it so um for right now at least I'm in favor of the um what staff's recommendations are I would you know I'm kind of you know I know these sounds studies are not cheap uh so you know it's it's sort of up to you whether you want to do the sound study in my opinion it's up to you what uh whether you want to get the sound study to look at how it's measured from you know 100 feet away or from the neighbors units or whatever it may be but I would recommend or my vote would be to uh continue this U modification hearing I guess maybe till like September I'm I'm sorry uh December which is what he wants which is what you want okay uh that would be great and um but in the meantime I would add in that uh 100 feet just so that there's no ambiguity there I'd also like to uh ask that when you come back that you provide photos of how the speakers are placed at the pool and also where how and where they're placed at the pool um and I would also agree with with Jonathan that staff um staff report uh 100 feet or more from the subjects West property line I'd also like to recommend that you also provide a new sound study um and also because it was just such a short short area um and also that it is that we add back plainly audible okay uh well let me I just ask the plainly audible what's the difference between that and the 100 feet it's the same it's the same the same yeah plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet got it okay so um and here's a concern I understand you were kind of brought in to sort of fix this this issue among other issues probably and so my concern is and I I I've met with you I know you're you're doing your best and you got a great crew over there uh my concern is that if you leave what are we left with after you we don't know who's coming in we don't know if they're going to move the speakers and whatever and so we need to have these restrictions in place for now and and what one thing that comes to mind that Elizabeth mentioned is having photographs of the placement of the speakers now so we know where they're supposed to be so that code can reference them you know if you know I know you're not moving the speakers I know you have no plans to do that I it's a fair request it's an in Miss Lon absolutely Fair request regards to mapping out where the speakers are and where the sound travels um and it also it's good because I learned a lot about speakers um you're going through the process so I think it might be worthwhile to map it out for everybody and then also understand that the sound goes forward and there's no sound coming out the back I had just seen photos um um on Instagram where the speakers are up high and they're underneath the the bar area and things like that and I don't know if that's the case now but um also I'd like to make sure that y'all are still only having two performances a month because it seems like I've heard somewhere that they might be going on every weekend do you know if that's true or I mean you would know it's you know we trying to really move within the modifications were put upon us um so just making sure that we're going to be Squad free so to speak um so we really haven't changed anything in that we just really making sure that the noise of doesn't penetrate but are you having are you having uh a week are you having every weekend are you in we're having activations yes I'm sorry we having activations yes so you are having DJs every weekend it's uh yeah within the modifications that were put upon us yes is that compliance with the cup well the cup only allows the um the DJs or live performances um two weekends a month so that's not in compliance so I just wanted to clarify good and and by the way with this 100 feet I don't think the neighbors unreasonable so you know I think you're gonna yeah so sorry sorry just to clarify so the um the DJs are allowed um every weekend but only two weekend ath can they exceed um on background Ambia levels okay thank you all right so make so what I was going to say is is I don't think your neighbors are out to punish you you I think even with that 100 feet unless it's something really intrusive to them I think they're going to leave you alone so just I mean we're going to go with that because that's what I can tell what the board wants to do but just understand that that I I believe that they will not be complaining if you know when you say plain the audible if they hear like in the faint background of it's going to be only if it's intrusive to them so no I greatly appreciate Mr chairman and that's why I said Mr Fisher and Mark and Mr Mo I appreciate your comments yeah again I'm always available the most positive that the residents have ever been so we're going we'll bring you back in December and you continue your dialogue with them and and you know hopefully we can put this to rest in December sounds it sounds like they're very happy and please don't leave is that good with everybody is that good with everybody is Matthew every okay anyone have any other comments or can we move it before you vote um Mr chair do do any board members have any new disclosures to make since the last time this was heard no okay okay so uh who wants to move it I will okay I'll move it with a favorable favorable recommendation with the staff's with the STA with Theif with the modifications recommended by staff is there a second a second second by Mr needlman Scott all in favor I I anyone oppos any oppos Thomas thank you that was also to to continue the revocation modification to the December 19th right right thank you sir thank you have a good day okay uh next file is planning board file 24681 1060 Ocean Drive The Strand this application is requesting a modification to a previously issue conditional use permit for a neighborhood impact establishment specifically the applicant is are requesting to change the owner operator and like we saw this morning for the W Hotel this is a similar application it's a a change of operator and we have an updated condition so any future operator would just be submitting the affidavit versus having to come before the board for a modification I'll turn it over to Mr delente thank you good morning Mr chair members of the board my name is Bob delente with Law Offices at 1200 brickl Avenue uh with me today is the manager of strand 1060 LLC Salam munayer uh they are the applicant in this matter again this is an application to change the owner operator from I love 3051 LLC to strand 1060 LLC this is the property at 1060 Ocean Drive there are obviously no operational changes proposed uh they would continue with the same uh operations that are currently in place um we understand and accept the conditions of the cup as well as the new modified conditions as outlined by staff essentially those are future changes to owner operator would be by affidavit at staff level and uh the property would be subject to inspection so um again we accept all the conditions we ask for your approval we are here to answer any questions you may have thank you anyone in Chambers speak on this item anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised close the public hearing any questions this is for staff will they be required to to provide a progress report after this um so we do have sorry we do have a condition we're going to put this on the agenda as for a progress report um um 60 days from now just to come back as a pro with with a progress report and we'll just look for any sort of um violations or issues okay did did the city just pass didn't the city just pass was it first reading or second reading that mandatory progress reports yeah so um just for everybody's knowledge and the planning board reviewed this in recommendation um a month or two ago so going forward um for any new application that um has an entertainment component on an annual basis they'll have to submit an affidavit saying that they um understand or complying with the conditions they'll be submitted to the board and the board can pull that item and request more information or discuss it further but that's something that's going to be um going forward for all entertainment venes thank you can I can I just ask so if there there's no operational changes here are we just to clarify we are still bringing them back for a progress report I know that's standard is for 60 days can we do without that yeah if you want to do without that we can clarify that that you don't have to come back to the board for a PR report I mean I would say maybe just to strengthen it a little bit if they were to submit an affidavit saying that there are no maybe have they already submitted an affidavit saying that there's no operational changes planned no because it's not required for this type of application because it's coming for it's coming before the board so this is the this is that sort of process versus the app okay yeah there they're swearing to tell the truth here anyway so um I'm fine with doing away with the 60-day progress report that's your said there's no operational change right there are none we're accepting all the conditions in the cup so there's no changes you want well I'm just saying like what's currently going on there you have no plans in changing the anything really other than just just the ownership correct okay so then I would I'm sorry we don't require looking at the conditions um they're not required to come back to the board for a progress report now that's the condition um in the future when they submit the affidavit that's the case that requires them to come back before the board if what when if they change the owners in the future yeah they submit the affidavit and then we put them on the agenda for a progress report the have David that says what just the change of ownership that the change of ownership and says that they're going to comply with the conditions and they come to the board as a progress board that's part of the new so I get confused if they submit an affidavit that there's Noor and they will comply with everything then what do they come to us for the new the the the modified um um code requires them to come before the board for a progress report on an annual basis or to submit the affidavits we we give it to the board and the board if you want any member of the board can pull that item and discuss it further if the board doesn't have any comments then the board doesn't have to discuss the application but Daniel I thought when we address that we decided that was unnecessary to come back every year to the commission but the commission wants to wants to see that on an annual basis oh they did okay but where the commission landed was was not to require that the board hold a progress report every year but rather that the applicant provide a letter you know attesting that they've complied with with the conditions of their order in the in the preceding year and then the right and then the board can decide if um so they have to submit the affidavit annual but not necessarily come here exactly we we just make the decision I guess one one of the concerns about that I don't know if this is part of it is that it I'm in agreement with all that but one key part is that there's not going to be any change in operational plan that's correct that's that's by default if there's any sort of change then there would require a modification that the board would see well even but you know if there's a new owner that's taking over and they decide you know we're going to keep vend Drome but we're gonna change the way you know security is done we're going to change the way that we're going to change the name of the club you know and even though that technically they're all going to they're going to still comply you know if there is an operational change I think we should that should be part of it well remember that anytime there's a new owner operator like this um that new owner or operator stands in the shoes of the of the of the previous one so they would be subject to the to the exact same conditions of approval and part of that is an operational plan it's an assignment essentially yeah I mean I guess as long as the operational plan is part of that I mean one of the reasons why we approve some of these C UPS is because we know the operator we know that they're a good operator in our city and we like what they're bringing to the to the venue or to the the area if somebody else comes in while yes they are you know we might have you know yes they are going to comply with that they might have a shorter leash because of past history running other nightclubs or whatever it may be but as long as I guess the what you're saying is that the operational plan is part of the cup then I think it's fine but okay I'm in I'm in favor of this I'll make a I do have a couple questions uh This Is this different than the W before because is there an operator right now is is the yes we we actually have the operator here today he is the actually he's also the landlord so this is his property and this will be under his purview but there's there's a current business operating there I actually I can let him for good morning s mon with in with the Str 1060 um we are not operating yet we're waiting for to finalize all the licensing so we waiting for this application so go to get the BTR and the CU approved after this application will be approved okay so I think there is a little bit of a distinction though between right the W Hotel is operating today and they're changing ownership ownership is not changing here correct correct this is the same landlord who is the landlord uh for I love 3051l LC okay the the only you know the only questions that I would have is because I did go through the existing conditional use permit and there's mentioning of of a TDM Transportation demand management uh plan as well as bicycle parking plan as well um sounds like we're not coming back for a progress report but if we were coming back for a progress report those are things that I think should be um at least just discuss or or show what the plans exist and we probably should do that as well for all progress reports where it's mentioned in the in the order as well but if we're not coming back it's probably a moot point right those were conditions in the original cup which we were inheriting those were complied with I'm we're assuming when this was originally done back in 2019 but those are we agree that those are those remain in place yeah and this is this is not the typical Pro it's not a progress report now so typically a progress report is before you because of a violation or or citation this location is merely for the change of change of name the the only question I would have is you know would you agree to to providing more more or or secure bicycle and micro Mobility parking for your uh for your employees if you don't do so already or micro micro M scooters a lot of the hospitality workers on Ocean Drive they come by scooter you see them locked up against like uh parking signs and traffic signs along the street um if you don't already per the per the conditional use permit would you is there something that you would consider if the it's it will be required yes okay you're not changing the business use no ma'am I me the reason why I'm asking is it says that a bicycle parking plan was required to be submitted I know getting into the weeds here I thought there would be a progress report required for this do you have bicycle parking for your employees a motorized bicycle or just bicycles is there anywhere for your employees to park their bicycles on the premises or Scooters or something like that no we don't have scooters they need to go to a a parking facility and if you if you want to um approve this modif modification and have them come back to the board with a progress report to answer provide information on the questions you have and the board can do that as well I have a question for you well I I don't think that it's something we need to do but it's I want to bring attention to this in the future these sorts of things especially many years go by I think these things get lost we just heard you know exactly because um according to the cup um was a bicycle parking plan that was required yeah to be submitted for review so I would suggest getting a copy of those PL plans and ensuring that the um the property is compliant with those requirements yes I'd be content for that to happen with staff you know not having to come back in front of front of the board for we'll absolutely do that we'll go through all the conditions in the existing cup as I said we agreed that we accept all those conditions and all the responsibilities that come with it um so we'll review that and and confirm with staff that everything's in compliance great thank you all right I'll I'll make motion to approve and I'll second all right thank you all in favor I I anyone opposed all right sir thank you thank you okay planning board file 24684 1921 Collins Avenue mint Still Still me change your jacket or something yeah I don't if I had one hey you something is requesting a modification to a previously conditional use permit for a neighborhood impact establishment specifically the applicants are requesting to change the owner and operator good morning again Mr chair members of the board Bob delente with Law Offices at 1200 brickl Avenue um this time I'm here on behalf of mint saluna LLC this is another change of owner operator this is for mint nightclub um with me today uh is the team from mint Salona LLC the applicants um and specific specifically Dan gasak caram who is the managing member um you may remember in May um the adjacent business New Rock LLC did a similar application before you so this is the adjacent um business these two were separated in November 2008 into Mint Lounge and Rockbar this is the second part of that bifurcated cup so here we are requesting the change in owner operator from mint holding company LLC to Mint saluna LLC uh we we understand and accept the conditions if the existing cup and accept the modifications in the favorable staff report those are the U standard changes going forward that were mentioned before one of them being um future changes in owner operator will be via affidavit at the staff level and then the other one is the inspection condition uh and we agree to both of those there are no changes proposed operationally the hours and operations will remain the same there may be some cosmetic interior changes and a change to the vibe in the music um in fact in this case all senior staff at mint will remain um the current holder of the cup is here with us today too Roman Zago is here um on behalf of this application and the name will stay the same so operationally um there will be no changes and again all the conditions are accepted in the current cup and we' ask for your approval if you have any questions uh we're here to answer is there going to be a queuing problem outside do you have a queuing plan so um to my knowledge there has been no problem with queuing and we anticipate that there's no changes again the operations are working smoothly and we're not making any changes to them so we're preventing those issues okay before questions anyone in Chambers speak on this anybody on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay close public hearing and do any board members have any disclosures to make no no I did a site visit when I was in college it's funny you say that I was I was a it was definitely not in high school definitely not in high school like the longest Club in history College I was a partner in a club called B and we opened the same month I went there too 20 years ago that was anyway Elizabeth any more questions no anybody else have any questions someone want to move it motion to approve okay Alissa seconded all in favor anyone opposed okay thanks thank you you earned your money today thank you thanks um all right the last one before comp plan code amendments is planning board file 24672 1790 Alton Road mixed use building this application has been requesting a mod modification to a previously issued conditional use permit for a five-story mixed use development including the use of mechanical parking and a restaurant with more than 100 seats and a floor area in excess of 300 3,500 square feet specifically the applicants is requesting to change the outdoor operational hours and increase the seating count per recently approved city code Amendment so just to provide some further background the planning board reviewed the the structure itself on September 20th of 2022 and approved the the cup now on April 28th of 2023 the city commission adopted an ordinance that allowed for um additional outdoor seating for restaurants at front Alton Road and are located south of 18th Street this application includes um a restaurant on the ground floor that was previously approved for 81 seats is now proposing to keep the same number of seats but shift more seats indoors and the restaurant on the second floor that was approved for 179 seats is proposed to expand to 24 40 seats now as noted in our staff report while the applicant is proposing to expand the seating on the property as well as extend the hours of operation outdoor seating on the second level Terrace there are no abing residential uses that be would be directly affected by the project and further the conditions of the cop as well as the city code prohibit outdoor speakers except for Life Safety purposes so there's no outdoor music on this second level Terrace um and that should remove any concerns from the impact PS of outdoor music on the neighborhood special events are also prohibited for any alcoholic beverage establishment in the code so for those reason staff is recommending that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the modified Cup starting on page 147 of the board packages I'll turn it over to um um is Mr morero the um applicant good morning again is it still war yes it is uh good morning again Mickey morero Law Firm burky Del Fernandez and Lin 200 South biscan Boulevard with me today Emily Balter who is passing out a handout for you my partner Michael Lin uh and my co-council Andrew Sterns as well as Stephanie yanowski VP of of the finar than you uh we're here today um and and if we can get the slide presentation up thank you um if you can go to slide two um we just to show you where the property is it's in Sunset Harbor on the very Southeast corner of the neighborhood as Michael noted away from uh all the residential in the neighborhood but um for some of you that were here going back two years um maybe a little bit