Thank you. Thank you. down. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. N. Fire. Higher. I'm going to sleep.
Feel fire. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. down. N Hey, hey, feel.
Feel yeah. D hey. Heat. Hey, Heat. Baby, baby. out. It failed. F.
You Baby, baby. Hey, hey, hey. 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. >> Good morning everyone and welcome to our
April 13 April 14th, 2026 historic preservation board in the city of Miami Beach. Uh I'm Lindsay Levelvel the chair and uh I'm going to turn it over to our city attorney to explain how you can participate in this meeting. >> Thank you. Good morning. Today's meeting
of the historic preservation board is being conducted in a hybrid format with a quorum of the board physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicant staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. Those wishing to participate via Zoom may dial
888-4754499 which is the toll-free number and enter the webinar ID which is 817-48347488 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 817-48347488. Individuals wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if using
the Zoom app or dial star9 if participating by phone. Before I swear in those who are testifying, I'm going to read into the record the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration. If you are appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, including as an architect, attorney, or representative of an
applicant, or an objector, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office before you speak to the board. You do not have to register if you are speaking only on behalf of yourself, you are testifying as an expert witness providing scientific, technical, or other specialized
testimony in this public meeting, or you are appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support for or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing
disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they are communicating. These rules apply whether you are appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. I will now swear on everyone who is physically present in
the commission chambers and intends to testify, virtual speakers will be sworn in one by one before addressing the board. So if you will be giving testimony uh please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will be giving is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>> Thank you. >> Now before we begin, I just want to go over the attendance today. We do have um six of seven members present. Ray President is absent today. I'd like to welcome our newest member um Nick Jelpie. He served on the planning board for several years. So welcome to this board, Nick.
The first item we have on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the March 17th meeting. >> That's that's okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve it. >> Okay. >> So Mitch made the motion. Elizabeth second the motion. All in favor?
>> I opposed. Now we have two requests for continuences. Um, the first is HPB25-0683 for uh 1680 Collins Avenue and 1671 James Avenue, the San Juan Hotel. Is the applicant here for this application?
Hi, Mr. Lin. >> Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, board member of staff. Michael Larkin, 20 South Kane Boulevard here on the applicant. He cannot be here today and we're further refining the plan. So, we respectfully request a continuous till June.
Just let me get the June meeting date. >> I guess I'll make a motion to continue the item. >> That's the June 9th meeting. >> I'll second that motion. >> Mr. Hask was a second motion. All in favor? But actually before that we take any public comment on the request for
continuance and there's nobody online with their hand raised. So um all in favor of the motion to continue this application to the June 9th meeting. >> I posted continue to >> Thank you very much. The next request for continuence is um
HPB25-0656 for 1600 Washington Avenue 42516th Street and 161 Drexel Avenue. Mr. Kasden, >> good morning. Niss Kasden representing the applicant the property owned by Ambassador Seahos. We request a continuence of the May meeting.
>> Is there anybody in the audience um public comment on the request for continuence for this application? Seeing none. Anybody online? There's nobody online with their hand raised. Can I get a motion to continue this to the main meeting May 12th? >> I'll make that motion.
>> Motion made by Mr. Novik, seconded by Miss Kamargo. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Motion passes six to zero. Is the applicant here for 230 Palm Avenue?
Is he online? Um, let's see. If the applicant is not here for 230 Palm Avenue, I suggest we move on to the the next application, which is the uh the W Hotel, which is HPV25-0676 for 2201 Collins Avenue. Give me just a
minute. So this application again is HPB25-0676. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, uh, we're still waiting for a couple members of our team to assemble. So if it's possible, Sure. Can we >> put this off a little bit? Few minutes. >> No problem.
>> Thank you. Do we have the applicant here for the 235 Washington Avenue? >> Well, I want to continue the tradition that Nissan just started. >> Nice. >> We have a couple of members of our team that are still coming and I would greatly appreciate tableabling this
until a little bit later. Okay. >> Moving too fast today. But in front of in front of Nisens but later >> this is the only chance. >> Um how about the applicant for the deco plush 100 road >> um I am in a similar situation. Uh our
design team Kobe Karp and Jose Gomez are on their way. Uh Kobe Karp has actually requested that if he could be heard after noon, but if that's not possible, uh our other architect, Jose Gomez, will be here around 10. Um okay. However, if for whatever reason, I'm happy and very
prepared to give a presentation myself. It's a very nice project. I'm very excited to present to you guys. So, >> thanks, Carlos. >> Thank you. >> Let's move on um to the next applicant for 298 Lincoln Road. Are they here in the in the audience? >> 298 Lincoln Road. >> 298 Lincoln Road. Going once, going
twice. Okay. Um, >> the next application, the citywide digitalformational kiosks, >> anybody here for that application? >> Alfredo, >> do you want Are you ready for the discussion item? >> Are you kidding me?
>> All right, let Alfredo go. Well, since you said I was last, my client did fly down and he's not here yet. And I also also Kobe's part of our project. So, you had told us by around noon time, but so >> you come on.
>> We'll take we'll take we'll take a little break then. >> He's leaving. >> We'll take a break till the applicant gets here. Um, >> one the kiosk are ready to go. Ready? Kiosk are ready. >> Give me a second. I'll tee up that application. >> Call Matt. See where he is. Before
you begin, Mr. Larkin, I just want to inform everyone here that we do have a board member leaving at 1:00 today. >> Okay. >> So, we'll be down to five people at 1:00. >> Understood. Thank you for that. >> So, the um the next application, which
is the last application on on the agenda today, which is going first, is uh HPB26-0685, the digital information kiosk. These are two locations on Washington Avenue. Um, this includes Washington Avenue and 8th Street and Washington Avenue and 12th
Street. Now, the application the applicant is requesting a continuence of the part of the application that includes the um the kiosk that was proposed for Espanola and Drexel. So, as part of this, we'd ask for two motions if the board is comfortable with approving the kiosk. One to approve the
locations on Washington Avenue and the second motion to continue the location along Espanola and Drexel to a future meeting date. Now these kiosks came before the board um about one or two years ago and the board reviewed a modified design for the historic districts that was different than the districts that were outside outside the
historic districts with this um profile wave. So this application maintains that that same design uh as approved by the board as part of the application. Now this is as part of this overall review process. The city commission required that for any application for this kiosk
requires a mail notice to all the residents of the city. So, um, everybody in the city that's that, um, lives here as a as a resident. We got a mail notice. We received several comments asking people, you know, people asking, "Why did I receive this mail notice? I'm so far away." Well, was the commission required that everybody be noticed when these kiosks came before the the store
preservation board. So, at this time, the the Washington Avenue kiosk meet the the requirements um for distance separation from the corner um for providing the um the minimum pedestrian um w clearances along the sidewalk. So we are recommending approval of the two
locations along Russian Avenue and continuence of the application regarding the address of the Drexel Avenue location to future date. I turn over to to Mr. Larkin for his presentation. >> Great. Thank you Mr. Belaluch. Uh good morning again madam chair where Michael Larkin turn. I think the lesson we all
learned today is get here at 9:00 because you never know and I apologize for the confusion that my applications caused you all. Um I think you all remember this from prior years. We came before you. Um, you had asked for an evolution in the design to better match
the Miami Beach environment. We responded very well. We had Bill Lane come in and reshape the design of the kiosk to make it much more consistent with the Miami Beach uh ethos and we are successful in that regard and the kiosk have been installed in large part and as
you can see they're in different parts of the city now looking quite nice. Um, and now we'd like to invite uh Jabbron and Nick up to the podium. We're going to give you a presentation regarding these new sites. >> Good morning board members. My name is Jon Sher Muhammad. I'm executive vice
president for Ike Smart City and uh a proud punctual applicant. Um thank you for hearing us today. Um, I want to give you guys just a a brief summary of our business and our program considering that many of the board members here weren't present at the
prior many board meetings where we've presented. Um, and I'm happy to rush through this as um, as you guys see fit. Please feel free to let me know if I should move along. Um, we do have a presentation that we sent ahead of time. Great. Thank you. >> Um, does this clicker work or should I just
ask for next slide? >> Um, Okay, let's go to the next slide, please. There we go. Okay, so um our company um uh is the the most widely distributed uh um interactive kiosk provider in the
nation. We um uh have installed and operate this program everywhere in the country, ranging from, you know, here in Miami Beach all the way to Seattle, from as far northeast as Philadelphia and southwest as San Diego. Um, we have installed this program and operated it
through multiple types of urban environments and through multiple types of weather. As you can see here, we're live in Minneapolis where we've been for many years where it's shiveringly cold and the snow cleanup has been successfully managed and in Houston where we deal with the sea salt air and
of course in Miami Beach as well. Um, we uh are are very proud of the technical innovations we've made in this program. Just by way of background, you walk up to the kiosk, you tap the screen, and it unlocks and it opens a series of applications. They help you figure out
where to eat and drink, where to shop, where to play, where to stay, broadly, how to navigate the city. But unlike your phone where when you go to Google or Yelp, it's showing you those businesses that have paid for search engine optimization at the top, this organizes based on proximity. So when
you type in when you uh select eat and drink and you select a restaurant, it's going to organize based on proximity. So that way your local businesses who aren't able to pay the big rates to compete with national brands on search engines are seeking a way to promote
themselves. They're elevated to the top of the listing because they're closest to the kiosk. And these kiosks are located, as you'll see, at multiple locations throughout the city. So the net effect is that your local businesses end up with prioritized placement across the city in the search engine function.
Um uh now um nobody's able to pay for elevated placement. So there isn't any sort of sorting mechanism besides simple proximity when you select directory. In addition to that, we're helping people find food aid, addiction recovery resources, safe shelter. Um by way of
reminder, the city pays nothing for this program. We install the program. You'll see here this is the customized design based on feedback from this board and recommended coordination with Bill Lane um to develop this design. You guys have
seen these across the city. This is the design of the network across the nation. So you can tell here a significant departure from the nationwide design to create a Miami Beach specific design for this program that's been implemented here. um
uh happy to go through any of the other specific elements we've developed. We work closely with MDPL and other organizations across Miami Beach to develop beach specific not only design but also applications. You can do an art deco walking tour on the kiosk to help
you understand the historic nature of all the buildings and your surroundings. Um I think everyone is familiar with all the functionality. The kiosks also broadcast emergency warnings when there's an emergency event. The city has a direct feed to broadcast that information right away. Um, the city
pays nothing for the program and we show ads on the screen when the kiosk is not being used. Those ads are how we generate revenue for the program and we share revenue back with the city as well. We we've also worked closely with community organizations in the city. Um,
we have submitted letters of support from the Wilsonian, the Jewish Museum of Florida, um, Miami New Drama, Miami City Ballet, New World Symphony, and kind of the list goes on. Not only do we have letters of support from these organizations, but also we collaborate with them closely to develop
applications that support um, their mission as well. All uh, free for these organizations and push them out on the kiosk network. Again, for free. Um here are a few examples of some of these collaborations with community organizations who have really enjoyed
this collaboration with us. Um here is a brief timeline of the program. We were awarded an RFP back in 2022. We came before this board and the design review board multiple times. So you many of you probably remember um and
then iterated on the design multiple times as well through the feedback of this board and the design review board and of course collaborating with Bill Lane. This map shows the number of units installed. The entire um deployment contemplates 30 units. Um we're here
today um working on on three two units as part of the first phase implementation. Um, again, as uh as was referenced earlier, we're obligated to send out notifications to um uh uh property
owners across the city, and we did that. Um, and then this shows uh a number of our content restrictions, nothing sexually explicit, nothing violating the city sponsorship policies, no tobacco, no firearms. Um, happy to make sure all of you guys have have seen this if you'd
like it in your inbox or anything. Um, besides that, I want to quickly get to the specific sites we're discussing here today. Um, so I'm going to pass it on to my colleague Nick to to talk through the specific sites.
