##VIDEO ID:viH2A2LDYLQ## please take your seats the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1 okay good morning everyone welcome to the January 7th planning board meeting hope everyone had a great New Year um there are some minor changes to the agenda that we will get to shortly but first if I could get a motion to approve the after Action Report the minutes from the last meeting motion to approve can I get a second oh okay Scott all in favor I anyone opposed okay minutes are approved uh okay so I guess before we get to the city attorney we have to elect a chair and a vice chair U maybe before we do that we actually should do the City attorney update so ni can let the members of the public know how they may participate when we get to that point okay thank you Michael good morning Mr chair members of the board today's meeting of the planning board will be held in a hybrid format with the board physically present in the commission chamber at Miami Beach City Hall and applicant staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually the public may dial 1877 853 5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 861 4342 6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 86143 4263 27 uh anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon or dial star9 if you're participating by phone if you're appearing on behalf of a business 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 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 and whose behalf they're communicating if you're an architect attorney or employee representing an applicant or an objector you must register as a lobbyist these rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage to feed modification or continuance and lastly I'd like to swear in uh any members of the public or staff who will be testifying today please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you thank you very much Nick okay um election of chair and vice chair I so suggest we take uh nominations to start first for uh chairperson nomin I'll nominate Brian I'll second that if you're okay with that pal sure anyone else want to nominate anybody else okay all in favor I all opposed okay congratulations thank you Vice chair Melissa anyone want to second that I'll second sorry okay all in favor anyone opposed okay thanks so much congratulations for the confidence okay requests for continuances the first one is planning board file 24703 1250 Washington Avenue so the the first request for continuance is we can take the first two together I'll just read the file number since they're related this is PB 24- 0703 related to 1250 West Avenue this is the altim beach Bayon overlay District comprehensive plan Amendment as well as the next um item which is pb2 4- 0698 for 1250 West Avenue this is for the development regulations for the same overlay District I believe the applicant is requesting a continuance to the um February 4th meeting yes that's correct we're just uh refining the legislation and the plans of doing some additional diagrams that staff asked for yeah I just know that some of the board members like to know the reason so I would like to know so we've at the community meeting we proferred a lower height of the of the proposed building and we're doing updated massing studies for the proposed new floor area that would correspond to that height um Michael also pointed out some issues with our massing study so we wanted to do a context diagram it's taken some time to put those plans together especially over the holidays so we pushed it to February I should note too that I think we had over 150 people attend via Zoom the community meeting so the same for the doville so um these projects are um in the spotlight and so I guess they're trying to make sure that everything is um you know taken care of um so with that we should take um any public comment on the request for continuance anyone in Chambers speak on this anybody on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom okay we'll close any other questions yes I do have a couple questions so so I I listened in on the meeting and there was as Michael alluded to substantial uh substantial public comment um you know it was overwhelmingly uh not positive on the project besides the massing studies that staff have asked for have you considered changing any portions uh and the height as well in the F but what about the uh you know the unit sizes the makeups a lot of people were concerned about uh it just being on the upper high end of the residential market and they're worried about basically the the community and the people that live there now and people that could live there in the future so have you thought about that at all yeah I think we're giving that some thought um there's potentially an increase in the unit count not a huge increase um also with the public benefit profer there may some ways to address those comments um I we're still working on it so I don't want to get into great detail right now but um our community benefits package is changing to try to address some of those comments and those concerns uh raised at the community meeting and and from the elected officials and from this board so since you're making changes a suggestion that that I would make or just an idea that I'll float is a uh in addition to what you looked at a pocket park perhaps or a parking garage which didn't seem to have much uh support or perhaps need you know how about a contribution to a South Peach Mobility fund to help with uh funding bicycle pedestrian master plan projects that have been installed for many years uh micromobility and other sorts of things that um that people in the community use utilize and uh it would be beneficial for thank you for that certainly would win my support okay well that's something new we haven't heard so we appreciate the the feedback and I'll take that back to the team thank any other questions all right someone want to move to approve the continuance motion to approve okay make a second I'll second it okay I'll in favor anyone opposed okay so those are both items three and four uh the next item is planning board file 24719 1350 Collins Avenue also seeking a continuance to February yes the applicant is requesting a continuance to the February meeting in order to perform additional um sound testing as recommended by the peer reviewer um so the applicant is requested continues to the February 4th meeting I believe the applicant is is um is online via Zoom um Bob would you like to speak on the application and the request for continuance who is it uh Bob Deonte I think his hand is raised Bob you there yes good morning can you hear me sure yeah now we can good morning my name is Bob delente with Law Offices at 1200 Brickle Avenue um uh I am here on behalf of the applicant yes as Michael stated we are requesting a continuance until the February 4th meeting um when we got the staff report we had done additional sound testing as per the peer review um when we got the staff report there was some additional testing that was recommended or requested so we are asking for the continuance in order to be able to do that before the February meeting okay anyone in chamber to speak on this on this item yes just introduce yourself your address and then yes good morning my name is Juan Pablo Dono I'm the owner of 1340 Collins Avenue and we the neighbors to the South it's actually the sheckley hotel I sent an email I'm not sure it it made it through I hope uh but I do want to to to be on record expressing the how worried we are with the possibility of our neighbor being granted an open space entertaining live uh permit and this is an open patio it's a 5 foot setback I sent pictures for you to realize how our rooms I can touch the musicians if they're on the other side of the fence uh to the north there's also a a residential building uh I've been here for long I also run the lesie hotel at Ocean Drive for more than 20 years uh I've seen uh how this permits and this sound testings and what's what what remains on paper is always different what happens on a day byday basis with operators that are convinced that loud music is part of the attractiveness of their venues and and I don't mean to interrupt you but I I need to tell you this so what's before us is is moving the item to next month so what you're saying you need to come back because we don't know what the project is at this point um unfortunately you probably didn't know no you probably didn't know that they asked to move it to February so I'm sorry you had to come here no problem at all so I'll I'll try to be here next yeah because when we get to the merits of the actual project that's when we need to hear from you perfect thank you do you have any problem with them delaying it to no no no no absolutely probably happy about it okay thank you appreciate so please U it it looks like it'll be next February 4th um but they'll send out agenda but I'm sorry you didn't know about that before but thank you and please come back good morning okay anyone else there's nobody else with their hand raised online and I see nobody else in the audience any questions okay someone want to move motion to approve okay I get a second I'll second okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay great all right the next one has been withdrawn that was the uh ordinance regarding Lincoln Road and the convenience stores item uh six planning board file 066 24662 and uh Michael advised that they just withdrew it out of the board yeah the applicant just requested withdrawal yesterday so um I don't know why but they just um withdrew the application so the board does not need to take any action on that item okay all right the next one is planning board file 24678 and uh 1634 1100 West Avenue of monrean this is just an update um the board may remember that when this was before you in November the board said that as long as there's no um additional citations that the revocation modification hearing could be dismissed administratively so this is just to let you guys know that there were no citations issued set that since that time so we have dismissed that revocation modification here okay so no action necessary no action is required correct correct okay um the discussion item that was uh going to be unloading including truck size and safety is been continue to February uh so we'll move on to the revocation modification hearings item 9 planning board file 1675 the good time hotel and this um staff report begins on page um 15 of the board packages This was um last before you substantially quite a while ago on July 30th of this year at that time the planning board um did modify the um the cup in accordance with the recommendations of staff including reinst of the plainly audible standard the board also continued the revocation modification hearing to the December meeting however the December meeting was cancelled so all applications on the agenda for December were moved to the January 7th meeting as noted in our report there have not been any complaints or um citations issued since the um the last meeting so we are recommending that since the board has already modified the cop in accordance with um staff and the conditions have been updated to um comport with the current code requirements while recommending that um the revocation modification hearing be concluded at this time okay is the um applicant or or owner or representative here to speak or not necessary I don't see anybody with their hand raised online um okay anyone here in Chambers on the item no okay okay um so we just have to move to to dismiss yeah just formally if um if you want to follow our recommendation and dismiss the um revocation modification motion to dismiss okay a second any second no second sort that's a good one there no other there no other issues I mean I'll pass the Gabel in second and see what the vote is how about that can I do that the chair can second a motion you don't have to pass the G all right just bear back yes violations right so violation stopping them from come showing up every few months for reviews right basically if there's a new violation issued we would send we start the process over send a your letter and then they would I'll second it then okay yeah at this point I think um I'd be in favor of of of um just um ending it right but I would just hope that if if issues do come up again in the future board moves a little faster in in in trying to uh Rectify those agree okay so we have a second um all in favor I I anyone opposed okay it's the end of an era wow let's hope all right previously continued applications item 10 planning board file 23625 15091 1515 Washington Avenue new hotel an application has been filed requesting a conditional use approval for a neighborhood impact structure for a new sstory hotel exceeding 50,000 Square ft including a new rooftop addition onto the 1500 Collins Avenue and a neighborhood impact establishment that includes an alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant located on the rooftop of a building which is located on a property that is within 200 ft of a property containing a residential unit and a neighborhood impact establishment with an occupancy of more than 300 persons pursuing to chapter 1 Article 2 Section 1224 chapter 2 Article 5 Section 252 and chapter 7 Article 5 section 7554 of the Miami Beach resiliency code so the board may remember um this last came before you almost a year ago back on April 25th of of last year and the board has several concerns with that application that application included um different variances it including encroachments onto Washington Avenue um the board had questions regarding review from the store preservation board um the board was concerned about the size of the um hotel rooms as noted in our Rapport and this was provided um as a separate attachment not part of the bound package but it was included in the board packages which which is which just not included in the um what was sent for for copying until the last minute so it's it's a separate um report from your bound packages so the initial project included a typical hotel room size of 200 ft the revised the revised hotel room size the new project is between 324 and 337 Square ft um the project also includes now incorporation of the Hayden Hall and its renovation as well as a rooftop addition onto the Hayden Hall site um as indicated in our report no entertainment is proposed for the entire project only ambient background music is proposed at a volume the does not interfere with normal conversation the applicant did submit a sound study it was peer reviewed there was a concern regarding the deible level that was being set for the ambient background music we do have a condition in the conditions of approval to limit the um the audio um output to a level that's been recommended by the the city's peer reviewer um we did also pass around today the um latest Memo from the Transportation Department this includes um several conditions of approval I believe the applicant is um agreeing with all those conditions with some minor updates that they will be going over um we are recommending that the application be approved in accordance with the conditions um enumerated in our draft final order along with incorporation of the conditions that are referenced in the traffic um transportation analysis those pass to you this morning we I'll turn it over to the to the applicant for their presentation good morning good morning Emily Balter bardell Fernandez Larin and tapenz Office of the 2 South biscane Boulevard I'm here today on behalf of 1515 Washington acquisition LLC uh this is a Partners uh Gavin censo and zaver cbom with Kaa Real Estate Group um if we could bring up our presentation thank you and just for the board's edification this was this package attached to the at the end of your packet I don't if you found it okay so the project before you today is now an assemblage of 1509 to 1515 Washington as well as 1500 Collins Avenue combining this site ensures better operation midblock connectivity between Washington and Collins and New Uses that will inin invigorate uh the area the applicant came before this board in April of 2024 with hotel that was just limited to to Washington with minimal amenities uh since then the the applicant has retained new Architects entered into a joint venture with the owners of Haden Hall and sought a new hotel operator as you will see the units are larger the amenities are five-star and overall the site is more efficient we believe that your feedback at that April meeting resulted in a significantly better project uh to quickly introduce our team uh we have the architect of record noberto Rosenstein our landscape architect g uh Ken Gardner sound engineer and Andy sordo from Criterion Acoustics traffic engineer Wen Vargas from traf Tech structural engineer Yousef hatm um as well as my colleague Michael Lin and of course the the designers of the project rotate Studio I'm joined with Chris Evans good morning how could I forget uh today we're respectfully requesting uh three part parts to the conditional use permit part one is new construction exceeding 50,000 Square ft two uh rooftop restaurant within 200 ft of residential uses and three the neighborhood impact establishment for restaurants not also operating as an entertainment establishment with an occupancy of three or 300 or more persons I will now Chris and I will go back and forth hopefully that will lead to a clear presentation we might exceed the 8 minutes that we have left um to walk you through the overall project each of the uses um and then after Chris I'd like to briefly go over some of the modified conditions that I passed out um I also passed out our summary of the conditional use permit so you can follow along but I'll not pass it to good morning Chris Evans uh rote Studio I'm the principal in Houston uh 65 Brier Hollow Houston Texas um uh so I just wanted to introduce the site real quick just to make sure we have the vocabulary um obviously we're located between colins in Washington just north of Espanola Way uh the the main entry now of the property is going to be through the Haden Hall um entrance which is uh the Historic Hotel um and then uh as we go West on the property we have the Campton Apartments which is being uh converted from Apartments into a single use um retail amenity Spa um and then we have the the Washington building as we're calling it which is the uh storefronts uh facing Washington Avenue that that building will be demolished and re built at the the taller ngdb of nine um and this is uh and then the seven story um Hotel Tower above that uh the main uh pedestrian or vehicular circulation the entrance is off of Collins uh for the hotel uh additional uh drop off and and street parking on on the west side of the property along Washington Avenue um where we have a secondary entrance the uh The Pedestrian uh entrances match that uh the I think the important thing here is the service circulation um we are um we have created a corridor that runs along the north north and the uh East sides of the property um that's kind of an open air cor um Corridor that allows um services to kind of move through the property and uh all the loading is taking place on uh the street uh loading uh spots you can see the diagram in the lower right um there are existing three spots there the parking um department is require request uh an additional uh fourth spot for that loading and so that loading would take place there and move into the building the um uh there will there will be no deliveries that take place earlier than 9:00 a.m. uh refuse and recycling will be no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and there will be a dock Master present during uh loading and deliveries uh during that window um just a quick overview of the site you can see the the entrance there we have the kind of the gardens on both the front uh and then we have the historic Courtyard uh in the center this is the Haden Hall pool we are maintaining that pool and and and read landscaping and detailing around that and then the the historic campon apartments in the in the open lawn in front of that um with uh with the the historic banion tree uh in that courtyard thank you next page uh just real quick just so you understand kind of our design intent uh we're really uh leaning into the um kind of the Spanish roots of the area or you know just half block North of espanol away um and that great president um and then and then really working with the um kind of combining that with the um streamline modar uh that is prevalent in the area and so current cre a a current modern interpretation of those two those two combin combinations um and just what really really important here is the is the banion tree we love this banon tree it's such a kind of a mythological tree uh very connected to the um to many many cultures um and as the beauty of is it expands and the AAL roots that connect the whole property uh similar to our property I should say is we're trying to as we start with the hen Hall and we're connecting these other buildings using this concept of ayon to tie tie those all together architecturally thank you um this is a view you can see this is a pedestrian view from across uh Collins so you're looking at the historic uh haton Hall uh entry as you can see it's largely the same as it was just uh improved and restored um and bringing in some color on the the facade this is a slightly uh elevated view from one of the balconies across the street but what you can see here uh it's a little bit of more of the overview of the property you can see the fourth floor Edition on the north side of haton Hall uh in the distance you can see the um campon Apartments uh on the left side there with there's a roof Terrace being added to the top of the spa deck and then of course the new seven story Tower with the uh restaurant pool deck on the on the seventh floor this is a view um kind of from the corner of uh Espanola looking towards uh towards the property you can see the Campton there on the right which is being largely uh restored and maintained as it is today but uh improved uh for site connection and activation on the Washington Corridor and then you can see to the left the uh the historic Washington building facade which is being reconstructed um at that higher in VDB for um for flood in the future um and then you can see the the seven story tower on top of that and some of those those details we discussed with the um kind of those horizontal planes of the art uh the the Streamline modar mixed with that kind of banion concept uh this is the uh interior Courtyard view um so this is the historic hen Hall uh pool deck which is being Rel landscaped uh to work with the new buildings and the new the new complex just quick some of the materials we're going to skip past that and then um moving into the uh so starting we'll start with how Hall there on the on the right if we can go to the next page uh this is the main entry uh the drop off and approach we have the grand Lobby the north side has the Event Hall uh in the pre function Zone as well as small prep kitchen and then on the south side of the of the hen Hall you can see the Dixon Cafe this is a new Cafe FNB um intended to be like a health and wellness uh Cafe uh this is both public access from the street on Collins and access directly from the grand lobby as well as our our Fitness Zone uh directly behind them this is an enlarged view of the um the ballroom and the adjacent pre function Lounge of course the event prep in the upper left um for this event space we are currently proposing um no live entertainment uh we will like to come back in the future when we have this space further build out where we can show you know where the band will be how we're soundproofing how doors will operate Etc but for as of today um we're not proposing live entertainment for this space and the hours of operation uh proposed are consistent with the Hotel amenities I'm moving into the Dixon Cafe like I said this is a uh health and wellness Cafe named after Murray Dixon the original architect of Haden Hall and you can see it is accessible both from the street on the from the the Dixon Cafe Terrace a pair of double doors there and then of course from the lobby as well uh for this space again we're proposing uh no live entertainment only ambient background music um on our application materials we indicated that this would close at 2 p.m. however discussing with the neighbors um they would like somewhere that they can go after work and grab a sandwich um so we're proposing uh 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 pm uh moving into the the campon apartment the campon apartment uh this is um currently an apartment or part of the hotel uh but being being uh opened up and converted into a single use uh Wellness um treatment Spa uh the main entrance coming off of Washington Avenue through the um uh Banyon garden and into the into the original historic Lobby um let me quick and I see that we're about to run out of time um if we could have 10 more minutes through the chair we'll go quickly but you skipped the page uh this there we go go ahead uh the proposed um social Wellness Spa again no live entertainment only ambient background music um we are proposing to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. which is consistent with the overall operational hours for the Hotel amenities uh moving into the Washington building this is the uh the new building uh with the guest rooms but the ground floor is our uh on the lower left hand corner we have the uh Washington the hotel entrance is a secondary entrance to help activate Washington and encourage guests to go out either side of the building uh this also uh works as a kind of a check-in point for the restaurant uh on the first floor and then the restaurant on the on the seventh floor uh we also have a small um pool bar on the right or the southeast corner and then if you go up on the North Northwest we have a small uh vent which is a coffee shop uh run through the the operations of the restaurant and then we have a retail space in the in the northwest corner the proposed hours of operation for what we're calling the signature restaurant the