into that will remember this project we actually came to you all um well let me backtrack a little bit just so you have a full history um our client Mr finvarb purchased his property in November of 2020 and well he entered into a contract before he closed he met with tomone met with staff to confirm that a hotel is for permitted use here uh that was confirmed and he's star uh made a non-refundable significant deposit and started preparing plans for a 36 unit hotel room uh that would have been as of right while he had already purchased the property spent considerable money moving forward or you know put a deposit on uh there was some objections to the hotel here as a result many many months went into this discussions with everybody Commissioners neighbors ultimately the commission did adopt a Prohibition of hotels in Sunset Harbor before we were able to submit for plans um so that put my C in a tough situation uh they had a significant asset now that they could not develop for what they thought they could develop when they purchase property um Mr SK is here he did retain councel um just to protect his rights But ultimately the goal was not to be in a lawsuit the goal was let's try and find a solution here let's try and find a way to make this work so he had to reimagine the project so Mr finvarb as you all probably know is a hotel developer um that's what he does that's what he's always done but he reimagined the project um it's 12 units now now um not a hotel and it's got two restaurants and there's a ground floor restaurant and a a second floor restaurant we did go forward in 2022 in September to get the cup the reason we did it that time was because although it's taken longer than anticipated um our client wanted to proceed with uh with a building permit as soon as possible so we got the planning board approval in September of 2022 and then we got the drb approval shortly thereafter in December of 2022 short right after that we started working with the neighborhood association and with the commission on an ordinance that would allow um modifications to the project that that had been discussed at 2022 planning board meeting we advised that we'd probably be coming back if that ordinance was passed and what that ordinance did was modify the occupancy for outdoor seating and the hours of operation for a second story restaurant that's all that it did that ordinance was adopt and again I just we met with sent Harbor formerly um multiple times in 2023 and the planning board heard that ordinance we were here in support of that ordinance February of 2023 what that ordinance did it increased the outdoor seating permitted for second floor restaurants from 40 to 100 seats um be and it limited the area that that was applicable to so it applies to this property because it's far away from the residential it faces dat Boulevard and Colin canal and anticipate no anticipated impact um CL Bo recommended in favor of that it went to First reading at the commission on March 27th 2023 and ultimately was adopted April 28th with the support and of Sunset Harbor neighborhood association at the hearing and also we had signed an agreement with them that specifically said 100 seats and 1200 a.m operation of that outdoor restaurant uh what we submitted to you today as Michael said includes no other changes it is simply the changes that were always discussed that were part of that ordinance our agreement with sunet Harbor says no more than 100 seats outside and 12:00 a.m. operational has other things that we agreed to that aren't necessarily relevant to this order but those are the two things that's what's before you today the ordinance is consistent with that 100 outdoor seats uh 12:00 a.m. operational and again just to be clear this is farthest away from any other property in cin Harbor from residential there are no outdoor speakers permitted so there will be no even ambient noise coming into the outside uh there is no entertainment proposed at all so all the things that we're concerned about and other properties aren't present here this is a Bonafide restaurant um and this basically to the way that I see it and I think the way staff sees it based on the presentation is really almost like a cleanup we always anticipated the this occupancy we couldn't include it in that prior application because the ordinance was still not not adopted it has been adopted and the reason just so it's clear that we waited a few months to come back to you all we told our client listen we don't want to keep going back to the planning board are there any potential other changes and it wasn't clear and now it is there are no other changes it's just 100 seats outdoors and the 12 a operation hours again consistent with our agreement with the neighborhood consistent with the ordinance that was adopted unanimously by the commission with everyone's support at the time so here to answer any questions reserve some time for rebuttal but essentially that's the story and uh we hope for your approval today okay thank you Sandra I assume you're here for this okay and before we open the public do any board members have any expart Communications to disclose speaking your mic sorry I just received emails oh okay and those emails were forwarded to staff and are part of the record yes hi good Senator and and please address his comment that there was an agreement with neighbor I will I will address it I will address it all uh good morning everybody Sarah the S Harbor neighborhood association uh thank you for hearing me um he gave the background which is his totally totally correct we started this in 2021 we started with the discussion about the hotels and no hotels and then this became a building in which uh we believe that when he made the change it became a short-term rental building um not been announced not have said that it is we know that's what it is that we believe that's what it is and I could be wrong it is not a condo it is not a residential for six months it is a short-term rental building we're not happy we did agree we did agree my letter went out and we did agree to that but in that agreement they actually also made the change in terms of the bookings and if you read in your document it has the the way they're going to book it's a490 bookings per year per calendar year and in September 93 number one who would actually follow or enforce this because we don't have any ways of going in there and saying oh they both that at $500 or $499 and they can book it every day that to me they came back to that and we agreed to that we were pressured by the commission to make an agreement because we started with the hotel and we did and we're not you know um we stand by our agreement but we're not happy because it is a short-term rental that we never wanted in sansor Harbor I did ask why don't you close the restaurant make it glass so you don't have to worry about an outdoor anything no why don't you have offices thereor you one second when you say it's a short-term rental you mean it's a hotel right no it is not a hotel hotels are not allowed in s Harbor but it is a short-term rental that we cannot by law uh we cannot uh prohibit them for for having a short-term rental we not in and you know in Michael can can attest to that yeah I mean it's an apartment building but a short-term rental is not prohibited okay how many how many if I if I make how many is it a six months in a day is it no so it' be short-term rental is something that's a rental that's less than 6 months in a day right but I'm but I remember Mark saman had negotiated a whole lot of things on this and he had pushed really hard for six months in a day and I couldn't remember if he no I never agree they never bottom line the bottom line is it's permitted under the zoning the short okay all right it is permitted under the zoning our you know we agreed to this but we're not happy because we never want it we wanted six months and a day I agree I bought that up no he says I'm going Hotel business I am not into a printing for six all right but it's within the it's within their right so goad with within their right so I did not know about this cup at 179 and 38 because if I would have heard the day that I was sitting down here saying this is the cup I would have said do not change it keep it as this and we didn't but I did I do go by with what an agreement was with in January 31st 2023 we gave him a letter that we approved that and in that lettery had the bookings and there was nothing else that so so what's I'm just trying to understand what's changed since you agreed to their plan not nothing has changed except the fact that we were never happy I never heard of that so you're having sell's remorse words I'm just TR understand I never heard we never heard of the 38 and 179 that was not in my recollection now I could be wrong we it wasn't presented on that day that there was 38 in 79 seats on the second because we were having that discussion a brand new building so how could it been a cup on a on a on a place that we're they're putting an application this is where I'm uh we're I'm not clear how that happened because otherwise I would have said keep 38 and 179 you know I want to reduce the how many how many seats you're sitting outside inside is whatever they can fit you know based on the on the code right that's address address her I'm trying to understand my letter that's what my letter say I know how much of an advocate I live in your neighborhood and I know how much you advocate for us so I appreciate everything you do and I'm just trying to understand what has changed since because I know you guys met a lot and I know how vigorously you fight for the neighborhood so and that's where my letter went so I'm trying to understand what has changed I just want you to crystallize what if anything is different from what because obviously she made an educated decision on behalf of the association to agree with you so I want to know if anything's changed since she made that nothing has changed um what we were asking so just to reference and and I apologize if it was not clear but in the agreement that that that we signed and they signed as a bunch of but we specifically reference in the third where ask Clause that there was a conditional use permit already approved in section one of that agreement we reference the conditional use permit as well and say that the only change subsequent is we we agree to limit outdoor speakers so if and that was an agreement we made if the code were to change we still can't have outdoor speakers we agreed to whole host of things on booking so was always clear and you're right this is a residential building but the and I know it is far away from The Bu so Sandra what is Sandra what I'm sorry Sarah what is your what's your ultimate concern with like you came today to oppose what exactly it's a short-term rental no I know but that we can't change right and that's not before the board that's not before the board so right as far as what's before us but what he said that that they had the cup before I do not remember that I do not remember I remember signing a piece of paper saying that we would agree to 100 seats and to close at 12:00 a.m. I'm very clear I have the letter here the letter that I gave you now the letter that I gave you was January 31st 2023 the thing that was signed here and you see it on page number four which there's not a page number five on your on that agreement the one that I signed didn't even have a date on top I signed it no date on top well if it's notorized April 28th the day of the hearing and they and they changed the thing to 2023 from 2021 well I'm not worried about the date I'm just trying to again I just want to know what has changed since that agreement I'm happy to respond nothing has changed right so there's a confusion about the prior cup we were here in September 22 at the time and I reviewed the tape we even said we're going to come back because we're seeking additional occupancy in ours but the ordinance hasn't been adopted yet we said that to before um and this is it right so I want to go back to so Sarah what is it that you're what's your con I know you don't like s teral but that's not before us what is your concern with what's before us well I do not I do not well what we don't want is to have second floor restaurants anymore in Sant Harbor so we don't have this argument of what's going to be out there that's number one we did we made a mistake of allowing this which is not allowed in Sor Harbor but he relied on that agreement to I know and I said I stand by the agreement I'm not saying I am denying the agreement I'm telling you yes we made that that now it's 100 outside and a in whatever the amount is inside which is bigger than what we originally agreed all but let me ask you would you agree that where this is located that the the the possibility of anyone from the towers where you live about what about the office I'm using the future sons of her what about the Office Depot Office Depot gets sold and and and and becomes a residential building now I would like to know if if that happens and there's a lot of noise and that and it's a residential building can they come back with the cup and you're going to you're going to refuse the cup or you're going to say oh this is a grandfather cup and then we can't make any change just like it has in the past but Sarah these are not things that are before us right now no I I we can't predict the future I I I I understand I understand and like I said I did sign I did say yes believe me I appreciate you and I I just wanted to understand maybe there was a change that you weren't aware of when you agreed to that so that's all I understand what you're saying we were always worried about the amount of rentals that they're going to have there always worry about that which which is in there and I don't know the city can do something about how do you enforce that you're never going to be able to enforce and we're never going to be able to enforce that you know whatever they put in there is it's basically not even valid okay so she brings up an interesting question and it isn't before Forest but I'm just curious that that Depot if is that zon for residential like could someone build it because right now where the Palomar is it doesn't concern me because I live there I live in Sunset Harbor and I know how far away it is from all the residents but if someone did build a residential Tower in that space would that alter anything or first of all is that zone for residential you you can build residential in the year okay and and the part of the reason just to to go back in terms of the idea of short-term rental this is Zone CD too so it's a commercial medium intensity zoning District the city cannot um prohibit short-term rentals right we understand that right so that's that's why and they don't have entertainment they don't have music but if the noise from the patrons was out of control which I I hope it won't be but and there's that Residential Building what would happen if someone build something next door well anybody can complain about um anything so but if there's if if there are right they this becomes a nuisance somebody anybody can call Code Compliance and they'll go investigate and if there's a you know a valid complaint that can that can be issued or complaints are issued and and we would set them as a progress for the progress report before the planning board like I say we've seen I haven't seen in my history here of 20 some years um um outdoor venues that have no music and no special event um being an issue we having noise complaints I just want to make sure one thing that maybe you can add to the cup that the doors of the restaurant remain closed and the music inside do not does not filter outside because it happens with uh it happens with our Bay Club that the doors are open we don't complain about it but you know they're supposed to have by law the doors closed Mr I just want to make sure yes I I just was thinking about something um the when I was looking at this um 38 to 100 is a 270% increase in seating and I feel like that even by virtue of the people speaking outside that it's going to be people are going to have to increase increase and increase their their noise Vol their noise volume speaking over people and things like that is there something that we can that we can is there some sort of like sound like glass thing or some kind of something you can put around to sort of it look what this whole reimagine project that we had to reimagine because of the unexpected Hotel provision largely benefited from their being an outdoor terrorist that was a big part of why it works that still has that still has the noise ISS I mean just saying that's 270% I mean people speak over each other all the time but let me address why that is again we we always planned 100 seat out seat outside and that's how we always wanted we we got a cup that said 38 because at the time the max was 40 we told this board then that we were going to come back for the additional the agreement with Sunset Harbor which was took a lot of work and multiple meetings to get to and I'll read it to you the section that's relevant the owner hereby agrees the exterior space in the second level shall contain no more than 100 exterior seats furthermore this exterior space in the second level will conclude food and beverage service no later than 12:00 a.m. that is exactly what was adoped in the ordinance that is exactly what's in this application today as Michael said for restaurants that have an outdoor space where there's no outdoor speakers no special events no entertainment they've never had a problem in addition to all of that this is in the furthest property in senson Harbor from residential we can talk about the hypothetical of an office supply store becoming residential later but that's not even before us say that's not before us but I am I am just trying to head off any noise complaints to Cod I I'm look you plan for the city you want not the city you have and I'm just trying to head off at the past anything that that could or or might affect in the future I just like take up a couple things first of all Sarah thank you for everything you do in Sunset Harvard it's a neighboring neighborhood from where I live in and you do a lot of um um your strong voice and making sure that the residents are getting a good quality of life I do think and I if I hear you well there's a frustration and feeling that some of the information wasn't communicated and there wasn't a very good Outreach in making sure you guys had all the information or could have spoken at a time when it could have made a difference we had a lot of meetings I can't say we didn't we there's obviously voice at some point there was that you know we were pushed to get this done we were pushed by the by this by the commission at that time started with the hotel we were pushed very hard to get an agreement an agreement with the hotel and agreement about this thing and we did we did the agreement now I just want to make sure that the doors are closed and hopefully if they do build something there in the future that we can come back to the city and and and and and there is noise to to change the amount of seat 100 people 100 seats 100 people out there it's a lot of people in that Terrace I don't know the space I don't even know the square footage of the pr space because there is there is a square footage uh uh ordinance in Sor Harbor requires under 3,500 and above 5,000 we did make a change to reduce the amount of I just want to finish what I was going to say about um your request and making sure the doors are closed and I think it's it's sensible to not have the music and this noise carrying out uh although a restaurant with 100 seats outside I'm just thinking for the service you're you're not going to be able to keep a door closed you're going to have to have the waiters coming in and out so I don't think I'm not sure that's going to be realistic but I do understand your concern um I I don't know that at this point we can do anything I'm just concerned seeing that there's no parking plan provided because of the size of the of the restaurants and um we are seeing a lot of add-ons in that neighborhood and a lot of new restaurants and we a lot increased traffic and that's already a NE a neighborhood we're having a lot of issues so I just find that we have to come up and this is Maybe not today the right uh meeting to be uh speaking of this but we need to start considering these projects you know not into this individually where we're seeing a whole neighborhood getting impacted hugely and and I'm not sure the infrastructure is there to support that as far as traffic and so every time we see a project come through we we approve them but at the end we're we're we're creating a lot of chaos for this neighborhood I think you have them and I'm with Melissa on that uh that was my concern and I guess guess I'm in reading the staff report it says um since the ground floor restaurant has fewer than 100 seats and 3500 square fet of floor area and the second restaurant is a non-residential use located above the ground floor they do not require parking and so um I get I guess that's I I I get that that's what the ordinance says but I've been FL I flagged this when we you know had um Ucho coming in to that corner and I get it it's a different part of Sunset Harbor but you can only fit so many valet parking in that one parking garage that everybody keeps talking about how empty it is all the time like at some point it's not going to be empty because we're relying on all those for for the valet parking in in the Sunset Harbor neighborhood and none of these restaurants have parking and so you know to to know that there's 19 spaces in that building you want to have 321 seats uh the 19 spaces are for the whole building it's not just for the restaurant it's just for the residential units right exactly so there's none like we just so just you understand we follow the code I know if there's an if there's additional parking provided that's not that's not a required parking it comes against F so we just follow the code well I get that future you're I get that's what your job is to to follow the code and you're doing that my issue us here on the planning board is to be on the lookout for things like this where you're asking to increase the number of seats it may be palatable for parking no parking when you've got you know 100 or 260 seats but the increase to 321 to me doesn't make sense I'm you know I I'm okay with the 