>> Morning everyone. Can you hear me? All right. Um, so here is a map of the previously approved locations along with the two locations we are seeking approval for today. Red pins indicate the locations previously approved by the historic preservation board, while the two green
pins are the locations previous previously approved by the design review board. Um, and then the two locations we're seeking for approval today are in orange. Um, and within the Washington Avenue corridor, there are currently two active kiosks, one at Washington and
10th Street and another at Washington and 6th Street. The two proposed locations today are at Washington and 8th Street and Washington and 12th Street. And this would create a consistent every other block cadence for kiosk placement within Washington Avenue.
Um so moving on to the first proposed location. Um this image provides a satellite overhead uh of the proposed placement with the arrow indicating the location on the west side of Washington Avenue. Um and some background on why this
location was selected. one, it aligns with the every other block cadence I mentioned um on Washington Avenue and has the support of the Washington Avenue bid. This site is also located near Old City Hall and several museums and sits within close proximity to high dense
retail and restaurants along Washington Avenue. And importantly, the proposed placement maintains a 10-ft clear pedestrian walkway and ADA compliance. Um, so this map here shows a zoning of the nearby area surrounding the kiosk. As you can see, it's all zoned
commercial. And then here are some renderings of the proposed kiosk placement. One thing to note is you'll see that the placement is offset from the entrance of that adjacent business to ensure that customers can walk in and out of the exit there without any um impediment.
So here are some more renderings of the pros kiosk placement. And here are some drawings showing the sidewalk width, proximity, proximity to nearby bus shelters and adjacent businesses. And moving on to the second proposed
location at Washington and 8th Street. Here is an overhead satellite view. You'll see that the proposed kiosk placement there is on the northeast corner of the intersection. Um so in addition to maintaining that every other block cadence I mentioned, uh this location sits within a large pedestrian bumpout um which serves as a
n natural stopping point at for pedestrians along Washington Avenue. Um this site is surrounded by numerous restaurants and retail. Um, so this would be a great spot for a a kiosk with directory listings so people can find the nearby uh places to visit. And the
site maintains a pedestrian walking path of over 10 ft in ADA compliance. Um, again, here is the zoning of the nearby area. You'll see that it's zoned commercial and some renderings. Um, again, similar to the other location, this one's offset
from the entrance to the nearby b uh the nearby business to ensure um no obstruction to the exit and entrance. Um, and then you could also see the large pedestrian bump out there on the sidewalk. Um, so here are some renderings
and again here are drawings of the proposed kiosk placement showing the dimensions from nearby objects, sidewalk width, bus shelters, and adjacent businesses. Um, and here are a few photos of actual Miami Beach kiosk. Um, so here's one on Lincoln Road and Meridian Avenue,
another on Lincoln Road and Pennsylvania Avenue, and another on Collins and 16th. And with that, uh, happy to answer any questions on the sites, um, or the program. Yeah. Do we have any board disclosures?
>> I have a disclosure. Uh the architect, Bill Lane, has uh done work for me in the past. >> Okay. Any board question? Uh board questions? >> I have a disclosure, too. Um I met with
Matthew Amster about this item on a Zoom call. Also, uh, William Lane has been to my house for dinner. >> Now that we've done disclosures, any questions from the board for the applicant? >> Yeah, I have a question. Uh, something you said uh, piqu my interest. Addiction
recovery resources. That's I imagine in the event a homeless person should uh go up to the kiosk and inquire for some help. Not just them. In a lot of cities, the um police services
or emergency dispatch services will approach the kiosk with somebody who's seeking help or when called to a location in order to find the nearest by resources in all places. Emergency services don't have ready access to that information. are providing on the kiosk presents another outlet for them to
serve uh someone in need in that moment. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? >> I have a few questions. Sorry. I have a few questions for staff. Um are we just confirming the location of these? Is
that what we're doing? >> Yeah, just confirm the location. It's not to redesign the whole application. And so just let you know for comparison purposes the the part of the application pertaining to the location on Espanola and Drexel is one that we had a concern with regarding the size and that location. So they're they're working on
that. So definitely the overall size and location is up to your purview. This does this location does meet the minimum requirements specified in in the contract. >> Okay. >> So I have a few general questions. Um so you mentioned that there are three more
to finish the first phase right so that would bring us to 15 kiosks and do you have more phases already planned? >> One more phase of 15 under our contract but we have to go back to the full um commission for that phase and then we'll be coming back here for those locations.
So the next phase will not be um advancing without further approval here. >> Thank you. And um so how do you measure the success of your kiosks? um two factors. Uh first by usage. Um
we're very proud of the fact that nationwide the kiosks receive over 750 interactions um per month per kiosk. Um in Miami Beach we have some of the most um anywhere in the country. Um in addition to that revenue um we're uh
sharing a significant sum of revenue with the city. We share financial reports on a regular basis. >> And my next question is for the city. Have you received any complaints um regarding the kiosk, the maintenance of the kiosk, anything like that?
>> I haven't heard of any such issues or complaints. >> Thank you. >> Pleasure. >> Um the advertising on the kiosk, is there any I assume it's whoever wants to pay for it. Is it any preference for local businesses to advertise on the
kiosk? I assume they will pay too if they advertise. >> So local businesses are provided a discounted rate card. Okay. So local businesses actually first they're presented on the kiosk for free on the directory. So when you're searching something, they don't pay for that. But if they want to broadcast on the passive
mode, which is kind of the ad slideshow, they have a discounted rate card up to 50%. What type of uh percentage do you get of local businesses in Miami Beach? Many as far as advertising on the um kiosk.
>> Nationwide, we're about 8020. About 80% of our advertisers are big national brands and 20% are local. Um we're building a local sales force in Southern Florida. So the objective is to is to sell more to those local advertisers at
that discounted rate card. Um and so we're attempting to increase that business. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any businesses precluded from advertising on your >> Sure. Um and if uh whoever is running the slideshow can go back to that slide.
Anything lewd and tobacco um uh firearms um uh competitive products to the citywide um sponsorship program. um businesses that engage in activity that require the exclusion of minors. Um this
is all a list pulling from our contract that's been executed with the city. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Has I have a question. Um on the one in the 1200 block, why did you not position it on the 1100 block
where you have it currently positioned? you only have five foot of clearance or six feet of clearance to the building and it really impedes the flow of pedestrian movement. On the adjacent block in front of city hall, there's plenty of room to maneuver
around that. And when you look at the um rendering that you're proposing, you can see how it obstructs it in the southbound view. Why haven't you placed it on the 1100 block? Yeah, one thing to note is
that we have to be 250 250 ft from any bus shelter. Um, so this placement is due to that offset requirement. >> Um, where's the I'm sorry, I didn't see the bus shelter. Where is this? >> So, the one that is closest will be
>> Could we please go to the presentation on the screen? Thank you. >> Yep. North of the intersection, but there's also one to the south, I believe. So, if you look on the circle on the on the right hand side of this page, there's a yellow little circle below the big red circle. That yellow
circle is the location of the bus shelter. And so, you can see we're obligated to be at that lo we're obligated to be that distance from the bus shelter. >> I missed the yellow little circle. >> Sure. Sorry. >> Um, >> and and we're trying to point it out on
the screen here. It's where the cursor is on the screen. Why is the proximity to the bus shelter a requirement? >> That that's pursuant to the city's agreement with outfront for the bus shelters and the same provisions
reflected in our agreement with Ike for the digital kiosks. >> You have one on 8th Street now. You're proposing one on 8th Street. I guess that's an equidistant point. 12th Street to the 15th Street. But one of the things that I don't want to see is this
city littered with kiosks everywhere you look. I don't think this is u this particular block warrants it. I don't have it, you know, I don't oppose it on 8th Street where it's there's plenty of pedestrian movement
and on u Espanolia Way, but in this particular location, I can't support it. The one of the other factors in citing these locations has been feedback from the Washington Avenue bid. Um, and they've been instrumental in our sighting. And so all all of these
locations have not only been vetted by them, but also are first contemplated with their recommendation. >> Question. >> Any other questions? So, we'll go to any public comment. >> We do have some people with their hand
raised online. Um, first is Johan Moore. >> Johan, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. Uh, good morning, uh, board members and staff. Um, I I'll actually start by saying I did have my
hand up um when the continuences were being discussed and I will permit myself a comment on that before commenting on the on the kiosks. Um, the public is disadvantaged by continuences. The public has a strong suspicion that
continuences are frequently employed by developers in order to outlast the public and demoralize it after repeated continuences from in fact showing up to express its concerns uh or objection to
a project. Um and it was noteworthy that there was much amusement in the audience at various presenters and developers being late. Uh that also inconveniences the public. Um on the subject of the
kiosks, I think there has been a strong sense that they are incompatible with the historic district. I do not believe this board has the right today to object to certain locations, but uh or to prevent those from being being placed
there. But if you choose to express your disapproval of placement of these in the historic district, I think that would find much support uh in the community. Thank you. >> Our next caller is Nico Duke. >> Nico, do you swear to tell the truth?