ground floor restaurant fronting Washington is 7:00 a.m. to 2: a.m. um similar with the ventanita um I don't believe we have a call out of the retail but this retail proposed is also like a grab and go shop for the hotel guests that will have curated um goods and uh small groceries that's consistent with The Branding of the hotel I would just add that we've recessed the facade a little bit to provide um outdoor dining on the on the west uh to connect and activate the facade of the of the Washington building as well as open up to the to the Terrace on the east side so we already went through that one pool bar the pool bar uh we're proposing um this is an entirely enclosed pool bar but it did have some outdoor seating so we're proposing um 12:00 pm to 2 am indoor and 12:00 pm to 2 to 12: am outdoor for this and this will be open to the public uh moving into the uh the second level with the Haden Hall is is where our guest rooms begin um just as an overview we're adding the current the current key count is on uh 62 uh we're adding 100 Rooms to 262 uh as well as enlarging the rooms as as Emily uh mentioned before um this is level level three which is all guest room um in both the Haden and the Washington building but you can see the roof uh relaxation Zone which is operated in and and active for the the the treatment Spa moving up to the fourth floor um you can see on the haton hall on the North Wing is the the new the new level being added that includes a presidential suite with a livable presidential Terrace off of the front facing uh down towards Collins in the in the in the beach front and then of course uh this is where our kind of our on the Washington building the stack gets consistent these are kind of our typical rooms that around the three over 300 foot count um level uh level five uh largely the same but you'll see in the lower corner we have added there's another secondary presidential here with another Terrace uh facing facing Collins and Views towards the the beach front and then level seven this is where we have our uh restaurant uh restaurant and a small pool feature uh this is an the bar itself is is is fully enclosed uh it is specifically focused to face to the East and towards the Waterfront and the property itself it does not uh the interior bar does not have any openings are facing towards uh towards the west and Washington Avenue um we have uh obviously have the Terrace out here capitalizing views towards the Waterfront you can see here an enlarged enlarged plan of that pool there for the rooftop restaurant we are proposing to have uh breakfast up here limited to Hotel guests so the hours of operation for uh week nights Sunday through Wednesday just for hotel guests 7:00 a.m. to 12: a.m. um and Thursday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 2: a.m. and then open to the public uh starting at 12:00 p.m. and then closing at the same time so lunch and dinner um will be open to the public and uh no entertainment is proposed ambient background music and just U settling on The View here uh looking at the West facad so to uh briefly conclude we'd like to slightly modify the proposed hours of operation these uh came about through negotiation conversations with neighbors and conversations with staff um I circulated uh what our proposed changes are uh we understand in the draft order that they separated it between amenities open to to the public and amenities open to Hotel guests we'd like to stay consistent with that separation um we clarified ground floor Cafe fron in Collins which wasn't previously included um and in order to show the 800m we also included the pool bar and Terrace and the respective hours of operation for that venue um and then clarify when the rooftop Lounge is open to Hotel guests um this is condition 4 C uh this we've also amended uh 5H to be consistent 5H uh provided Public Access use of the rooftop Lounge should be limited um for for the public and and we included those hours Public Access um the second condition that we would like to modify uh is 5c the applicant is voluntarily profer um to have a employed docm present on site to coordinate all loading and deliveries uh this will ensure minimal overlap between deliveries as as well as to as the trucks arrive to make sure they're parked in the appropriate location um I believe um Michael belouch passed out uh today transportations conditions which we've also received and reviewed um we are in agreement with all the conditions uh for condition number four we would respectfully request to modify a minimum of nine valet Runners to provide um that the applicant shall maintain the necessary number of valet numbers valet Runners estimated at nine um that way when we do go to submit our TDM and this is analyzed um if it's more we can provide more and if it's less uh we can provide less um with that we appreciate the additional time and we're respectfully requesting approval of the application consistent with staff's recommendation and our proposed modified orders and our entire team is here available for any questions all right thank you we'll start with public comment anyone in Chambers to speak on this item no one anyone on Zoom we do have one person with their hand raised um Johan Moore and before the public do any board members have any disclosures to make on this application no but I received emails from the applicant direct I believe I I I think I spoke with um Irene at the um arteco neighbor Association on this a short conversation okay anybody else I met with the applicant on site okay I just spoke with uh Mr Lin yesterday morning I had two questions okay all right uh and just make sure Mr Moore was sworn in I don't know if he was he was not hi hi Johan do you swear affirms the testimony you'll given this proing is the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth Mr there we go yes I do oh there you go okay thank you Johan you have three minutes go ahead thank you all and good morning and happy New Year uh unlike my usual practice of speaking from a position of neighborhood concerns um I think I want to offer tentative praise to this project on that basis they really seem to have um anticipated uh some of the neighbors concerns in that respect so my questions simply um come from um sustainability committee uh point of view um what green uh features uh does this property include does this development proposed to include or uh can still be included um I'm thinking graywater recycling for watering plants I'm thinking uh solar uh panels on the roof and I in particular want to encourage uh Greening of the setbacks um not just the decorous uh Vines draping over the edge which are alsoo enticing but which specifically uh inspire me to urge the developer to include larger plants in order to shade the facade in order possibly on those uh Terraces on those setbacks to absorb some of the rainwater runoff before it gets to ground level uh and maybe even that given that it is such a large large complex that it consider using Cutting Edge uh pollution and or temperature reducing paint so I just wanted to put that before the developers and the board uh for future questions for such proposals as they come before you thank you very much thank you anyone else on Zoom there is nobody else on Zoom with their hand raised you want to address Mr Mo's question um I'm happy to I I am appreciative of the tentative praise um we're not used to that um but we we are understanding of the resiliency and uh requirements related to that being a project on a Barrier Island um we agree to staff's condition 511 which provides that the development shall comply with the green real Green Building requirements provided in section 7.1.3 point2 of the resiliency code so it's built into our order all right no one else on Zoom correct oh that's correct okay questions Scott let's start yeah um a few questions and com comments and I know when when you were here before I mean my concerns were were the um um traffic on Washington and also noise those are my two biggest concerns um so I'm going to have a few questions and and maybe you can um alleviate some of those concerns um I know the main entrance is on Collins Avenue um but obviously there's an there's an entrance on Washington Avenue and it's not the main entrance but there will be people coming and going are you planning on any kind of valet on Washington Avenue for that entrance in other words I assume the main entrance is on Collins so that's where your your your most your guests will be dropped off but what about Washington Avenue um do the chair would you like me to respond to each question as they come okay okay uh so right now with the proposed study we are proposing the valet stand to be within the property from the Collins driveway uh that way we can have some queuing within the property um if at the time of building permit when we do our TDM um if there's a need for valet on uh Washington we will uh coordinate with the parking department for an on Street valet space with limited hours uh but the the goal is to move some most of that to colle okay because that was one of my big concerns cuz there's another hotel just across the street and if you drive down Washington every at least every time I do you need to change I make a right turn but I need to get in the left lane to go around the cars they sto there most of it's the valet I mean sometimes people are just dropping off um other other people there um I you know I understand you may need it but i' I would like to not have a v on Washington Avenue um I don't know if this board can if we can put anything in the order along those lines but um um that that's a concern of mine and I think that would go a long way toward toward um mitigating um that concern what are sorry what are the number of cars that you guys can accommodate within the the the circular uh driveway of of Washington or you said right our traffic engineer Vargas is here um based on our study we we estimate three um a of three right without any encroachment into the rideway um and we are you know if if if that's the direction you'd like to see we're willing to work with the Washington Avenue bid to coordinate a centralized valet um if needed and we can also agree to have no valet on Washington that's I like Michael okay um a couple other concerns um uh another one I had was noise obviously I know there's no entertainment um but you you are going to have outdoor speakers so there's no outdoor speakers for music purposes proposed on the current plans proposed where on the plans like we're we're not showing outdoor speakers okay but there's ambient music correct but it won't be a speaker it'll be an internal system um there's no outdoor speakers on the plans okay um the at right now the the courtyard on Washington Avenue for the uh Campton Apartments everyone once in a while there's some kind of event there and the music's rather loud what are you intending to do in that space so that is associated with the hotel's um well social Wellness Spa they're hoping to keep that as a place where you can sit and wait for your treatment um where you can take your cup of coffee or your cup of tea while you're waiting for your treatment or your appointment time um it's a a relaxation area an entrance as you enter almost to transform as you go from The Busy Washington Avenue into the Cal uh Spa area so there's no activation there is seating but it's not um it's not activated my concern is speakers loud music at night it turns into a little um outdoor um venue right it's opposite by the way that's not like a great commercial you can leave the busyness of Washington to the calmness of the spa I like that um so um and again all these things I mean I'm going to ask that LE somehow however it's it be in the final order um what about special events are you anticipating holding any special events um there's already a a condition in the order that says no special events um with the ballroom space that's exempt from the special event permit requirements that's the only location where there will be well again my concern is mainly Outside Inside I mean I if it can't be heard outside I'm I'm fine with itra no um and um no and and like you said there's no entertainment anywhere on the property no entertainment um um permit okay so I mean i' be I'm okay with the project provided we can incorporate these concerns into the final order no which is no Val in Washington which is well a limit on on the um um no outdoor speakers um limiting the courtyard Campton to as you described it with no um um I guess we can figure no no no no activation no act well no activation that's fine again my concern is is noise because right now they're at times that can get pretty loud at night um and then um well it's in there already but no special events okay Scot I'm I'm confused what are the what are the conditions I got the um no Val on Washington no Val no activation of the of the campon apartment's Courtyard okay specific to noise specific to noise obviously visual correct may I ask a question yeah um are these spaces open to the public the speakers are inside correct correct can you hear them from outside so uh I in our sound study the sound engineer did specify where noise could uh bleed into the public areas um so yes I'm happy to have him if he raises his his virtual Zoom hand to to comment further but to answer your question yes I just think since we're talking about noise it might be I mean Mr chair would you sure if you want to hear from I mean I mean I I I feel like are you going to be able to hear from the top Hotel floors um music from the rooftop at any point I I I'm I'm concerned about residents I'm concerned about hotel guests I'm concerned about complaints and just like Scott was saying I think that that those are legitimate concerns and if you are having an open to the courtyard and and by the way um this project is beautiful it is 100% improvement from the last plan that we saw and I your renovation your restoration it is outstanding and I just wanted to congratulate you on that so all right so is your son engineer on the on Zoom is hasn't Andy sordo raised his yes um Andy sordo Andy if you'd like to to respond to miss laton's question regarding um sound from examp for example the rooftop to the upper floors or from the the pool Terrace to the pool deck those those sound sure so Andy before you begin I'm sorry I have to swear you in um do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in the in this proceeding is the truth all truth and nothing but the truth absolutely yes thank you so I'm I'm a little bit confused about the source of sound that is is concerning we we've been bouncing back and forth a little bit could we start um with the first question and maybe could you repeat a bit please are are you speaking to me or just got okay um yes okay so the first question is if you've got an open courtyard and you've got speakers that are not outside sorry I'm not feeling fabulous um if you have speakers that are inside but the doors are open to the outside you're going to be able to hear that um from the outside and I think that was sort of what Scott was alluding to as well well um even though there are no speakers outside um how how what portion how far will that noise spread because noise goes up um and out and I don't want to interfere with neighbors to the to any any NE and the second question is in relation to any rooftop um Hotel guests that may be affected by any noise from the hotel ra excuse so so typically well there there's one feature of the pool Courtyard that is advantageous for sound and that is that it is in a courtyard and typically if there is some audibility of Hotel activities uh from the environment into hotel rooms that is usually managed by Hotel staff and if there is a complaint they can comp a room or they can you know there are things that they can do or they turn it down and that's managed internally where it's really a problem is where uh a nearby resident can hear the sound and that's what we focused on in the sound study and there's because of the courtyard and the geometry of that sound from that area is blocked fairly effective it would have to be quite loud um in the in the restaurants and the spaces that where ambient music is planned to be heard by any nearby resident and and that's that's a good thing because they're not planning for it to be that loud and uh you know for for what they're doing it wouldn't make any sense anyway um so that's a good thing if there is a concern about uh in internal Hotel activities bothering other guests we'll have to study that in the future that was not part of the scope of what we were doing here but uh neighbors I'm not too concerned and I think we showed that in the sound study on page nine it shows um environmental impact of sound in the courtyard and that includes guests speaking and noise from people activities in the courtyard um does that answer your question I may have been rambling a bit Scott um yeah yes and again my concern was just noise um um permeating the neighborhood coming out of the hotel um and like with all these projects that we see and all the sound studies if they follow the sound studies um and and do exactly what they say and set up the speakers that way and keep whatever limit on on the sound yeah the neighborhood's going to be fine the problem comes in down the line when maybe the restaurant's not doing as well or the hotel is not doing as well and they turn the dial up a little bit that's when the problem comes guess would there be would there be any issue with adding in a provision it doesn't sound like this would matter to you but just that noise you know music from the hotel should not be audible from outside the boundaries of the hotel I think you've got 100 feet in there Am I Wrong mean that's going to be have to be really loud that's actually I didn't think of that and that's an excellent point I mean that should be the case that's what it is now for the good time so the sound should be heard across if I can just cify 1. two so just to be clear I believe the applicant does have speakers Outdoors they do have speakers on the rooftop however um even indoors there's no entertainment level music proposed correct so even indoors the musically be played at background levels and Outdoors at at background levels um during the hours that they proposed I think if the board wants to limit music Outdoors then that should be specified further where for example if they want to allow the the rooftop to be open on the weekends till a certain time that the music sto you know earlier than that if that's a concern but I'm confused I thought you said there were no outdoor speakers for music that was my understanding if if the plans show otherwise we can look at that over again Sor if that's the case I wasn't that if that's the case then I think that addresses I agree all the issues because if the if there's no entertainment indoors and it's only ambient background music then even with the doors open that should not be something that spills over right away I think the 100 feet should be standard for what we had with the good time Hotel just to just to head off at the pass and limit I'm not a fan of 2 p.m. I mean 2 am. um look I want everybody to be successful I love this project um I've I is is can you limit the hours nothing Well Elizabeth but let me ask you something what if if there's no concern about noise why what's the issue there well then why are we having 2 2 a.m. rooftop they want I think if you guys can bring up the plan I think one of the one of the reasons why we're less concerned with that 2 amm rooftop on the weekends is that the rooftop area is internal to the site right that's you have it you have it buffered by the courtyard to the east you have a buffered by the rooftop it's contained so you have the you have the the solid wall construction of the of the enclosed area itself so we do believe that that's that's contained and then without having outdoor speakers I think that addresses year would be well taken if it wasn't for that but that's the only reason I asked how how you want to have ambient music Outdoors but you're not going to have any speakers how to explain that so we we did not propose speakers on the plan um we anticipate that if there's music playing you can hear it um that's why we said the possibility of ambient outdoor music but we did not propose like we're going to put a speaker here speaker are you saying it only that the music from the inside will be be carrying to the outside is the way you're getting on USIC on the outside if you can't correct you did say at one point that you thought that you might anticipate coming back for some live entertainment correct of only the uh Ballroom space so on the interior of Haden Hall uh we are proposing a ballroom space I'm trying to click to it um however we did not propose uh a buildout of the space so we don't know where the stage is going to be we don't know how sound will be captured by the doors um we don't have a speaker plan so we did not want to come to this board saying live entertainment when we didn't have it mapped out you come the only live so if you have for example a reception you'd like a violin something like that it's not okay so basically on what we're seeing and what we're hearing is the only people that would be affected by any noise at this point would be the guest at the hotel based on the way you guys have laid out the plan right corre is that pretty much what it sounds like yes that's that's that's provided that we agree on that there's no outdoor speakers approved as part of this review conversation levels within the restaurants being open until 2 a. forget about the music but if you have loud people that are outside on the Terrace and they're talking really loud the only people that will be hearing that is likely to be the guest in the hotel correct is that what we're understand you do have that buffer you have the buffer all the way around the um the rooftop right and they'll be ping a lot of rooms if that happens um I just wanted a little more order to this so Scott were you finished I think Michael we were going over what I'd like to see in the final order okay you want to continue with that we we we mentioned no Val in Washington we mentioned no activation of the um the courtyard where the campon um apartments are now Courtyard at fronts Washington Avenue so to clarify that be like no no venue they could have they could have sort of outdoor seating for hotel guests but nothing no activation in terms of restaurant space or um um space that would count as um um yeah um part of a venue correct okay um we know that um there's it's already in there but no special events and there's no entertainment Pro proposed um I I would like to see if they're okay with it uh says something that says no outdoor speakers I know that was kind of unclear but if but is it no outdoor speakers or no outdoor speakers with music I want to make sure I understand I mean they they will have outdoor speakers speakers but they're committing not to put music in but I'll let you's see correct so there will be life for Life Safety purposes if speakers are needed fire alarm requirements but we're not proposing on on the plan we did not show speaker locations um that's not part of this proposal today well I guess I guess the question is is in the future if you did want to because you're getting approval for ambient music outdoors in the future if you did want to play ambient music Outdoors you would need to install speakers right and so would you then need to come back to us you'd have to modify the C yeah okay and then the the last one is um a condition that says the um noise from the hotel or music whatever it is can't be plainly audible on the west side of Washington Avenue that and that shouldn't be a problem since there's no entertainment level music proposed Outdoors so right that but you can put that in it we can put that in it okay can I ask what's the point of us approving ambient music now if they're not able to have ambient music unless they come back to us with the proposal for no they can have ambient music but they don't have speakers out there it's caring from the inside if they keep the inside caring from because it's caring from the inside right is that true by the way I me for this beautiful hotel you're not including speakers for the pool so we didn't want to include um we didn't want to muddy this project we think it is beautiful architecturally the priority was restoration of Haden Hall the priority was the the landscaping and the flow of the site and making it work as a new assemblage it was not entertainment so we did not want to come before you saying we're going to plop speakers here here here when that's not what we're proposing the sound study included um both noise and uh speaking into their analysis and we're in agreement with the peer reviewers reduction of our DBA uh from the' 70s to the 60s uh but we also want the opportunity that if we open the pool Terrace open it and there's music playing you could hear it on the pool Terrace if you're in the pool bar and vice versa so that's why it's important to have at least some that if you're standing in the courtyard you can hear the music when you're within the site it's part of the overall aesthetic and Vibe of this tranquil restoration key word tranquil yes tranquil any Scott okay good points Matthew okay uh first um thank you for taking me on a tour of the site um I know one of the major concerns that I had was the sidewalk condition along Washington Avenue um and so in fact I would ask could you go over that I know that you showed some um he showed a plan and a rendering but could you talk talk about what the previous condition was proposed what it is now and what the width would be along the sidewalk I know last time it was 5 feet of clear space and that was a concern of of myself and some of my colleagues as well it looks like it's substantially improved 12 yeah yeah 12T to the uh to the first uh step that leads up to the elevated uh Terrace dining Terrace there um so we are you know giving a giving ample space there for circulation because when Emily and I were walking it it was it was crowded it was a a weekday