12 a.m. Outdoors but not with uh two 100 outdoor seats um I think it's the similar sort of you know the more people you put out there the harder it is to hear each other I know you're not going to have music out there but you know just normal conversation we've heard you know sound Engineers talk about normal level of conversation and it's going to carry so my personal thinking is and and kind of going along with what I think should be the future of this planning board which is give a little bit see how what what do we know what restaurant is going in there we and by the way Ronnie fvar is on zoom and he'd like to speak at some point he's town but uh so whenever that's that's but but I will be honest with you there is an agreement with an operator and I was asked if we could discuss it they were doing a very detailed press release but it complies it's not an entertainment venue it's a Bonafide restaurant we will get a press release soon but I I'm not at Liberty to discuss it until they do their own press Rel but I guess my my only point is that you know one of the things that we have done in the past on this planning board is to give what's being asked and then the burden is on the neighbors to have to flag it they have to call Code Compliance then the neighbors have to show up to these meetings um they they get continued a few times or whatever happens um and the burd Really on the neighbors to do the heavy lifting to get something changed I think it's what's easier and better for the neighbors or the residents is to give a little bit of what you're asking reach some sort of compromise and if you're doing really well if the sound's not carrying then come back to us and and we'll we'll give you more but I want I want to emphasize and I know everybody spoken this is the compromise this took a lot of time to get here it involved meetings multiple times with all the Commissioners and I know some of you weren't on this board at the time that's your compromise with the neighbor it's not the planning Bo no I understand I understand I'm just saying this getting to where we are sa D us from getting because there was a Reliance on on a hotel here there was legitimate Financial Reliance and that's why Mr Sterns was retained just to protect Mr finv Barb's rights for a hotel we reimagined this in a way that it would work for Mr finvarb and not have to put us into a dispute with the city but you know this was the compromise and you're saying the hotel versus I'm not talking about the hotel aspect I'm just talking about seats no I'm tell that there was a 36 unit Hotel proposed that was as of right right at the time that he put money down then they got banned and then because of the negotiations with the commission with the neighbors we did not proceed with a hotel the code changed to prohibit hotels that's how we reimagine this in a way that it works he clearly would have preferred to build the original project that's why he bought it but this was a way to compromise getting this to work as is was a lot of work all right let's hear um from uh I guess ronb on Zoom hi Ronnie do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do thank you hey everyone I'm so so happy to be here thank you for taking the time sorry I could not be there in person I'm actually out of town uh with my family uh but you know I've been listening to this and we've been at this for a very long time um I've actually been at this since 2020 on this property and when I bought this property the property was entitled uh to be a for you know was entitled and and permitted for not entitled but it was permitted for hotel use and that was um where we relied on that we proceeded with hotel as the use we um and we were planning on doing a 36 room Hotel subsequent to that happen happening you know there was obviously the overlay um fast forward four years we've had multiple meetings with the Sunset Harbor um Association we entered into an agreement with the Sunset Harbor Association and we relied and we continue to rely on the agreements uh that we've entered into and on the ordinance that was passed by the city this is not this is not black you know this is not gray area I need those seats we have we have have entered into an agreement and without every single one of those seats that we made a deal for the deal does not proceed we have a lender um that we are uh that we have selected to proceed with the construction of this project we have engaged all of our design professionals and engineers and our full team um so to now pull one seat away from this at this stage of the game a year after we had entered into this agreement with with this the association and got this approved unanimously by the city is a nonstarter unfortunately for us and when I say non-starter it means that the deal is going to blow up unfortunately so again let's let's all you know let's all basically be mindful of the fact that I am building a luxury product a Gourmet Market top-of-the-line Gourmet Market with a cafe on the first level that is going to be well received since we no longer have Epicure okay second level restaurant that has is going to have top-of-the-line finishes the food is spoton it's going to be something that is going to be really well received in the neighborhood and then 12 highly amenitized uh full full stateof the art luxury finishes um residential units okay I'm not a bad here we are basically we people know me in in in the town they know what we do we're building you know some high quality projects throughout the neighborhood and this project is surrounded by a Ross Dress for Less a car wash and an Office Depot and the people that would be affected if any by my outdoor seating are going to be my two hotels across the street which is the kton and the Marriott so again I'm not going to do anything to shoot myself in the foot to to do and to build something that we feel is going to compromise the guest experience at our properties across the street but hopefully you guys could really um appreciate the fact that we have worked hard okay at pivoting from one use to another we have we have had lengthy dialogue and negotiations with the association and there there was no um gray area as far as what was being asked for these were very very you know lengthy negotiations everybody was clear on what was being asked for we gave concessions you know they gave concessions obviously we reached an agreement and we have been relying on that agreement and the ordinance since that happened a year ago so again you know we we're we're building something spectacular that is going to activate the area and and we're surround Ed by you know obviously a a Ross a Office Depot and a car wash and we're building something that is is going to be spectacular it's something that's going to be really well received in the neighborhood and my reputation and I think our reputation as a group speaks for itself it itself and we are you know we're obviously neighbors you know born and raised in Miami Beach um so we we frequent the Sunset Harbor neighborhood all the time we have two living breathing um hotels across the street and and let me let me um let me raise one additional or address one additional concern we own the kton and we own the Marriott across the street both hotels run consistently in in the mid 70s to mid 80s per occupancy our parking garage is annualized barely even even when we run in the mid-70s to mid 80s per occupancy our our parking garages barely reach 30 % occupancy annualized let's say 30 35% occupancy so we have a significant a significant amount of empty spaces because the dynamic has changed where people Uber back and forth and they don't you know Park their cars so we have plenty of additional parking aside from all the parking that sunen Harbor has we have a significant amount of parking across the street um as well that is being very underutilized Ronnie do you allow do you allow parking in those hotels other than Hotel I guess yeah uh we do um okay when when um uh we we do we we when uh our restaurant was fully uh activated we had parking for the restaurant patrons as well and we never had an issue okay but is it is it valet only or is it valet only yes it's it's valet only by the way Michael so again listen we we know what we know what um what the area demands we you know I'm very um you know strategic in bringing you know filling voids for the area and this will be a significant void that we're filling that is going to be really really well received by The Neighborhood um and again our outdoor uh seating overlooks our Kon right across the street and I I personally would not do anything to compromise Our Guest experience because we need repeat customers and guests to continue to come to our restaur our hotels all right thanks Ronnie and the C addresses I'm here for questions you know don't don't hesitate let me let me go through the condition so if I understand everything the only concern is whether the patrons will make a lot of noise because they don't they're not all lowed music they're not all lowed entertainment up there right correct so it's just people people talking right like I said there's there's no resident uses nearby this is a commercial Zone I know where it is there's no one near it's also not it's not on the top level it's on the second level so it's top I'm just going to say my piece and let you all decide I I know the finvarb family forever and he is very reputable they are always good operators um I think in Reliance on the deal and all that they've done that and where this is located um I'm in favor of the application so I'll let is there anybody else on Zoom by the way there's nobody else on okay so we're in Clos public hearing and also I I do see that that uh um it's number 14 section n number 14 does address noise all right um Scott just a question for staff just to clarify when this when the original cup was issued um it was an 8m cut off for for outdoor was that the the code at the time or what was the reason behind okay and then the code as well as the code at the time did not allow any occupancy more than 199 in the area so that was another reason why they they s the modification okay okay yeah I think besides noise the other issue here which hasn't really been talked about much though is is transportation and I had a couple questions and I went through your operational plan um so I'm just going to go through one by one and then perhaps you can address address those uh the employee parking plan you discuss bicycle parking on the property to serve residents patrons and employees but going through the site plans that were provided the architectural plans I didn't see any on site so I think that's important that there be there be secure bicycle parking for employees and residents especially since I I did the math here and PM shift is is 62 employees so that's a pretty significant amount you need to find space I think on site in the garage and there's only this this has only three spaces shall be provided yeah it says three but there's not even three listed on the Plan Three is insufficient anyway yeah so we definitely need a sufficient number there and then uh the other item is the valet parking I know Melissa mentioned this everyone's concerned about that garage uh Mr finvarb just said that that his two hotels nearby have 30% occupancy in the garage would you be willing to consider and is there something that we can do staff offer a condition that that any Valley parking needs to fill to capacity those two garages that he mentioned before they Park Vehicles anywhere else I mean Ronnie's there he can confirm but I I'm speaking to Stephanie I don't think that's a problem as long as those are available we're happy to use them frankly I was involved with Mr finvarb when you got those buildings approved all of our data showed that the parking would be underutilized but we had to meet code we went forward and they are in fact I've been there I mean it is it's a ghost town those those garages they have mechanical parking and they're empty uh so I I I would have no problem I don't know if how it's put in condition but where you contemplate where did the operation plan just says that Valley parking will be offered where did you contemplate offering so hauk Vargas is on Zoom as well if you want to hear from him he did all the traffic engineering okay um but in CET Harbor there obviously are garages available um but to and we and we believe strongly based on our experience in the area Ronnie's experience in the area uh most of the folks that are going to be frequenting the establishment e both both the residential and the you know at least the the restaurant uses are not going to be using cars the mar Market is something we expect people to walk to uh the restaurant is a destination people will be ubering but to the extent that we need more and again the reason Sunset Harbor has those regulations about reduced parking is because of the existence of the garage GES and it was meant to encourage the use of those garages from LA and not build unnecessary parking that was the intent when that legislation was adopted many years ago but we just have the unique luxury of Ronnie having two garages right across the street which are you know at 30% capacity so to your point I don't think we'd have a problem Ronnie can confirm agree no condition that so long as there availability we would use those garages for any overflow of LA and I would ask if staff thinks that's a good idea or not as well before we I think um as long as the applicant agrees to that condition and doesn't oppose it we can include a condition basically it would require them to um to use the existing garages for valet operations before using other locations Ronnie wanted to speak he's just texting me you want to hear from um Ronnie Ronnie are you there yeah can you hear me yes okay listen um the idea is to get the same valet parking operator that would make the most sense because you know obviously to the extent that there is um availability of other parking garages you know the ballet operators will be you know right now the pal the kton and the Marriott have the same ballet parking operator we have the same ballet parking operator the idea here would be that to have the same Valley parking operator so that we could determine what availability exists at the existing garages now to make a deed restriction or a covenant with respect to other properties I'm not in a position to do that because I don't um you know I don't think that's something that should be required of us but um there is plenty of parking in the area I'm giving you an example of the two hotels across the street where we do have um you know Surplus parking and and and the idea would be yes we would we would obviously use that Surplus parking but I'd rather not put a condition because they are separate properties um and you know I don't want to unnecessarily restrict those other properties um but the idea is have the same Valley parking operator um for for for the property so that they could have you know great um communication to determine what is available um but there there is plenty of parking um not only in our two hotels across the street but also in obviously the huge parking garage and and obviously others uh throughout sunson Harbor keep in mind everyone that most of the hotels in Sunset harb most of the restaurants in Sunset Harbor do not have any parking uh we have some obviously we have some on-site parking um and we would not you know proceed if we felt that we were under parked and and you know our guest would be circling around uh we you know we we have a a level of confidence knowing that the dynamic has shifted and you know based on the two hotels across the street uh you know we feel even more confident that parking is you know we have a plenty of surplus so I'd rather not you know have a have a a condition which ties those two properties across the street to this um but I just wanted to give you that piece of information because um you know we we definitely are we we definitely have a surplus thank you Ronnie just to address to I was confirming because I remember there being some bicycle parking we are required to have bicycle parking it's in the cup already and the requirement is that we provide it the location at permitting so we're going to comply with that we're not asking that to be removed so there will be bicycle parking um again I I hope we're not going to be back here on this again but it's a cup if there was a valet problem if there was a noise problem we're not expecting anything but we'll come back staff will bring us back and we'll deal with it so you have that level of protection we don't think we'll need to be we don't see this as an a project that's going to have issues um but you all have that control that's the beauty of the cup uh you can vote in favor of this based on everything we've said hopefully and in confidence know that if there is a problem we're going to have to come and address it and hopefully it doesn't happen and we do have a condition that they do have to come back to the board for progress report within 90 days of the BTR and I would suggest that at the time that any sort of valet operations and and the occupancy of that valet should be provided to the board as part of an updated you know traffic statement we're happy to agree with that because we've often seen the cases where you know the the board reviews use a valet operation based upon anticipated number of trips and anticipated number of valet Runners and it's almost always the case that the number of Runners is is is much less than what was anticipated because the utilization of that valet is not as was expected right yeah so we're fine with that condition so to the valet points because I'm looking at the the map here on page 146 of our packet the Ross across the street also has a garage as well perhaps as part of the progress report the location of storage will be something that would be reported to us absolutely that we we'll bring that back that's I think what Michael had in mind and we can agree with that yeah just so I think every time we have an application that is a new building that has any sort of traffic or Valley component the um board should be updated as to how the actual operation has been handled since opening as part of any progress report but Melissa's concern I think is valid though most of these large hotel or large restaurants that have been contemplated they've used that sunset Harbor Garage as their answer to questions about parking for patrons so uh you know just another one in the line there and and I think that these these red flags being raised are are are valid um but you know regarding the bicycle parking I think it does it say in here that three spaces will be required again can you point us to the plan the the sheet on the plan they're not located yet the requirement was that they be provided the location at permitting yeah so they're working on you know required to have them um so I don't have a location confirmed yet but it will be part of our perit application at the requirement again I counted from your operations plan 62 employees in the PM shift that's pretty high number many people live in the area on Miami Beach and they and they use micr Mobility or they use they use bicycles to get here in the hospitality industry so you know I would advocate for a higher number than three yeah and we can increase that number now if you want or um that was that was based upon the prior lower number so now we're 260 so now we're increasing it substantially so I would suggest you know much higher number for that yeah again again I don't want to to legislate that or or pick that number but maybe you know uh if there's their traffic engineer couldn't suggest one based upon um so look I'm just communicating with my friend in Colorado right now uh just based on the percentage of change we can say five you know or you at least five that's more than three again we don't believe they'll be that utilized but I think five is a good number uh if does that work that's at least we're going from in that restaurant we're going from what was like 170 something seats to 240 so it's you know that's commensurate with I think I think we also should identify um so so I think we don't need to have bicycle parking identified specifically for the residential units on the property I think we need to have parking for um both protected parking probably covered inside for employees as well as parking that could be covered or on the public you know public RightWay the city can install you know you will guys can install um bicycle bicycle racks according to the city standard in the public RightWay so I think there's an opportunity to have much more or many more parking spaces both on property and than the public RightWay subject to the transportation and Parking Department we're happy to meet with Transportation we're happy to when we come back for that progress report to report on how that's been addressed and what we've added but just to give you some relief I think we can agree now and have gotten em text confirmation five we can add that condition we can modifi to include Inc include a greater number and then um you know at the time of the progress report we can review that and even increase it further based upon what the final permanent locations are and what's available okay we're fine I think definitely want we want to have more than more than five in the RightWay in the sidewalk area for B but these five are like on the property in addition to that we want to have parking in the garage and I'm also happy to hear that that you're going to have more parking spaces because it is an issue and and um especially since y'all don't want to tie the properties together so thank you um in paragraph N9 G there's a typo in terms of the valet uh it says uh oh yeah sorry that's so I don't know where which street I don't know where the parking is going to be but that needs to be fixed um I guess I'm I'm still uh hung up on the the the valet the parking situation we don't know where they're going to be parking so how are we supposed to know the number of trips going through Sunset Harbor if they're parking in the public parking garage you know that's you know Valley operators zooming through you know the streets um you know we we all have we have to take all this planning for Sunset Harbor all into account I mean you know we're looking at we have this two big new restaurants both very big restaurants uh you know on pry um they're