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Hi. Yes, I do. >> Thank you. You have two minutes. >> Hi. Thank you. Um I just um as a resident of um South Beach, specifically Miami Beach in general, um I wanted to
echo um some of the previous um comment uh commenters sentiments. Um I think um at the end of the day, these sign these um kiosks really provide nothing for the public of the city of Miami Beach. Um they're ugly. They're inconvenient. They impede um traffic. They don't really add
anything to the city. I think it's an extractive proposition that we're um seeing this morning. I don't see how this benefits anybody who actually lives in the city of Miami Beach. And I actually don't see how it benefits tourists. Um as somebody who's lived in a few different cities throughout the
world in my life, um to be frank, um I think what these end up turning into is um entertainment for homeless people. Um, and while we certainly hope that um, the unpals get the help that they need, I don't think that installing giant TV screens on the street is the answer. Um,
so I eat up my time. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Troy Wright. >> Troy, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Uh, yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Troy Wright, executive director, Washington Avenue Business Improvement
District. Um, we enjoy the kiosk. As a matter of fact, I've talked to many of the business owners. Um, they like the functionality of it and the convenience of them. Um, the kiosk are more than just information points. Um, they're a layer of support for the entire
corridor. And, uh, they also help visitors feel comfortable, help residents stay informed, and, um, reinforce really a safer and more connected Washington Avenue. Um, I'm on the street every single day and I cannot
tell you how many people have come up to me asking me where Ocean Drive is, where the beach is, understanding that it's only two blocks away. So, they're informative and I think they're insightful and I think they are a help to the visitors and the tourists and we
support them um on Washington Avenue. >> That concludes our online callers. Okay. Any board commentary? >> No. Okay. Um, so staff has asked for >> I'm sorry, Lizzie. May I >> I have a question for you.
>> The one on Washington, um, close to 12th Street. Uh, what's the minimum distance you mentioned it's you need to have between the kiosk and the bus shelter? >> 250 ft. >> Okay. Because I was going to suggest if you could move a little closer to the
corner because even though you're not overlapping it with the front of the restaurant, it's still very close to the front of the restaurant. And on busy evenings when you have the customers coming in and out and if you have a group of tourists trying to figure out where to go, that may create a little bit of a commotion in front of the
restaurant since you have a few feet to afford because it's only you have currently 268. So you have a little wiggle room. So, I would suggest to move a little closer to the intersection with 12th Street. >> We we can accommodate that. Just for
background information, we did site that location with Troy and noticed to the restaurant owner. So, not only are they aware, but they were comfortable with that sighting and approved of it and, you know, saw no issue there. I think in photograph it may look a little closer than how it feels in real life,
especially because we have that clear path of travel as well. So, there's a good amount of distance between the kiosk and the doorway, but to the extent that it's it's critical for approval today, adjusting it a few feet closer to the intersection is no problem for us. >> That's Tony Sushi, right?
>> Yeah, it's Tony's Mitch. >> Yeah. Uh, what about changing or modifying the orientation? You say there's a great amount of distance. What are you talking 5T? It uh >> No, we have actually the distance in the drawing. We can show you. Um, do you
have the exact distance from uh back of kiosk to back of sidewalk? >> Yep. Um, >> this little right here looks like 6 and 1/2 ft. >> Well, I don't think that's the one we're talking about. >> Oh, sorry. >> 12 Street also says 65. >> Oh, yeah. This is the one.
>> That's it. >> So, we have a minimum setback of 5 ft of clear path of travel between back of kiosk and back of sidewalk. But then if you go to the elevation drawing, you'll see that also the door is recessed a little bit. Go to the >> Yeah. >> And you'll see the door is recessed a
little bit. That adds another 5 ft or so. And so we end up with, you know, it's 6 ft from the back of kiosk to the back of sidewalk and then it's several feet from that location to the door, which is why there was enough space. But if your preference is to move further towards the intersection um by a couple
of feet, call it 5 or 10 feet, we're happy to accommodate that. What about changing the orientation? >> So, changing the orientation is problematic because it's dual-sided interactive. You end up with one person with their back to traffic interacting with the kiosk, and that presents an
immediate safety concern. Got it. >> I would think if you shifted closer to Tony's, you would need to re-engage with them and and discuss that again. But >> that's right. Yeah. >> Do we have a motion? I I would make it a motion to approve.
Um I don't know if we need a condition, anything said if anybody wants to add, but I would motion to approve. >> Did you want to add a condition to that, Nick? >> I didn't, but if if anyone else does. >> Is there a second to that motion for approval? This would to prove the two
locations in Washington. >> What is it? >> My motion was just to approve, but if you want to add a condition to that, feel free. I I don't want to approve that particular location. >> Your mic, please. >> As I said, I can't support that particular location simply because it
really impedes the flow of uh pedestrian movement. If they're willing to move it one block south, I'm okay. The other locations I don't have an issue with, but the way I see it, it's just uh just an obstacle for people
moving around it. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Okay. Is there another motion >> more discussion? >> No, I was just >> Yes. So since we have one of our board
members is not in it's not approved in this location should we separate and vote location per location >> and and board member oh if if your preference is to move it call it 5 ft closer to the intersection and that
would you know lead to that approval we're friendly to that adjustment if that would make you comfortable with both sides. So I just need to clarify because I went back to look at the photo. So in the future it would be interesting if you mark on the plan where the entrances are because the photo depending on the angle it's a
little bit misguiding. So the kiosk right now if I look on page 03 of the package it shows a little bit off from the door of the business 1210.
And it seems that there is one door right behind it, but maybe that's not the one that's being used by Tony Sushi. And there is another door further down the street. So there is this door here and that door. That's the main entrance.
>> So that's right in front of their door. >> I I think this drawing I think drawing number um to the right I'm happy to approach and and share this with you. you'll see that the this angle is oblique, but if you're looking at a
direct angle, you'll see that it's actually offset from the door. Um, and I'm happy to >> That's for the ice cream shop on the right. On the left, Tony's door is right behind that sign on the rendering on the right. Right. >> Right. And I'm happy to approach you and show
you this, but the the intention is for it to be offset from the door. But if what we would if what you would like is for us to move closer to the tree, right? >> Yeah. I I just don't think the chaos should be in front of the door. And it's from the picture is difficult to tell as you mentioned because of the angle and
in the floor plan there is no indication of entrances. You're right. So in the future maybe easier for us to understand better the issue. Absolutely. If you indicate that. >> Absolutely. And what we can do today to just, you know, ensure, you know, consistency with your preference, we
could just commit to moving it 5 ft closer to the tree at minimum, right? So that way >> the door, >> we know for sure that there's going to be five additional feet. We're happy to include that and we're friendly to that amendment at a minimum of 5t further
closer to that tree. Um, and that way you know you have a certainty that we're accounting for your concern. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. Pleasure. >> So >> I do just one more ask just more one more uh question. Are you willing to relocate it to another block?
>> We This is the only site that's available to us because of the bus shelter placement. We would we would love to look at additional blocks, but it was after months of diligence with city staff that we were able to even find these two locations. also working of course with the Washington Avenue bid
to make sure that it was uh serving um their constituents as well. So the these two locations are like finding puzzle pieces um accounting for the 250 distancings from bus shelters and then of course making sure we're we're fitting with the preferences of the Washington Avenue bit.
>> I'm sorry the bus shelters to the north a bit >> I assume right? Let's go to the plan >> to the south. >> Yeah, >> the closest bus shelter is to the north of it, >> but this doesn't show the other bus
shelters in this on the other blocks. So, this only shows the closest bus shelter, but there's another bus shelter. >> Can I Can I remake my motion? Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> It's Mitch had a commentary question. I'm not sure. >> Back to the orientation. How about a 45
degree angle? >> Again, we're going to end up with a a a a greater exposure of somebody with their back towards the street even at a 45 degree angle because you're going to have blind traffic behind you. Um and you know that that's going to be a massive liability for the city and for
us. >> So I I have a question related to what Miss Cargo pointed out. Um, I believe she said that there was 268 ft from the bus shelter in front of the police
station between 11th and 12th. And so what we're talking about here, your suggested modification is 5 ft. But where does that eight, like where does that edge, that 18 ft put us? Because I think where most people are suggesting is on a corner is better than
kind of mid block. So I'm curious, where does 18 ft put us? do you know standing here? >> No. >> Okay. >> Um if you want to modify the recommendation to say that we're as close to the bus shelter as possible. Um
but the the concern we have is that we just can't, you know, exceed our 250 ft distancing. Um but besides that, we just want to find the right location here and of course not impede uh entry and exit from that restaurant. So, I'm going to suggest that we break
them into three. Okay. So, we've talked a little bit about 12. Let's talk about 8. 8th Street, right? 8th Street. >> Sorry, 8th Street. >> Do we have a motion for 8th Street? >> Yeah, I would I would I think it works
well in that location. There's plenty of space. I would make a motion to move it forward as submitted. So, we have a motion, I guess, as per staff recommendations for >> Washington 8 Street. >> For Washington 8. Yes. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> All in favor of that motion? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> The motion passes unanimously. Okay. >> You want to talk about um uh recommendation for approval for the um
Washington and 12th Street with a the additional conditions? I I would just say um longtime customer of Tony's Sushi. Uh yeah, the door is right where it is. Um and I'd be happy to make a motion to
move it forward the condition that it shifts, but I think they should have some say so in that. Um so I'm I'm not I don't want to like mandate that you put it in in place in front of Tony's without them giving some feedback. Um, so I I don't know exactly how to
condition that, but I'd make a motion to move it forward with a condition or we could continue. >> May I respond? >> Sure. >> Um, and so we'd be happy to say something to the effect of at minimum we move it another 5T towards the
intersection so we know there is that clearance, but then between the five and the 18 ft left outstanding, we'd like to just collaborate with Tony Sushi um, and with the Washington Avenue bid. So a minimum of 5 ft distance we'd be happy. >> You're moving it then closer to Tony's, right? That's what
>> No, South. Moving it south >> towards the palm trees. >> So So more into the middle of Tony's. Yes. If >> that's Can we pull up the Can we pull up the um plans again? >> So the northernmost door is the entrance to Tony's. >> Yeah, that's true.
>> Yeah. basically right in line with the sign is there. >> So I believe what the board member is suggesting is to move it closer to that tree so we're further away from that door. And what I'm suggesting is let's go at a minimum of 5 ft but between the five and 18 we have the latitude to
collaborate with the actual owner of that business to make sure that we're just managing their any concerns they have about that spacing and of course the Washington Avenue bit. Excuse me. and working with staff of course to
confirm that new location, including input from the restaurant owner. >> Are there restrictions related to the placement of the the light pole and the sign? I mean, I know they're represented on your drawing. I'm just curious. Are there restrictions there?
>> Our preference is to make sure that a wheelchair can always pull up to a kiosk. And so, you know, uh, accessibility compliance isn't always the clearest code sections, but we want to make sure there's enough space for a cle a wheelchair to pull up, turn around 360° in case they need to turn and pull away. And so, that's what we try to
manage with other things in the rightway, which we believe we can accommodate in that 5 to 18 ft concern. >> I think it's like threading a needle. If it if if we don't have to continue, I'd be comfortable to move it forward with that condition that um, Elizabeth
mentioned. I'm just trying to verify >> location of that restaurant. Um, >> there's two doors, but the main door is to the north. >> That's the main door here. >> Yeah, the black door. >> The black door. Okay. >> But it's two.