uh early afternoon and it was already pretty crowded out there so it it is you know very important that we maintain at least what's there today which sounds like we are um so thank you for that and also I I think it's a greatly improved going from the micro units of roughly 200 square feet to to 330 square feet and those are more normalized units I think that was one of the huge concerns that almost everyone up here had and one of the reasons why we we you know weren't ready to approve it back then so thank you for for changing that um to Jonathan's point I I'm confused I'm reading the draft order here and and I'm confused about about the speakers and the ambient outside music the way that I read it right now is that if we were to approve this this draft this draft order U outdoor music or outdoor music at an ambient level is permitted whether or not there's there's speakers on there so uh you know I'm looking at um at letter D and E uh and F you know D talks about that you know entertainment is is prohibited and all indoor outdoor areas except that recorded background music played at a level that does not interfere with normal conversation shall be permitted and then that's that's correct that's we drafted the order with the understanding that there were going to be outdoor speakers but if the board is now saying they don't want outdoor speakers then of course we'll modify those conditions accordingly and um not allow outdoor speakers except for you know life safety purposes okay so I think that's why Jonathan also was a little bit unclear because the way in which it's written right now it would be right that's that's what our understanding was that they would have outdoor music at an ambient background level but they're saying that they're okay now with not having that because I think they want to come back to the board with some modification to include maybe some live entertainment in certain areas so I believe that they're asking for approval now with no outdoor speakers and they'll come back to the board with a modified um speaker plan and proposal for where that may occur on the property okay because I I will is that correct agree with that okay so can we include a an amendment to the order that says you know other than life safety speakers no outdoor speakers shall be permitted unless uh the applicant returns to the board for approval sure yes so in terms of the the pull the pull deck area on the ground I actually don't have any any issue with with outdoor uh you know ambient level lowl music there I know that some of my colleagues do so I think we're going to we're going to stick with with the no outdoor music but I am slightly concerned about the rooftop uh activation uh you know 150 seats outdoor Terrace on the seventh level um out to 2 a.m. I'm just I'm slightly concerned that that could lead to whether there's music or not just the volume of potentially 150 people out there that could lead to uh you know noise traveling to to some of the area residents so I I just want to put that out there for my colleagues if anyone else has any concerns about that um but otherwise I I think that that you have taken our feed back and you went to the drawing board and and you and you all have uh addressed most of the feedback so uh thank you for that and it's a greatly improved project hey Matt I think it's I think he said it was buffered all I think maybe if you guys can pull up the plan to show on the overall site plan where that accessible rooftop deck is located that's a good area this one no the what the overall site plan overall sight yeah that shows the rooftop there with the with the R level maybe seven I think I click but then it doesn't click so we wait for the plan to to catch up um you know we the the bar will be enclosed right so that's indoors um and there is both uh is both enclosed and separated there's also a corridor a guest Corridor that separates that from uh from the actual exterior facade so there's quite a few buffers there um and then um and then obviously we are trying to obviously Shield the West so that we're focusing more how about to the east as well the East is really looking towards the beach and so that is not buffered that is trying to maintain those view lines in the the cordor to the beach front that's hence the kind of the goal for this you have the 100 foot buffer of the um adjacent building to the South which you're part of with no activation right then you have the courtyard plus the Hayden Hall site so that's a big buffer before you get to Collins Avenue um so that that's that's where our concern is less so I do think that you know that um also having there's a pool up there right so that does limit the occupancy um in terms of like a congregation area and if you want to add something else is that also seating on the on the um the lower left that is correct yeah maybe something could be done there to sort of break up that um that massive seating definitely looks like an ambitious seat count for the for the roof talk I don't know what what is in mind there but um you know I'm just I'm I'm putting that out there I know there are some residential Towers to the East and no East does travel I'm I'm just trying to think of possible scenarios here that that could come into play in the future if this was built as as uh as presented here so we had recommended um closing that outdoor area at midnight 7 days a week the applicants requesting to close it at midnight um Sunday through Wednesday I believe and then have it open till 2:00 a.m. um Thursday through Saturday nights yeah so this might be something that's reviewed during the progress report if you know obviously we we all seven of us have to have to go through each of the the requests of changes and see if we you know if we agree with or not uh the rooftop one you know I think probably need to discuss a little further about that 2 am versus midnight other than that um and you know I I think the I definitely like the restoration of the Historic Hotel um the the rooftop addition is not in our purview correct Michael well the whole the whole project is before you um so you can comment on it but it's more so in terms of the appropriateness of it is going to be reviewed by the historic preservation board okay so so we'll leave that to to that um question for you though Michael can we put any condition about the or is about the minimum sidewalk width on Washington or is that because it's presented in the plans as the well they're not they're not asking for um I think previously they were asking for a variance from the historic preservation board I believe that's been withdrawn okay so um the plans they're presenting for you it's clear in the report that they're that they're not encroaching into the um RightWay so if they were to come back we would just look at this and say no this is not what was presented you would have to go back to the planning board come back to the plan I I don't think that especially since it's mid made is an issue so we're not going to prove um a building permit plan that shows now encroachment into the runway okay well then thank you that's it for me John anything else um yeah so the on Espanola Way there's going to be it's the on the side when you're walking by the sidewalk it'll be raised up and there will be that's where the spa and is corre it's it's not exactly in front of where ESP the way The Pedestrian part ends it's a little bit to the south of it no I mean that's the street I mean espan way is to the south of the property there's we don't actually border espanol yeah no just saying that's the closest street right where the right and I guess I'm just saying for on the side of the where the uh Spa entrance is or was it the Spy entrance or the or Washington that's raised up and had like Vines draping on the sides the the spa entrance is the Campton apartment which is closest to Espanola Washington is slightly right and I guess my my concern though is that if there's no if you don't have those as pictured the way you have it in the picture there's Vines draping on the side if you don't have those Vines draping on the side you're going to have pedestrians just staring into a wall and it's not really a pleasant pedestrian experience and so I would want to include some requirement that you have um you know because we want to maintain the Lively nature of those streets and and pedestrian friendly nature of it I don't want people just staring at a blank wall and there will be graffiti and whatever so is there any way to to ensure that you will have some sort of foliage or landscape Greenery there um and then also making sure that the you know window windows are not you know closed off with curtains or anything like that I think it's probably your intent to have that open but just want to make sure that that's okay with you all um we we're happy to agree to maintain plantings on the portions of the Washington facade that don't have steps right okay perfect I would also just add we we have uh specifically lowered that wall um it's not solid all the way to the guard rail height so we have lowered it enough to provide some some P leg privacy Zone but then opened it up so that we have visibility uh into the restaurant into the dining area instead of being a full height uh guard guard rail height okay and can we put something in it about I mean that what makes a big difference for I think for all of us is the room size the hotel room size that was an issue before um and so there's nothing in the order saying requiring that I mean is there anything I mean the the board can put a condition in stating that the room sizes shall not substantially deviate or be lower than what's been presented that okay I that be good let's do that and then um I guess one thing I had concern uh about the Valley on Washington and not having it so here just to play devil's advocate here uh if you know what if I mean they can only have three cars in this circle on Colin side at a time and what if you can have like 20 valet guys but you you know you can't make those cars move any quicker when people are getting out and going into the ballroom and I'd hate to not have an alternative solution you know they'll come back to us and say look we wanted Valley on Washington Avenue but you would you didn't want us to have it so I guess I'm I'm slightly concerned about prohibiting it off the bat because then that's not even an option if they want to have you know if there's a lunch in happening where the restaurant is rented out and they're having a lunch in and all the people are arriving at the same time and there's also something on the other side in the ballroom you know they don't have there's no alternative you know I guess we're limiting I I feel like we're limiting them more which may cause even more congestion I'm with you on that Jonathan I think we shouldn't limit it at this point I think we need to let it um if we get any concerns or complaints about it it backing up on Washington if it gets misused but I think it might be important that we give him some flexibility at this point I think that area on Washington isn't necessarily a Hu you know one of the tighter you know like areas where you're really deep into South Beach but I don't know what um oh what's your preliminary plan with that to have LA or you didn't um to keep it open to keep the option uh we're willing to keep it to Collins for now and when we study the operation of the ball further uh come back with a proposal if we need to add valet on Washington at that time right so why don't we not prohibit it but but but right now we're going to approve it without valet and then if you need it you'll come back that's fine there's a progress support anyways but I'm certain okay good right and then just so the board numbers know um since we modified the code a few months ago they'll they'll be coming back before you on an annual basis with a progress report so this will be like on the radar every year yeah I just have one further question and this was the question that I had brought up yesterday I'd like to encourage you to make the retail space usable we see so many empty retail spaces across Washington across the entire Beach and they're to they're to either too deep or they're too narrow or they're too wide I would like to please re iterate that the depths of the retail space at least be 70t by 20 ft so that it is usable I don't I don't want to see any more vacancy and I know that that hotel operators and condo developers are not retail space people but this is important so that we don't so that we do have those activations on main streets so if that's I'd like to can we do something like that well I would caution to see if they could actually achieve it because there's also a need for a lot of backup house areas you can bring up the plan to show what you have in that location and see if it can be modified isn't it restaurant space anyway not retail that's proposed no there's some retail space there's a small retail area at the northwest corner can you highlight that well just just out of curiosity what is a client foreseeing renting it and like what kind of retail are they so the the the app go ahe the the applicant is proposing to have the hotel operator uh operate the retail space as well in order to make sure it's consistent with The Branding of the hotel and that it's an amenity for the hotel guests um it's not a third- party lease um so that they can maintain and and if they need you mean like a hotel shop or something correct so I do understand your concerns elizab but I think that there's a couple of things that come into play why there's a lot of retail space that are not being used on Washington and I think like you know being the type of project they have um if I look at Goodtime hotels who has a couple of retail stores there but I'm just just for comparison you know they have they have some you know their Niche little boutiques in there so I I'm not sure we want to limit I don't want to limit anything I want to make it usable right but since they're running it they're probably going to accommodate the space into we do have all of the good time hotel when you walk by it is it is completely just papered off and I just I just want to encourage as much utilization and and and this is a new project and I love love the renovation and and the the historic preservation I love it I just want to make sure that it's that we can that it's because these are older spaces no we understand Elizabeth and with your uh background in retail Consulting we totally get it and you are the expert on that here and I commiserated with you yesterday about walking through the anchor Garage on 16th Street because the spaces are so shallow it's kind of embarrassing that it's hard to lease them out but the client's intent here is not to lease out to a third party and the client will control this space and you know be able to to make it work what Michael beloo correctly pointed out too is that we're at a back of house crunch as well we need every square foot of our backa house space that's immediately to the east of this retail space if we were leasing it out to a third party of course you always right on that it should be deeper but we're not you are going to be able to do something like a little sunry shop for the hotel and okay grab and go something like that another thing too is is about if we don't have like a a driveway entrance and access to a parking garage which typically would fine so we do think that having this this Washington Avenue completely with this um exp of restaurant and more activation all along the entirety we do think that you know having a a smaller space here is not um such a detriment that's just always my right thing is so is that do you still want to make are you're making a motion Elizabeth to approve the application I would I would make a motion to well we're not finished well okay so you know what if we've got a motion I'll all right fine I'm but I want to make sure everyone was heard I I'll make a motion to approve okay I'll second it all right so does that include the if I can read through with Scott's uh so let me yes so that's going to be um no no valet on Washington Avenue no I think we we we took that off right the no I think they're going to keep that condition now and then they'll come back to amend it except as maybe approved by the board um with an amendment is that correct or do you want to take it you want to I think I was under the impression we're not modifying that we're just we're leaving that out okay so we'll leave the we'll leave out the Noel on Washington we're still going to leave in no activate no activation of the kton apartment's Courtyard no outdoor speakers except for Life Safety purposes um the room sizes should not be substantially smaller than what's shown in the plans and you still would include the condition saying that um that music should not be playing the audible 100 feet from the Western property line so one of the things one of the the danger I think with that condition sort of implies that you can have louder music as long as it's not audible um you know outside from the property so I think at this time it's it's not best to include that condition I would include that if the board in the future approves some level of entertainment I think if they come back that something I just don't want to have it have it be you know confusing so we won't include that condition was there any other conditions um they have to comply with the Green Building standard requirements I know that was noted the planting on the Washington Avenue what's the condition regarding the um the planting on Washington Avenue we shall maintain planting on the Washington Avenue new Frontage as shown in the renderings yes yeah okay and also our can I stop you there for a second uh so I don't want to get into the weeds no pun intended but if you have plantings that are going into the right away right that could intrude on a clear pedestrian path would this be something where you build Planters into that wall that that's correct we have Planters built into the wall irrigated Planters um to make it easy to maintain and um so that that is not going into the right way okay yeah that's that's clear for us they wouldn't be able to then build these Planters into the right away and then in addition to those four and then are you agreeing with the applicants proposed conditions that they handed out in terms of the um the hours of operation in terms of the um activation are we all okay with 2 A.M on the roof yeah I think based on what they presented I think and the doc master I think there's no issues with that right no and then the necessary number of valys you guys you guys put it at nine is that what you had as a number so the the transportation Department's condition provides that we shall maintain a minimum of nine Runners we're proposing to maintain the necessary number of valet estimated at nine yeah I think that's fair enough I mean I yeah your progress report we'd see if that adapation at some point okay y all in favor just before you do that just to clarify um one thing you you're not including the not plainly audible west of Washington because there's no outdoor speed okay I understand that the valet and I know I guess the boards will us take that out but there's right now they're saying nine operators it doesn't does it say specifically on Collins now and would they have to come back correct to us if they want to move or add one on Washington Avo well we leave that up to the transportation M mobility department and their their condition provides the applicant shall maintain a q length of at least three vehicles within the circular driveway at 1500 colins and maintain and then are proposed the minimum necessary number of valet operators um Etc so it's condition number four in the transportation Department's memo that they circulated today it say Collins I just like a a maybe you can reach out to me I mean if they do decide to put Val in Washington I'd like to have a little bit of input on that of course they have to come through come back and plan okay for Washington okay everyone in favor anyone opposed all right thanks thanks for coming in from Houston right is that what you said great presentation well done thank you for your time all right uh new applications planning board file 24721 49 cin Avenue parking garage right an application has been filed requesting modifications to a previously conditional use permit for parking garage with accessory commercial uses specifically the applicant is requesting to change the owner operator pursuant to chapter 2 Article 5 of the Miami Beach resiliency code so this application um goes back to um June 28th of 2011 this application itself is just to change the um owner operator we have um updated our condition in accordance of what we've done for other properties so in the future they can just submit an affidavit versus having to make an application on back to the planning board so it's relatively minor application we are recommending approval and um um the applicants here if you have any questions or to provide any comments good morning chair good morning board Jacob Nunes with Nunes and fler Pa on behalf of the applicant 49 Collins Avenue reality l LC and the new operator in the scenario Unity parking LLC uh to Michael's Point not to reiterate this is a technicality so that this existing cup can come into compliance with the new language that's been issued for previously approved conditional use permits so the garage was sold is that what happened say what was sold um if you can expand upon that I don't know right this is for this is for a parking garage for Valley operation at 4 I understand it's just change of of operator CH change of operator change of ownership in 2019 South Point height sold the property to 49 that's that's all I need okay is it the entire structure it's the entire structure accessory use on the ground level right it's it's a restaurant at the ground level and then fivestory parking garage okay so uh this I communicated with with Jacob and I had a couple questions uh about and I'll just reiterate them here I know you answered them to me uh there's a a pretty busy restaurant at the ground level it's it's pretty popular I want it's called Carbone oh okay I didn't realize that was yeah okay never heard that restaurant I didn't know that was the address okay and so I just wanted to confirm because there's been other other projects where they where they're in a parking garage or have a parking garage in the valet and all the required parking is not on site so they're running around you know throughout the city with cars left and right you've confirmed that the valet for Carbone is stored at 49 Collins Avenue currently as of today of course not it's contingent on disapproval the owner has not been operating since 2022 as previously using btrs were accepted prior to obviously this hearing uh so long as there was a letter of authorization provided from the previous valet operator the intent is to park the Carbone cars there alleviate the the vehicular traffic on on col in that area Okay so today they're not parked on on site no okay but they but they will be once this is okay so what did the U this question's for Michael and and and for for Nick what does the conditional use permit state right now if regards to required parking let me take a look through and see if it says something about um so it does indicate under condition um o um page number 20 on page 55 of the board packages the off street parking requirements for the accessory commercial space shall be satisfied within the garage so they are supposed to be providing parking for the you for the rest not within the garage okay please don't hate me for this but and I know this is more more of a formality but I'd like to modify this to include language that valet storage as well for that accessory use would need to be stored in the garage I think the garage is so the garage is all valet there's no self- parking but I'm saying restaurant excuse me valet storage for the accessory commercial use on the ground level would need to be stored in a garage can I add to that point there's a restrictive covenant that runs with the land right now that stipulates that if that garage is going to be operated it's operated by valet so I think that condition so I think there's a little little maybe I'm being unclear that the valet for the restaurant at 49 C whatever the restaurant may be now in the future would need to be stored on location in that garage right so you're asking that right now the valet may be taking cars elsewhere you want the valet that's um on the street yeah that's taking those cars to take them to the garage on site but is that a condition we can pose in this one the operator or is that it was this sorry continue no no I'm trying to understand how do we B you're saying if Carbone if whatever restaurants there has of La service right how do we compel them to accommodate Matt's con that they park in that garage why because it's saying that if there if there is a valet service on the street there also be one in the garage to service and park the it's it's hard for us to tell exactly where someone is if you know if they're going to that restaurant or going someplace else that's my question so that's it's difficult to manage that if the city has approved a valet valet operator on the street so that is something that is it is difficult to to manage that but I I've seen I've seen projects mixed use projects where it's been a requirement that they store including valet on site if I understand you're you're saying any valet that operates for whatever restaurant is at that address that they are compelled to park the cars in this garage is that what you're talking about yes yeah it this is this is a parking garage no no I understand I'm just trying to think like mechanically how we enforce that or can we like at the end of day because it's yeah because they're not tied to this you know what I'm saying like like the restaurant or whoever they may retain I don't know how we compel them to is your concern though understand you're saying it's a good point they're also operational so what are they doing right now they