they're providing parking right at that new building yeah they they are but I'm saying in terms of the the congestion the sound I mean the um you've got the the new members club uh you've got babay you've got all these new things which is great for the neighborhood but I just think that it requires more uh consideration into the traffic patterns um the noise levels you know without seeing an operation plan I mean I see you submitted an a a sort of a barebones operation plan but without understanding you know what type of restaurant we're talking about you know whether it's a lot of foot traffic whether it's a lot of people you know like uh you know like sadel is going to be would in my mind be more people who are going to be driving than something that's sort of ground level walking for the neighborhood people um and so I guess I'm just uncomfortable increasing all this I'm fine with the the midnight so long as there's some noise attenuation um devices in play I don't see anything really other than the fact that there's no speakers but you know when you have when you have that many people you know 100 people on the uh on a second floor are there is there going to be foliage is are going to be you know any awnings or anything um and I'm just I know you want to move on Ronnie says he want he want to speak again but and if that's if that's available he can but yeah there will be foliage there will be things like that there weren't really installed as sound attenuation necessarily because again what we've seen in my 20 plus years and Michael's vast experience in this when you don't when you don't have outdoor speakers when you don't have entertainment there's no music out there so this is not a bar where people are talking at a bar this people are sitting down eating I don't know you know listen in all fairness I don't know you know we haven't seen anything we don't know the name of the operator um and respectful I mean I I appreciate what we're trying to do with this building it's beautiful I'm sure the neighbors are going to like it when it's done but I don't it's not fair to us we're trying to do the best we can to come in ask for more seats and then say if you don't give us this the whole thing is going to flop and the whole thing is going to fail Jonathan I well I agree with you to a point but you have to also take in account where this is located I totally understand okay but that's a big deal it is a big deal not pretty Louge across the street guys can we address the can we address the the sound attenuation in a Dr in drb because that seems like we can do it now is what I'm saying like why can't we just add in a very you know standard thing that says like you know sound attenuation devices will be utilized don't have to get too specific but there will be you know foliage to minimize the caring of conversations to neighboring buildings I mean there's a hotel I get it the same owner of of the property so they don't have any interest in disturbing the guest but there's a hotel right there as well um sorry whenever he want Ronnie go ahead last comment then we're gonna move on go ahead Ronnie are you there yes J Jonathan first of all I want to commend you for raising some great points and we have thought of all of the all of the matters that you're discussing and addressed it we have a big specimen tree going in the middle of the outdoor um patio area on the second level so there's going to be like a big specimen tree in the middle that that will create sound attenuation and there will be covered canopy uh canopies around that um second level area as well that's going to create additional sound attenuation also so keep in mind guys that we are right next to this is probably the only site that I could think of that has is bordered by three roads okay there's 18th Street there's Dade Boulevard and there's Alton Road which has the highest traffic counts in all of Miami Beach okay so we are on that corner bordered by these three roads so at as much as people are concerned of noise going out we're concerned of noise coming in okay so we are creating we have a we have a noise consultant that's on the team not everybody engages a noise consultant okay and we are doing certain things on that outdoor area that will create sound attenuation uh inside coming inside and going outside okay so Jonathan really good points and we have addressed those points and we have a huge specimen tree in the middle and we have canopies all around that second level area as well to help with that sound attenuation so I appreciate you raising that and we have a tremendous amount of foliage and landscaping around that second level as well to create additional attenuation so great you know I I really appreciate it and we have addressed that okay good so um so can we include in the in the um cup thank you Mr vinbar uh that the applicant will will utilize foliage and canopies to uh attenuate sound to neighboring areas fine with that too and I do appreciate the the wanting to bring noise in from the street too so we can include we can include that condition and I would and I would also strengthen the valet queuing I would just I would say there shall be no queuing uh of valet cars yeah so to ensure no queuing um but it says to ensure no queuing that's like you know I think it should be there shall be no queuing so that if there is long queuing it's a violation well I just want to make make clear valet by its Nature has some queueing it won't be long queuing but right it's there will be cars that you know for seconds right I just want to make make that clear that if if three cars show up the valid attendant will be and and the conditions written in a way that's sufficient so that the queing goes away quickly right there's no there's no backup right right Ronnie go ahead I think so I know we um closed the public hearing but since it's been back and forth and Ronnie spoke a few times we do have a couple callers now so you going to reopen the public hearing okay all right really briefly because we've been at this for an hour go ahead um Paul Wexler Paul do you swear affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do go ahead Paul yeah I just did one and two suggest earlier on but the uh public part was cut off is that there would be some sound attenuation you guys have addressed that now but I'm not sure whether foliage does it in of itself or whether there would be some kind of glass but much as Sarah had pointed out earlier you know the noise factor is a big concern as well is what precedents get set for future projects like the Office Depot Paul where do you live uh I'm on the uh the Sunset Harbor Association uh board as well I've joined recently I'm at Sunset Harbor North okay and we have Mitch noic also with his hand raised hi Mitch do you swear the testimony you'll give this proceeding is the truth all truth nothing but the truth hey folks sorry uh good afternoon I inadvertently somehow hit the raise hand icon I apologize no problem let's go we do have another caller uh Marilyn freudl Hi Marilyn do you swear that the testimony you'll give this proceeding is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do can you hear me yes thank you thank you um first of all I'm very sorry I'm not there in person but I am in Ohio on Grandma Duty so I'm on zoom and I want to thank Sarah who is fantastic she's a great representative of our association and there's a couple of things and also I want to thank Mickey and and Ronnie because they they have been very fair in their presentation and I appreciate that um it is my understanding from years and years and years back when we negotiated the garage uh with the um Scott Robin and and the city and and U that there was not and Maddie was at at the time I think if I recall correctly there was not to be any valet parking in our garage the garage was not supposed to be used for ballet parking so I want to know if that still is true or if that has change regardless of talking about the Sunset Harbor Garage conet Harbor Garage yes it was one of the conditions that it will not be used for ballet no we're using it no we're not using it a storage I think the the logic there is what I do when I go to sunet Harbor and I drive which is at night usually not but during the day I'll park in that garage and walk a block or trying to understand we using no we're not using it as a story Mi Mickey I'm talking about company using the garage to ballet cars that was a prohibited use when we first negotiated that garage if that has changed I do not know that's my question no understood Marilyn thank you for that we're not and I appreciate your kind comments we're not using that as a valet storage we're using weing please it's a general question not nothing having to do with you for staff she's asking i' have to research I have no idea all right Marilyn they have to look at into that okay the other question that I have uh are they going to have any activity in the rooftop of the building is there a pool up there oh there's a pool for the residential uses it's not open to the public it's just for the residents we have conditions regarding that in the final order yeah it's a for the 12s only and just to go back to any noise coming out from there anyways what it's all it's all ambient right it's there's no speakers outdoor speakers right yeah correct but Jonathan to your point sorry go ahead Marilyn then we're gonna let you conclude yes please and another thing that I noticed with this new um uh thing that you sent is that you're you're having mechanical parking was that part of the original deal that's the reason yes that is that for me that's the reason we came to the planning board originally for the me it's not a 50,000 foot it's for the mechanical parking that's only for the res the the again the only require parking year is for the is for the residential but that's always been there so like just just to conclude I don't want to take more time um like Sarah said we're not happy with a lot of things that are going on on that property but we had to compromise we were very pressured by the previous commission to do that so yes we we did and we stand by what we agreed but we hope we really hope and I I'm very appreciative of Ronnie and he's always been a good friend and I really uh appreciate his projects he's a fantastic operator that uh we will be able to live in peace and if something uh comes up that we can all come back to the planning Bo and resolve our differences thank you marily thank you and Ronnie confirmed uh Jonathan that he agrees as he proposed a condition on foliage and canopies to a function of sound attenuation it's already plan so we're happy to agree to that we can can we add that yeah we can add that as a condition and you have the five spaces the five minimum right all right with all that said can we have a motion by somebody yeah I'll motion I'll move it move it forward with the conditions we said with the foliage to for a sound barrier in the queuing of five cars and off second all in favor I I I I sorry I missed it that included also the increase in ble Y in favor yes anyone opposed no okay Marilyn thank you um Sarah thank thank you and so this will this will be back before the board for a progress report 90 days after the operation of the restaurants yes sir thank you and is that progress report is it still open for modification no a progress report couldnot be substantially modified I'm sorry I I can't sorry a pro um a cop cannot be substantially modified at the time of a progress report unless the applicant agrees like if the applicant agrees we're going to modify this condition they can agree to that versus having to set a revocation modification hearing got it I was just thinking it might be for new applications the process might be easier I mean obviously the whole thing would have to change the but might be easier to leave it open for modification at that 90day Mark so that we don't that you don't have to notice and you know go through all that yeah I think that's a good point that's something that we could we could include as an amendment say that you know um the valley operation or certain elements could be modified at the time of a progress report I think as long as the cop is clear on that then I think we can include that and I would make make sure that it related to a specific issue I I think there you know there is an important Reliance component on on what the boards approve so um I think if there's a specific issue that you're concerned about and you want to have the authority to make changes then then let's be specific I would like to make sure that that that the valley parking can be used at another place because I do think that's going to be an issue well the they're when they come back for the progress report because the board asked them for this they're going to give us their valet operations plan or how it's been operating they're going to give us that plan and show us how it's been operating as part of that progress report I think I think all right we're going to move on um we're going to take 15 minutes you all I've got to leave your guys lunches here what what are you here for which item 13 okay we're they're going take a 10-minute lunch break sir and then uh excuse me since the chair is leaving I have a request and here for the elimination of the 3.5 Florida ration Washington Avenue can we postpone this for the next meeting so the board can be there and we can make our present which one are you talking about can you repeat please what number it is p 24697 right and so what's your request I'm the only one that won't be here yeah I would like to present to the whole board in the next meeting if possible uh I don't see it said you rush no I don't know what the commission's POS I don't know no we're we're re we're recommending that the board hear it we will have we will have more than the four members required to transmit a recommendation so we're recommending that they want to move forward I'm the only one that won't be but they want to move forward but thank you for asking I I I was going to support his thought but however if we need to wait we're we're going to move forward with it so we're going to take it 10-minute break and then Melissa will take over and we'll be on uh ordinances [Music] [Music] [Music] my for take [Music] up oh take me [Music] e [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to begin please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 one all right we're going to get started with the second part we're going through the U comprehensive plan and code amendments uh starting with um PB 24671 for hide incentives for hotel conversion to residential use thank you and this um staff report begin on page 159 of the board packages so just first some history on this um this proposed amendment is to further incentivize the conversion of hotels within the rps4 zoning District such as the subject application which is for the mar and Stanton located at 161 Ocean Drive this is to be to converted from uh convert it to non-transit residential now the replacement of a hotel with a non-transient residential use reduce the impact of Hotel uses in the south of fifth neighborhood and the code was amended of last year to allow rps4 properties that voluntarily convert to residential use to have a maximum floor area of 2.75 where the previously maximum was 2.0 and this was actually approved with a voter referendum back on um November 8th of 2022 that passed um with approval of 65% of of the city's voters so the property already has an incentive to increase the F to 2.75 by converting it to a non-transient residential use this application is proposing to increase the height that's allowed for this type of conversion from the maximum that's permitted now of 100 ft to 145 ft in staff's review of this application you know the increase of um f represents about a 38% increase compared to the prior approval so we do believe that the applicant proposal to increase the height from 100 ft to 145 is proportional to the to the um increase in F we are recommending that as part of this there be some slight increase in the setback requirements since they're get getting additional height so we all recommending as part of this approval that we do increase the setbacks for the pedestal slightly and that so the um so that in when they eventually go to the historic preservation board for approval we're not resulting in a pedestal that takes up the entire width of the property property as well as as the height so we are recommending that the application be approved with a slight increase to the pedestal requirements for for for for property such as this that I'll turn it over to the applicant for their presentation Madame Vice chair board memb City staff Christopher pelis and niss kin's joining me remotely he's out of town but joining us uh virtually uh from acran Lop law office is located at 98 Southeast 7 Street in the city of Miami Florida I'm joined today with the project principal Colin Gorsuch uh from Kumar Investments LLC who are the principles of pushing this project forward and the Redevelopment of the marot Stanton if we can put up the slide presentation please thank you um just to give a little background here uh a few things um as as Mr bch mentioned this did go to vote a referendum uh for the 75 F incentive November 2022 uh approved by uh 65% of the electorate here in the city of Miami Beach uh after that approval um if we go to the next slide please next slide um just to give a little bit of a timeline here uh we started this process off by going to the south of fifth neighborhood association to get their buy in for that 75 F incentive um the ballot question was then referred to the voters again as I mentioned previously and Mr bch mentioned this was approved by 65% of the voters then in May of 2023 uh the F incentive was codified by the city Commission um at that point in time we went back studied uh the the uh use of that additional F realized that we we needed additional height to take advantage of that F incentive uh we went back to sofa um to get their endorsement of the additional height they uh passed a resolution uh endorsing our our our request for 45 ft of additional height um I also wanted to point out that the situation here has changed a little bit the governor uh in March of this year passed the resiliency and safe structures act which would allow for the demolition of historic structures that intersect with the Coastal Construction Control line and what's interesting here about this zoning District the RPS for zoning district is that if you have a contributing building on property your height is actually limited to 75 fet um and the reason why I point out the rssa is now we're actually incentivized to demolish the historic structure because with the contributing historic structure on property we're limited to 75 ft of height while if we demolish it we can go up to 100 um so this this proposal that we have today would also incentivize the maintenance of historic of contributing historic structures as it's one of the conditions uh to go ahead and tap into these incentives that those structures be uh be be maintained uh we went in front of the historic preservation board uh earlier this month uh for an advisory review they they they recommended and passed a resol solution uh supporting up to 150 ft of height at their discretion uh for these projects so they gave us five additional feet uh we'll happily take that if that's the board's recommendation today um and then now we're here in front of you all uh for our transmiss transmittal hearing next slide please so this is we wanted to give you this slide just to kind of show what the zoning district is these are all the ocean front properties south of fifth along ocean you get some of South Point as well such as the Pino towers and the Continuum towers that are in South in the south of fifth neighborhood our development site is just south of Marjorie Stoneman uh Douglas Park uh south of Second Street next slide please and this is what the south of Second Street neighborhood looks like I wanted to contextualize this so that you see we're asking for 145 ft of height as you can see there you have Glass Tower uh that's about 200 ft of height and then you have again on South Point those very tall buildings four of which I believe are over 300 feet of height so the request that that we're proposing today contextually uh is in line with the neighborhood and and the zoning District uh next slide please these are some examples of some of the structures uh that exist uh within the rps4 zoning District uh you have the Marriott s you have the Hilton Bentley um again the the taller towers of continuing Port of Pho know on South Point um and some other structures again east of of ocean uh south of fifth next slide so this this slide here kind of uh highlights the the zoning proposal it's a modification a slight modification of the F incentive that was already uh codified uh just asking for for an additional 145 ft of height again to support that additional f um as I mentioned before and I'm happy to put this into to the record if the boards like it is an exhibit to our letter of intent the letter of support that we received from sofa uh endorsing this proposal next slide please and uh this slide here points out the three properties under the current proposal that would qualify for uh this incentive um again the intent of this is to transition transient uses into residential uses in line uh with the existing neighborhood the three properties that would qualify for this F and height incentive currently qualify for the F incentive but also the additional height should this be adopted would be the seavo and Beach Club Hilton Bentley and my client's property the marot Staten um next slide please this diagram uh shows the study that we conducted after the FDR incentive was adopted uh this shows the additional about 67,000 Square fet uh that that 75 F incentive represents um and and the difficulty that we had in placing the massing considering the existing historic structure on the property and also the setbacks that apply to the property um that that area in red is basically you know the the conflict that we had um so we're we studied it we found that 45 ft of additional height up top would would give us enough space to go ahead and place that additional F and really allow the incentive to go ahead and and act as is originally proposed to transition those residential uses next slide so this shows again the F and