>> So, this is >> So, it looks like moving to the south is going to be placing it more in front of Tony's. >> It will, but not >> It will, but not in front of their door. >> Okay. Yeah, >> it'll be more in front of their window, >> which is I think uh the the board members concern is we should accommodate
their preference in the window >> orientation >> because it looks like if either way you have you have a door you have you have to have it separate from the palm tree and to the north side is going to be blocking that that one door and to the south side is going to be blocking you know there's a light pole there. So I
guess you have to move it to the south of that. So it may be more like um >> probably probably more than 10 ft. So, so the door marked 1208 is not used as a entrance. It may be emergency exit, but it's not used as an entrance.
>> The customers know that >> there's approximately 17 ft from the current location and that palm tree. >> So, something spacing between the palm tree and the doors, I think, is fine. >> Which palm tree are we talking about? >> In the image, it was the one on the
left. >> South. I'm happy to approach you with this if you want to see it. >> Yeah. South is to the left and so there's 17 feet between that >> current placement and that tree. >> I mean >> so that seems decent leeway for
>> maybe >> appropriate spacing away from doors and the ADA access to the kios right >> so how far south do we want to move the the kiosk? I would say five to 10 feet south >> at minimum five. But then the remaining
whether it's above five or not is going to be a product of conversations with the property own with the the sushi restaurant and the Washington Avenue bid. >> Can I add that condition, Nick? 5 to 10 ft. >> Is that something staff can?
So I think we if we can add a condition regarding that this location should also be um reviewed in consultation with the with a restaurant location that's adjacent to the bit to the sign >> and the bid. >> Okay. >> I would move it with that condition.
>> Do we have a second of that motion with that condition? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I Any opposed? >> One opposed. The motion passes 5 to one. Mr. Mayor closed. Thank you.
>> And we need one other motion to continue. Yes. Oh, which u meeting do you want to continue? Tail >> to the July 14th, please. >> Okay. So, the motion be to continue the um location at Espanola and Drexel to the July 14th HPV meeting.
We need a motion to continue that part of the application. >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> Do we need public comment on that continuance? >> Yeah, we can take public comment. you you um this there was a public hearing on this um on this application and the
staff recommendation always included the continuence. >> Okay. >> So motion made by Mr. Jelp >> Margo second by Jelp. Um all in favor to continue the location at Espanola and Drexel to the July 14th meeting.
>> I opposed Mr. Mos. Motion passes 5 to one. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Is the architect here for 230 um Avenue? Great. Thank you.
So, the homeowner indicated that due to a um um flooding issue at the house, not because of the rain, but because of um pipes, he cannot be here today. So, the architect is here on the application for for 230 on Palman. Palm Avenue. Just this is again HPB26-0688
for 230 Palm Avenue. Um this is a multi multi-process multi-step application. It includes a um request for variance for a street setback for the construction of a one and twotory addition to this existing home which was designated as an historic property back on October 18th
of 2022. Um the house was originally constructed in 1938 by architect um Harry Nelson back in the late 90s. Um substantial renovations were made to the home which modified the the entrance and garage structure. Now as part of this application it's not often that we see
this before the board um is an advorum tax exemption. The code does allow for single family home properties that are designated but they can get a um a tax exemption for the city portion of the taxes for for 10 years. Um, based upon a preliminary review of this application, it would result in approximately a
reduction of about $1,500 per year over 10 years in terms of reduction. It's not a lot, but it's a little bit. And as part of this application process, there's no fees associated with this this application except for the fees required for mail notice for the prop to mail the the um the neighboring resident. So, this application includes
um a variance. The code requires a 15oot side setback for a side facing the street. The applicants proposing a singlestory addition with a setback of 6'1 in. This follows an existing established um terrace on that side. They're just constructing a singlestory structure more for um screening
mechanical equipment. And then they have a second floor addition on that same side that doesn't quite meet the minimum 15 ft, but it does meet the the same setback of the ground floor, which is about 13 ft. So the first floor setback is 6 ft for a small addition and the second floor setback is 13 ft for a
second floor addition when the code requires 15 ft. We're also asking for a recommendation by this by this board. This board provides a recommendation to the city commission regarding the advorum tax exemption. The city commission makes the the final um review and approval of that advorum tax exemption. Um like I said this the owner
has been going through this process for quite a while now. He submitted his permit drawings. He's just waiting on this process because he can't do the construction until the board has to review this process prior to construction. After the construction is complete, staff reviews it to make sure that the construction was done in accordance to the plans and then the um
the county will approve the the the tax exemption that would the um architect for the application want to add anything to the presentation or go over the presentation? >> Michael, can I just ask out of turn? So, are we >> asked to approve the variance which is the tax
>> today? You're um you're being requested to approve the side sepek variance and are being asked to um provide a recommendation to the city commission regarding the advorum tax exemption. >> We do have a presentation that the applicant submitted. Do you want to go over the presentation? >> Yeah, good morning guys.
>> If I could please swear you in first. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Hi, good morning. Uh yeah, Kyle Mayu. I'm the u engineer of record here on the project. Uh the presentation we have is the the set of plans. Um so if we want
to jump probably to the site plan and then we can go over some of the photos and elevations, we can take a look at what we're proposing. Perfect. >> Should be able here. Hold on. >> There we go. >> Perfect. Thank you.
>> Um so yes, you can see on the right there the proposed site plan. Um the area that we are requesting the variance for is in the uh plan northeast. It's actually the south uh the south plan northwest. I'm sorry. It's actually the southeast corner. Um if I can zoom in
right where the cursor is. Uh so this this will be a proposed u utility room. Uh the reason for this is uh during the addition that um Mr. Belouch was mentioning in the pres in the introduction. Uh they did enclose the
garage and there's no uh proper area for electrical panels and other utilities um at the time. So the other addition is on the second floor balcony on the opposite side. Um again both of these additions are in
line with existing setbacks. So we're not proposing a reduction of any of the existing setbacks. Rather just kind of bringing the building in line with what's already there. So we have some of the kind of historical significance or photos uh describing some of the other work on the
facade. Um we are uh proposing new windows and doors um all of which are aligned with um the existing architecture. Um this side here is the best shot available of what that existing side
looks like as well as what we're proposing over there. Um, again, not proposing to increase um any of the setbacks, rather just come in line with with what's already existing. Um,
so we have some existing and proposed elevations. Here you can see the rear side of what that utility room will look like. And then uh we can also see
the balcony on this uh elevation here. And that more or less depicts what we're doing. So yes, the owner um unfortunately could not be here. Uh it is his his personal home he lives at with his family. So the intent of this
project is to make the space more livable for him and his growing family. um extending the kitchen, adding that terrace, um and putting the utilities in a more practical location. >> That's it.
>> Do we have any board disclosures? >> No. >> Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, do we have any public comment? >> There's nobody online with their hand raised on Zoom. >> Okay. Anyone in the audience? No.
>> Okay. For commentary. >> Like to make a motion to approve this application. >> Wait, I actually have some comments first if you don't mind. >> Are we are are we awarding do we have to like give a certificate of appropriateness or anything? >> I would say so be two votes on this.
would be the CFA, a second vote on the variance and then a third on the recommendation for the advorum tax exemption to the city commission >> because I I have a comment maybe it's a question the way the drawings are um presented that it it doesn't look like a
particularly historic thing. Um the photographs do and I'm wondering are are the details of the existing building are those required to like remain like the balade the window muttons because it looks like a lot of the windows >> so we do so we do have a condition on the window mtons um the ballastrades are
are not original they're new and not they're not >> they were not original to the house they they were later added they were added on later on so they're not historic okay >> so um >> can we can we pull the the elevation drawings back the one that showed the existing and
proposed um west elevation. I think actually um sorry the uh maybe the east fellation can these are proposed can but if you look in the in the existing you see a more
historic like subdivision of the window panes with muttons those have all gone away. So, but we do have a condition that um requires that on the streets on the side facing the street in the front that they put back um um the historic configuration of the of the mountains. Yes.
>> Yeah. The owner I mean the owner would like to keep the look of the house. I mean that's their intent. So I I think this is maybe the photo you're referring to with some of the mins on the windows and such. >> Um >> you've seen the photograph. Yeah. >> Yeah. We we can definitely um you know
the intent is to keep that look. So, um, we have no objections. >> And it looks like there are possibly little moldings above the windows. Um, >> those are those were added on as well. So, there's a lot there's been a lot this is a very modest house read originally. They met they added some
some, you know, decorative detail onto it. Really, the only original um features that are left are is the um the larger wider surrounds around, for example, the um the window on the ground floor. So, I think they can keep that same surround as part of their balcony
that they're adding on to it. You know, keep the same proportion of the opening with with, you know, lowering the sill down for a door and keeping the the surround of the of the window. >> Just one quick followment. Did did the previous renovation did that receive a certificate? >> No, because this was all that was all
done in the late 90s before the before the house was designated. So, basically the the house came before the board back in um 2022. There's been no changes to um to the home since that time, but the board designated based upon the conditions of the house as you see here.
This is essentially as it was when the board looked at this back in 202. >> So if once it's designated like this, there's no impetus to keep how it was configured when the >> Well, no. Yeah, they I think you know look at sort of if they wanted to remove the bow raids and do something different, we could do that
administratively because that's not original. um we don't want to make them remove it. Like one option would be to require them to remove all the stuff that was not original but that was already added on you know later on. So do you want to make them go through the process that's going to be more expensive and then they're going to lose sort of the even benefit of having the
the tax exemption. We're trying to give them the benefit of >> it's a challenge to know what it was, what it's going to be with the amount of detail that >> really what's what's really um important for this application is that it has the historic massing of the original house and by adding on to it, we're not going to have a oversized home for the
neighborhood. So, it's really, you know, keeping the the the the feel and character of the of the original house, but not not restoring it to its original condition, but also not doing a new home that's going to be overwhelming for the neighborhood. So that's the benefit here really allowing them to add on to the house get the tax exemption and not have
an overbearing you know home um for the island. >> Okay. >> So um if the house has been so much modified how did it receive this historic designation? >> I don't want to go back that's that's a question I had but I want to go back and
second guess what the board did back you know in 2022 >> and do we have photos of the original house before all the changes? >> All we have is um which is in the set. We do have a a microphone copy of the front elevation where you can see the the if you look at I'll find the the um
the page in the staff report. >> The staff >> on page nine of 11 of the staff report you can see the original microfilm which showed the you didn't have the twotory tower. So if you can maybe pull up the photo of the front elevation. So you see there the or the even the uh
the elevation back in 1999 there was a two-story you know um entrance feature that was built to change the the entire um feature of the house you had a a gabled um garage over the roof with the the gables facing
the side. So that was modified with a flat roof and that garage was converted to living space. So those were the major modifications that were done to the to the street side to the to the front of the house. Um the only thing remaining in terms of the original character of the house is the I think the second
floor window and the ground floor um larger window to the left side of the the main entrance. >> There were no balance traits and there are no exactly that's why exactly that's why um but they had already already built them so we didn't want to make
them remove them. >> It would be it would be very costly to take the house back to the original construction. Um but that would that would involve removing the entrance feature that they have now. And that's really, you know, becoming at that point pretty excessive and negating the reason for um designation. This really we we're
seeing this for as like a we're we're designating this house because it it fits in with the with the massing and character of of the neighborhood. >> Thanks. >> Even though it has been modified. >> Yeah. Neither do I. >> Michael, just want to point out I'm
sorry, Lindsay. I don't have uh >> Yeah, I page nine of 11 isn't in my staff report which ends at uh page six of six. So >> really looking at Palm.