currently parking a different lot yeah they're parking them in a different lot I believe on on street so how could we now come in I guess after the fact and have them redo their whole business plan who know what additional cost I think I think that it was so I understand Matt's point I just don't know how we how we I don't understand ma what is your point there what are you trying to prevent so this is what are you worried about so I understand what we're trying to fix here okay are you are you just trying to limit the amount of of of traffic flow from from the restaurant that's there driving to a parking ABS would be further away but and I I do understand your concern especially around that area because all that stuff adds some traffic but I think right now we're dealing with two different entities and we can't really right now um lay something on Carbone or whatever restaurant that is there when we're actually just reviewing an application right now for a specific garage we're having like we're mixing confusing so I think clearly the intention clear the intention when this project was approved was that parking for the accessory restaurant would be provided in the garage I think that the applicant is not operating that way and I think the board wants to address that like well then we need to get get the operator of the restaurant of you know here which is not their issue today basically so I think we need to keep those separate if we have an issue with that restaurant not operating the way that what I would suggest is approving the change of operator and continuing this application till next month and have the applicant come back to present how you know with some plans and showing how the valley operation is work and showing how the garage you know Valley Valley operation should be working but the applicant is not the operator I was say I don't think that separ right it doesn't address what Matt's concerned Michael is the restaurant operation subject to a a separate C or no I don't think so so then maybe we we could also invite the restaurant operator to attend that if the board decides to continue yeah I just don't I don't think they're unrelated yeah and if if I may add before the the operator gets approved to park he has to submit and go through obviously the the process and with that involves the location which would be the storage location the location once hopefully once this name change is approved would be to store the vehicles there that's that's the primary intent the primary location is to store the vehicles the ground from the ground floor use in that garage to big garage right I'm saying mechanically So you you're operating the garage so you would have to have a situation or an agreement with the valet park the valley company which which they they are in privity which is why the operator and the new oh they are in privity the operator and the valley company yes which and one of the conditions is to have the the ground floor use park in the garage by that's all he really wants we can include that condition that the storage location we want what you want it sounds so the storage location for the valet operator shall be within the garage okay yeah I didn't know they were in privity because I I don't know how you buy the valet parking company in this hearing today that's all I didn't understand well this hearing is for the owner and operator so it's not just the operator of the garage of the garage the whole entire structure see cup gets was issued in this case to the previous owner right the condition was that in the event of a 50% ownership change of owner operator the all right okay so what is the recommendation of of so I think we can include that that we can include a condition saying that the storage location for the valet operator shall be within the garage is that clear enough to to I also mean the the access is that acceptable we are acceptable that's what you're whole point is so okay all right comment when we're done okay anyone else in Chambers to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised I'll make a motion to move it second you all in favor I I anyone opposed all right thanks I I think I have the next item also same with the operator sorry I I have the next item also oh you do okay you're the garage specialist I guess okay the next item was plenty board file 24720 101 Ocean Drive parking garage and so this was also handed out to you um this should be attached to your board packages at the end this was a separate um addendum again this is for pb2 24- 0720 this is for one1 Ocean Drive hopefully this is a simpler um change of um of ownership um similar to the last application recommending that the the board approve this with a modified condition so that in the future a change of operator owner would just have to submit an affidavit to the City versus having to come before the board I don't think that this this site has the same issues that the prior application had we recommend that the board approve the application okay Jacob nudz with nudz and fler Pa on behalf of the applicant Unity parking LLC this was the same modification to amend the operator under an existing cup that was approved back in 2007 this was for underutilized parking at the location Mr NES can I get you to speak a little louder yes ma'am thank you this was for a name change to the operator uh under an existing cup that was issued in 2007 for underutilized parking on a 24-hour basis at the space uh since 2007 to 2023 was the same operator now there's a change in the operator so we're looking to amend the name anyone here to speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised any questions by the board so no questions but this one's a little easier I think because in our letter of intent they included a a letter discussing the I guess the uses of the parking garage and the various require ments of the um of the tenants of the building there's the the santorin there's a hair salon and there's Prime Italian and those are all stored on site yes sir do I dare ask do I mean is this something that that we should do when well this one's a little different it's not a main use parking garage I think the problem with a PR replication is we realize the complications involved in mechanical parking and I think it doesn't does involve a lot more staff and time involved so I think that's part of the danger in improving a garage that result that requires elevators to access the floors which is not the not the case here right what I what I would say here is this is a little different because it's not a main use parking garage uh like the other one is but to the the point that I was making is that when you have a lot of high-intensity uses like restaurants high quality restaurants where many people drive and there's a lack of storage space in the neighborhood for cars you have valet Runners no pun in tendon they're they're running cars they're racing cars all throughout the neighborhood so to minimize that distance is what the goal is and if you have a parking garage in the same building the same owner as this as as the commercial space they should be using it um you know I think this one here you're only using the underutilized space which would by default mean that after hours after those after those businesses close those um certain number of spaces become available for um other uses yeah I mean the the restaurant Prime italion and you know is their main business is after hours right at night time so they're they're probably using a lot of that space um but you know perhaps there's extra space there I wouldn't I'm not going to suggest any additional changes to this so I I'll move it if no one else has any I'll second that questions okay motion ail seconded all in favor I anyone opposed all right thanks thank you appreciate it okay next item under new applications is planning work file 24707 uh 231st Street and 81 Washington Avenue Le hardine buer and this report begins on page um 81 of the board packages just find it so the board some of you may remember that um on May 23rd of 2023 the planning board issued a condition use permit for the operation of a neighbor impact establishment consisting of a restaurant in the first and second floors of an existing um three-story building the applicant is now proposing to add an additional smaller restaurant to the third floor which was previously used for offices um the prior application was approved with ambient background music this includes in a large um area in front of the building which formally was a parking lot converted more towards um outdoor seating at this point now the existing condition of approval require that outdoor music shall cease by 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday the the venue that's shown here on the third floor does not have any outdoor component it's fully enclosed at the third level there's no activ no activation of the um outdoor Terraces now one of the concerns we had noted in our second review of this application was the um the use of the alley and so we had um further highlighted in our staff report and asked the applicant to substanti that they could provide um loading services within the alley without blocking um access Through the Alley for their vehicles they have submitted um plans that substantiate that a vehicle can park within that alley and um other vehicles can pass so we do believe that condition has been satisfied we do have a condition from the um the transportation and mobility department recommending that a minimum of 29 valet attendance be provided during um Peak demand periods and to ensure that valet cues do not exceed the storage provided under Peak demand conditions we do indicate that this condition can be modified at the time of a progress report if um the applicant substantiate based upon real world world conditions that they don't need to have that number of valet Runners we also have a condition from the T from the Transportation Department saying a revised um TDM plan is to be submitted prior to issues of a building permit for the the third floor buildout that we are recommending that the application be approved I would just note as well that although they are adding um 100 the the restaurant for the the third floor is 102 seats they're providing fewer number of seats on the first and second floor than the initial approval so the overall number of restaurant seating is not as great as um may be uh may it may appear that'll turn it over to the applicant for the presentation all right before you start just so for any disclosures by the board about meetings Communications no okay go ahead good morning Nicholas Rodriguez 200 South bis G Boulevard on behalf of the applicant 81 Washington LLC I'm joined by the general manager David binano um and Via Zoom the owner EML stov is joining us as well as our traffic consultant and our architect Alfredo CI and Jose Gomez and of course my colleague Michael Lin so as staff noted this application is for a modification of a cup that you all approved into 2023 uh for the first two levels of a building that has three levels that restaurant's very close to opening uh but due to some uh cost overruns on the construction of the first two levels and the restoration of this historic building uh we're looking for some revenue from the third level and actually activate a space that's just a dead storage Bas right now so if we could pull up thead digital presentation Matt do you have any disclosures on the side oh um I've had discussions with people in the restaurant in industry however this particular item did not uh come up specifically so okay um I do not have any thank you go ahead um I got a letter of support from sofa I don't know if y'all received that or not you got it okay yeah just uh since we're on the topic of Outreach we did speak with sofa at their annual meeting we also presented to The Cosmopolitan in their meeting room um and I think the Cosmopolitan kind of joined in s a support letter so they didn't submit a separate letter that think they had time to meet but uh we did do substantial Outreach um and we don't have any obors that we know about uh so just very quick on the background uh this EML stov is the principal of a company called the group New York City which uh operates restaurants in New York as well as Chicago um and Washington DC they're best known for their restaurant LR busher in Midtown Manhattan and it's notable that they have over 600 seats at that location so this operator um is very Adept at you at operating larger restaurants um like the one that is proposed so it's just to give you context this building is at the corner of First Street in Washington Avenue uh on the left is a current picture um and as noted this is a historic building that that uh Mr stov has gone through a painstaking and very expensive restoration of this building um if you've been by the site lately it's brand new it's beautiful um and it's about to open and the cost of of restoring this building was probably two or three times what they anticip I ated uh and part of the reason for that is the history of the site um it's a historic building constructed in 1936 um but from 2015 to 2020 the building was vacant and although there were some plans approved for restaurants uh and the like nothing happened and when EML bought it in 2020 uh the conditions were very poor inside the building um in 2023 you all approved the cup and hopefully in a week or two you'll be seeing the grand opening of the grand bushari Miami Beach on the first two levels of this building um just to kind of give you some photographs of that restoration this is the Garden area in the front this used to be parking um and it's converted to a beautiful outdoor seating area uh on the left is the first level of the building which is going to be kind of a a lunch and daytime seating area more busher style and on the second floor on the right is a more of a formal dining uh dinner reservation type area uh and it's important that they want to be open for lunch because they want to be a neighborhood serving restaurant not just a late night uh restaurant so uh it's it's really important for them to have a a a daytime component um and that's part of the reason today that we're going to be asking for an update to our valet storage location because the current Valley operator cannot give us spaces during lunch um so getting to our requests we're requesting to add 102 seats uh on the third level which is currently inactivated it's going to be a Japanese restaurant omaz concept um and then we're asking to modify the valet storage lot from 119 Washington Avenue uh to 400 cin Avenue which was not available when we first came before you all it's just two blocks to the north um and we've gone through the the requisite traffic and transportation process um to certify that new location so just to touch on the previously approved plans uh as Michael mentioned we were approved for 450 seats what ended up getting built was 415 seats so 35 seats less uh than what we were previously approved for and then what we're proposing is 102 seats maximum uh you'll see on the lower left is kind of an omaz dining area and then the remainder is uh going to be like an alak card seating area it's really just to transition the different seatings of the omaz um to have a small bar for the the third level in total the space is about 2500 square ft uh there are two outdoor Terraces but there's no seating at all proposed on those Terraces no no real activation of those Terraces at all um so as Michael mentioned the net increase in the seats from what was approved in 2023 to what we're proposing today is 67 so while we're asking for 102 seats on the third level uh we're actually borrowing some seats that were approved from the first two levels bringing them up to the third level and then U filling it out with with our request so it's a net increase of 67 seats uh these are some Interior Design Concepts um there's a a few different Design Concepts floating around but this is the one that we presented to The Cosmopolitan uh they really like this kind of elegant uh style so this is the one that we're presenting today but it's still in the works um and this is a sample menu just so you get an idea I believe this is the menu from their location in Chicago U so you know almaaz concept is uh I'm sure you guys are familiar with uh in terms of the valet storage lot it's this is the proposed valet route and then this is where the the vehicles would queue there's I believe four spaces David in front of the once we close that curb there'll be four spaces to allow for circulation um and then the lot which is just two blocks to the north and again uh the relationship with this valet operator is better than 119 Washington Avenue uh they're willing to provide a few spaces for employees whereas 119 Washington Avenue was not willing to give us uh those spaces they're open for lunch 119 Washington's not open for lunch so we wouldn't be able to provide valet operators uh uh valet Services during lunch uh so these are really the primary reasons why we're asking to to switch it a little bit further north um and to use a valley operator who we think is going to provide better Service uh for the restaurant uh and and and for the neighborhood uh in terms of Transportation demand management we're well aware that uh south of fifth is struggling with parking um we're actually building a micr mobility and bike storage area and kind of an excess area where the alleyway meets the building there was a an opportunity there to put in a kind of secure bike storage uh we vetted this with historic preservation staff to make sure that they wouldn't uh you know hate this too much and they didn't they didn't love it but they understand the challenges so we're we're going to add a bike and micr Mobility parking area and also Mr stov as part of the previous Transportation demand management uh is willing to purchase City bike passes for employees that maybe don't have bicycles or micro Mobility um for the most part the employees have their own bicycles but it's an option in in the event that they needed uh so just to summarize the overall cup there's no changes to the hours of op operation uh it's completely indoors on the third level there's no changes to the requested music all we're asking for is an increase in the total seat count uh and a change of the valet storage Lot location and as Michael mentioned um we'll be back with the progress report to confirm how those Val Valley operations are going uh and adjust the number of Runners accordingly um so with oh and uh just to mention some quick housekeeping uh this for a change we we spoke with Michael about it before the meeting and I believe staff is in agreement with these conditions the first one is just an update housekeeping matter to the name of the operator entity uh it's just a different entity for liability purposes and then the second uh change is just clarifying the timing staff has asked us to build a sidewalk where that curb cut exists today and we're happy to do it uh we just want to do it concurrently with the buildout of the third floor not have the the build out of the third floor held up until we do that so we'll do it at the same time and as long as we provide that uh before certificate use and business tax receipt we will be able to accomplish that easily um and with that we'll take any questions from the board we respectfully request your approval thank you okay anyone in Chambers on this nope anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised no okay so we'll close public hearing board there's sorry there's one now um Johan Moore Yan I think you were previously sworn in so you're good hi I was bar right to Michael I think that last form had an error in the spelling should have an e on the end if that's not how it's spelled then forgive my intrusion that's all thanks thank you that's funny okay um close the public hearing any questions Scott you're good Matt okay I have a couple questions I thought you were going to move to approve immediately with all that uh well I mean lookity that was great that I I love it I love the micro Mobility thank you so much for that thank you for restoring this beautiful building I'm a neighbor I live a few blocks away watched all the work over the last two years so I know a lot of resources have gone into it and uh it certainly will be a welcoming addition to the neighborhood um I I have a question before I ask the applicant but for staff and some of the submittal that were provided to us uh there was a note from staff that they have concerns about the size of the venue at this location and um yeah so when I first took a look it wasn't mentioned at all in the staff analysis so I just I want to understand yes there A lot of times there's a lot of back and forth in what you see um in staff's initial review of an application after we get more information our um recommendations may change so initially and I was not I was not part of this initial review back when this was approved in 200 23 so when I first took a fresh look at my first concern was just the added intensity yeah of the third floor and then I I took a closer look at the the um loading operations along the alley and there were some it looked like there were some services or some utility infrastructure that may um be impeding any sort of um delivery vehicle so that's part of the reason why I had a concern with adding more loading services on the Alley um the applicant did provide um updated plans to show that those those Services um were not um impacting usability of the space and that a truck could actually park there um we also took a further look in you know with the understanding that this is a an historic building an historic district and so it um our best intention is to make sure we have um full activ full activation of these buildings to ensure that they are economically viable which also ensures the long-term viability of the building so um if this was a brand new project from the ground up they're proposing a three-level restaurant in this location I think that would be more more of a concern than an Adaptive reuse of an existing historic building so I think um as well as clarifying that it wasn't a full 102 seat increase that they were taking some seats that were previously approved moving up up here so all these combined is what we reviewed and came about through this back and forth process that happens from um our our very initial meeting with the applicant their first submission you know having more details so this back and forth happens with a lot of applications as I as I and I mentioned to Matthew previously there are several applications where um once an applicant meets with staff and we raise concerns we've had many instances where an application doesn't go forward because of the size of their trucks you've had you know I'll give you an example Auto Zone in North Beach they didn't move forward because they didn't want to modify the size of their trucks we had in the Town Center a Sprouts um store they didn't they have like one of the largest um delivery vehicles in the industry and they were not going to modify the size of their truck and it would require you know turning over three lanes of traffic in order to turn into the um parking garage so there's a lot of back and forth that happens before um we get to the um the final submission and for you know I think even the applicant was surprised um in our recommendation when we but they finally got it because all along we had voiced these concerns but after reviewing all the documentation we felt that based upon this location and um the applicant's proposal and the renovation of the building we felt that this was not a um um an um an impact that was going to result in a negative impact for the neighborhood so what about the timing though of this request to modify the yeah it would have been better if it came sooner I don't know if the applicant can May respond to what they sooner or or later I know this three I think one two four of four members of this Bo actually heard the initial application about two years ago and there were concerns about the size of the restaurant and the valet operations and whatnot um in fact they even had conditions in there that they couldn't change the valet without coming back to the board and uh and I understand the restaurant's about to open soon which I think will be great for the neighborhood but it's not open yet you know there hasn't been you know there hasn't even been you know one one day of operations and um you know I think I think the concerns that that were probably warranted you know 18 months ago probably you know since it hasn't been in operation yet they're still they're still applicable today and and you know is it premature you know in your opinion is it premature to seek an increase well I think we know operationally how this I think proportionally to the rest of the facility it's it's less of proportionately it's not a great increase and I think that also if you were to it makes sense to do the third floor buildout now with under construction versus opening it up and then create the the Havoc that's involved with with um construction on the third floor so I can understand why they want to do it now and you know why they maybe the applicant respond why they didn't do this at the beginning what was their initial plan and why did they wait to um add this component at this time so initially I think there wasn't an intent necessarily to activate that space there was um an idea to do it but uh they were had their hands full with the restoration of the building um and really what drove this is when the restoration of the building came in close to $30 million um much more than they had budgeted um so the numbers just aren't penciling out in terms of the revenue that's coming from the restaurant seats uh and they looked to activate this third floor space initially we looked at doing it without a cup and because it's such a small uh uh area typically it wouldn't trigger cup thresholds but here because we share an entrance and share an elevator it's considered one Collective venue it's really a separate restaurant um so we went that road and it didn't work