height incentive as applied to 161 ocean um right now the existing hotel is about7 ft to the top of the roof um the uh if you see to the left side of the screen we have an architectural element there that I think Colin correct me if I goes like 125 12 5 ft um so this kind of shows the existing uh height versus what's being proposed from the top of the existing uh architectural treatment we're asking for an additional 20 25 ft further from the top of that next slide please and again this just shows contextually the location of of our of our proposed project and the neighboring buildings in their height uh again on South Point you have some very very tall buildings uh just hit corner to our project you have Glass Tower which is about 200 ft um and we're asking for 145 next slide please and then I'm going to pass it on to Colin just to give you guys again we'll we'll be coming back to the HPB for design review approval um hopefully after this uh proposed ordinance is adopted um but we wanted to go ahead and give you all an idea of what we're looking at and contextualize the program obviously this is subject to design change pending comments with staff and and the process but wanted to go ahead and give you guys a visualization of what uh the proposed development would look like Colin hi good afternoon Colin Gorsuch vice president of development for key International which comar um properties um here representing the ardit family uh who originally purchased the property and is the current owner um originally developed U the hotel which exists on site today uh purpose of uh my part of the presentation is just to show you uh who the architect is that we've selected and uh an idea of the proposed development that uh could be uh could be accomplished with the additional height so we're excited um that we've hired Olsen kundig Architects olssen kundig is a world or not Architecture Firm uh really known for their Regional modernism meaning that they're modernist but they're very sensitive to the site and site specific uh architecture in terms of materiality attention to craftsmanship and um and the environment and also specifically in this case um neighboring buildings and and how we fit in with the existing site these four renderings um we felt it was important to develop the architecture um to a concept level which is what is in front of you today to illustrate what the massing um would need to be uh and and within the 145 foot height limitation uh again as Chris said the additional height allows us to fit the the the additional F uh um that we've been approved for uh top left image is from the Northeast looking uh towards the building uh the bottom left image is of the view of the property from Ocean Drive uh bottom right is from the Margery Stoneman Douglas Park looking South and then the top right is uh the top unit uh again very conceptual still but the idea is just to show you um you know what Olsen kundig has has proposed for for the concept to um you know again sight specific large overhangs um uh Stone travertin Uh Wood U and we think it's a really exciting design so that it I would just ask if I could reserve a minute for rebuttal should it become necessary I also want to point out that we did review uh staff's recommendation on the proposed setback and my client does not have an objection thank you and we do have niss on the line niss would you like to speak on this good morning chair and members of the board niss casden uh I think Chris laid it out well uh I'm available if there are any questions uh as well I would like to just as well point out that this is very much the appropriate context for that rps4 zoning District which has a combination of tall buildings uh some built in the uh last 20 25 years like Continuum and the others others which were built earlier in the 60s or 7s 465 ocean 401 ocean uh and there are some uh shorter two three story historic buildings so it's a the district is a mixture of both and this zoning allows that context to be maintained by allowing appropriate new uh uh higher residential development and while maintaining historic structures I would point out uh that this was not just supported by sofa but unanimously supported in both their resolutions for the F and for the height they view this as critical to the uh continuing transition of south of fifth into a more residential neighborhood versus a transient neighborhood and this is really the only way that with our property that that can be achieved so if there are any questions here to answer them uh uh and thank you for your time on this is there anyone else here in chamber to speak on [Music] it all right so do we have questions here on the board Scott yeah just one question um for staff uh you mentioned there should be no variances from the subsection C is what is c what is it referring to let me find the section here hold on what page are you on in the staff report page 169 and the re the reason I'm asking is because I mean they're proposing to just add on to the existing bill I have no no issue with that at all I I'm I'm in favor of this my concern is if whatever you don't go through with it or you sell the property and somebody decides to tear the building down and rebuild I'd want to be sure that whatever is built there is built according to whatever the current zoning is without without looking for any any any variances and um I'm just curious because this refers to subsection C and I just want to be sure that any new building um new construction there would not be able to get any kind of variances give me just a second Madam Vice chair if I may yes um so Mr needlman I just want to clarify for for the purpos of the record our proposal would be to demolish the existing hotel but maintain the contributing building on property um it's the the contributing building is what's on the North West portion of the property it's the two-story building where the Starbucks currently exists um at the Marriott answer our proposal would be to maintain that and then build a new addition behind that demolishing the the hotel um I believe subsection C and and and Mr Chief Deputy plea please correct me if I'm wrong I believe it's in regard to the short-term rental provision uh that's included as part of the uh yes yes it's basically should be it should be um within that subsection 4 which talks about the um the height um and F I think maybe this the C could be a carryover from this was originally drafted as an amendment to the old code if I remember correctly you could C be a carryover from the old code and it really should say four now potentially I'm happy to clarify that with you after Mr we and we can we can we can look at that after I think the intent was that um that any variances from the the provisions relating to the F incentive any variances would be prohibited and that would include the conditions prohibiting uh uh where the where the applicant right there's basically we're required to profer a covenant voluntarily restricting our our residential units prohibiting short-term rentals less than uh six months yeah it's not to prohibit variances from say a setback or um um something else some other provision of the code okay well you I mean you you've you've um um uh suggested that they increased setback so I guess I guess if you want to put those in when they come back with their new design maybe they ask for Avance from that I you know it's not it doesn't prohibit that still still subject to the historic preservation board right yeah should it be I mean if if one of your concerns is is increased setbacks should there be a Prohibition on on a setback variance I mean I I because it's it's it's um and it's for the new construction not obviously the the the the existing building that will remain with the existing bu the the existing building is going to there's no setbacks there's nothing um the existing setbacks can be maintained for the existing building so corre this would just be for the new construction yeah and and that's just my concern that you know if you want to impose existing or or newer setbacks increased setbacks that they're in my opinion shouldn't be a um you know you shouldn't ask for a variance from that in other words just design as per what the current yeah and Madame Vice chair if I may respond to that my understanding Mr belush and correct me if I'm wrong the purpose of that uh recommended uh uh modification to the proposal was to prevent uh uh developers from coming in with these existing structures and using the established setback line foration for new construction um and we're fine basically this would just refer to the underlying setback regulations within the district and we're okay with that we're okay with the recommendation from staff we we we are not proposing to use the established uh setback line uh from the existing structure for our new construction we will be moving forward you know respecting the the seven I think it's seven and a half it's also a higher standard to argue for a Varian so I think that you know um if we if we don't put this in and they come to the board and have a 5- foot setback without a variance then it's it's then you have to argue from a design perspective that that that that setback is not appropriate in this case it um it would require variance if they're not complying with the underlying zoning and they would have to establish you know a hardship and there's a more process to go through so I wouldn't say outright it should be prohibited I do think that um you know I don't think we need to prohibit variances from that section I do think we do need to establish L what are the increased setbacks okay yeah again I mean I'm usually when there's a blank when somebody starts with a blank slate um I think they should build you know as per whatever the development regulations I know they have an existing building so there is some there's some there's some there's you know there are some constraints because of the existing building on the site so without having seeing without seeing a final proposal or you know final site plan I do I do think there should be some flexibility also um there are other properties involved in this Zone and the only ones that pertain to the increase for the rps4 are the ones that have an active um um Hotel use right now so those are the ones that this would apply to in the RPS 4 and S is okay with that yes for all all of these properties only three three properties three properties than ma'am all right Scott um you're done go you have any question sorry Michael what's our role and and Nick what's our role in this process because it wasn't referred to us by commission it's it's it's the same process um whether it comes from the city commission or private applicant the standard of review is the same it's just it doesn't come from the city Commission Now ultimately the city commission still has to review and approve like any other application okay um typically if we have an ordinance that's coming from a referral from another another committee it includes U support from members of the city commission um in this case typically if a private applicant is making this application we advise them to discuss this with um the elected officials in advance because ultimately if the elected officials are not supportive of this then they would probably not even file the application because they they don't have an indication of support um so in the end you're just providing a recommendation like any other Amendment to the city commission ultimately it's the city commission that has to approve the ordinance so regardless of our vote today it still heads to the commission for correct forther approval um I do have a couple of questions and first uh I want to thank you Mr pelis for the the the background on the safe structures and resiliency act did I get that right SSR yes yes sir um so you're saying that if by right if you were to demolish the entire structure which uh by the way what year was this hotel constructed believe 19 well the hotel no there's the existing the contributing structure on property is the two-story ston that's on on site the hotel was developed I believe in the 90s 1998 1998 '90s so it's not the the hotel itself where the Marriott is is not considered contributing what's the contributing structure on size the two-story building where the Starbucks is currently housed um and the impact of the rssa the only reason I brought that up is right now the current zoning regulations in rps4 if you have a contributing building on site you're limited to 75 ft in height while if you don't have a contributing building on site you could build up to 100 feet of height so the existing regulations actually deinen divize uh uh um um uh historic preservation because if we demolish pursuant to the rssa by right pursuant to State Statute all of a sudden we get 25 ft of additional height to build up one of the conditions in our proposed ordinance is the maintenance of existing contributing buildings so if we want to tap into this additional height we would have to maintain and it would reverse at least as applied to our property and the two others would reverse that Dynamic and give developers an incentive to keep those historic buildings because now instead of 75 ft you get up to 145 but you would if you were to demolish everything that's there today on site you still would be limited to the current F of 2.0 so not incentivized by additional F correct the way in which the they convert well if they if they convert to a um non-transient residential use correct they can use the incentive of 2.75 it has to be nontransient but then they can't demolish the contributing structure hly so they don't they don't get they don't get both yeah right and Mr galanov I understand your point but it's it's a catch 202 right because I mean the flip of that right point that you made is the current currently that is not usable yeah uh so so it's kind of a catch 22 without the additional height we can't use the F right so so I understand where you're trans use but I think you raised this a good point and after we we make a recommendation on this application we probably we should consider sending a uh Mo make a motion to send a recommendation to the commission to now change that in this zoning District so that the height is the same whether they have a contributing or non-contributing so um we are going to bring before you a discussion I think next month regarding potential um amendments to the resiliency code so we can talk about um those things as well at this time of course um this code was written before any state legislation that was being discussed here so that's why there's that discrepancy which you're right should be should be addressed yeah so C couple other questions for you I know you talked about the south of Second Street neighborhood um the other part of the neighborhood that's north of Second Street we didn't see Heights do you know the heights of those buildings that Mr Kasin mentioned 465 ocean and and the others yeah if we could bring up the PowerPoint go back to the context slide that we had provided if possible yeah go back a few no a little more so go next next one sorry next one next there so if we look at this slide Matthew and I guess you're asking for those properties north of Second Street what are their height yes I don't have the exact height of these buildings but if you look at for example 465 um which I believe is kitty corner to I think there's a TGI Fridays there on on Ocean um that's about 11 11 stories tall um then you also look at 401 Ocean Drive that's also about 11 stories toll um so I don't know the exact height of those buildings I don't have those handy but I do know they're about 112 stories um again we're we're asking for 145 so so contextually I don't think it's too out of character as compared to those buildings and also just north of marjor stowman Douglas Park there was a a recent um residential building that was constructed just north of I don't have the address but I know Frank Doo lives on the north side of of um marjor St in Douglas Park and there was a new high-end Residential Building it's it's actually two buildings directly to the north um one of them is on the street I think it's 312 Ocean Drive or or 321 it be 321 Ocean Drive and then there's a taller building that's to to the east against the um against the beach and I'm wondering you know that might be a good a good Baseline for us to gauge more more contemporary uh you know residential construction do you happen to know the height of that building I I I do not I'm not familiar with the project candidly Mr ganof Nissan are you familiar with that project can you hear me yes which which project it was built in the mid teens it's just north of um well it's it's two Lots North of Marjorie stowman Douglas Park yeah there were there were I don't there there were a couple of buildings remember the height under the old code if you had a 50ft lot and you had a historic structure the the height that you were allowed for any new or additional structures was was was reduced so there are a couple of 50ft lots which were built in around the time that you're talking about Matthew um that had uh uh additional structures which were I think off the top of them had I think 60 to 75 feet in height difference of course here is as well these are 100 foot or 100 foot plus lots as as is 465 ocean as is 401 ocean uh Bentley uh bay uh Bentley Beach rather and our property and those have always had a higher height uh even uh you know providing there were no historic structures on site uh so that's kind of the uh the the the difference between those lots that you're referring to which were 50ft lots and had a lower height for additional structures and the 100 foot Lots which have higher ones by the way I would also just like to just note that uh to uh I think it was Elizabeth laton's comment that actually uh sofa would uh like to see I think the Redevelopment of both the seavoy Arlington site and the uh Hilton site as residential so they like the fact that there are a couple other properties that this might apply to the use of this incentive so actually I I just was able to pull it up and the 321 Ocean Drive is 100 feet in lot width I don't know if that helps you at all um so this the hotel that's in operation today was was completed in 1998 so bit over 25 years old yeah I I think it was completed in 2000 2000 so about about quarter Century old and um you're contemplating demolishing it to build a new structure that's correct okay how does the hotel operate today uh does it have any issues does it have no it it it performs very well it performs very well okay um you know another question I have since there's a proposed height increase almost 50% have Shadow studies been conducted to see if there will be any impact um we have looked at you know in the model the shadow studies that and how it affect it's actually very similar to what is existing on site today because of the architectural element which Chris mentioned before goes up to 125 ft um one element of the art of the proposed design uh as we see it uh is that that additional height that we're asking for we're actually setting it back from the street um so to have less impact on Ocean Drive so we've taken you know that area and pushed it further east so that it doesn't have the height impact on on the street level what about would there be a impact for the beach as well well it's yeah it's 15 feet taller than or 20 feet taller than what's existing today so slightly so there there so there could be potentially an impact there the the the thing with the setbacks though on the east side is that we have significant setbacks back uh on the east on the ocean side so we cannot go past where the existing building is today so um so the sunset it's it's actually very minimal compared to what the existing hotel is and then uh let's see one more question is I know you mentioned the Starbucks Mr pelis I know we're we're really early into this but what would the program plan be uh in addition to the main use residential accessory uses anything contemplated the Starbucks going to stay perhaps it will still uh on the street front on street level it'll still be um something you know it'll be a restaurant or a cafe or a Starbucks or something that is you know activated retail activated uh the back half of the historic structure right now is planned to be part of the the lobby experience the arrival experience for the residential units because the the Starbucks I I know you know there aren't many public you know semi-public Gathering spaces third place places if you will in in the neighborhood uh where people can just get a cup of coffee and and uh and mingle and and do what they do in cities and so that certainly would be I think a concern amongst people that live in the neighborhood if that were you know that particular use were were to go and then lastly um the height increase I remember this you know when this was part of I think a wave of different different ref referendums that that came across in 2022 and um height never was you know was a topic so you know I I voted in favor of this I thought you know good use it wasn't going to be uh you know a larger building or anything the same the same footprint so I'm kind of wondering um you know how we how we got to you know 2022 2024 now a 50% increase it never you know that part wasn't contemplated for voters so I think that as well could be a con concern yeah and I understand your comment Mr Mr ganof and it's it's well taken I will say we we did go back to the neighborhood um we got a unanimous uh resolution endorsing this increased height proposal and also the referendum was strictly limited to the F issue um obviously there's been a preemption from the state uh you know now F uh items are not required to go to a referendum now we have the 67th process that the city has uh codified uh height remains to be regulated in the same way which is 57th vote by the city commission modification of the ldrs um so I understand but that wasn't the ballot question either I mean the ballot question was strictly limited to 75 F increase um and again we went back to the neighborhood that originally supported the the proposal and we got their endorsement of of this updated proposal as well so how how did you land on the 75 F incentive how did we land on the land on that number yes um you know we we took a look at our our proposal we took a look at what was currently allowed and and what would make sense from a performa standpoint