>> Oh, are you looking at the order or the I'm looking at your staff report? >> Strange. I think you're looking at the order. You might be looking at the order which is at the end of the staff report. >> Excuse me. >> The the order is at the end of the staff report. It's six pages.
>> It's not part of mine. >> Yeah. Okay. So, it's all right. >> Crazy. >> It's there. >> Okay. >> Still looking for it. Okay. The page is how So, how many
motions do we need for this? Three. >> Three motions. Yes. >> All right. So, our first motion that we need um >> Yeah. I mean, should we start with the certificate of appropriateness and then the very first? >> So, um do we have a motion for
certificate of appropriateness >> for 230 Palm? >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I I I would second it so long as it it includes the language about the month. Yes. Okay. Yeah, I would second it.
>> Second by Mr. Jelpie. >> Is that a friendly amendment >> or includes the language of >> Thank you. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second. All >> in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? That motion passes six to zero. A
>> motion on the variance right here. Make that motion. >> Do we have a second for the motion on the variance? Second by Mr. Dely. All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? The motion passes um six to zero. And lastly, a recommendation city
to the city commission in favor of the advorum tax exemption. >> Do we have a motion for the advorum tax uh the recommendation to city commission for the advorum? >> I'll make that motion. >> Do we have a second? >> You'll second.
>> Second by m second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> post that motion passes of 6 to0. Thank you. >> Good. >> Appreciate it. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Next application we're going to is going to be HPV25-0676
or 2201 Collins Avenue, the W Hotel. So this application the board may remember um came before you um last month in March and because of some concerns expressed by the neighbors the board actually never reviewed the application and the applicant at the time made a request for continuance and
was continued to a date certain of today. Um since that time the um applicants attorneys have have changed and so um the new attorney for this application has re has revised the application not not physically with the plans but they provide an updated letter
of intent which I did pass along to the board members and they're no longer asking for approval of any variances. So they've withdrawn the variances as part of this application. They're also um withdrawing the request for the the um the beach club restaurant that was associated with the variances
previously. So they've removed that from the application. Now on page three of the staff report, we didn't we didn't indicate how that result in reduction in the overall occupancy compared to what was originally submitted and what's proposed right now. That results in a
reduction in the occupancy of um um 200 let's see sorry a reduction occupancy of 97 people reduction of seating of 20 282 um I'm sorry sorry that's that's with the the pool the overall reduction just
a secondre >> so yeah the overall the overall change is originally the a was proposing a increase in seating of 449 9. That is now an increase going to 212. The occupancy previously was going from an increase was going to an increase of 758
persons. Now it's going to an increase of 340 person. So that's just for the change by removing the um the beach club. Now, um, like I like I mentioned this this board, I did pass out this morning a, um, a memo from the transportation department that was
submit that was submitted as part of the review of the, um, traffic by the transportation for the planning board application. Because this application does include an increase in intensity, this does require that the applicant go to the planning board for a modification of their conditional use permit. That's
where issues such as traffic operation um noise that's all under the purview of the planning board and that's why we did not have this information for the um the preservation board today but because the issue of traffic has been raised by by neighbors I did find just this morning
the transportation memo it was not part of the planning board file because that file is not yet been calendared for the planning board. So it's still in process of of going through that process through that um um planning board process. So today we're asking that the planning board, the the store preservation board
will review this application. No variances. It does include modifications to the um exterior including addition of a um membersonly valet drop off and canopy along 23rd Street. Um I'll let the applicant provide the presentation and the modification of their previous
application. >> Before the applicant begins, do we have any questions for staff from the board? And one one last point, I did um let the applicant know it was too late by the time they had advised me of these changes to submit revised drawings to the board. So I had to let let them know that that could be an issue by the
board, but I did send everybody a link to the to the latest set of plans which have not been modified since the last submission. So I think we're talking about today is a visual look at the previous submitted plans with a verbal indication of what's being removed based on what the applicant presents today.
Um, before you begin, if anyone is present in the chambers who intends to provide public comment but wasn't sworn in earlier, if you could please raise your right hand. >> Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, >> Mr. Casden.
>> Good morning, chair, members of the board, if my presentation may be put on the screen, please. Nissan Casden and Cecilia Torres Toledo Acreman representing the applicant 2201 Collins Propco with me today as well as a project architect Andrew James from
Nicholls and uh our traffic consultant Derek Adeski. Other team members are available if there are questions. Uh and I would like to note the big story about this is there's a huge investment going into an important property to continue to upgrade the quality of what we have
to offer here in Miami Beach. going back to the Bill Lane fans here when over 30 years ago he created those iconic lifeguard stands which helped start and restart this this city and investment in this city and we're this is where we are today
want to talk about the new owners of this property the Ruben brothers the Ruben brothers are among the most important top tier global investors the kind of people we want to invest in this community who have the staying power,
the vision, the long-term commitment to create something great. We're very fortunate they're investing in Miami Beach. They have a global presence, Europe, and the Americas. Uh, and they are owners of many fine
properties globally in cities and places like Los Angeles, New York, London, Rome, Capri, and Venice. Some of the properties of the Reubins include the Hotel La Palma in Capri which provided the inspiration for the
W. So I think it's very important that we have them as investors in our community for the long term. I think everyone's familiar with the site of the W Hotel. Um, what is important to note is that this
is primarily an upgrade of the property and mostly the interior of the property which Andrew will take you through shortly. It's really quite a simple application. This is a proposal to update, refresh,
and upgrade the interior of the property. The only exterior renovations uh other than the interior ones such as the ballroom, the meeting rooms, etc. are the pastery which is proposed along 22nd Street which we'll show you in a
minute. Some of you may be familiar with the spot that is there which is currently blocked off from interaction with 22nd Street will be opened up. So, we'll enhance the pedestrian experience along 22nd Street as well as views into
the property. That's one change that we are seeking. Number two is valet drop off along 23rd Street, which we will discuss further only for VIP members of the proposed members lounge. The parking and circulation for this
proposed valet as Michael Baluchia has told you will be exam will be looked at as part of the operations from the planning board as part of conditional use permit amendment and can only be approved at that point in time for use. Then the other major element is the
remodeling of the pool deck and pool bar. This is as Mr. Belouch has mentioned separate from the beach club which was in the original application which we have at this moment in time stepped back from and will present in a different
future application after taking into consideration comments we've received from our neighboring property owners at the uh Ron Plaza and others and so uh that is been taken out and that was involved three variances and we are not
proceeding on osed today. Um, as you know and as Mr. Blush has mentioned to you, your board has the authority to review the design elements that are visible from the right of way and the public interiors. And in this fact, property, the interiors are not even
historic interiors. So, this is a renovation of a 20-year-old uh building. The HPB does not review uses, operations, occupancies, traffic circulation, etc. And I mentioned that to you because you will receive a presentation uh in opposition from a
neighbor which deals substantially with all of those issues. And those issues in the for the most part almost extens uh completely are not issues that are properly for your board to consider. Uh
I'll skip right now so we can go to the existing plan and the future plan. Andrew will take you through that and then I will uh walk you through at the very end with some tweaks to conditions that we would request. Andrew, >> thank you
>> and good morning to the board. It's a pleasure to be back before you after 21 years. >> Appreciate that. U I I remember Mr. Belaluch without gray hair >> and more hair and more hair
and and myself as well. In any event, this is uh an outline of the footprint of the property as it exists now. And you can see the the various zones that are um oh this is the proposed I I beg you pardon. This is the proposed plan.
Um and this outlines the areas that are going to be addressed and modified. Uh the kind of grass green zone to the east is the pool and the pool deck. Adjacent to that is uh restaurant and
deck seating. There's the lobby in uh a light blue. The peticeri and some outdoor seating associated with the peticeri are adjacent to it on 22nd street. Uh the existing uh restaurant is in pink there. Both darker for the
interior, lighter for the exterior terrace seating. The meeting spaces are in kind of a red color, reddish color. There's the members lounge in purple and the proposed drop off uh on 23rd.
Um, it's not shaded on here, but what's included with the proposed drop off is some additional landscaping and screening to create a more pleasant entrance along 23rd, which has the tangential benefit of beautifying the
appearance of that serviceoriented area of the the building um, from the perspective of the neighbor to the north. and keep going here. Here's a mood board
of uh the direction the interior design is going. And as you can see, and for those of you familiar with the property, the the existing property is beautiful, but it does um it is kind of dark and moody. And so, um the intent uh of the
new owner is to freshen it up, brighten it up, as well as improve all of the facility. We were the original architects of record on the project. So, we were lucky enough to participate in this portion of it as well.
So, first up, the hotel arrival experience. Um, as you can see, well, you can't see, but um, the interior is being updated in all of that blue shaded area and the lighter blue to the exterior is part of
the hotel uh, arrival experience and all of that is going to be updated and uh, improved. This is the existing uh canopy which is kind of plain admittedly and going forward it's going to get a
scalloped profile around the edges and some material upgrades of those columns as well and and make it a little more rich and a little more um little better from a design standpoint more more articulated.
This is the um existing area in front of the hotel right at the drop off. And this is the direction it's going. As you can see, the the let me go back. The the the glazing is is rather dark and it really does inhibit light
going into the into the lobby and into that front area. And the proposed changes are are going to bring much more light in. And also, you know, there's improved landscaping with built-in benches and other features that will
will help the uh help the area and give people a a place to to wait for either a ride share or their vehicle from valet. This is the um existing lobby. As you can see, it is a bit brooding.