because they share too many services that's a good point Nick so for example if they were able to provide like a separate and this is the case for other projects if they were to provide a separate Lobby and vertical access only for their establishment then they wouldn't be before you that would be uh under the threshold that would require um planning board approval because they are sharing that that entry space it does add to the overall occupancy and that's why they're back before you today right so it became build an elevator further you know build out this building um or come back and so we felt it was reasonable to come back um so this is a separate a completely separate restaurant it's by the same operator um but it is a it's a Japanese restaurant below is a French restaurant so they are going to operate separately with separate staff David is the GM of both restaurants um but it it's a separate venue so are we going to have separate food purveyors or or beverage deliveries correct uh it's a separate kitchen and separate bathroom up there um my understanding from David is that they get almost daily food deliveries they get smaller fresher deliveries they're not like big huge trucks that they like to have the food be fresh um it's a big component of their operation so they use the s30 smaller trucks as the bigger trucks and they have more like daily or every other day food deliveries for the for the venues um okay so I couldn't help but do some research on this and at 517 seats for this building it is the it's in the top three of of the nearly 8,000 seats that are south of fifth so so there is I went to the census this morning to get the number of people who live south of Fifth and there's 5,867 as of the last 2020 census and actually the number is going down since then just as we see all across the city there's over 8,000 seats south of fifth if you take out uh if you take out like Texas Day Brazil um you take out maybe um the old China grow building at 404 Washington which isn't really active now you're down to like 7,000 seats this is bigger than Joe stonecrab which has which has resurfaced parking lots a parking garage and ample space to um you know to to take that impact neighborhood impact and and spread it out it's it's bigger than Monty it's bigger than foga deow it's bigger than catch it's bigger than Milos I mean just the list goes on and on and and honestly if this was an increase in the seat count for the restaurant the the French restaurant I'd have less concern right because I don't I don't think that adding additional seating to the restaurant would would make or break it right uh but a whole separate restaurant to me I'm getting poppy steak Vibes here's a an argument against being more okay with the uh existing restaurant verus the ocassi restaurant om doesn't have a big turn flow it's one seating pretty much throughout the evening versus the restaurant the French restaurant would have a lot of come and go that's a great point you know so it's only like usually it's one seating for an the name of the game is is turning seats and and and you you know what I've spoken to folks in in the neighborhood and and business is down south of fifth the Gold Rush is over post postco go Gold Rush is over and there's still a lot of places to come online so I'm I'm concerned about you know the criteria that we had to review which is one of the main criteria is a concentration of uses and it's the exact same sadly it's the exact same response from staff on this as it was for every other restaurant that's been approved in the last couple years uh this is this is premature I'm I'm sorry to say it's it's premature um and and you know and a a high quality Destination type restaurant on a third level is not going to get that pass by traffic I don't think that we can we can actually dictate who I think that they've done the research on who they're they're their clientele is and I'm honestly they're not going to be coming to North Beach they're not coming to South Beach I mean they're not coming to I mean this is where they want to be no no we're not even talking this is nothing the C but it seems like I mean just hear me out for a second it just seems that it seems that you're you're trying to impose restrictions on them and telling them that they're not going to be successful and I think that they're the only ones that can make that determination um I think that that um that it's not in our purview with what we have in front of us to determine whether they're going to be successful or not no it's not but it is to determine the neighborhood impact well the neighborhood impact if if what you're saying one time one at a time can I I was I was in the middle of speaking can I can I finish please so I mean I I'm concerned this crowds out other retail uses in the neighborhood when we have these large establishments with these multi-year build outs um you know it's it's vacant space just look along South Point Drive at the the building at 801 where you have Gaia which hasn't opened yet it's been years um you know it's actually Gaia is open go ahead I'm in support of of of working on it I'm in support of a renovation and pouring $40 to $50 million into a historic building I think that it's important that we preserve those buildings I think that you guys should be able to determine what your future is and um you know whether you're larger than some or the other I think that that you guys are the ones that can make that determination and I I I would support this today thank you Miss lonan thank you think I just want to since I was in the middle of speaking before as an Matt you have the floor go ahead thank you um look I'm extremely and and my neighbors are extremely grateful for the work I think I already said that that's gone into this building it's been it's been a decade almost since this has been activated uh so there's no one is is saying that we're we're not supportive of it right 600 seat restaurant at Grand subal Station with the the top public transit in the whole entire country United States at Grand Central Station multiple uh train lines Subway Lines you know it's I understand but this is apples to oranges uh you know south of fifth unfortunately we don't have that that robust public transit system and unfortunately many of your customers and the customers to all the restaurants south of it they arrive by car and they have to be transported in this case almost 4,000 ft to their uh to to their to their valet so um so Mr through the chairry I mean yeah since I'm taking a pause here go ahead you can respond if you'd like so a couple of things so in terms of the the increase here um from from a traffic perspective it is a large restaurant right but the increase we're asking for is only about 10 trips vehicle trips so it is a large restaurant but the majority of it's already approved um and the I think it's important to note the separation the second first and second floor um it's not that the whole entire venue will necessarily be full all the the time um the first floor is more of a lunch daytime venue and then the second floor is more of a dinner more formal dining room uh so it's not necessarily intent here the way the operation is laid out for it to be like a turn the entire restaurant every single night all of the time um so to you know I we understand your concerns um but from a an economic perspective and to maintain the economic viability of the building this is what the owner chose to pursue um the neighborhood is excited about it sofa supported us um can you talk more about the the self new meeting I was there at the beginning and I know that the meeting ran pretty long and this was the last item on the agenda can you talk about the the discussion you know um so we were pretty rushed on the presentation but then we had a few of the self no board members actually tour the site um with David um and after touring the site meeting the operator uh em lives he's one of your neighbors he lives in the yach club uh part of the year uh the port Pino yach Club um so I think they felt comfortable with who the operator is um the management team they're bringing in know top-notch operators and and employees So based on that I think they felt comfortable supporting the application uh okay okay um you know I want to get to just the last uh question this is a question now because by the way whether I'm supportive or not I actually haven't decided yet I'm I'm just asking thorough questions here St I want to get to the to the bottom of this because it really is important for for the neighborhood you know we keep hearing that it's a residential neighborhood but when you hear that there's almost 8,000 seats down there and many of these places need to turn maybe the third level doesn't need to turn three times a night but many of them do to to pay the bills they have the same economic uh you know uh concerns that that you may have as well um so the fine dining restaurants really do have a significant neighborhood impact in terms of many of the criteria and uh you know one of the requirements is the traffic study so I was trying to understand how a 100 seat restaurant only has six vehicles coming in and out during the peak hour and I'm I'm I'm not quite getting there can you or can do you have a a a expert on this explain I understand what multimodal reduction is that's the bread and butter right that's people who are who are walking who are biking um who are who are perhaps in the neighbor Hood already what is this bypass trips and why is it 44% so that will I will have to queue in either Alfredo C or Jorge paa um that that I know enough to be dangerous about traffic engineering but not thank you because that's basically saying that half of the trips that the it trip generation manual would prescribe for the site are not going to happen so we I think we need to know why what first of all what bypass is and and what how they got to 44% for that so we do have um Jorge Pena on Zoom or Jorge before you speak I need to swear you in do you do you swear affirm that the testimonial gives the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do thank you so um since this is a a uh restaurant with um 450 seats approved previously we are having a a proposed increase of 67 trips uh we did actually a traffic count and all the level of services also they are complying and they are uh they are not changing so the level of services basically is based on the capacity that that the streets can and uh receive and this was also analyzed by the P reviewers from City of M Beach uh so the most important thing here is that the level of Services of the of the existing conditions and the proposed conditions is unchanged so no no impacts will will will happen uh with this restaurant I don't know if that answered that that question thank you har can you please define for us what bypass trips is the bypass trips are basically uh those trips that they are not going from home to the restaurant it's basically trips that are uh within the streets and that are going to the restaurants not not not specifically if you uh plann to go to the restaurant that's that's a trip but a bypass trip is basically if you are on the street and you and you decide to go to the restaurant okay so okay so if my understanding is correct these are people that are driving by that that just happen to see the restaurant and decide to stop there that is correct okay or could that also be Uber Uber because an Uber driver counts as a trip right and they're not coming from home that is correct uh well hang on a second there and Uber is a specific trip from point A to point B but just to get back to this so so your understanding your professional understanding is that these are people on the street Network already that didn't necessarily know about this restaurant that are passing by and decide to go to this third level restaurant yes or or even even even uh walking uh people walking would be multimodal correct yes okay all right so I'm having a I'm sorry Jorge I'm having a hard time believing this that 44% uh of of the my understanding is what you're saying is that of all the trips 44% of the people that are going to that are driving to this restaurant are are stopping there only because they happen to pass by yes that is the definition of pass by trips okay so how did you get to 44% that's almost half so Mr goon off I think one thing Jorge mentioned it you know this went through a rigorous process with the transportation department and a peer reviewer right we have to pay an independent third party peer reviewer multiple cycles of review um so we understand what you're saying but I think the transportation department has reviewed and approved the study including that that bypass number through a very rigorous multiple month process um I don't know if on the floor here today we can kind of I've never seen a traffic study that doesn't say that that the traffic improves or or is basically no impact and this is one where we're we're saying basically there a large increase in seats on a third level and that half of the trips are just people who are passing by who decide to stop there it doesn't compute it doesn't pass this smell test I'm sorry so I think we need to to know more about how we got to 44% or El I'm moved to continue this until we I'm happy to continue this until we can have the experts I mean the staff any have any comment on that well I would say since we don't I mean I I would support the continuance request to have the transportation department here to can also um respond to any comments IE I think so basically this is a this is a third floor restaurant no one's going to see it walking on this walking by the street unless they know it's there so I I do believe this is this is more of a destination restaurant people plan to go there it's not oh I'm just I'm just going to walk just decide to H to hop in so I do think that that um pass by number is questionable as as Matthew mentioned but I would I think we need to have the um transportation department as well as the city's peer reviewer here to to respond to these questions I I understand Matthew's concerns regarding you know the impact on the neighborhood and the traffic impact and um the increase of seats and it is a huge project and I and and and when we first looked at this um and approved it it was a big concern to how we're going to manage the extra um traffic coming in and with the valet and um I do think though the whole project is not what was being questioned today we're looking at specifically adding the third restaurant which is uh putting a bit of a dent and a bit of a change into the the the the number of people and clients but um I mean I think we got the best case scenario as far the type of restaurant that be adding itself to to to to the two other uh floors um again based on the fact that it's not a restaurant that will have tons of turnover it's not not a club we so we're looking at something out of all these scenarios of a of of of a third restaurant adding itself and I think we got probably the best case scenario um I think what we don't want to see is this place fail and um um and it although it's you know they lay you know the responsibility lays on them I think we got to be careful right now of of of slowing down you know a project that is um like what what if that this traffic plan that comes back and you don't approve so what is it what you wanted them to see do at the third floor like so so us slowing them down from getting to where they need to be profitable right so what what happens then so what do you want them to suggest instead like we're if we're going to you know create some issues with them opening up this restaurant then please tell me what your best case scenario is thank you but it's it's not our our job to determine the use it's our job to evaluate the application in front of us and so the application in front of us is specifically the 67 seats exactly and these 67 seats are not going to as as staff has basically said they agree with me they're not going to be just passing by and I think the traffic study in Miami Beach traffic is up there in the top three concerns amongst amongst our our neighbors but can I say in terms of the type of use right you've only got maybe 15 seats around the Omas bar and then the rest of it are going to be little Lounge seatings in there and so by bypass seating it could in fact be people waiting for their tables downstairs who come up for a drink and I mean there's not going to be people coming specifically there not many who are coming specifically there to have a drink what I imagine is there's two seatings per night for the Omas experience which is how it usually is there's 15 people who get to sit at the bar while during the experience and then the rest is Lounge seating where people either come upstairs from the while they wait for their other tables or they're wait they get there early and they're waiting for their next seating in the Omas experience I guess my point being they may have you know it's possible that they were using this the St same sort of Standards or statistics as they were for the lower two levels which probably would be a number similar to that the 44% I think it was because you've got more of a or or um you know a lunch spot where people are in fact coming in off the streets as they're walking by here on the third floor I agree with you it's it's mostly you know sitting at the seats it's probably going to be people who have reservations who are coming directly there but as to the bar and the lounge as we see in like you know in Mila for example you know a lot of it on the Omas level are people who are waiting for their tables up upstairs and they may come down for a drink or vice versa and so personally I mean we I expressed T I think I think I did but I remember agreeing with some people in terms of the hesitation of how big of an establish establishment this is um going into this location uh given its size compared to other restaurants in Miami Beach uh parking is an issue and and you know I'm not super comfortable with it being too more blocks away um that you know definitely creates more trips and and a longer turn around time for for valet operators to return but I see that staff included a pretty hefty number in terms of valet attendance I don't think we should mess with that um I'm not sure if that's what your proposal was to reduce that or no no we're we you're okay with that so you know adding in an additional 67 seats I don't think especially I'm I'm I I agree with my colleagues that you know this is the best case scenario having an Omas bar with with you know uh you know bringing in a high-end crowd with not a lot of turnover of tables uh so I'm okay with this I you know I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the status reports as to you know how it's progressing how the traffic looks and how the neighbors are reacting to it but that's why we have that process and and I I'm also in agreement that I want to you know get give we appreciate the investment you made in the building and and um understand how the cost can Skyrocket um and so I you know I think we should you know give you guys the benefit of the doubt and approve this and let's see what happens Mr chairman can I make one response please sir The Godfather yes uh two points um first Matthew thank you very much for your critiques they're always welcome even if I don't agree with them um here you know we had a traffic review process has started in June of last year that's how complicated and thorough it is and was done by kimley horn with Adrian debowski who's a well-renowned traffic engineer in South Florida and they put us to the ringer that's why we're only before you today January 20125 you know months and months after the traffic review process was initiated before the peer review process was a common thing in Miami Beach you all had every right to be skeptical to you know critique and say maybe the their bias that your Hired Gun but once the peer review process was initiated in Miami Beach that has to lend some sense of credibility to the finished product that comes before you because it has been thoroughly vetted by these peerreview Engineers who are not city employees so the last layer of review is the transportation department itself who has accepted all these facts and figures my second point is regard to intensity I am pretty much approaching elderly status so I love going to dinner at 6 6:30 p.m. I will tell you when I go to Kit one of my favorite places I'll go there at 6:30 p.m. took my mom recently she was visiting there is like five people in the restaurant I loved it and the music was low of course the intensity ratchets up but it only reaches a peak 9 9:30 because we're a late night crowd here but it's not always be the same level of intensity from beginning to end there's a bell curve gets most intense about nine it dies down about 11 so whether it's intensity you're talking about or the quality the veracity of the traffic stud we're in good shapee here and we're coming before you asking for your approval I'm also going to object to your approaching um elderly status so middle-aged middleaged could I could I are you finished can I just I have a question for for Michael um what's before us is just a increase in the seat count today correct well that that is before you today we also included some additional ifications to what was previously approved but in terms of the whatever type of restaurant whether it's an additional restaurant or the same restaurant or any restaurant on the third level that's not in the draft order correct right but we're not this this is not tied to a specific restaurant so what we're doing is increasing the seat count potentially today and in perpetuity is that or comes well as long as the conditions of the cup are complied with so it could be while while while if it's approved and this Japanese restaurant uh is is operating right um you know it would be potentially like a one a one seat a very minimal impact but it could very well be something else in the future right well then there's also we have this new condition now so there is this annual progress report so regardless of you know in the future they do a change of ownership change of name change of restaurant um change of concept this is going to come back to you on an annual basis for review and to further amplify what Michael just said if you look at condition number six it says the applicant now in the future shall abide by all documents and statements submitted with the application our operations plan specifically addresses this okazi restaurant we can make condition six even that much more explicit and call out the type of restaurant if that makes you all feel more comfortable right and then if you wanted to change it you'd have to come back for a modification all right I think that would make people more comfortable if you're okay and that would make me more comfortable good um I appreciate your comments about the traffic study but I I can't get over this there this 44% I don't doubt that the traffic study was very thorough and it was peer-reviewed sometimes things slip between the cracks and perhaps this was a number used in many different studies over the time but it just it doesn't pass that test that smell based upon the length of the review I doubt it but you know to address your broader concern about about the methodology used and what discounts are agreed upon I think you all could have actual a small Workshop here with the city transportation department explain to you their position because they ultimately had to have a buy in on this study as well I'm not saying your critique is wrong I thinking that we did it properly here but if it needs a further explanation I think it a workshop here is warranted just to understand the traffic review process even more thoroughly what you also can do as part of their first progress report I would suggest um that you have a a traffic analysis done to compare the real the real world scenario um compared to what was proposed as part of the traffic study and they can um highlight the differences that's fine so I am supportive of this however I think this is so critical that I still I'm going to make that motion to continue out one more month so that we can learn more about this if there's a second great um if not all right we have a motion on the table does anyone want a second and continuance no all right so that fails motion to approve this okay we have a motion to approve second all right do you want to include a condition regarding the type of restaurant yeah I think Michael acknowledged they're okay with that and then if they want to change it they come back and by the way the required um uh status update is is how long after um well we they have to do a annual but 90 days I think it says the first one's 90 days and then annually after that correct okay but just know I think that especially since the board has made a specific concern regarding traffic we want to make sure it's part of that progress report that you do an updated study to show The Real World um um operation of the valet and the trips and similar what we did for catch like a valet utilization analysis we could right that's fine we should include that include that as so that'll be part of the uh progress report I have I have one more question regarding the draft order um and let's see under C you made some changes from deliveries must to deliveries shall be conducted what is the difference there I know the lawyer and Brian is I don't find a difference between must and shall but shall is the usually more operative word yeah shall is shall is like um more firm yeah is Morpher okay and then um between B and and F we have B says deliveries must occur between 9 A.M and 11 excuse me and 1 pm every day F says deliveries and waste collection may occur daily between 9:00 amm and 5:00 P p.m those don't match yeah we can include we can change result to Shell 9 to one is fine I'm sorry well really I'm asking about the timing okay yeah that's what I'm saying 9 to1 is fine 9 to1 okay you can modify condition F to be consistent with with B should we strike B you don't whatever it doesn't matter