from a financial standpoint to transition this property from a transient use to a residential use okay I think uh thank you Mr Gano my my questions are are through for right now but if I have any more I more than happy to please to ask we welcome the conversation thank you sir if I could provide an update on the 321 Ocean Drive property yes I believe the height um I remember the code was modified I think specifically to take in consideration the project here where it does allow a higher height towards the ocean side up to 100 ft for residential project so this this was a residential project and as a provision for that being a residential project the code has Provisions for the storic preservation board to prove up to 100 100 feet in height is that the whole entire zoning District or just that particular well it applies to that zoning District that have that have that's a lot of 100 fet or more okay so and so that would apply also to this subject area as well that we're discussing today well this was for um I have to take a look and see all the other requirements here um like I say the the south of fifth regulations are some of the more comp most complex in the entire city so um before giving a direct answer I'd have to make sure that that was would be compliant otherwise it was 75 ft for that for that area okay so it's 100 feet today well if I can clarify Mr Mr galanov it's it's 100 feet today if you do not have a contributing structure on property one of the requirements within the code to go ahead and get that 100 feet of height is the property shall not contain a contributing building uh so we are limited to 75 ft where as our improvements exist today on our property on on my client's property we would be limited to 75 ft of height because there's an existing contrib building yeah that's that's the issue here I'm looking at the code now and that provision um for 321 was for properties that shall not contain a contributing building so would you be happy with getting to 100 feet right just like the other the other properties on the RPS District you get the F incentive and you get that extra height the if I may the issue with that is because of the historic uh building that's located there uh we can't occupy that zone of the the lower levels without really being intrusive to you know the characteristics of the historic building itself so we really are limited in where we can put additional area which is why we're requesting on top of the building if that makes sense okay yes thank you Matthew you guys also provide maybe some more information on the storic preservation board what they thought of the project or the um the proposed height increase you have any more information on that yeah sure I mean I I'll say uh during our HPB advisory review there was a resolution that was passed by the HPB uh stating that in their discretion they would be able to authorize up to 50 additional feet which would get us to a total of 150 feet um you know and that would be proposed on you know a case-by case basis during a certificate of appropriateness process um you know our proposal as it stands right now is at 145 ft uh we're happy to to modify to to 150 if if the board would like us to but um you know that was the resolution that was passed by the hbb thank you all right Nick did you have any questions no you're good all right no questions for me no questions for you I wish I was one of the uh worse operators who wanted to do this but it is what it is I'll just say I think this is moving in a positive direction I think what people want in that neighborhood and to see I know there's a lot of resistance and any height increases and um but I think we're moving in the right direction for what we want to see for that part of the city and and and you know there's a lot of concerns about Ocean Drive and how to how to reset the tone there and I think this is a good uh start to uh um increasing its Elegance so beautiful job thank you San has approved this unanimously this has already been voted on by the voters but I do have a couple of concerns I don't want to see what happened with I know it's a different Zone but I know there's the Lo local project that the Clevelander is proposing and and the ties I think is 12 feet and or 120 excuse me and I don't want to see some sort of transfer unless I mean can we do something like this I mean is it I don't well I think because this is an rps4 District I don't think it's eligible for live local uh because we would treat RPS as residential um so now I think the second part of your question is are we effectively increasing the height that a live local project could go to uh within a mile of this property and and I don't think so I don't think we are because I think we have um higher height limits of 150 ft um already so I don't think that this would be increasing the allowance for other areas okay I just it's a good question I don't want to see that okay but you know that brings up a good point though there's there's resistance to live local live local projects and applications in this city which is 150 feet and here we are perhaps um giving blessing to increasing 250 to 150 ft um the difference being that the live local projects would have uh you know Workforce housing and this one is uh it wasn't shared with us but previous meetings it was going to be luxury housing right for maybe a couple dozen units I think yeah we're going from 226 guest rooms2 units again perpet in perpetuity no short ter rentals no correct transient nothing correct we're going to Covenant that and Madam Vice chair if I could just respond to Matthew I think a big part of the resistance to live local projects is is not just tip but also um the you know the the the F bonus and uh and the requirement that the projects be approved administratively um this project would not be approved administratively would go through uh this the you know the same public process that the code currently requires but the Optics I think could give some people pause is is my the point that I'm trying to make here this isn't a live local though I just don't want it to I don't want to move it down the road so that people think oh well we can get that too I think what's also I guess reassuring is that it's a pretty significant project that they're proposing and we really haven't heard of any residents coming out against it if anything the south of fifth neighborhood would probably appreciate the less transient nature of the project they want this I think it's moving right direction um are we ready to move this I'll move it all right go ahead I'll move it favorably all right second second congratulations who was the second on that Nick all in favor of the transmittal with a favorable recommendation I hi any opposed I'm going to be a no and I'm just going to explain why um you know I was riding my bike down Ocean Drive yesterday and the existing building there today at 100 feet it it fits in with the environment uh it doesn't it doesn't draw attention to itself it as you're riding South the top of the building just as visible over the tree line and I'm concerned that 145 or 150 ft just going to overpower the area and contextually not appropriate so that's why I'm a note today and it's and it's a concern to to to start setting a press and having too much height but we also have to be able to attract the right Investments and if we're not making it interesting for them to build then we're going to stay stuck with the same thing we have now and so but we we did hear that the it's a Well performing property today so um that not necessarily a bad thing either correct but but a transient use we're trying to move towards the more residential use so I would add one point to that based upon their Ming studies um as View from Ocean Drive you're not going to see the portion of the building above 100 ft because they have recessed it maybe from the ocean side you're going to see more but from Ocean Drive you're not going to see it more than 100 feet and that's a great point because now we have the beach walk and other other you know height increases I think the the Ritz Carlton project the view from the from the beach walk and the beach was just as important if not more important than uh from the street so I think that's also another consideration and I think that's something that probably can find tune too when they go in front of the store preservation board so you don't have a sheer wall that goes up the entire to entirety of the setback there probably could be some appropriate setback which I think also the HPB required for the um um the Raleigh site yeah I do have one quick question I don't want to see you guys start a project and then abandon it we've seen that with the bank crft and a couple other places on the beach uh what would be your time frame from start to finish and when would you stick a fork in the ground so I'll tell you this uh Miss latone and and I I'll allow my client to go ahead and advise on the construction timeline but uh obviously we're waiting for resolution of this proposal before we do our our entitlement drawings um I suspect that this will have a second reading in front of the city Commission in October um and then from there it's to the races and I know that my clients's you know ready willing and able to go ahead and move for forward with their entitlement drawings then we got to go back to the hbb for the hbb review process and then we're going to go in for our building drawings so I think construction Colin is going to start when do you expect uh I can't be definitive on exactly when construction would start but um once we get through the entitlement process I mean the plan obviously with this request is to be able to start as soon as possible but uh given construction and cost and and conditions so if I don't want to stick to I can say they are excited and eager to begin I'll say that Miss Laton I I I get emails from them every week asking what's our next step what's the process um so I know that they're ready willing and able to go forward with this as soon as this uh ordinance is adopted and then we're going to go through the entitlement process to get our certificate of appropriateness from the HPB okay thanks thank you very much thank you have a great afternoon thanks everyone thank you all right we're moving on to uh PB 2469 two allowance for palm trees to satisfy minimum Street tree requirements and this um proposed ordinance begins on page 172 of the board packages this is an ordinance related to the landscape requirements it would allow Palms to count as required Street trees and the basis of two Palms per required um canopy tree um following certain requirements which are outlined on page um 175 now as noted in our staff report um you know Palms the street trees offer less shade for pedestrians and less environmental benefits in comparison to canopy trees that are native um Florida Florida friendly canopy trees we provided um a fact sheet from the city's urban forestry master plan on the benefits of of shade trees at the end of the staff report starting on page 177 board packages we also noted that the standard or the desired canopy level um for cities is about 30% and the City of Miami Beach is only about 17% coverage and the city's goal is to achieve a 22% coverage um by 2040 um also Palms required more maintenance and fertilizer than canopy trees and also can provide Also may impact um you know the biscane bay in a negative manner based upon all that um fertilizing that's required so we also noted that um that there's nothing the code right now that prevents a developer a property owner from from installing um Palms as part of their overall landscape plan it's just they cannot count towards the required uh Street tree requirements and that's typically the case when somebody wants to do palm trees they meet the minimum required foret trees and then have you know alternate palm trees within their development so because of the um the the benefits of canopy shade trees and and palm trees not being able to meet that same benefit we all recommend against or recommending that the board transmit this ordinance to the city commission with an unfavorable recommendation what's the uh I guess the impetus for this discussion was there an issue in the city were people like residents coming in requesting it I think it may have been based upon some residents wanting to do um palm trees versus Shea trees you know the city has established I think certain areas where um it's appropriate say like horse Island where you have a a history of um of Palms so I think the city already has Provisions for that um versus applying Citywide allowing um palm trees to count toward shade trees so we do think there are allowances already in the code for Palms um although this has this did come from out of the land use committee they did recommend um in favor of it just from administrative side and staff side um it it doesn't have good Optics and we don't believe it's for the benefit of the City to um adopt such an ordinance so other than the Optics and again personally I don't necessarily love the palm trees but is it going to make things again easier for residents does it make it you know so that when they're going through their home renovations or whatever it is they're not able to satisfy you know the somewhat I guess uh difficult Landscaping requirements no because there there's Provisions now where you can't provide the land required Landscaping on site for whatever reason there is a provision to pay into the city right but that might also be you know somewhat difficult for people like you know Mom and Pop who's just redoing their house typically if somebody is just um renovating their house that are not required to comply with the current landscape requirements it would be if they're doing a substantial rehab like over 50% then they'd be required to comply with the the current code requirements is this just on street or is it this only applies to the required Street trees not public spaces for resal spes before we go on with the comments and questions do we have anyone on the on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised and I see nobody in the audience wanting to speak all right so we can continue go ahead Scott yeah I understand the need for for shade trees um uh I I I just hate to sort of do it at at the expense of palm trees um because that's that's part of Miami Beach as well and you talk about the history of Miami Beach and and and looks I mean it's it's palm trees so you know I know there's been I want to say an attack on palm trees in the past but um you know the way this the the the staff report is written it really sounds like it really like like got it in for got it in for palm trees wa know I used I used to live a few blocks from City Hall in the summer I would drive my car to work because there's no you know continuous shade to get from where I lived to City Hall so I prefer to to drive the seven minutes versus walk the five minutes to work because of the shade and I think it's really I I agree with we we do need more more canopy trees um I'm just thinking of sort of a compromise and one thing I thought of is um maybe we can um um sort of put a um call it a a certain percentage maybe up to a certain percentage of of um canopy trees for for um palm trees in other words um they can only let's say they're required to do four canopy trees if we say you know we can Max it out at 50% so two of those trees they can they can leave the palm trees in for they can use um palm trees in the place but the other two have to be canopy trees maybe there's some I like that some kind of middle ground or something some sort of hybrid situation and it and it definitely needs to be tailored towards each area I mean North Beach in general has no trees and um really and um I would like to see no coconut palms for sure I mean I've had my windshield broke I mean hey Florida um twice but we need we need some serious you know like I love Meridian I mean I think that's spectacular I would love to see something like that I know that's not going to happen but some sort of hybrid like you're talking about I think would be good I think I'm go ahead I'm in favor of the staff's recommendation voting against this um for various reasons number one uh it's important to have canopy trees they're low maintenance they provide good shade palm trees require maintenance active pruning you have the problem of the coconut coconuts but there's also other variations of palm trees um that uh don't have coconuts but they have other things that are falling down you have the issue of palm fronds falling down in the right of way that if you have somebody who's disabled walking with a walker or a wheelchair and there's a big palm frond in the street that's not something that you generally get uh but uh you generally get from a traditional canopy tree and palm frons they're growing new Palms uh every six to eight months which means another one's dropping and so it becomes more of an issue for the city and then you've got to make sure that all the residents who have these palm trees are upkeeping them and there's not these dangerous Palms uh dropping the other element and coming in as the lawyer on this panel uh is terms of utilities um I've had a case where a palm tree is planted near an electrical you know power lines and somebody gets electrocuted because one of the Palm FRS is touching the power line uh you're not supposed to be planting them there but when that Royal Palm is is small and picked up from the nursery it looks cute Andes you don't expect it to uh grow up to be uh the the Beast that it becomes so I'm I'm against this I think that there's uh plenty of good opportuni for canopy trees and I just the biggest issue to me is the maintenance of it and blocking sidewalks uh for people who are in potential wheelchairs or or pushing a card of some sort Jonathan M may just so just continuing the discussion um you know the the shade trees the canopy trees also shed leaves and they block our our drains they block all kinds of things I I'm there's don't you think there could be some sort of um situation where it could be in hybrid because I mean if the land use I mean if they've already gone through this it seems like we're I don't know do you know what the vote was on man use I I don't I don't know but just remember the board you know the board is independent so so you are free to make a recommendation either way I also think to to address a lot of Jonathan's concern I think a lot of those concerns are sort of focused more in commercial areas we're thinking South Beach and whatnot right I'd be okay if we limited the if we allowed it um I'm sorry we we allowed this ordinance in single family home districts because I think those are the people that are most uh affected if somebody obviously the project before us if they have to put canopy trees in front of their building they're going to do that that's a minor um call minor percentage of their overall um project but if you have somebody with a small single family home that's doing some work and they're required to put in a number of large canopy trees um that can be pretty costly for them so um you know I I'd be in favor of that and I do it's something Elizabeth mentioned you know we talk about the Palm frons but you know you can go in the Flamingo Park neighborhood and there so many streets that are just it's cars parked in the street so many lead under the trees and they clog the drains the city's always out unclogging the drains you know whatever kind of tree we put there's always going to be some issue there so um I like I said I mean maybe there's a middle ground maybe we limit it to to single family districts Case by case area by area maybe I I mean I'm just throwing out some ideas is there any urgency to vote on this right now only reason why you ask is because it seems like you know they want to kind of push forward palm trees I know I had uh the city planted trees in front of my house that offer very little shade and it's got flowers that go all over the place doesn't seem like there's any uniformity to the Landscaping I guess planned for uh the canopy so maybe we could kind of defer this and then the city can present whatever it is the overall larger plan is for the city I was to ask in terms of providing a tree cany I I think that's going in the right direction if if you go to let's say you know Coral Gables or or Coconut Grove I mean it's it's incredibly uniform you go down all the streets it's the same type of trees that are providing an incredible canopy I love to see the beach I would like a real plan that's for you know that's I know we used to have years ago like a city master plan for Street trees designated okay if you're on merging Avenue in this location in the city this is your designated Street tree we can research and find out you know what the status of that is or what happened and maybe have our urban forestry division come and provide a presentation I we should have like a real plan EST what Urban Landscaping because it's true I mean I see some of the work they've done the Venetian and they they planted a bunch of trees and they were the ugliest saddest looking trees and they were just random you wonder picked those trees in front of one house there's there's one type of I think we need a real plan I would like to and we you know again it maybe it can tie in with something that I've asked one the Commissioners to do with some Dune trees in North Beach is that maybe they can you know what I would suggest um I just heard that the sponsor would like this to go forward with a recomend recommendation today maybe you could recommend whatever your recommendation is is that this information be provided to the city commission as part of their first reading on the ordinance okay well either way it's up to the commission regardless of how we vote correct correct mean we're just you're giving you're giving a recommendation to the city commission okay so I'm I I'm just my two just to add I'm also on board with with uh with sort of reducing the palm trees and and increasing more shade trees um I know it's it's kind of a resistance to to feel uh prioritizing the shade trees over Miami that represents palm trees I I I come from Canada trust me I there's every day I wake up and I'm I feel it's beautiful to have palm trees and it's very exotic but as you as you said like in Coral Gabriels or I just came back from Spain where it hit me how every public Stree is shaded and we have the same temperatures