And here it is refreshed and brightened. And in my view, that's a tremendous positive. Um, this area is not as dark, but as you can see that the intent is to improve. One one thing you that's hard
to see from this image is on the outside, which we'll get to later, there's some landscaping that's um a tall hedge on the south side that's that's keeping light from coming in. So, the landscaping is is to be revised
there to make it brighter and more inviting. Existing reception, proposed new reception, a little bit different. Same thing with uh this area a hotel lobby and the cab design
existing and proposed ground floor lobby. Anyway, proposed ground floor lobby. This is the lobby petissicissery and terrace. So the the idea with with this space is to take the current envelope and open it up, provide
uh stacking glass doors which can open up and create the interior exterior experience and then provide a >> on onto 22nd Street. >> Onto 22nd Street. Thank you. Absolutely right. Onto 22nd Street. The area, the
southern half of this basically is outdoor seating which is entirely everything in it is movable. There they're planters out there but they are movable. Um and the irrigation for such is I believe anticipated to be
by hand. Um and all of that is is movable and that enhances the pedestrian experience as was mentioned. it it takes a dead area and revitalizes it. Um, and will add some interest.
Here's an interior view existing. And this is existing and proposed. So, you can see significantly brighter. There's that hedge I was talking about. Uh, two of them. uh the areas in between those those large structural fins uh
really uh cut the light that enters the the area behind. Uh and this is the proposed peticeri uh terrace. Everything as I mentioned is movable. Uh plans for the guest room corridor and
guest room renovation. Here's the existing uh guest room lobby and an entry condition. Uh as you can see, it's it's 20 years old. And this is a refreshed version which is much brighter and nicer. It's going to
lighten uh the feeling of the corridor considerably. Um guest room interior proposed. So this grass green area is the pool deck and the pool bar as it exists
currently. And these are the this these um structural elements or frames are assembled together to create the existing bar. Um this the footprint of this is being uh
diminished significantly. This is the proposed pool bar which as you can see includes large areas of permeable pave paving as well as you know all the movable seating. The the fixed elements are are much reduced. Here's another
view of it. And another there's the existing pool deck. You can see the dark uh pool coping running around the pool. And it's a little hard to see in this image, but there is a Oh,
no, it's not. It's at the bottom right. There's a new uh pool coping uh being installed to brighten this up and also to kind of work with the the other elements thematically of the scalloping and striping.
Another view of the proposed pool deck. So, this is a north valet drop off. Uh as as noted, this is for the the the members lounge only. It's it's a a low volume uh proposition, but the the
methodology is that the the drop off um occurs at that canopy and the car is taken by the valet directly into the uh tunnel that goes underneath the property from the north
at 23rd and emerges on 22nd and then goes around to enter the um garage. Here's a rendering of that uh canopy above. So, the existing ramp down entrance to
the tunnel is there to the left, which as you can see is very thoroughly screened by landscaping. Here's the members lounge. So, I'm running out of time. Um existing members lounge uh and existing landscape
plan. I do have some uh input from the landscape architect which I'll I'll share with you. But the the bottom line is um number one the the view to the the east has been uh designed such that the view corridors
through as required have been provided and the planting itself is designed for the uh or selected uh to be appropriate for the harsh mic. Could we have four or five more minutes? I can talk faster.
>> Okay. Wrap up comments, too. >> Go ahead. >> So, existing landscape plan proposed. Uh, it's it's very lush. It's very beautiful and it will be suited for the microclimate, which is much more important because that's the only way to
maintain the environment. um proposed uh hardcape the front hotel entrance the north drop off the pool deck pool bar and thank you uh thank you uh and m chair members of
board a couple of a few additional comments to make as well uh you will be hearing from Mr. Robbins representing the Ron board uh understand that as has been explained by staff your domain and review is over the design elements of
this project particularly the public ones the pool bar the canopy at the entrance and the paticerie change those are the publicly viewable elements of this project you will not are not here to approve uh any of the uses
entertainment occupancy or seat counts traffic circulation plans hotel operations that will all be approved would need to be approved in a separate application to the planning board for a conditional use permit. I would like to say that we are willing to
work with the Rooney unit owners and have actually had significant outreach. On March 9th, my predecessor is council took the Rooney owners for a tour through the property. There was numerous significant communication with those
owners as well or their representative between then and now. And in fact, we met in the within the last week to try to accommodate some of their requests and we are willing to work with them. One big change that we made of course is we have removed the northeast corner
where we're going to do the new beach club which would have had the most impact and we know we'll have to deal with them when we bring that back. We're also willing to work with them on some coverage of some of the outside areas as well. Uh I would like to point
out that uh there are certain modifications and the conditions in the order that we would request and I'd like to briefly go over them. existing condition IC2 which says that we cannot obtain a
building permit until we obtain a conditional use approval from the planning board. That's many many months out. These changes are fundamental to the uh design the architecture of the hotel itself and don't deal with uses.
In order to get this project underway and permitted and the physical work done, we cannot wait however many months it would be for there to be a conditional use permit, particularly when this board is not approving any of the uses, the intensity, the hours or
anything. So, we ask that that condition be deleted. With respect to condition IC3C, the peticery terrace, we would ask that that condition be removed uh because it says that the uh it does not comply with
the required site setbacks. Uh please note that there will be no permanent structures that will be encroaching in the site setbacks and so therefore what was there the planters and such are not permanent and so therefore that condition is not needed.
And finally, with respect to the uh condition IC 3E, the valet drop off area along 22nd Street, we agree that the valet vehicles staging along 22nd Street shall be limited to drop off and pickup
only and the vehicle shall be oriented parallel to the building at all times and that parking or staging of vehicles on the sidewalk shall not be permitted under any circumstance. the concern which was addressed by the planning staff. However, we are opposed to
creating or building a much larger curb which would interfere with the operations of the valet ramp as well. So, we would respectfully request that that condition be modified only to mandate that there be parallel parking and loading uh which of course is what
the code requires under any circumstance. Uh with that we remain available for questions and would ask for some brief opportunity for rebuttal after you hear from the neighbors. Thank you. >> Do we have any board disclosure?
>> Well actually disclosure uh Mr. Robbins has represented me on uh many matters uh going back 30 plus years. uh I can view this uh or I will review this
application in a fair impartial way. >> None. >> Did should do do we ask questions of the applicant before we hear the rebuttal or do we hear this all first? >> Go ahead, Nick. >> We typically ask questions of the
applicant right after the applicant's presentation. So if you want if you want to ask more questions of the applicant, I would recommend you do that now and then we open to the public. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> If you don't mind, >> I'll sit down. >> Sure. >> Can we just pull the presentation back up? Just a quick question about the
petissery thing since if we could go back to the existing and the proposed petissery. >> Sure. uh in the presentation. >> It all looks very beautiful by the way. >> Thank you very much. >> It's a lot of work by the interior designer.
>> I'm sure >> we we get to coordinate. >> Oops. There we are. There's the proposed petucery uh from the fins to the north. That's existing interior. And from the fence to the
south along 22nd Street that's exterior I guess. Yeah I guess the question about the exterior. >> Okay >> the terrace of >> okay so this so this is existing and then where so between those fins there would be outdoor seating that hedge
would come out those bikes would move cuz the rendering next is from a different perspective. >> Yeah it does. It's looking out from those fins. So those fins are to the right in that rendering on the right. >> Yeah. >> Is that right? >> Yeah. You're you're watching
>> you see the over you see the overhang the portico. >> Yeah. >> And Niss you're saying no condition is or a variance is not needed for this because this is not permitted. >> No because we're not going to be putting any structure there that encroaches in the setbacks.
>> So no sidewalk permit or anything is required for this stuff. So I'm just look my my the concern was based upon the survey which shows landscape areas against the the glazing there. >> Um >> so that that's to the to the east side of where the access so to the to the
buildings right so it's the left side of this page is the entrance doors to the inside and then to the right according to the survey is a is a inground landscape areas. So that's why we brought up the issue because you can have a walkway to access the property, but the code requires that um and you
can project 15% sorry you can project 25% into that required setback. What you can't do is have a a um a patio or a deck that encroaches into that required setback. So that that was our our condition our concern there because it looks like you're removing all that landscaping and doing um expanded
seating areas. Now, if you wanted to um remove part of it to have a doorway access to the inside, that's fine. And then have tables and chairs on areas that were permitted for heartscaping in the past, that's fine. Our condition was having spreading the um the tables and
chairs or having a p patio that didn't comply with the the setbacks. >> Do you concur with what they're saying now that that this is permissible without a variance or something? >> No, because it looks like they're removing landscaping and doing the entire area as seating. Well, as you can see in this image, there is a lot of
landscaping there. It's just not fixed in place. >> But this is this is we're looking again at the at the 22nd Street. >> Correct. This this is standing all the way to the right in in this image looking back towards the entrance canopy.
>> Let's if I may, and I understand the confusion that rendering or image may show, we will be co-compliant with the setbacks for that. Yeah, we can just we can modify that condition saying, you know, regarding any improvements comply with the current code. Um to that
effect, >> that would be fine. I mean, I do I do think this is a big improvement in terms of that looks like um >> you know, that was my only question. >> Okay, >> thank you, >> Mr. Meyer. >> Yeah, just to be clear, the existing
photo we're looking northward, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. In the rendering, we're looking westward. The rendering we're looking Yes. Um, south and west. >> South and west. So, how far in the existing photo
>> is the seating coming out? Where are you going to put the hedge in the existing photo? >> There's a line of bites. >> I can get the plan back up. Not sure I control that. >> Of course, I do. Obviously, >> where is that? >> Right there. >> Well, the out This is interior.
>> No, I'm talking about Okay. Are the exterior photo? Yeah, you're this is the this is an exterior photo, but it's best shown on the plan actually. Uh you got to see it if you can look at
where the plan uh aligns there. This is before the the end of the uh canopy projection at the drop off. There's still a good 15 feet left between the end of the seating area and the curb or
the the line demarcating the drop off. >> Can we go back to the existing photo, please? >> Oh, sure. >> Okay. Where's your new proposed seating area? Is it beyond that hedge?
>> It starts at the glazing. Well, the access point is at the glazing which the storefront's being replaced by folding glass. >> How far south does it come? >> It's approximately 20 to 25 ft. I would have to scale. >> So, it's way beyond the fins that are
there or those. >> It's beyond the fins, right? >> Yes, it is beyond the fins. >> So, it's probably an additional 15t 20 ft beyond south of those. >> I'm understanding. >> 15 ft sounds right. And currently that's that white area is
part of the sidewalk, is it not? >> I believe it is. I I'm not sure it's all demarcated as right away. However, >> well, I think the issue is I can point out so um in this instance, the public sidewalk is located on private property and that's to avoid having the um a
person on sidewalk crossing the the the the drop off area in front. So there's probably some sort of maintenance or easement agreement with the city to allow the public um um the public sidewalk on private property. Otherwise um you're forcing pedestrians into the drop into the dropup area. So we want to
make sure there's a condition to ensure we have that maintain that wide sidewalk area for pedestrian access to the beach. >> There is there is I think at least a 15t wide uh sidewalk remaining outside of the the seating area. >> I'm sure there must be some sort of
agreement that that specifies that dimension. We just want to make sure that's that's that's maintained as part of any sort of expanded seating area in this location. >> For sure. >> Can you show where is the setback line in the plan there? Or can you zoom out so we can see a little better because it's very hard to see.