we can strike B and change F to 9 to1 right yep 9 to1 yeah um you know the you struck the provision of progress report before the planning board shall be required prior to any change in valet parking storage location I mean I guess it's moot point now that you've like the distance they have to travel um but that was that was surprising um I'm okay with the proposed change that you that you suggested Regarding 11 uh the curve cut for the BTR for the the third level restaurant time okay all right we have a motion in a second um all in favor may I have a word all opposed so I just have to say this I'm supportive of the restaurant I understand the the rationale behind why um the economic reasons the seat count is just is is too high the impact is too high I hope that you succeed I will be a customer of your restaurant um but it's I I I cannot support a top three increase with the location the intensity of use the concentration of uses I I I'm sorry so that's a no I just want to get the count okay so it passes 61 all right all right thank you guys thank you all for your time than you all very much appreciate it thank you all right um moving on the new comprehensive planning code amendments the first one is planning board file 24727 uh the mxc mix use Entertainment District in North Beach I guess our our 14 and 15 companions that's correct we can take the the next two together okay and this is um begins on page 97 of the board packages this is PB 24- 0727 the comprehensive plan FL Flume Amendment for the mxc Mixed use District in North Beach and pb2 24- 0728 the zoning District change for the mxe mix use District in North Beach if you look on page um 102 of the board packages you can see where we have the um mxc mix use Entertainment District located in North Beach along Ocean Terrace between 73rd Street and 75th Street that's currently zoned as mxe this proposal um is to change that zoning to cd2 which is commercial medium intensity which is consistent to the zoning District um to the West um this is largely um an impression ordinance it doesn't really change a lot but it does does remove the idea that this is an Entertainment District and um aligns more with the commercial medium intensity District of the um zoning District to the West that's all this does it just changes the zoning district from um from C from mxe to cd2 and changes the future land use map from mxe to cd2 the um f and um density limits um remain the same as they are currently and this was was um reviewed by the um the land use and sustainability committee on September 5th and they recommended that the planning board transmit these ordinances to the city commission with favorable recommendations Vice um sure go ahead chair it's the first time that I do this so I might be a little bit nervous you to speak into the mic hello chair and uh board members it's the first time that I do this so I might be a little bit nervous please uh bear with me you're doing great and you just introduce yourself your name and your address I am uh James Rio I am the uh founder and principal of sushi beachy restaurant on Ocean Terrace currently we're the only Hospitality business operating on Ocean Terrace we've been operating for a year and a half um we've become very popular people like us our clientele is uh pretty much mid Beach the islands uh as far as B Harbor B Harbor that's pretty much the the bulk of our clientele I am here not to oppose uh a change of zoning I am here to ask for Equity uh it is my understanding that there is a development entity in the area that is exempt from f future land use changes that would put myself at a disadvantage uh I would also like you to consider that the band show is a an entertainment uh uh uh entity uh it's it's unequitable to have such a large entertainment entity to have a large development that as I understand it is exempt from future land use changes and then have a small uh new thriving business uh not benefit from from being able to have these uh entertainments if I would choose to not that I currently do I don't want to be put at a disadvantage and uh whatever you choose should be chosen in an equitable manner that is fair to everybody on Ocean Terrace so just to be clear your request would be I I don't I don't don't have a particular request I don't uh my request would be that whatever you choose to do is done in Equitable manner well I'm just trying to understand first of all I just want to tell you I I've met you before I've been to your restaurant it's fantastic um so the The Band Shell is Zone government use it does not change the the zoning district for the band I understand but the noise from the Bandshell is audible from uh ocean terce Ocean Front condominium uh from as far as Harding from my restaurant how can that exist and then uh ocean terrorist not be mxc well right right now you just you can't as a right do outdoor entertainment anyway so it's not just because you're zoned mxc you have the right to do outdoor outdoor entertainment any sort of entertainment that's Outdoors would still require I don't plan to do any outdoor entertainment but the uh Ocean Terrace holdings my understanding is is exempt from future land use changes is that correct I I can clarify um because the developer of of Ocean Terrace because part of that project includes a public component the city commission entered into a development agreement uh with the developer covering both public and private U phases of that project um under state law once you and under the provisions of the da itself once that development agreement is executed the developer is vested in the code at the time that the that the project was approved so uh so so this and any other change that the planning board has reviewed to regulations for ocean tffs over the last couple years would not apply to the to the ocean tffs development I'm not really sure though that this specific change would have any impact on its own um but but there lies the inequity uh three four years from now Ocean Terrace has multiple FNB venues uh I would be at a disadvantage they would be able to participate and enjoy in the mixed use entertainment and and I wouldn't nor yeah it's just not Equitable it's not fair is that accurate so so in other words the Ocean Terrace venues will be able to have entertainment no unless they were approved by the planning board previously entertainment they can't go ahead and add right they'd have to come to us for it right any does he have that ability to come to the planning board for entertainment yes so he's not okay I just want to so what is the difference then between mxc and and mixed these largely a name change it's perception of calling it mixed use entertainment versus commercial medium intensity it's largely just a perception why should I have the perception of a medium use commercial and every everything north of 74 Street has the per perception of mxc No it's it's the zoning district is changing permanently whatever whatever um uses were approved previously if they had those uses approved prior to this owning District change then they continue with those uses but I don't think there's any sort of difference in uses that that would be non-conforming I don't think there's any outdor entertainment component that was approved previously that could not otherwise be approved under CD too so it's it's not like we're changing a zoning district from say a commercial District to a residential district where that would result in changes of drastic changes of uses where you you could no longer um come in to even apply for um entertainment indoors or Outdoors this is largely One commercial District to another commercial District right so his venue would be on equal footing with any of those venues um a restaurant is still allowed the occupancy limits um don't change in terms of what's considered an ni or Neighborhood Impact establishment it's largely just a a perception change Michael is entertainment I'm fine I'm fine with that I yeah which won't impact the public I think say perception I don't think it's the same perception that you're thinking of with the public thinks oh you're you know these places are going to be more fun than your if we were changing from commercial medium intensity to commercial low lower intensity that does have more implications on on uses this area already had limitations on the type of uses that could be approved along Ocean Terrace and that prior project that was approved is subject to those regulations there something that I would like to bring to all of your attention if you're not familiar with with the area there are only uh two uh be besides whatever will be constructed north of 74 Street by Ocean Terrace Holdings currently there's only two uh FNB uh establishments there everything else is residential there's my business Sushi Beach LLC and what used to be Ronnie's which uh closed down I it's my understanding that the property was bought by uh Boutique restaurant uh hotel hotelier from South Beach but it's there's there's just two businesses there what why there's there's no problems or noise complaints or heavy traffic or people get getting robbed or anything wrong happening on Ocean Terrace right now what is the reason for the change this came from the city commission with a desire to remove this this um mxe zoning district from the north beach neighborhood hi James go hello H how are you it's good to see you it's nice to see you um I've known James for a while he was actually general manager of Sushi Samba I don't know if you all knew that but anyway um long time time ago but nevertheless I think the goal here is to eliminate what we have on Ocean Drive today and to elevate the area so it would actually benefit you as well as our entire neighborhood to bring that down I I I understand and and and anything that we would do at Sushi and you would have same AB calm uh manner we uh EX ourselves a beachfront sanctuary and you would have the same abilities but I do understand the Ben shell issue which is a separate issue but but you and and and we love our Bandshell friends we do too but but it's just for me about Equity it's I think that you're going to be okay and you would have the ability to come here and say we want to do this we'd like to do that also you're attached to a residential building which is the St trpe and these others will be attached as well so I mean I think that it's just trying to protect the residents um I think that it's that it's a good thing and and but I you won't I don't see how I don't disagree with it I just think that I think that well no you had the feeling you were going to be disadvantaged not you're not going to be disenfranchised I want be on an equal playing field going be disenfranchised so thank I think so I think the idea as well as the mxc district was to to encourage hotel and entertainment uses so the city no longer wishes to encourage hotel and entertainment uses but not bars that's part of the reason for changing this zoning District to City 2 which doesn't highlight that those uses just to elevate it we have the potential in North Beach to just be something special is there anybody else on Zoom there is one other caller on Zoom um Patrick Buckley okay Mr Buckley maybe you're on mute you still see there you go yeah you guys can hear me okay yeah yeah um I don't think okay very good I'm Patrick Buckley I'm the treasur of the board of the Olsen condominium on 7300 Ocean Terrace and um thank you uh to all of you for for the effort uh you put forth especially in in trying to improve our area we appreciate everything you guys do do um ju first thing is just a quick question when we received the letter the notice of this meeting about the change in zoning we tried to do our own research and understand what the change really means uh without eating up much of your time could anyone maybe just explain to us real quickly what is the real change what is what what do we what are we really talking about here what is going to change Michael so like I said just just a few moments ago the real change is that it doesn't this change basically um removes the encouragement of hotel and entertainment uses along Ocean Terrace the other commercial uses are perfectly acceptable but it it does highlight that um the desire to move away from hotel and entertainment uses in this area let me let me jump in sort of I mean maybe to answer his question with a specific idea uh right now if it's mxe if he wanted to bring in a DJ that's considered Entertainer I know he's not going to do that but we don't have thej but if I was having an event of our Mitzvah wedding I thinkal somebody wanted to bring a DJ and I have entertained the thought of having a DJ at maybe after 9 from 9 to 11 at a ambient level just to bring in the gentrify let me so Michael under under the mxe zoning he would be allowed to have a DJ no he'd have to come to the planning board same but he would and then under cd2 would he still be allowed to have a DJ and still have to come to the planning board yes yes it doesn't change the requirements for um entertainment it just doesn't highlight the encouragement just the idea of like just if you just think about it if you think about moving into a property and it's zoned for mixed use entertainment sort of has the connotation that that entertainment is is encouraged this removes that encouragement but doesn't prohibit it and you still can go through the process to seek appr being more of a residential neighborhood than actual entertainment basically it it aligns with the city's vision for the future of the area versus the the past thank you thank you any other people on Zoom okay any other questions I I just have one quick question uh on page 100 of our packet where it talks about the the different policies between mxc and cd2 and it talks about the intensity limit um of a uh under mxc it's it's 2.0 floor area ratio and then it's there's different intensity limits for cd2 so that would be again it doesn't change it today correct but the goal is to to change the F in the future on the use well the fvr will will remain as um it would it would change for hotel development um right now um or previously Hotel development was considered um um mixed use and could go to um an F of 2.0 over with recent changes that ability to go from 1.5 to 2.0 is limited now to residential projects that that um bonus was removed previously by the um City commission for the city2 district okay but again does this this doesn't change anything is is what the message that you've given us it's just perception and a future desire to change the land you say if you um designation you know the purpose of the mxc district is to um promote mixed use areas to accomodate residential hotel and Commercial development versus um you know a focus on um commercial areas which serve the entire city um and highlight professional offices retail sales service establishments eating and drinking apartment uses so it just highlights um those non-entertainment and non um transient uses okay thank you it's more of a perception and just a sort of aligns more with the city's um vision for the area any other questions all right last comment then we got to move move on when there are uh periods of holidays and and heavy tourism in Miami Beach sometimes there are uh um curfews or restrictions on times of operation that are uh applied to different districts so the mxc can only stay open till midnight but the cd2 can stay open till 1:00 a.m. will that put me at a disadvantage in the future when there's a giant hotel built next to me and they're able to stay open till 1 or two on a busy holiday weekend but I will be able I will have to shut at a two hours earlier just because of having that difference in classification no it will not there there are other cd2 just by way of example there are other cd2 districts in the city um that that are have not been impacted by by prior curfews during spring break or other high impact weekends those measures have always focused on on South Beach not that I foresee that happening on Ocean Terrace but again I want Equity I want to be at an equal playing field with with all my business neighbors this that this won't this won't change when there when there's an emergency the the city doesn't look at zoning boundaries they're looking at the geographic boundaries they're looking at at where the problem areas are and where there's the most traffic and where there's the most people I don't think that I don't foresee us having those issues and especially at least not for the next 10 years we hope not yeah thank you okay someone want to move it motion to approve all right we're doing the first one correct uh you have to make two separate motions sure okay the first one is on motion uh on planning board f 0727 so we have a motion to approve from you he can I get a second second okay okay she got all right all in favor I anyone oppose no okay now on the second one motion to approve okay Elizabeth second okay all in favor I okay all opposed okay pass 70 all right we're making progress today all right planning board file 24729 Pride Park comprehensive plan fu Amendment and this report begins on page um 111 of the board packages if you look at the map on um page 114 of the board packages you can see that um Pride Park which is immediately north of um um City Hall has an existing zoning of um CCC which is um Convention Center District and a future land use map of public facilities um which is pfcc Convention Center District what this ordinance does is highlight more specifically the recreation and open space component of Pride Park and calls it out separately from the um the rest of the convention center so the zoning district will remain the same CCC but the future land use Amendment just highlights more of the recreation and open space component of Pride Park in association with facilities that support the convention center so this is just to um more specifically highlight the recreation open space at is currently approved and operating Now versus what may H May operate you know in the rest of the convention center um this was reviewed by the um um um let's see it was red by the land use sustainability committee on September 5th which recommended that the city commission refer this ordinance to the planning board this was referred to the planning board on October 30th we recommending that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation okay anyone on Zoom there is nobody on Zoom for this item it seems pretty straightforward any questions one question what would be built here I me what's the idea that of something that could be put here no this is this is meant for recreation and any sort of temporary uses and Recreation open space facilities this is different than than what could go there what's practically what does this mean what what's been happen like basically what's been happening recently right now where you have like Miami Miami Design where you have the temporary construction that goes up the this just is to facilit just to um to fall in line with how it's been operating it doesn't allow like a u um permanent facilities to be constructed there t sorry Scott go ahead that was my question I you know I was ask about all the the special events they have there essentially it's what's already been happening there right motion to approve more clarity yeah okay motion to approve from yeld a second Melissa y okay all in favor opposed okay 70 uh planning board file 24725 cps2 regulations 6 Street overlay give me just a second we we've had Scott speak on that one from the other side a few [Laughter] times you want to go back in time and go over there so this staff report begins on page um 125 of the board packages and if you look on page um 133 of the board packages you can find the the zoning District overlay map which outlines the area where these proposed regulations are to take place which are part of the cps2 district along Fifth Street between Fifth Street and 6th Street and bordered by Lennox Avenue on the west and Washington Avenue on East but this does not include properties that directly front Washington Avenue or a lenux Avenue and what this ordinance is intended to do is provide a buffer in terms of uses intensity um and massing between the the lower intensity rm1 um Flamingo Park historic district and the area along fif Street which does have um although it isn't a historic district does have more op more elements such as um par Lots newer construction that could be be developed with structures and uses that could have an impact impact on the the residential multif family low intensity District of the Flamingo Park District to the north so what this does is provide restrictions on on several several items first on alcoholic beverage establishments it does Place restrictions on outdoor operations including closing by 12:00 a.m. um limitations on outdoor speakers bar counters and seating limits such as no rooftop seating um near 6th Street that also prohibits um recorded music and TVs in outdoor areas near 6th Street it does have access restrictions in terms of specific setback and prohibitions on entry points along 6th Street with some exceptions for properties that are contributing in the historic district it does limit um above ground parking to be set back at least 100 fet from six Street in new development it does include a list of prohibited uses in included including um veh vehicle sales rentals it does prit hostiles convenience stores smoke and VAP vape shops um um package stores and hotels near Sixth Street it does place um height limits on um maximum building Heights along um six street they're cap to 28 ft um to 40 feet um as you go further around towards towards um Fifth Street it does provide exceptions to those um subject to Historic preservation board approval for projects that include um affordable housing it does require um pedestrian pass of a minimum of 5T with exception for historic buildings it does require that curb Cuts be limited to alleys or if there's no alleys that they be no larger than 12 feet and does just specify which is already in the code right now the rooftop additions must comply with um existing District height regulations um we are recommending so um the ordinance is drafted does include these height restrictions as I've noted um staff is recommending that the ordinance be modified as follows we are recommending that the maximum per permitted height within the first two pled Lots south of six Street shall not exceed 50 ft regardless of property use we're recommending that um that for a unified development site consisting of more than five pleed Lots the maximum permitted height within 100 ft of the south side of 6th Street should not exceed 28 ft and the maximum pled height between 100 ft and 140 ft from the south side of 6th Street not exceed 40 ft so while recommending a a modulation of the heights um as you um are closer to six Street you have a lower height you have a um a larger site you can accommodate pushing more of your mass towards um fist stre now this ordinance does have a very long history going back to three and a half years through 2021 um and this was last reviewed by the by the um um the land use and sustainability committee on September 5th and this was recommended um to this that the city commission refer this to the planning board which the city commission referred this to the planning board on October 30th so staff is recommending that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation with the modifications that I noted okay I ask a question anybody on Zoom yes we have Johan Moore on Zoom right after that I just okay hold on one second Yan sorry I just wanted to ask Scott once once youran is finished I just wanted to get a little bit of perspective from Scott because he's got a little bit more background on this than well excuse me a lot more but I wanted to get some of your perspective Johan go ahead um if it's appropriate got to go first I'm to do it the other way around uh Scott you want to give some comments yeah I can jump in um yeah as you said this has been um in the works for a long time and the idea is to protect the residential neighborhood from from commercial interest surrounding the neighborhood um on the east side um we have a lot of um um there's our res R zoning which sort of buffers some commercial development from the neighborhood um going back um eight years now I guess there was an Alton Road overlay a buffer overlay um uh past which uh mitigates some of those larger projects on Alton Road from from impacting the neighborhood and now we're looking at doing that on six straight um and I guess the impetus was that hotel that was approved on the uh uh Southeast corner of Lennox and six so what we want to avoid is that kind of uh that kind of development uh across six Street um Mo a lot of it is use restrictions um which we're happy with I mean we we would still like to see the the limits on the height the 28 ft um is it the first 100 ft then 40 ft further up um we understand that um obviously there's there would be an exception for or the HPB could give um a waiver if if someone was going to um renovate a historic building um but I do understand staff concerns that um you know if we limit that you may have somebody who wants to develop a single lot and they'd be limited uh to 28 feet um but I do think you know staff is recommending if five lot platted Lots were aggregated then those those uh height limits would apply um maybe we can lower that a little bit um I I I just think when you get to five Lots you're talking pretty much it's almost like all the way um it could be a whole block pretty much um depending on how they're you know like you said in the staff report all there's a lot of staggered blocks nothing's uniform there so I just think that may may allow um you know maybe a smaller development to go rather large um closer to to Sixth Street so I'd say two but three um aggregated Lots or I when you say um platted let me ask you one question the typical plats are about 50 50 ft wide 50 ft okay so you're talking 250 ft back if you're going five pled Lots yes yeah I think it should be um well maybe less than that I because right now I believe it's if I'm correct 200 feet to the what