as here and you just in feeling it was so beautiful and elegant and it wasn't palm trees there were shade trees now the moment you look at people's property there that's where you see the palm trees I don't think one eliminates the um you know what's what's typical to find here in Miami especially we have all kinds of people who move here from other parts of the world who want to see a palm tree on their property but I do think in public spacing we could surely need to be benefiting something like Lincoln Road to be having no shade at all in a place that's you know Walkin area so um but and as my colleague said we but it should be done in a way that's well planned that we it add all against to the City versus just a bunch of you know random trees and and there's certainly some trees that are loose that don't lose their leavs the same way so there there's more thought that needs to be uh placed into this agree does somebody want to make a recommendation with the transmittal either positive or negative on this because I'm hearing like Divergent um I mean Ops I to be honest I think that regardless of how we vote it doesn't necessarily matter because there's no specific plan for where these trees are going to go or how are they they're going to go so again if if IDE idea is you know should the city code be amended to allow Pals to satisfy the same requirements as shade trees on a two for one basis that's what the ordinance is um so basically we basically we would be supporting on favorable recommendations such as either supporting that or or not supporting it that's that's so I'll make a motion uh to follow staff's recommendation with an unation right recommendation I'll second that un all right with do we want to with amendments yeah I think you have to vote on that and then you can then do another vote on suggest or I don't even know if you have to take the mo the motion on the table the motion on the table is to transmit with an unfavorable recommendation the board can vote on that and then if somebody wants to uh move recommended amendments you can you can move that separately this do you need to be second right now second was seconded by Matthew so I'll do a roll call just in terms of this is just for the first step is for the unfavorable recommendation um Mr lice is absent Mr freden uh yay I guess this is the unfav this is in favor of the unfavorable recommendation uh Miss Bey yes Mr cement yes Mr ganof yes M Laton yes Mr needleman no so that that passes with an unfavorable recommendation um 5 to one okay now if you want to make any other recommendations I would I would like to make comments or recommendations that we have to take a look at the forestry plan for the city um and specifically how we could um have the city be uniform as we do with how the sign code is was supposed to be so a comprehensive plan basically comprehensive plan foring and land and and how we can as and how we can have this different trees you know justas like the city commission to review like a master street tree plan for the city yes do we have do we have I I think we have one but I don't know if it's been updated so I think I think we could um as part of your motion could be to it's hodge podge with the would the board like a presentation from staff on what the existing um uh Street tree plan is and then at that time that makes modifications that we feel would be appropriate or recommendations do we feel that that's something we want to do yeah yeah that' be great okay I'll do that let's do it okay yeah so we can we can put that on the agenda to have urban forestry provide an update on the master plan for the city and discuss you know what the plan of action is to implement that plan great I think that's a good idea we don't need a motion for that well that's fine um okay so basically I'll put that in the agenda is a discussion item probably for October or November thank you okay so the next item is uh PB 24691 entertainment and Supper Club regulations okay and this um ordinance begins on page 185 of the board packages what this ordinance does is first of all establish a definition for supper club which can be found on page 192 of the board packages essentially it would be a qualifying restaurant that is a um with a minimal annual sales food sales of 40% now the ordinance does modify the requirements for entertainment establishments Citywide currently Indo entertainment does not require cup when the occupancy load is less than 200 as proposed depending on the zoning district there are some certain proposed modifications in the AUM 3 residential district indoor entertainment would now require a cup regardless of occupancy load um indoor entertainment would only be allowed as accessory to a hotel use and only part of a supper club or indoor venue with alcohol service not past 2 a.m. or entertainment would be allowed if the entertainment use is fully enclosed within a hotel that has at least 200 rooms and there's no direct access to the street um and in this case may serve alcohol after 2 a.m. now in the commercial districts where Entertainment is currently allowed it would require a cup for indoor entertainment with an occupancy that exceeds 125 versus the 199 in place right now however on Washington Avenue a venue that is a classified as a supper club would not require a cup provided the occupancy is less than 300 so in certain circumstances the code requires is going to be more restrictive and areas on Washington Avenue to encourage these type of Supper Club uses it' be less restrictive to allow an occupancy up to 300 provided is a separate club with food sales of at least 40% um that's in effect the um summary of the ordinance we are recommending that the um planning board include sub subject to City commission approval an applicability clause and let me just read that to the record just a second sorry just a second while I find that we can go ahead and discuss the ordinance and I'll find that applicability section no one there's nobody on Zoom with their hand rais and I see um does anybody I think oh Monica wants to provide the applicability unless you want me to hand it to you uh good afternoon board Monica Anon MH law office is at 7950 Northwest 53rd Street um I have an applicability Clause that I have provided to staff I have a situation where there's an existing business who has been on operation for over 30 years and has provided numerous plans throughout those 30 years to the city and every plan every seat has been in there and has been reflected they get inspected every year annually for fire however somehow um the number of seats did not transfer to the CU um and the business tax receipt therefore we started a process to correct that on the license um however that that is a process that takes time and is now a little bit longer because it does require the business to get a certificate of occupancy um so we're in that process so we have prepared an applicability clause which indicates any existing business which by July 30th 2024 had a permit and process number with the city of Miami Beach for the expansion of seating or occupancy shall be exempt from the limitation of enlargement and expansion listed in 7.5 5.4 hereof and shall be permitted to enlarge or expand its occupancy and SE seating capacity consistent with its permit application and retain its legal non-conforming entertainment establishment status if the permit is abandoned then the business shall be subject to all the limitations and regulations in at here in the reason for this applicability Clause is if we read section 7.55 point4 it does recognize existing uses as non-conforming however it does specifically forbid them from being enlarged and although this business isn't being enlarged The Cure of a defect looks on paper as an enlargement um if you like I can hand out a copy of the applicability Clause that I've given to staff do St comments on that one do you have any comments on this Nick no I think it's it's it's it's really a question for the board if you'd like to to um to to exempt anyone from the ordinance who has an applic application pending um I think um you know this this ordinance is is is sweeping and it affects a number of different Z zoning districts so I think the board should consider uh should consider request like this But ultimately it's your call and applicability claes are something that are that the board and the city commission generally do pass and accept for those businesses that already have plans in place and have taken action unfortunately because there is something things a zoning in progress where once you pass this ordinance my clients would be subject to it um it would really stop our process and our our current applications would not be able to be reviewed and proceed until the city commission heard heard this and therefore we do not want to waste that time or lose that time um in order to correct this oversight so we you know I respectfully request that you um approve this applicability clause and if you like again I do have it to hand out if you'd like to read it why would this include a zoning in progress already no once so once the um board takes action with a favorable recommendation on something that um um um modifies the city code or you know provides a reduction say in setbacks or uses it becomes zoning in progress and um it's effective immediately until the city commission modifies it or places the applicability in place but if she already has one in progress it would stop hers yes yes because um because you're only exempt from zoning in progress if you have a uh a building permit or or a land use board order or a cu approved prior to the date that the planning board transmits uh its recommendation so so what will this do essentially to the I guess nightclubs or entertainment establishments that are not attached to a hotel on a go for basis well if they're going to if they can can continue their operation it's the issue is expansion correct so they won't be able to expand and this doesn't impose any other type of I guess operational restriction on them it's purely just tied to expansion it doesn't yes it's tied to expansion or well if they are under the threshold right now for um what's in the code um then they could expand but if they exceed the allowances or don't comply with the code requirements they would not be able to expand right so so the purpose of this is I guess to limit the Standalone clubs and you know nightlife establishments correct yep and then everything that's attached to a hotel uh would be able to expand correct what is your Club again um Mango's Tropical Cafe Scott you and they have as I indicated the permits have for since 2004 every permit has reflected this seat count the grease trap permit which was just obtained and approved by the city just a couple of years ago reflects this seat count it's been an over between the city and the the client that it hasn't been reflected on the certificate of use so we're not increasing the seats the seats are not increasing in any way shape or form it is just to correct the oversight that it hasn't been reflected on the certificate of use so it's not increasing we're not increasing floor area we're not increasing a single seat it's just to have it properly reflected on the certificate of use why can't we why can't that I mean you're asking why we have to go through this step here to get that kind of corre for for her I mean it seems like if if that's just a if it's a mistake then that could unfortunately the way that the code reads if you're a legal non-conforming use any expansion any change so if I went from 30 to 31 seats that would literally be contrary to the code and we would no longer be exempt from the regulations so we would no longer be grandfathered into the use so the way that the code the new ordinance is written we need an applicability clause in order to proceed with those permits that are in place to correct this oversight and applicability Clause is very very tight to specifically this type of permit and it had to have been filed by today so it it wouldn't expand this to anybody coming tomorrow and filing this permit is this something that could be amended or I mean yeah it's really it's really up to the board I mean I think if if um you know I I've seen instances where applicants request the planning board to include an applicability Clause um I've also seen applicants ask that the city commission include the applicability Clause if the board is not inclined to include it at this step um Miss enton could always present her request to to the the city commission but it you know it's your it's your call and I I will be presenting it again to the commission it's just we do have those permits in place so if this board passes this without an applicability Clause my applications will cease to exist they will be stopped they will be abandoned and unfortunately also NE one of the things now with the certificate of use and the certificate of occupancy if you start that process and you don't respond or do have anything done within 90 days then it is deemed abandoned so technically by the time that the commission would hear this my applications would be deemed abandoned I understand does anyone have any objection to this does anyone feel uncomfortable with this no okay no I'd be happy to to move this with the applicability Clause thank and um with a favorable recommendation someone want to Second it I'll second that okay I'm sorry we didn't take public comment on this um after after Monica I have um Marilyn freudl on the line Marilyn did you want to speak on this ordinance for um entertainment and supper clubs no I am I had I had my hand up for the previous item and um apparently it wasn't noticed but um if I may I would like to just say something about the palm trees Marilyn we' already we' already voted on this I think we should move on sorry Marilyn sorry we got few more items to go thank you so we have a motion in second to transmit this ordinance to the city commission with a favorable recommendation before we V can I ask just one question here um is it loosening the conditional use permit requirement for certain sizes it is for um establishments that are qualified supper clubs along Washington Avenue would allow them to increase the occupancy to$ 299 without coming to the planning board for a cup right now if you have entertainment and you're um under 200 it does not require a cup if you're over 200 it does require a cup so it does relax the restriction for Washington Avenue for properties that are qualified as a supper club with annual food sales of at least 40% who who who on Washington Avenue is a qualified Supper Club I don't know who meets that definition right now um well Troy yeah I see you all right so we are going now can I just let Troy just real quick I just want to know who's the Supper Club well currently there's only one and I think they're under application right now um off Espanola Way and I have no idea why it escapes me what their name is but that would only be that would be the only one at this point well I'll actually I'll take that back and I believe that barroom was uh or did have that designation but they have since closed thank you so is there any concern from staff about all right so we're moving on toit we didn't we didn't take a vote yet on we didn't take a vote but is there any concern or I mean maybe this was your recommendation to increase the uh the seat count for the cop requirement I think with a provision that it's a qualified Supper Club so it's going to have a substantial amount of food sales okay that's that's this this is not for nightclubs that would be a concern this is to sort of incentivize establishments to to be a supper club which has primary food sales and entertainment versus you know a standalone nightclub Resturant that's you know masquerading as a um nightclub an example of a of a of a sub club would be Queen Cen you need a vote from everyone to approve yes all right yes so all in favor on the transmittal of this ordinance to the city commission with a favorable recommendation I I you opposed so that motion passes uh 6 to zero we got a few more items all right uh next one pb2 2406 697 eliminate 5 floor area ratio for bonus for hotels located within the CD cd2 District in South Beach so the board may remember um a couple months ago um we reviewed an ordinance that would um prohibit the F bonus for hotel projects in cd2 districts um located on the North side at the time the Landes committee was evaluating the area along um in South Beach and so that's why this was separated from the prior ordinance what this does is basically um do the same thing as the prior ordinance and eliminates the the F bonus for hotels in cd2 districts um to go from 1.5 to 2.0 now Citywide um so any sort of Hotel project in a c in a city2 district would have to comply with the maximum F of 1.5 versus what they could go to now which is 2.0 now in this case we are recommending that the um planning board included an applicability section and that was in our ordinance that was in our um staff report to include that applicability for any project that has a land use board file number and a notice to proceed as of uh I think July 1st of this year so those projects would be exempt that includes for example the project that we have that was deferred today along um Washington Avenue to be exemp correct because they have they filed the application know several months ago and sort of changing the requirements in Midstream that was um a concern of staff and the applicant okay so do we have anyone on on Zoom who wants to speak on this item anyone anyone in the room good afternoon my name is Roberto Ator I own property in Washington Avenue in fact my father family owns the properties in 1970 so that's more than 50 years that I've been maybe the N family owns the property longer than than I do I also was a member of the planning board years ago for many years I want to thank the board that sent back to the Washington Avenue Association to see what our position was our position we oppose the elimination of the 05 are I think that Washington Avenue is a very unique Commercial Street it is very busy you got trucks delivery trucks you got buses people all all day long so you cannot compare those type of street with other right now is a very tourist uh Street you have T-shirts you have CAF you have tattoos and all that so the personality of that street is inclined more for an Hotel the residents you including now part of the package an incentive to do resid but we don't know what those intenses have so don't take away those property rights for the people that no property in Washington at this point of time I seen that Mar Washington Avenue to keep the 05 F not the5 not necessary means that you want to have more units you can have bigger units too using the additional fi instead of doing 200 square ft then you can do 300 Square fet you know hotels are good for that City they provide you know Resort taxes and right now the occupancy rate is about 73% of hotels so there is still a need to do hotels and try to do good hotels so our position is that we oppose it and we ask the board to say s a message to the the commission that we oppose the the elimination of the 45 fi and I would like to keep it thank you very much Troy you here to speak to R yes uh in addition to what he just said I guess even if we were exempt um from this because um most of the well several Property Owners feel like it's sort of a bait and switch because five years ago when the incentives were put in place some of the invested in Washington Avenue with the idea that the incentives would be available and now that there are not um it has created you know some turmoils some issues and some challenges for us so if there's a way that we can be exempt from it I think that would be best for Washington Avenue in addition to what he mentioned you know Washington Avenue is a very diverse Avenue and as I've mentioned on several times we are probably outside of New York City one of the most diverse Avenues in the United States with educational facilities both High uh Elementary and high school museums clubs restaurants bars and everything that includes so by adding more residents I think we would uh have additional problems so we are definitely opposed to uh elimination thank you let me add to about five years ago the city did a study with is scage and they recommended incentive to do Hotels on Washington Avenue including the 05 fi the no parking the reduction of the of the units sareet and even the height if you have 200t so now five years later instead of a lot of Happ the last few years where I think we've seen an increase of permanent residents and Workforce here so but I just understand try you're against against Residential development on was no no we're not against I just I like we're not 100% opposed we think in some part it would be good but it it just the percentages cannot go up too high well what we say is that it's not really a street that is conducive MH to do parking is miror parking instead of having parking like in you know in the historic districts and stuff like that so at this point of time I think we should take it separate the residential incentive which we will you know approve you're for you're for the residential in without punishing devel take the5 to do hotels I think with the conversations I've had with the commission Commissioners who are behind sponsoring this I do understand the direction they're trying to take take with with Washington and and seeing um attracting um you know some improvements and some development there and to have more of a uh sort of dedicated area for Workforce Development um but I I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean you got to take away the hotels my own opinion is um I know we've had some bad experience with some of the hotels on on Washington that we felt were were were noise um issues with some of the residents um but I do think that some of the stuff needs to work simultaneously where you got to keep on attracting some attractive uh uh you know investors and whether it's you know hotels that are of a certain sort of um clientele so that that you will be mixing well with some of the residential uh development we have there but I don't think one needs to be exclusive from the other so um I think that that kind of has to happen simultaneously where you keep attracting some um um infrastructure upgrades from both sides agre mam Vice chair yeah go ahead um I Heard the commission speak last week