>> Yeah, it is hard to see and I'm afraid I don't have a graphic of that as part of the presentation. Let me go back >> for anybody who wants to look at the plans online. It is a 0.9.
>> Oh, landscape plan. >> Thank you. >> This that drawing >> or a close facimile. I'm not sure. Fast forwarding to the landscape plan. >> Oh, the landscape plan. >> There you go.
>> So, as you can see, it's it's aligned with the uh the set. >> And that thicker line as uh on the south is the property line. Correct. So, there's you can see a good portion
of the sidewalk is within our property as as Mr. Blush pointed out. the easement agreement requires a 15 foot sidewalk or something like that, >> I believe. I'm not I'm not familiar with it, but uh that make that's makes sense,
of course. >> Okay. Thank you. And that's why we brought up the concern with um the the valley um cars blocking the sidewalk because they're parked over perpendicular and into that sidewalk area. That's why we get requested a a curb be constructed there to prevent
that from happening. One more CL and but you're saying the operations the valet all that that's under the purview of the cup the planning board >> right because for um projects that have less than 50,000 ft of new construction that does not require traffic study um for the historic preservation board
review but we did we can raise issues that um are present on the site like the current valet operation if they're parking illegally to have measures to to um physically prevent that which are recommending a curb along that location cuz right Now, there's no there's nothing preventing a vehicle from
driving right up to the front door, basically. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> No. >> I have I have a question. Um, there's not a curb currently between the existing valet and the sidewalk. Correct. It's all >> correct.
>> I'm sorry that all one level. >> This was quite a while ago. That's before lots of those things started being implemented. >> No. So when if when you implement the proposed design, would it the pedestrian
movement improve because now I mean I go there very often and um it's a mess. People go out the other side of the street to circulate because at the entrance you never know. We are fighting with the cars in the valley. So how would you propose design? Will we improve that condition?
>> Uh we would need to study that uh further. I I don't have an answer for you right now other than the fact that we are actively maintaining that clear area along the frontage. >> Do we have any other questions before we
open it up for public comment? >> Yeah, I just have a quick one regarding the existing condition I see too. So if they cross it out as it's proposed by the applicant um what would be the
consequences or the outcomes of that? >> Which condition are you referring to? >> The first one of the >> Oh yeah. So that that would allow them to get a building permit for their construction before planning board has reviewed or approved their application. We're recommending that the that the opposite occur that the they did not get
approval for the building permit for these major changes until the planning board has reviewed the operations. And what's the standard procedure? There is no standard procedure for something like that. >> It depends on the application. For example, if they were to come in with a building permit that shows restaurant seating and occupancy expanding, we
would tell them we could not approve that administratively. Um they would have to go to the planning board first. They could they could get approvements for um areas that were that did not include expansion of food and beverage. That could be done without going to planning board. But I think even if we remove that condition, if they come in with a building permit that shows
expanded um occupancies and seating areas, we're going to tell them, listen, we cannot approve this part of the application until you have your plan board um modifications. If I if I may address that briefly because this is a very critical thing for our project. the very often the conditional use
permits are applied for well after the uh HPB approval for the design because the construction has a very long lead time and sometimes often times the specifics of the operation aren't known until later. Uh in order to be able to
have this property up and going in within a year and a half, they must do the physical construction to the pool area, to the lobby, the interiors, etc. and start that now. Uh and therefore we would be putting off the conditional use
permit which would give us certain hours of operation certain other restrictions perhaps as well. Now understand and including the occupancy now we won't be able to get a CO or a TCO uh that is different than the
conditional use permit allows. So that will be reconciled at that point in time. Uh until we get that we don't have any increase in occupancy but it would be a major detriment to our project if we cannot start construction on all the
other elements now. And I would give as an example for instance the Delano which we just received a conditional use permit on. The Delano received its HPV approval quite some time ago. There's a lot of work that was involved in redoing that property.
uh if they uh could not get the permit uh uh until the cup was approved, they would just today be starting their construction and they'd be two years off. So, it's a practical matter and most often the cup comes later and this
is just for the basic construction which if we can't get it underway now, it's it's it's it's very critically impactful to the project. But to note they have they did apply for the CUP application modifications last year. So it's been many many months um prior to this where the application has
been applied for. Same with this application here. Um this application was applied for like last summer late or early fall and it took them several iterations to get to this point of getting to the board. So right now we haven't processed the planning board application as well but has not been scheduled because the application is not
complete >> and we've we've had to resubmit our application uh which we are doing now. But in any event, that is the the the the ordinary course of things is you get your site plan, you can begin your construction, and as you as you detail out your food and beverage and
entertainment offerings, you come in later for the cup, which you must have before you're able to open and operate, but otherwise, uh you can't begin if we couldn't begin our construction until then, we're putting this project back quite quite quite a long time.
One last thing to note, um, for commercial districts, the code does require if you have a new construction over 50,000 square feet, you go to the planning board first for the first review and then you can go to, um, HV. So that but that's the case for commercial districts. If you're doing new construction over 50,000 ft, it's
considered a neighborhood impact structure, which requires the planning board approval and review first. >> But this is not in that district. And so with the Delano, the Shelborne, the the the uh the Shore Club, all of those got their site plan approval in
advance of CUPs and and and and obtained their building permits to begin their work >> and we have very little structural scope >> and and if we were comfortable with that, that wouldn't grant them any exception to the CUP, but they still
have to do it. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any further question for the applicant? >> Okay, Mr. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, Ken Harrison Robbins. I filed an
objection letter on behalf of the Rooney Palace Condominium Association. I requested 15 minutes. Given that we are the prim primary neighbor immediately adjacent to the property and we have
substantial issues to raise, we request an equal amount of time to present our issues. I will try to go under those 15 minutes if possible. We also have a traffic we hired a traffic engineer and he's prepared to speak on this issue
too. So that would be an additional time. Now, first of all, I want to assert that we have standing to appear as a party. We're directly affected by it by this proposal and we're immediately adjacent to the property and
we have the right to participate as a party and we intend to. I appreciate it. Do we have 15 minutes? >> Thank you. >> Um, first of all, I want to address a couple of issues right now about vested rights. When you approve a project and
give site plan approval, you are vesting the rights of that applicant to those things which you approve. And there are particular areas that we are concerned about that we do not believe they should have vested rights at this time. And there should be conditional use permit
analysis, especially on the issue concerning the drop off area, especially concerning the area that's being opened up and expanded for the club. These areas are going to directly and adversely impact us as well as the fact
there's going to be a substantial increase in the amount of uh bar restaurant use on the site much greater than what it appears because and we'll go over that seating chart that excuse me the chart and analysis that's in the
staff report. Um let me just go through a few issues. Would you put my um presentation next page? Next slide. Oh, can we >> please use the laptop?
>> Okay, can we control it? Okay, we have four primary issues of concern and the residents here are going to be raising other issues outside of my presentation. First of all, there's the noise impact of enlarging and increasing the seating
of the outdoor area of the nightclub on the north side of the property facing the Roni. The conflict between the existing valet circulation system and the proposed new valet drop off on the north driveway, adding private vehicles directed to the nightclub drop off,
navigating the north driveway in both directions. the same driveway that also serves as a means of access for the valet parking garage and commercial deliveries. The increased congestion and conflicts arising from the parallel W Hotel and Ron driveways and Collins
Avenue and 23rd Street and the near fail failure of the fiveway traffic intersection at 23rd Street. the extensive uh queuing along both driveways and adjacent avenues and streets and how those conditions will be exacerbated by the additional traffic on
Collins Avenue and 23rd Street driveways gener generated by the proposed uses. Now I want to preliminarily and this is not part of the presentation but was included but we wish to u hand this out is the
>> I'd like to note a standing objection to this uh presentation and evidence with regard to the cup issues. Uh feel free to continue but I want to note for the record my objection. There are two issues and we there are
two design review guidelines that are not really argued or discussed in the staff report that are relevant and your responsibility to review as and you have a duty to review. The suggestion that should put off the analysis of the
traffic impact is directly contrary to the guidelines. In the guidelines, your guidelines, it specifically says that you must review pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I'm sure you're familiar with
it as members of the board. You have to consider both pedestrian vehicle safe ingress and egress to the site. You have to look at impact of pedestrian circulation. That is your responsibility. You can't pass that off to the planning board. You separately have a responsibility. There's also
another guideline. They're trying to say it's just a cup and that is your duty. There's a specific duty and guideline that requires you to look at buffering of sound and its impact on adjacent properties. That's also both of these guidelines are referenced in the staff
report on page seven of 10. The pedestrian area, the the staff admits that that's only partially satisfied um concerning valet and conditions. um they're trying to defer that and say that should be handled by the CUP. Well,
now after putting that as a condition, the applicant is asking to take that condition review by the by the planning board, take that out as a condition to allow them to go forward. So, they'll be able to build their valet parking in the north side, which we are strainously
objecting to there. Also, the staff has said that buffering of the nightclub is not applicable. Of course, the buffering of the outdoor nightclub that they're adding is is pertinent. Now, let's get through my analysis. Okay, there's an expansion
of the outdoor nightclub. And here's the existing structure. And if you look at the right side, the area with crosses through it, the the I guess it's a pergola right there. That's where
the existing night outside part of the nightclub is currently. They claim there's 154 seats to fit in there. And that's what they're claiming there. It's 154 seats. Now, there aren't 154 seats. If you went there and walked it, there's
only a few dozen seats in that area. you couldn't put 154 seats in that area that's xed out. Now they're proposing to expand it and now they're saying they're reducing the number of seats in the outside area. There's plane they're
playing with the seat numbers. They're and the charts that have been submitted by them that they're submitting for the cup, which by the way they're including in the staff report are playing with the numbers that are actually being placed and assigned to each area. Now they're
saying there's I believe 127 seats out there. Now that's going to be on the outside and on the north side it's unbuffered to the Ron Condominium. We're immediately adjacent. Can you imagine nightclubs with subwoofers with
noise coming out of that area and right across into the Ron Palace? They already have noise issues. Now that's going to exacerbate it. And there's been no showing of how that's going to be shielded. That sound is going to be shielded from the Rooney. And we
requested an analysis of that. We asked acoustical analysis and that has not been provided. And it was suggested by the staff that that's not even applicable buffering, but buffering is certainly important. The applicant as an
appendix to their presentation the very last moment on Friday added proposed possible buffering on the north side of that area. But there was no acoustical study, no actual design of the barrier wall or anything else. But they're
asking you to approve it today so you can go they can go forward with a project and they say don't worry about it. It'll be handled by by the planning board. But it's your duty to determine what buffering should be placed there. That buffering is a design element.