I call it there's not really an alley but like the mid the midpoint between fifth and sixth street right right the blocks are probably around the depth is probably around um 4 400 a little 400 yeah so if you're talking about four platted Lots you're going back about all all the way um I mean I'm I maybe four would be okay um that way if somebody Aggregates see my concern is if somebody just um let's say Aggregates three lots um then they would have a a rather large uh a a um well depending on how wide they are about 150 ft by let's say you know uh 400 feet lot and a lot that large they can still build up to 50 feet on Sixth Street um so and I would still say for I I would limit it to two platted lots and that's what I'd like to see thank you for that feedback yeah and so as per normal procedure we would have to move separate we have sorry another um public comment now um well we haven't let Johan speak first I think Johan is done did he did he speak already he didn't speak no he deferred this Scott okay Yan are you there can you click him on there you are okay go ahead uh I want to back up Scott's uh assertions um regarding uh the specific um height limits uh and the setbacks um without repeating any of those specific numbers which I think over the years have made all of our heads spin just a little bit um pushing uh this the stepping um as far back and down south away from 6 Street is in fact uh key uh to protecting the neighborhood in particular because it is the south side of the neighborhood that would apply to the East and the West as well but not necessarily to the north because of how Shadows Fall let's keep that in mind the other thing I want to point out is that this was probably one of the most Grassroots efforts that I have ever in my life had the opportunity to be a part of that fed into uh a municipal legislation um this really reflects the desire of the neighborhood and uh as you I hope accept it it should I believe be kept in your minds um and to uh Riff on on Michael's earlier comment about perception um this will uh I think stand as a neighborhood standard that developers who might come to us uh for Washington Avenue or for the Lincoln Road South lots for instance might uh assume would be a good idea to adhere to in terms of the proposed restrictions thank you thank you yes someone else we have a next caller Charles Fisher hi um thanks so much for allowing me to speak I just one wanted to say how uh happy I am about this overlay I live at 635 uket Avenue so this is uh this is very close to where uh my condo is um I think it's great I know there's lots of work that's gone into it I really want to commend everyone who has done it I wanted to give my full support for it but with the original height restrictions like really one of the most valuable things about this is uh to keep the Integrity of the large kind of big developed buildings uh like the new hotel over on Fifth and then allow the step down on to Sixth Street smaller the buildings you know similar to that currently exist and it it really I'm nervous to make this change that staff is recommending because it will uh encourage kind of these big large scale devel uh huge buildings to come right up on the edge of the neighborhood so I love it I think it's great I really love it with the original uh uh height restrictions over on Sixth Street I think that is that's the that's the right way to go and it still gives uh lots of people lots of room to do what they need to do but we don't have these large buildings coming up to us on six so so my recommendation and my ass ask is that we approve with the original uh uh uh height restrictions thank thank you all so much thank you we have another caller Mitch novic hey Mitch good after hey good good afternoon Mitch novic I manage a property at 610 Jefferson Avenue uh of course uh I'm concerned with the impact uh entertainment uses may have on on the residents in my area I largely agree with Johan and Scott's comments uh perhaps three or four contiguous Lots is a more reasonable threshold as five Lots may be uh problematic uh for development thank you thank you anyone else and that concludes our callers on Zoom okay close the public hearing um well first any other questions or comments from the board because if not what we would do is um pass it favorably and then make a separate motion to encourage any changes you think were appropriate yeah I I again I'd like I I do understand staff's concern I mean I'd like to see if it's more than two ploted lots aggregated um than those restrict the height restrictions apply I think five is is too many I would support that all right so again that would have to be a separate motion right you could um you could um make that motion as part of any recommendation for approval you you trans we usually did them separately you could transmit the favorable recommendation with this change okay which could be but we encourage this change yeah right okay all right someone Scott want to move it I'll make that motion that we approve this and with the recommendation that if more than two lots platted lots are aggregated um that's when the the height restrictions of 28 feet and 40 feet apply okay give a second can I uh sorry I didn't have a chance to speak and I was looking something up here my apologies um you know I actually was involved with this at the very beginning about three years ago in a couple of the meetings and so I'm really happy to see that it's kind of come U it's moving along and uh and now I'm on the board to help recommend its its um it's favorable um recommendation to the city commission um I was looking up because this is along Fifth Street and the staff analysis talked about a future Transit Corridor and um I wanted to see what are the requirements that my IM mediate code has on future uh Smart Plan corridors and I'm happy to to I think my interpretation is correct Nick perhaps you know more you should we do know more about this than me but this meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the smart Transit um rap rtz subzone correct um I know that staff did a very detailed analysis when the when the um County's rtz ordinance went into effect as to whether any of our zoning regulations would be preempted um I don't recall if in the Fifth Street Corridor there were any issues where the county RTC ordinance would would uh would conflict with the with the city code but I don't this would not make a difference because this is not um this doesn't change the maximum f um and I I don't think there's any other requ any other provision in this order that the rtz ordinance addressed well I think the height so I I pulled up the the section of myate code and they talk about height but not in feet they talk about it in stories uh minimum requirement or I guess a maximum allow height it's eight stories within a quarter mile of the rtz subzone a smart smart Corridor Sub Zone um so I just I really just wanted to highlight that that this with this change we meet or exceed that height the minimum height requirement I know a lot of folks have talked about U you know potential Rapid Transit and how That Could That Could lead to more development but this is a community-driven effort here that that already needs or exceed those minimum requirements um so I think further you know hopefully allaying some of the concerns of of the the the County's rtz zoning that and the impact it could have but yeah but you said again we we you were not sure about the height but I think it's eight stories um which is not how we we'd have to look at that Matthew yeah we'd have to look at that did we eliminated stories from our zoning we just talk about height Now versus so how do you deal with a conflict if there is one where where a a code that perhaps supersedes ours or could well the county has authority to to do that um when we looked at this closely and it's been I think couple years um I we were confident that there were that that our code um was either consistent with the RTC ordinance or or more you know or even more permissive right um but I can't tell you you know off the top of my head that that's a that's a a a very detailed set of regulations at the county level and applying it to a a fairly large swath I'd have to defer to to to staff on that so so if if um Michael if you don't know you know I don't I don't have any information I don't know either but I do have a question and so I'm trying to understand what um what Scott's recommendation would be for the um the heights so right so as drafted the ordinance says that the maximum height within 100 fet of south of six street so that' be basically two platted Lots the maximum height is not does not exceed 28 feet and then um when you get between um three and four platted Lots it is not exceed 140 ft and then only when you go beyond that can you go to the maximum of 50 or 55 ft no what I'm saying is um if if somebody just Aggregates two platted Lots they can build up to the 50 ft what the only if they aggregate more than that three four five then those height restrictions uh take effect in other words what we're saying is if they aggregate all those lots we want them to push the mass of their develop of their project more toward Fifth Street and away from Sixth Street that's the got you so basically only if you have two pled Lots or less can you go to the 50 fet along six Street if you have if you have more than two pled Lots than those um height restrictions apply correct okay okay that's the motion do we have a second on that second all right Elizabeth seconded okay would that recommendation all in favor I anyone opposed okay all right I think your lunch is here so we're going to take 10 minutes or 15 minutes for a quick lunch break e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e please take your seats the meeting is about to begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 two one okay welcome back um we are on to item number 18 courtesy notice requirements for residential tenants planning board file 24732 but Michael before you do that I have a couple questions after reading this um what is the rule as far as you know we have to allow anyone from the public to speak for three minutes is it just Miami Beach residence or is that no anybody can come and speak they don't have to be a Miami Beach residence typically the board will ask where you coming from we've had some applications before where we've had like high volume of people maybe appear on zoom and they're coming from another state or whatever just to speak on an application so that's why the board members ask them for their address so they can you know provide right but we have to allow anybody to speak okay then the second question is so in this ordinance I and I get the point of it um if someone's a tenant of a of a of an owner's resin doesn't they does a mail still go or is this where an owner would have a change of address so so that the tenant wouldn't be aware of the of the of the notice so the the mail would go to the registered owner so typically at that unit where the tenant is or you're saying there could be a situation where I own a unit but I have my mail go somewhere else correct is that the concern yes okay and there's no concern by the city of having a transient temporary tenant um I guess they could speak anyway right so it doesn't matter what it's just about getting notice no I mean we've had people before which we we we have curtailed we've have in in the extreme case we've had cases where say a a a property owner um a a developer takes owner of Association and files an application makes an application and has not notified the actual property itself and those those people within the property so we are make we do make sure that if you file an application for a property and it's a condo association all those all those property owners that are part of the property that's part of the application those are notified so that's not that's not what this does so this basically if I can just yeah go ahead with the ENT on that I one more question for you again pb2 24- 0732 this is courtesy notice requirements for residential tenants and this report begins on page 155 of the board packages so currently the Land Development regulations require that um a notice for land use boort applications be mailed to all property owners only property owners only within 375 ft of the property that is subject to the application so if I have a residential building I own that building but it's an apartment building none of those tenants get notified of the application they may get not they may see a posting on the site or a Herald notice or in the future we're going to be you know notice noticing it on a on a a County website but there's no physical notice to a property um a tenant unless they own property oh so it's really for apartments rental buildings is the real Point behind it yes because you have a lot of tenants that that are tenants of owners right they would not cond they would never they would not get not so what this does basically is require that um as part of the application that the applicant also has to um notice notify the residential tenants it wouldn't apply to say a commercial tenant operation where you have commercial units but it would apply to right no I get that but say I get apartment buildings because they're rental buildings but if you have a condo I own a condo and I rent it out because I don't live here whatever I mean obviously this would apply to any tenant but how would that come into play so I would I what if I was the person doing the the mailing list I would go through and cross reference okay this these are the mailing label these are the mailing labels for for the for the building which which mailing labels are are going to the property itself which ones are going offsite the ones that are going offsite also mail to that same unit okay number in The Bu I got it and the applicant will be responsible for that cost correct okay got it all right and this is something that you know in transparency the city commission is trying to you know provide more notice to not just Property Owners but also tenants as well and so um this was referred by the city Commission on November 20th and it was reviewed by the land use and sustainability committee October 14th and they did recommend that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation just to confirm did the city ever fix the issue on the commercial side meaning where it was only going to the operator but not the landlord it's what was the issue I remember when we were dealing with uh what was that club that was about violations yeah oh I think it may have been because who is the who is the um the the agent on record and what their address is um for the state that is something that you know that's how we sent out those notices that's something that's being that a commissioner bought I believe has of increasing the notice require distance requirement as well as the um the the mailing requirements instead of it going just to say an entity that may own a a a shopping center or you know a whatever building that um it's being it would have to go to each tenant as well because whoever owns that whatever building could live in Columbia for goodness sake or wherever um and I think this sort of is sort of it seems like a little bit a companion item or or something along those lines I'm not sure of what I'm not sure about um um what you're talking about in terms of commercial properties this only applies to it would be for residential also but commercial and residential like you'd have to notify because if you're if you're going to demo a building next door to to you say for instance it's with if you're within 375 ft you could be 5 Seconds over the line and you won't get a notice and it would just go to your property management company as opposed to each individual knower owner and you may not know so I think this is sort of the same thing but for resid Is Res yes but not demo this this only applies to landport Applications right right yeah I was just curious separately right yes unrelated and and I think yeah he I think your question is about um was it was a code violation correct and and we we could check with code but I curious of that if we ever kind of close that was a specific instance where the violation was only issued to either owner or operator to the operator it was the Emmy club by the we also had that issue with um oh with link not time out Lincoln Lane that was it anyway don't know what um is there anyone on zoom on this item there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised all right it's pretty straightforward would the applicant be responsible for providing mailing labels is that how going to be correct yes okay well I thought they just they pay for in the well no they they have to provide the actual mail notices they pay the city we actually generate the the mail notice provide the postage and we send it out but they give us the list oh like how would I how would I get the list mean I don't they're they're companies that provide the those Services I thought not the city facilitator that's not no the the city provides a list of companies that have told us that we worked with in the past to provide that service the additional thing here is that um for example for a for say a residential building that's it's an apartment building the public records are going to be that one property owner so it's up to the property owner to to give us the the the unit numbers and the mailing address for those tenants on their property it doesn't have to it may not say the actual name of the tenant but it's going to say the a resident or or it doesn't burden the city with more work and it's not in conflict with any state laws or any dvpr kind of real estate anything not that I'm aware of not to give notice I don't think so because it's just supplemental it's just additional uh it's an additional mailing okay because you know they just came out with that new you know you can't interfere with landlord tenant relationships and things like that but that that has that's null and void here that's a great question and no since this applies to development applications okay we think we can be stricter okay motion to approve okay favorable recommendation is your first motion Melissa second all in favor I anyone opposed okay all right the next are two companion items planning board file 24735 housing impact statement requirement for de development applications uh the comprehensive plan Amendment and the ldr amendment and these applications began on page um 163 of the board packages and this was um referred by the city commission November 20th and this was recommended by the that the um that the plan board reviewed this by the the was recommended that the land use and sustainability committee um had recommended the planning board approve these ordinances what this does is create a a policy in the comprehensive plan which basically states that the city shall create a definition for a housing impact statement and shall include a review of such statement for applicable projects as part of the development review process for all land use boards page are we this page 163 the board packages okay thank you so in conjunction with that General policy statement um what would what would be stated in the Land Development regulations is a definition which would State a housing impact statement shall be defined as a written analysis provided by an applicant seeking approval from a city land's board which outlines how a development project will impact existing and proposed residential units within the property that is the subject of the application and how such impacts will be mitigated at a minimum this document shall contain the following and this is now on page 166 of the board packages this includes um analysis of the impact and the development comparing current housing housing availability and the effective property before and after the development is executed a full disclosure as to whether any residents um currently within the the property in the last year um specifying how those households how many of those households were affordable Section 8 or Workforce housing units and identify any voluntary measures by the developer to assist um those residents with relocation or alternate housing now this is pretty much provided for tracking purposes only and um would not serve as a basis for the approval or denial of a conditional use application for example if you look at the project that was continued this morning for 1250 West Avenue if this was in place their housing impact statement would probably state that there are approximately 250 um one-bedroom apartments on the property that could be classified as as as Workforce housing and those units will be eliminated as part of this development that's essentially What's happen happening with that with that project so this would basically just provide more inform more information to um both um Landy spard as well as City commission when reviewing these types of applications and impacts on on residential um property tenants and owners but what's what was the impetus for this meaning I guess what I don't know I don't I think the city the city realizes that that we've been losing residents and so this is the quantify and sort of um document you know why are we losing residents because this you know we're we're um um taking we're having new development push out existing residents and just to document the number of of units being lost I don't know if me what's What's the total unit count I guess on a high level from the city do you know that haven't we been losing people because we're not building new residential stuff it's not just a matter of we una affordable and it's not matter like for example like in the case I gave it's not matter just building you we're taking away if you take away 20 you know 50 residential housing units where are those people going um that's sort of what's happening with the 1250 West Avenue site got it um this this just just provide more tracking information so the city could establish you know what's happening with the development that we're approving or do we want to encourage this this zoning change that's going to result in this this impact to residential units anyone now to answer your question though the the Census Bureau does track things such as housing units um the size of the housing units the owner occupied versus rental it's very granular actually so there I know it's way too granular but it it answers your question though you can look at Trends not just the the the every 10 years of census but they do surveys every single year the American Ordinance survey it's in the ordinance and in 2010 the US Census indicated City of Miami Beach had a population of 87779 2020 uh indicated the city of Miami Beach had a population of 82890 between 2010 and 2020 it lost a net total of 4889 residents and um in 22 census uh estimated the city of Miami Beach has a population of 80,7 reflecting a further loss of 2873 since the 2020 census that is in the ordinance I I don't have an issue with this I love it motion to approve second okay this is the first one now planning board 24735 all in favor I Ione opposed okay 70 motion to approve okay Move Motion approve 24733 can I get a second second second okay Melissa all in favor I anyone opposed great okay last but not least planning board file 24734 increasing and enhancing porous surface requirements for parking lots and driveways I have some comments on this too me just give me just one second page 187 184 183 so this report is the last on our agenda today this is on page um 183 of the board packages and the goal of this is to increase the previous requirements throughout the city we're also trying to align with um the County requirements so there are certain elements that the city counts as perious that the county does not so part of this is to more align with what the county also does not count as um perious so what this does is um in terms of parking lot design it does state that um non- landscape surfaces have to use a high albo surface which is in the code right now but also states that on top of that at least 60% of all non- landscape material must consist of porest pavement to facilitate water drainage so this would um provide more opportunity for water to filtrate on parking lots now primarily this um this pertains to um single family homes um right now for example um within the front yard and side yard facing a street you have to provide 50% of your front yard or side facing a street as landscaping area this would increase that to 70% how however it would say that um you could do 50% landscaping and the additional 20% if you have Paving would have to be um porous porous Paving so it does it does although it is increasing the the um the prvious Landscaping requirement it does now allow you to count um porest Paving as part of that requirement um what it doesn't do is right now if you have a a pool within your property um right now within your within your rear yard we have requirements for you know 70% of your rear yard has to be for previous Landscaping however your pool now count as previous Landscaping what this does is take that away the county does not count um pools as um previous Landscaping yes it may hold water but it's going to overflow I have a pool myself it overflows all the time in the summer I'm always having to like let let water out of it so this basically no longer what allow fill it in the winter yeah this no longer allows um um pools to count towards the prvious um open space requirement we did receive a an email today I think Brian I I found um the email that you referenced was regarding this application there was a architect um raising the issue that um if we no longer count pulls as perus of his pervious then he's going to have to um reduce the um the yard but right now our required rear yards are as little as 20 feet so our rear yards right now are already very small this would just require that yeah you could have part of your pool in your rear yard and count and that you know and you still can meet the requirements but no more than 30% of your required rear yard could consist of a pool or non-porous um surface