on Wednesday and they said that they would be happy not to see any more hotels they only wanted to see residential and or mixed use so um I appreciate that that you want to have the hotels I just I feel like commissioner sorry I I believe that was just one commissioner not all of them it was three actually the three that are listed right here that's still not a majority and I think they would have to vote on that I've had again that's still not the majority and I've had a similar discussion with Commissioners um who said they they're in between they're not quite they don't quite know what direction they would go we'll be depending upon the plan that was presented before them again I I think it's unfair to try to squeeze some opportunities out I mean we have to deal with the case by cases when these these get presented these hotel but I think that when we're trying to force something that is the a is not ready for it it needs some investment so you you need to be you need to stay open to the possibilities and you're going to be shooting yourself in the foot if you just decide you're C canceling in a whole category it's not necessarily Pro problematic category we have problems with certain operators but not in the category this is not saying that you're taking away hotels though it's saying away that you're it's saying that you're taking away the5 right you're taking incentive I think the question would be over the past five years since this was changed meaning so where is the I guess I think right but I think the trend now that we're seeing is that these they're not just hotels that are being built they're micro units that are put in that's my point so over the past five years we haven't seen the investment nothing's really changed I think generally seemingly the city has been trying to go in a different direction based on I guess the current climate of Washington Avenue right and trying to incentivize some additional actual investment instead of keeping the status quo well sort of but I I think that that has nothing to do with the changes that they they're making I think that has more to do with Aesthetics it has more to do with their investment in Washington Avenue and and I don't want to go down the line but they have invested nothing in lighting nothing in beautification and that's a big problem on Washington Avenue so there are other things that need to happen in addition I I don't I would not say we had a CO year there are some other things that sort of took place so we it it can't be just judged based upon the last five years I know positively there are those who want to invest in Washington Avenue but they're a little afraid because they're not they're afraid that the commission or the city or the planning board wa switch and bait like no but if if that was the case to that point if that was the case they would have applied because they would have gotten it in with this incentive that's not true that's not true we just had we just had as an example we just had uh you know this lady was representing her clients who submitted an application regardless of how things might change what the planning board is trying to introduce I think that the project that was approved was an Hotel the one that is in 15 and Washington Avenue right so that has an Hotel use and that's the incentive that's the investment that the private sector is doing believing that that's it's eliminated it's it's eliminating the 0.5 F in South Beach it's not just Washington Avenue Callen and it well the bonuses the bonus is only applicable to the city2 district so the code says the f is 1.5 but if you do and you know the current code a mixed use building which includes residential and hotel then you can do a 2.0 F provided that at least 0 five of that is for residential Hotel this still allows Hotel correct but you would have you would be maxed out at the maximum FV of 1.5 but they're here today just for an exception for Washington no we're we are no but that's basically what the ordinance applies to is Washington only Washington at this here applies to maybe there's um D chose only Washington well it also includes um Alton Road maybe there's a way I I I know what you know Roberto's concern is um you know and I understand the commission's doing I I do agree with it but I'm looking at more um you know when you look at Washington Avenue further south I mean there's more you know borders on the The Flamingo Park neighborhood and bord on a lot of residential maybe there's a way where maybe on the Northern end sort of a city center area Lincoln Road area for some of the properties up there um you know just to recommend to the city to leave it in place um and have have the um incentive go away for again I mean I know his property is on 16th um you know if it's if that's his concern leave leave that in maybe that that from there South um this would apply um and in the areas of Washington are much more commercial leave it in and and just see if you know and and put in I would if if we do that I'd recommend a a sunset Clause um you know to see if there's any more developers out there that maybe want to do that in that part of the city in that part of Washington Avenue um and if after so many years it doesn't happen then it goes away you know the fact that no more that we don't have so many development because so hard to go through the process of doing a project here on the city I have people coming and asking me two years in order to see if they can get the project approved so where have they been huh where have they been in two years and why don't we have improved lighting and stuff what is does the does the is that the bid that has control over that I'm not quite sure no I mean we do not have well we actually do control the lighting down the median it comes out of Washington Avenue's budget in addition to Espanol away lighting it comes out of Washington Avenue's budget of something that I don't believe should be coming out of Washington Avenue's budget it should be coming out of the city the city should be paying for the lighting in addition to improvements in addition to beautification but now we're stuck with that bill and it's something that has to change and it's really creating a problem with potential investors wanting to come to Washington I tell you I'm a property owner and it's very rough right now you know it's very very hard even to get insurance and they have G ballistic the same with real estate so my my my we need we need not to limit what you can do with out all the neighborhoods for me at my my humble opinion Washington is the one that needs the most help in developing and upgrading of all the neighborhoods we have and I just feel little resistance of of putting any blockage in them attracting you know development that'll just beautify make that place a more attractive place we talk about we hear everyone talking about want to see less clubs and less of the t-shirt and smoke shops and all the rest so we have to allow for some some some you know more upscale business to be attractive I agree but also we've got I mean am I is this the bid or the city that does this you can probably help me I see when I'm going down Washington Avenue I see the the poll the poll signs that say culture you know pub crawl and drinks and this and this vodka and all that I mean does that help I mean I don't I don't what they have I can answer that but but take those down and maybe better development will come I mean well no because what it says it's marks there it says Muhammad Ali it says Jackie Gleason it says I'm talking about those I'm talking about the alcohol stuff that's only one that was something with the light pole light pole banners light pole banners right there's probably only four of them and it it promoted something called baroa which was a national bartending competition that happened it's not on Collins why what do you mean it's not on I don't see those on on Collins Avenue well because we're Washington Avenue hosted the event and we attracted about 1500 people to the event so it's something that we are promoting to bring people to Washington Avenue so that's why you see the the advertis there's nothing like that should beond Collins I guess I I guess I'm trying to look at Melissa's Point as well as thinking about trying how we're trying to change things and if and if we are just I mean are we promoting good new hotels are we promoting bars what what are what are we doing I guess this is your neighborhood but my my my view of it is that if you want to track some nicer businesses you have to have people in clientele close to that to be using it on a regular base so if you're attracting people to live there nice hotels you can automatically start attracting better businesses so so Elizabeth and and Melissa the next item on the agenda is to do that so looking at this one in the vacuum I could understand the apprehensiveness right it seems that we're we're taking away perhaps the right to to build hotels at a certain level but at the same time this almost goes hand in hand where where there is potential to increase the amount of residential use on the street so I but but we don't know that yet how that's going to happen perhaps then you should wait until those incentives come in so that you know Property Owners can see okay fine you know they taking away this but they give be that right that is next meaning this these are the residential use incentives that we're going to be talking about I also know that North Beach needs hotels um especially in the cd2 area Normandy I think that covers is also am might in might correct already North Beach was already modified so that that was already I not see what am I um it's just striking one line right or even just a portion of a sentence see it does say it says as well as the North Beach C2 districts on Normandy and along Collins that was modified um and then it referred on the 28th okay sorry my microphone's I think it comes down to for us in and you know my heart I just believe that as Washington Avenue goes so does Miami Beach and historically it has always been the place to go um for tourists and for locals alike I mean I can see pictures back when um there really have never really been a lot of residents on Washington Avenue so what we would be introducing is something brand new that we would hope work um but Washington Avenue we really don't have the budget to do what we would like to do I know that's not really your discussion but I I have no issue telling you our budget is only $500,000 a year that's no money Road's budget is $1.5 million a year Ocean Drive gets $2 million a year the other bids such as Winwood gets $2.5 million a year C GES gets almost $2.5 million a year and we tax ourselves to improve you can we just I'm just gonna I me I just want to make a motion to accept staff's recommendation I understand the issues and I I get it I would just like to say one last thing on that though again I sometimes safer I understand the direction we're moving I just feel that we're in the next item that we're looking at we're looking to to to encourage development for residents use um and so maybe we let we let that sort of determine what happens if it tracks the right but I think that we're taking something away with with not it's not like they're asking for an increase in hotel and and trying to favor Hotel development I just think we shouldn't penalize it right now by taking that away but I don't think you're penalizing because the applications were submitted already I mean there are are there any applications that were submitted well the application been submitted is the one that was um deferred today on Washington Avenue for 1509 right but but we are recommending that those that those exempt from these provision exempt right I'm sorry I just don't think what's being discussed here is for current property owners that don't have any application yeah okay all right well you want to make a motion for that motion to approve of staff's recommendation with the applicability section right MH is there a second I'll second that second by Mr cement all in favor okay can I please ask that uh sir sir the the sir the board is in the middle of a vote they have to vote all in favor no any opposed opposed Miss py opposed okay can I ask that the recommendation when he goes to the commission that the planning board say that Washington Avenue was opposed to the to this well I mean that I assume they'll hear it but also you should go to the commission trust me I'm sure he'll be there but I mean I guess we just gave a recommendation it's all up to the commission the issue came before the board and the board asked the director go to Washington Avenue no I know I think I'm actually the one who made that motion thank you very to get that feedback so that's why I say okay it was sent to Washington Avenue and why been a strong opposition to to the F and the the memo does say on on page 209 that on April 11th City staff presented to the Washington Avenue bid and the members of the bid were not supportive of a roll back of the0 five however the members were all supportive of incentives for increasing and promoting residential development so that is in the memo that will be included okay when this goes to the city commission thank you all right thank stick around for part two yeah all right next we have PB 24695 Washington Avenue residential use incentive and this um item includes two items one is a comprehensive plan Amendment which is pb2 24- 0695 and PB 24- 0696 which is the Land Development regulations now what this ordinance does it applies to Washington Avenue and allow some tangible incentives to create um non-trans non-transient residential uses on Washington Avenue from fif from 5ifth to 16th Street all incentives are predicated on the following that non-transient residential apartment units only be allowed no residential units shall exceed 12200 ft in size and a minimum micr Mobility component within the interior interior of the structure accessible by all units be provided this also um eliminates the minimum off street parking requirement for residential projects it does um require um parking for um staff that's been included as part of a recommendation um from the land use and sustainability committee meeting now the most tangible benefit is it does increase the F from 2.0 to 3.0 for properties that are non-transient residential or include non-transient residential projects it also provides a benefit for the height it allows a increase in height um from 50 to 75 ft and the current maximum height for hotels would be reduced from 75t to 50 feet it would also allow a further incentive beyond the 75 ft up to 100 ft in height um provided that there's no off street parking provided on the site the project provides minimum micr Mobility requirements um it would also reduce or eliminate the mobility fee and provide a sunset provision for projects that have obtained a full building permit by September 1st 2030 and it also provides for an enhance and expedited process for permitting of the project now because this um these ordinances requireed an increase in F it's required to go to this six-step process this is the first step in that process where after this meeting we will schedule a um a public Workshop provide um more information get input from the community this will come back to the planning board after that workshop with a final recommendation it'll go to the city commission for first reading after the city commission hears at one time there'll be a second City commission Workshop before final adoption um at the second um public hearing before the city commission so right now we're just recommending that the board asking the board review this and provide a um any sort of comments and continue this both these ordinances for the comp plan and ldr text amendments to the September 24th meeting in the meantime we plan on having the community Workshop meeting sometime in early September and we'll bring back to you the um comments and feedback from the community at that time so we don't need to vote right now it's just for our feedback the vote for this will be just to review it and continue it to the September meeting and provide any sort of comments and recommendations just one clarification this is for any residential use it doesn't matter if use has residential now or only if you have an hotel and you want to turn into residential right so that doesn't it just require that any sort of project taking advantage of the incentives be residential as a new project so if you have a hotel now you can demolish the hotel come with a brand new residential then you also right not unlike unlike um the ordinance we saw earlier this morning it required that you had to have an established non established transient useage as hotel to convert it to take advantage of the incentives in this case it applies to sort of any residential development okay thank you do we have anyone on on Zoom there is nobody on Zoom with their hand raised all right did you guys want to comment on this for before we start all right let's go they're not in favor ele do you want to say something yeah um thank you um this would be for non-transient micro units no none of that this is real short-term rentals are prohibited no short-term rental expressly prohibited supposedly and there small it's not that they're prohibited it's that um in order to be eligible for the sorry the volunt an applicant has to profer well said you wouldn't be able but I just want to clarify that that's right to use this incentive um you would you would not be able to rent your property on a shortterm BAS perpetuity it would be covenant thank you question for me how uh is there any way to ensure that these units remain rentals versus condos I know I've asked you this before but the way that the language is currently I guess rent is there any way to ensure that that happens you want them to stay rentals not become meaning I I think one of the goals of the Commission in suggesting this is a to increase the residential stock living in the city um you know which which we need to have some type of affordability component to it if these become kind of the high-end condos then that kind of goes by the wayside and doesn't really solve more people living on can we really dictate that though that's what I'm asking it's it's it's I don't think you can I don't think we can as a as a as a matter of law I mean I think uh for zoning purposes the use is residential right whether it's a you know whether it's a building or units that are that are rented or whether they're individually owned um for zoning purposes the use is the same and I don't think that we could I don't think there would be um a legal basis to distinguish between the two they're trying to limit the the yeah we have a limit on the size so I guess that's part of it would so you're not going to have like large luxury units you're limiting it to 1,200 sare fet this wouldn't prevent somebody let's say a building is a a residential Condo building if somebody wants to rent their unit for six months in a day that's perfectly fine under the ordinance you can rent your your um apartment for 6 months in a day that's not considered yeah but again as as you know if the city kind of keeps on the track of building just luxury product then you're going to continue to see the trend of so many people being priced out of living on M Beach but did you see did you see that it says no residential unit shall exceed 12200 Square ft in size sure you still have you could still have you know beautiful you know 1100 square foot condo now what about the height of these units like the right to your point about luxury units that are 1100 square F feet but could the height of the of the the ceilings be something that could be looked at as well well the floor plates are I mean I don't think you would have forced people to think so doing this morning or earlier this afternoon you know there it say it say the maximum height is 75 75 ft so that's that's building building but who does it matter if you're talking ceilings yes it doesn't matter if you got 9t ceilings or 12T ceilings I mean you still got 12200 Square ft and you'd have less units you'd have far fewer units than you would if if you were having you know 59t but ceing units so I didn't ask but I pretty sure if I would have asked about their their Florida ceiling Heights of this unit because the diagram shows they're between 11 and2 ft and 15 ft right and they're rentals that's that's more condo height that's condo but I'm but your to your point about trying to prevent this from becoming you know high-end luxury units instead of be more attainable uh you know affordable in Workforce is that a tool that could be used um to to limit you know to say like I'm throwing a number out there but 9ine feet or so you're saying basically if you're putting High ceilings also comes a high you'll have less units you'll have a higher price on each you want more unit no no this this doesn't change the number of units but it change it wants to ensure that it's Workforce but it Chang there's nothing to ensure it's Workforce they're going to they're going to develop it to the highest potential and maximum money that could be developed in the property no one's going to take less rent but Matthew is saying that if it's if you limit the ceiling Heights to a certain number then maybe that's going to help um tampen down the the maximum rental or the maximum sale price right is that a way to do it I guess we could limit we could limit the I wouldn't I wouldn't go less than than 10 concern can we just we can flag it for the workshops I mean just just something to discuss and we're not voting on anything now we're just giving our thoughts and uh and we're I mean I can make a motion already but it says let everybody finish but potential increase of 60064 residential units well yeah because we're we're basically um that's not a lot increasing the F yeah that's it's not a lot it's not the the area is limited small area yeah it's that's what I mean it's I mean this is just step one let's roll it out across the city I I think overall it kind of motion everyone is on board y all right I make a motion to continue to I'll second that okay who made the motion Mo to continue to to the September meeting and that's for both that's for both items the compant amendment and the LR amendments yeah all right we're done that's it for today thank you very much thanks everyone let see everybody on congratulations to Jonathan on the birth of Noah