so you still could have a pool in your rear yard but majority of that's going to be not within your required rear yard um so that's what this that's what this um legislation does um it also just also indicates that um when you do have Paving that you do have pervious Paving versus just you know Paving on um compacted soil or or on a um a non- perious Subs non previous Subway the question is I mean always good except that I have a little bit of a hesitation with the pool area um when because I think about all the new construction and a lot of these backyards are basically a pool with a bunch of steps you know that are you know concrete and there's not that much green um there's not lot of the new construction doesn't have a lot of back don't have a lot of backyards right so in the most of the projects that were you know built and approved in the last few years most of these would not have been accepted correct because I so right now the exemption the exemption for pools only applies for pools that are below a certain elevation so most new construction that was building a brand new pool they typically want to have their pool at the same level of the house so right now those projects were not impacted because they were not able to count the pool already as perious um this would really impact only um properties that um were constructing a pool you know at a lower elevation um if anything I would suggest if you want to you know raise it a concern an exemption for you know existing properties that were as of such and such date which that could impact their ability to provide a pool in their rear rear yard to be considerate right what about what about properties that are already existing I mean not I me not not not like that but if they're having to redo their their that's Matt amster just wrote in about about um the applicability that if it's already in process that they don't have to re go back it's destroyed what if it's destroyed by a hurricane or ripped up or something like that I mean those you know how does that impact those well I guess you could suggest that the city commission um put in uh um a section that would allow them to rebuild what they have as of a certain date we have that for um for front yard so we have a provision as you know the city has raised front yards in a lot of areas and until not so long ago you only had to provide you know 35% um Landscaping in front yard so there were homes that were approved that had more Paving in the front yard and the city has allowed them to rebuild you know what they had approval for even though it doesn't meet the current requirements as long as they met the requirements at the time when that was permitted they could rebuild that um what about so I know this is kind of this is not affecting actual you know driveways or any of that kind of stuff but I've noticed on our beach beach walks and even down in in on Lumis Park we've already built with perious um some perious surfaces and also with perious uh joints and those materials are improper um they are they're not the right material and and they're already cracking and those cracks keep they're going to keep expanding how can we apply this to make sure that we have the right materials as well as bring this to the city as a whole is that is that possible can you make can you make an sort of a suggestion there that that because North Beach is cracking all over the place I mean we've got joints that were this that are now there I think there probably a separate discussion to to ask the city commission to take a look at I think this doesn't really relate to the permeability and previous requirements trying to see if you could make it one I personally I I have problems with the pool exemp you know removing the exemption for pools I mean especially nowadays where we have the 50% rule where you have if you're G to you know do more than 50% work on your house or the value of it that you have to raise the house I mean already people are having difficulties in trying to increase the value of their homes uh it's extraordinarily expensive um for people with smaller Lots one of the ways you could increase the value of your home without having to raise your whole house is by perhaps adding a pool and then you'll have a problem because you've already got a small lot then you've got to remove your your front pavement you know the pavement in the front of your house and then I mean it's becomes hugely expensive so I think it's sort of you know what and kind of consistent with what the the email that we receive um you know you're penalizing you know houses with smaller Lots which you know there's more and more smaller Lots these days uh and you're this is a gift you know you're able to do whatever you want if you have a big big lot uh so I just don't I don't think the what the I guess I get the intent but I don't think that the pool size is going to re really affect uh sustainability and you know water drainage so much so to make it an actual impact as much to to balance out the impact it would have on people who have lots that are 10,000 feet square feet and below so I I I would remove that portion of it that's my I think there needs this is needs more study is there an issue with not being in compliance with County regulations I think right sorry right now I think the the city has a the county has a requirement in terms of overall um permeability requirements for a site and based upon our analysis of a typical site we do not meet those requirements when when counting the pool as perious but is that an issue I is there yeah I think it it it is an issue I think is this something that we have to do or is this something that because I mean personally as someone who just went through the process of redoing their house and you see kind of the pools other people are building I mean they're essentially just if you have a normal 9,000 ft lot you're now allowed to build a bathtub for a swimming pool so you know the more the restrictions that we put on really reduces the usability A and B I mean I love landscaping and you know we we fully landscaped our house but I think people should have the ability to have a circular driveway if they want you know with pavers or whatever that might be being so restrictive for what people are allowed to do do that we really so I do think and if you want you know we may want to continue this till next month and I can go back with more information but I do believe that that um unless the the city has Provisions that are at least as stringent as the counties that we have to comply with the county requirements and as currently um in our code we cannot comply with the county requirements and if we don't comply what happens mean we haven't been in compliance for who knows how long so I guess what's the issue with I'd have to come back to you do you I don't know well I I'd rather not speculate on that I mean I think the county could you know the the county could raise the issue um the the property owner could theoretically be issued a code violation under the county code so there there are issues um and and so the county does have authority you know it was as this came up earlier on on another item but the county does have authority to preempt us um so on this one I think that particular change we would we should be consistent with the county that's why part of the reason we we did this because we did an analysis is based upon what the county told us earlier this year and with the idea to rectify that so I believe we have we had to indicate to the county what we're doing to rectify it and it has to be in place by a certain time I don't like a lot of this I don't personally a little bit I mean I the front yard part there's a lot of alternatives to making the pavers or the driveway pores I think there's there's you know there's enough ways to work around that I'm really concerned about the backyard you're you're really determining for people which is their space I think that we have to reevaluate certainly that part of it one thing you might want to look at is is maybe um if the lot's over a certain size then the pool wouldn't um um count um just something to to consider yeah but honestly the you mean you mean if it's really small versus versus yeah in other words if if you have a large enough lot then the pool would not count toward your your open space but on a smaller lot than the and it wouldn't um or it wouldn't did I say that right uh on a small making sure that the the small house are not penalize correct correct but you're also seeing a lot of the houses that are being built larger with smaller backyards so then I I just I think it maybe more study yes it sounds like we should continue this for more uh right because often times too you can think about and it always shocks me because for someone who likes a big backyard the number of these multi all the homes that are built where it's yeah it's literally from here to where that's the water and all you have is a pool and a deck there and that's all there's no backyard so which also means that there's a front part that has a lot of landscaping and grass and all you know so I just it doesn't work the way you know the way people are living right now to be restricting the backyard like that Michael is this a perhaps a byproduct of some of the larger um uh coverage lot coverage ratios that are allowed now now for single family homes so we um I think so the the county has a requirement for certain um permability for the entire lot we don't have that we have it based upon front yard rear yard we don't have a requirement for well what about more like the county and let people decide where they want to put their Green Space or not like where we're instead of restricting the front and back then let it gives people the freedom to to to manage that you know and to make the numbers work in their in their design I just think it needs a lot little and we're also also to more aligned with the county which makes it a little bit easier most of the time for people to navigate when they're trying to figure out what they I I think I can come back to you with some information from the county I think it would be good though to be on the same page with what we consider um permeable or not permeable and I think it would be better to have you know um either a number and an exception because it either either is permeable or it's not permeable but again you've got you can have you can have River Rocks you can have little that's say it's easy it's easy to accommodate so I think we all agree that that um people can accommodate the permeability with Paving I know what when I redo my driveway it's going to be 100% permeable um pavement because I have a lot of water issues on my property um so it can be done I think the issue really is the the pools yes so do mer and also an applicability Clause as to um anything that's in process have been approved already yeah so I yeah that's that was a suggestion on the applicability Clause yeah and then also I think it's important to like take a look at um um older homes that that they're already built to a certain point so they don't have any flexibility to move the pool versus I know some people in my area that are that want to do some things with their walkways and driveways but they're yeah we don't want to necessarily require a variance or have them to go through that correct the process and yeah that's a a big point to make because you know when you somebody's building a brand new home and they have a vacant lot there are certain zoning guidelines that the city has and they know what they can and can do um so if they choose to build a huge house and put a small pool in the back I mean that's their choice but on smaller Lots where there's already a home buildt and somebody wants to renovate the home Dad's going they're going to run into some issues so I think we really need they have historic they're having difficulties having you know you shouldn't have to you know do all these things so Elizabeth you're going to move to postp i' like to continue February continue this um and let give you a couple of months to come back or what do you let's continue till February and then we can see if we need to that sounds okay okay can I get a second on that continuous second Scott Scott seconded all in favor I all opposed all right before I I believe um believe Elizabeth has a suggestion for a future discussion item oh I'd like to um talk about at bringing back the bankr at 1500 um it's not 1500 yeah 15501 colins um that property has been has a previous cup issued and it was issued I think in 21 I think what's what what's the business it's it's a vacant hotel that is just sitting there and I'm afraid for it I think that we need to you're worried that they're just letting it I think so that and I think I'd like to find out I'd like to bring the owners back find out what's going on with it um um and and they have a cup yeah they do yes that's operative believe so yes it's not nothing's going on there nope think so it's vacant and it is being all right so we have the ability to bring them well I think we can let them know we're going to put this as a discussion item out in February invite them to attend and respond to any questions i' like to discuss that with you right you would be ask you'd be asking them to to appear before the board it's not like a no no I understand but I'm I get and I well taken I'm just trying to again understand the the the the process so they have a cup but they're not operating anything okay the fact they have a cup entitles us to bring them before us you can ask they don't have to you can ask you know as a courtesy that they come to the board to find out what their plan is with the property okay do we have any powers to only if there's in violation of the cop can we then send each they're not operating there's obviously no is your concern they're letting it to TI Al loville yes right right so is there any otheres or other Departments of the city can be um addressing that the concern of it I thought wait I thought we passed an ordinance about that that that because of the dovel that if you let something deteriorate they would have to replicate didn't we pass something like that you can't the state I thought we oh well yes but I think what Elizabeth I think what you're asking you're just asking them to provide an update on the project I understand but her ultimate concern didn't we pass something that addressed that issue about an owner letting a property deteriorate to the point where it has to be demolished yes you strengthen the rules on and the and the presumption that if a bu if a contributing building is demolished without prior approval of the HPB that the presumption is that the new building has to be replicated right that's um there there was this the state stepped in uh last year and preempted the city from requiring replication of certain Coastal buildings think though the bankr would be in the area that is exempt because it's in the National register yes I I think it's within the boundaries of the national register District it so it would be so so we the the hbb could require replication if we get to that point I'm not sure we're anywhere near that point but so would the discussion item be to have them come on invitation to please come to the planning board to tell us what you're what's going on can we do all right how is our is our February agenda really full already should be okay um but I just if the board wants to we do have some public comment I forgot to take on the last item do you want to hear some members of the public speak on the prvious yeah they took the time and we continued it but happy to hear them sure so I can call on the first Speaker Wesley Keane yeah he's the one that sent the email right okay Wesley we we listened to you and we continued it but if you want to say something feel free yeah I appreciate it good good afternoon Wesley keing Kota offices at 7 7500 noreast forth Court um I appreciate the sentiment and the intent behind this code in fact in addition to being mainly a residential architect practicing with 90% of our projects in Miami Beach we were also sponsored by the late uh commissioner samul and to look at permeability across the alleyway network of Miami Beach so this is also an issue that we care deeply about um as you know as you noted in my email the um what I'm concerned about and I'm looking at data across projects is how this might be particularly punitive on smaller scaled Lots um I agree with Michael that the county has regulations on lot permeability you know a lot of our work as as Michael and the city staff knows it really adopts Courtyards and Courtyards are a great way to bring light air into the home but also increase permeability across the lot in our current designs with Courtyards that doesn't really get us any credit outside of lot coverage towards the added perme ability that it might Grant to a lot based on the County's initiative um so I think that this is a well-intended uh you know effort but I think it could be enhanced and and maybe checked against some some of our work even and I'd be happy to to be open Michael for some sort of um Workshop if that's of use to you to maybe offer some ideas for instance uh swimming pools like other elements of the home what comes to mind is a two-car garage they don't necessarily increase on a percentage base with an increase of lot right that a two-car garage is sized to combinate two cars a swimming pool is typically sized you know 15 by3 or 12 by 40 something like that so um by by having the permeability in the rear tied to the swimming pool it forces smaller lots to have smaller Siz pools but you know potentially as the as the code recognizes the garage situation it offers a maximum square foot uh towards lot coverage and unit size on the garage it could it could offer something similar to pools that gives the ability for smaller size lots to still have you know a normal a regular siiz pool um as I mentioned I don't want to belabor it but the the pool as a body um of water is is a great way to store water there are ways to divert that overpour into dry Wells and engineered systems um soil is it's a common misnomer that soil is a good source of drain AG but in fact what you're looking for to store water is a lot of airspace so you you you know ballast Rock gravel someone mentioned River Rock these are great ways to store water ironically Lawns are somewhat an efficient way to store water so I think perhaps with um a conversation we could help really craft this language to really suit the sponsoring Commissioners initiative while also protecting those smaller lot homeowners I thank you for everybody's time thank you ly our next caller is Johan Moore yes good afternoon one final time I want to thank the last speaker for uh both reminding us of commissioner saman's uh interest in the subject of drainage broadly but also gesturing to the Future uh there has been um a fair amount of discussion both within the neighborhood my neighborhood and within sustainability committee about the specific subject of porous Pavements and I know that that is only an aspect of this and a rather prospective one but as we move forward on behalf of sustainability committee which had a rather lengthy uh discussion uh about this recently um I would urge that as you move forward you specifically ask for uh the city Engineers um views that we found um very important regarding um where Horus or prvious Pavements are located if they are located too low they will have uh the opposite effect under heavy rainfall conditions where the water will in fact bubble back up through them and I'm specifically talking about the Pavements this is not some uh implied objection to to Lawns or what have you quite the contrary um and while again your focus now is primarily on single family homes and those do not as a rule I believe well maybe mid Beach uh sit on the coastal ridge the coastal ridge is in fact the most ideal spot for pervious Pavements whereas lower Ling properties in fact as was mentioned before elevation is probably the only way out of these issues there was a concern raised uh and I wanted to address that to head it off that in fact porest Pavements are suspected of a negative side effect if you will of concentrating uh pollutants underground because they would be funneled toward that poorest pavement um that seems to not be a concern um uh members of the sustainability committee with far greater expertise than I um uh thought through that and in fact dialogued their way through that with the city engineer and the city engineer in fact has expressed support in principle uh for poorest Pavements um uh realizing that that that is probably not a leading concern the concentration pollutions where as though as said uh the elevation of the property relative to its underlying water table is something you really would want to keep in mind as you go forward thank you very much thank you our next caller is Larry schaer sorry there I'm unmuted now I believe uh this is Larry Schaefer 23381 Street in North Beach I want to uh make mention that perious concrete has an additional issue of Maintenance unlike additional uh traditional concrete perious concrete should be vacuumed every 6 to 12 months to remove sand and soil that might develop in the in the voids that are within the prvious concrete and that's not something that everyone plans to do when they pour concrete that are expecting to fix it and forget it but if you want to have perious concrete and have it pass water through you need to make sure that the voids are clear of debris over time and um if you want to see an example of some failed prvious concrete you just need to walk up the beachwalk to 87 Terrace where um I believe David Martin's team put down some perious concrete you can see it uh has failed already with grass growing through it um and so I'm not sure if that's a maintenance issue or an issue with the mix of the perious concrete there what they added to it um but there are some failed perious concrete already right here um and uh I would also say that if you increase the perious coverage front back or sidey yards be prepared to see a lot more gravel gravel is a lot easier to put down and doesn't require permit it's a lot easier to maintain than uh than grass as well so I don't know is it more attractive to see all this gravel in people's yards um of course people with money can buy uh better Pebbles they can buy River Rocks you can even get pink Bermuda River Rocks and import that but uh I would I would bet that many homeowners would take the easy route and uh drop a bunch of gravel down so please expect to see more of that if you increase the prvious requirements uh one more idea is that uh you can also do a floating deck style walkways basically what that is is you put down landscaping fabric you put down a beded gravel and then you do a little pressure treated Framing and then you put deckboards on top and that allows you to elevate your walkway 12 Ines maybe 18 inches and that way when you get flooding you can walk outside of your house just a little bit now these are floating deck systems are legal without permits in the city of Miami and other mun IP alties but I'm not quite sure if the building department would allow you to put a floating deck system in Miami Beach so these are just some ideas I'm glad that this group has continued the item because I think there's some discussions uh that can be had and resources and people who could contribute to this topic thank you okay our next caller is Jennifer mccan good afternoon everybody and thank you for your time on this um I think the last couple callers have had some really great points um I I want to add just a few things and I'll keep it short um the the in the front the perious pavers um I think we really need to make sure that language is is is a little bit more defined um we also those previous papers do not last forever um so you know after a while you know they will need maintenance um and also on the rear yard um I know we you know we were we're worried about the smaller homes and I think that's really important but the larger homes which may have a bigger surface of pool area in the rear yard um the the the pools do act as storage so you know in the winter you know I'm praying for rain so I don't have to refill up my pool um with with the city water so I you know I really do think we shouldn't um penalize the the smaller or larger homes um with the with um not counting the pool as 50% perious um the last point I want to make is I think one of the one of the board members mentioned let's look at the let's look at the area of the of the lot as a whole so maybe you know we have a courtyard or we have um you know other areas where we're providing prvious areas it's not only in the front because some homes have a very small Frontage where they're going to need a a 20ft wide driveway in there and that's it's not going to work if we reduce that square footage so um those are my points and thank you for taking all this into consideration today thanks and our last caller is Matt amster good afternoon Matt amster with the law firm of Burke alel Fernandez Lin and tapenz offices at 200 South biscan Boulevard um I'll be brief uh I have listened to and appreciate the discuss as you seek to find the right balance for resiliency and sustainability uh I also want to thank you for acknowledging the efforts of many impress applicants uh I did share an applicability Clause by email and heard that that likely will be included uh we do need to make sure that people whove put in months and months of effort and design uh is properly acknowledged and do not have to make substantial changes uh we look forward to seeing the revisions next month thank you so much thanks Matt all right Mike you get your work cut out for you yeah it seems like the people have spoken sorry sorry so that um we're going to put um we've continued that till the February meeting we're going to place a discussion on the bankr um next month to notify the the property owners and with that that um concludes our agenda unless anybody else has any other business thank you it adjourned thank you thank you see you all next month e e and