That's your responsibility. And if that's your responsibility under the guidelines, you have to do you have to look at that and insist that they provide buffering, give you plans for that buffering to protect us from the noise. Let's look at the uh traffic
circulation. This is the guideline which we just talked about. Now in the report it says it's only partially satisfied which means that criteria has not been satisfied and the staff admits it's not been satisfied.
>> What they're recommending is no building permit until the planning board cup of modified valet operations which we approve that that should be um that no permit should be issued until that's considered by the planning board.
Outdoor seating areas should that area should not be changed or until and no permit should be issued until the cup reviews that too. Hours of operation and sound mitigation issues all that should be resolved to determine how the sound
will impact us and without buffering we don't have any protection right now to protect us and that's your duty. Now there's two things that are excluded from the proposed condition. There's one saying that uh there's one the proposed
new valet stand on north driveway that's not even deferred to the cup process. They're asking you to approve the north driveway and approve guest and ride sharing vehicle access to the north driveway for drop offs.
Now the traffic circulation right now was approved back 20 years ago. In fact, we were Ron Palace worked very hard with developer. We entered into a agreement with them and part of the resolution of
the traffic coming off the driveway 23rd Street from valet parking was to place and and create a valet tunnel from 23rd Street parking garage underneath the building. So valet will always be able
to get back to 22nd Street and not have to go back west on 23rd Street because the turning of left on Collins was so so problematic. And it was very important to design it this way in order to assure efficiency
of the 23rd Street driveway. Now what's being proposed there's a tunnel to the left and that's there in place now. And what they're proposing to do is put a the nightclub drop off valet stand on the north driveway. The back of
house driveway which was designed for back of house where all the traffic from valet goes in that same area to drop now have a private passenger cars driving in that same area dropping off and leaving.
But you have to realize there's no circulation there. So cars have to go in there and back up. It's a dangerous condition and that's what they're proposing. So they'll be counterdriving going westbound by private passenger cars
after they have a few drinks at the Miami Club and walk and drive backwards on West Avenue where right now traffic is going only one way with valet up the driveway and out the driveway and down the tunnel. Now they're going to have
conflicting traffic. So, here's a picture of the existing clubs. It has it there. You can see that red area to the on the left side. And they use the valet. Everybody uses a
valet. That's how everybody parks their car now, dropping their car on 22nd Street and going up the driveway. That's how it works. It's very smooth. There hasn't been any major oper problems. It was designed that way.
Now what's being proposed is the expansion of the club, the outside area with the noise. And in addition, they want to put a special valet drop spot there. New traffic circulation for outdoor expansion. This is exactly what you
should be looking at as a member of the historic preservation board under the guidelines. But instead, you're being told, "Don't worry about it. The planning board has you. They'll take care of it, but that's your duty. Now, what's being proposed is the valet
drivers are going to go into the still going into the garage and leaving the garage and going into the tunnel. And in the drop off area, cars are going to be making threepoint turns and turning around that area. We have a traffic engineer who's going to be looking at that
and discussing that with you. It's a big problem. Okay, that's that's my visual presentation. May I turn that off or how can I turn this off? How can I take this, you know? Okay, good. So, what we have here is a real
problem and conflict where they're trying to take your duties and shift it over to the planning board and say don't worry about it. They're also saying is don't worry about anything. It's all taken care of. yet they submit a cup
seating information in your staff report. And I'm going to pass that out to you. And the applicant is trying to say, "Oh, this is a minimal increase." And they're saying, if you look at the bottom chart, they're saying it's there's only 212
seats in addition to what's there now. Well, that's sort of a misstatement as to the impact of these changes. If you look, the top chart is the chart when they were proposing the beach club. So, you really don't need to take a look
at it. The comparison is a lower chart. And what they're suggesting is that there's a only a 212 seat increase, but what they are adding to this analysis. They're saying there's currently 307
seats in the interior of the pool. Look at that. Look at the bottom line. 351. Exterior 307 interior interior. What pool has an interior? There's no interior pool. And now they're removing those 300 seats
and reducing the seat capacity by that 307. So they're able to reduce the overall number down to 212. Please. >> I'd like to renew my objection. You are not determining capacity, occupancy, hours of operation, or any of the things
that are being addressed by Mr. Robbins. So the 307 so they're re they're claiming that it only increases it by 212 but the self-generated use of pool seating even if there were 307 and they're taking out 307 interior seats
which I don't understand at this point what 307 seats are these do not generate outside traffic so essentially they're really increasing the traffic by almost almost uh 519
seats and they're trying to say that the parking the 554 parking spaces where they've acknowledged there's a 51 deficient 51 um parking space deficiency will be able to handle this. So there's a problem now because there's
an overload of the site and then trying to take off some of the load. They're putting this, you know, unplanned, unthoughtout, um, um, drop off area on 23rd Street where they're really not analyzing the
circulation impact of the vehicles along 23rd Street and they're creating a substantial problem. Um, I reserve uh time, my traffic engineer is going to speak right now on these issues and then I'll come back. I want
to talk to you about the conditions that they're placing and why those conditions that were suggested by the city should remain and why there should be additional conditions concerning, especially concerning the drop off area, that no permit should be issued until
the CUP is analyzed. >> Mr. Robbins, how much more time do you need? >> Uh, well, I'm finished with my direct presentation except for discussing the conditions. Mr. Mr. Taxman is going to be testifying as expert traffic engineer
in addressing these issues and then we can go from there. He's going to require probably 10 maybe a little bit less time than that maybe 8 minutes. >> Madam Chair, if I may address that obviously we want to afford them whatever opportunity they reasonably are
entitled to. We have slightly over 15 minutes to present our entire application. Uh, I just would like this not to turn into a filibuster, particularly on issues that are not relevant to this board's jurisdiction.
>> Madam Chair, would you like to start with five minutes for the uh for the traffic engineer? >> We do. I think we have a question from board member related to this. >> Sure. Yeah. Quick question. Look, I'm I'm a creature of the planning board, so I love all these conditions
and details, but are we should we be considering this as part of this application? Are we taking traffic into account? >> Not traffic impacts directly. You do uh look at the arrangement of of driveways. You do look at pedestrian and vehicular
circulation. But um but ultimately, especially on this application where the planning board is required to review a conditional use permit, um I think you know the boards the board should allow the planning board to make decisions on the
on the um on the applicant's operational impacts, >> but they're also talking about nonoperational impacts, which is creation of a structure for a drop off. and they're trying to get permits for that. So, they're vested.
>> Yes, Robert, >> that is a >> And if I could address the the issue of of vesting to the extent that total mistake >> um an applicant becomes vested in a land use board approval, you know, it any any rights um granted by the board are are
are what's granted in that approval, right? This project under the code also requires approval of the planning board. So the, you know, nothing the HPB does today can limit the planning board's authority um to to to hear the
conditional use permit application. Only the planning board can grant CUP approval. So, you know, if you approve this application today, that doesn't vest the applicant with anything as it relates to a CUP. Only the planning board could do that. >> Yeah. Nor can it give us rights to a
certain occupancy or hours of operation or other operational issues such as locations of street of seats seating and such not before you. >> And just one more quick question for so what we are being asked to do is award
uh a variance or or a certificate of appropriateness >> CFA. Exactly. and >> for the design changes essentially >> and does the and is the traffic affect our certificate of appropriateness? >> No, so we've commented on the pedestrian circulation with the with the suggested modification for the valet drop off
along 22nd Street. So I think that's perfectly appropriate to talk about things like that and you know um but the issue in terms of the um the valley stand in the north they're being asked to to approve new construction to provide a covering for that area. So, but eventually if if the if they don't
get approval for that area by planning board, it may just result in a covered area that doesn't have access by um the public. >> What about the screening element? Is that part of the certificate of appropriateness? >> Um what screening >> for the for the auto? >> So, for example, in terms of >> noise buffering >> we're talking about for the for the
noise for the um >> noise buffering for the nightclub. So, for example, let let's say that the this board approved what's submitted today and did not include say covering of that outdoor terrace area for the nightclub >> planning board adds. >> So, so the planning board could could
require that covering or add a covering requirement and we take a look at it see does it require going back to the board. If it's not visible from the street waterway likely that's something we could do administratively. So just because it is a a a new construction based upon its location, it may not require coming back to the board for for covering of that of that area to
mitigate sound. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh can you pull up my presentation? >> This is a control. >> Uh it's the other presentation. It's a traffic and parking review.
or I don't know if it's at the end of that presentation maybe. I don't know >> in the booth. Do we have a presentation? >> Yeah, we did submit the presentation. We have >> Wait one minute while we load it. Please.
Okay. Yeah, this is it. Thank you. All right. Good morning. Uh my name is David Taxman. I'm with mobility and parking services. I'm a licensed traffic engineer. I was brought on to help with reviewing the traffic driveway pedestrian access as part of this which again we've discussed is part of the
land development regulations part of your guys guidelines to review the driveway pedestrian vehicular access. So, I'm just going to help you guys make an informed decision regarding what they're proposing and what potential issues are associated with that
proposal. So, again, they're proposing a valet drop off pickup on 23rd Street. Okay. So, there's some potential dangerous uh risks associated. It was designed for service driveway originally. It wasn't
designed for valet. And so I'm going to kind of go through some of the issues associated with this location. So first off, it's an atypical and irregular intersection. 22nd and Collins. You have two driveways with the
Rooney driveway and this service driveway that are parallel to each other. It's like a five-legged intersection with two parallel roads. You don't usually see that. And so it creates this dangerous situation where if you were exiting a private passenger vehicle who's unfamiliar with this
intersection and you make a right onto Collins outside of the valet drop off service drive, you could then get a t-bone crash from a car exiting the Ron driveway because you're not familiar with this and you think you have the go and you can't see that traffic on Ron
driveway because it's parallel to you. Okay. And there's currently this is the way. So, if you're sitting in that driveway, there's a passenger vehicle sitting in that driveway looking west. Okay? So, they're now at the they're in the W Hotel service driveway. They're facing west. You can't see the Ron
driveway to the north of you. You have two signals in front of you. Now, one is red, one is green. Which one do you go to? What decision do you make if you're not familiar with that intersection? So, then you might make a right. Oh, wait. There's a car coming out of the Ron
driveway. Crash. Okay. So, that's a bad situation. Like I said before, the this driveway, this service area was not designed for valet drop off pickup. It's a service vehicle. It's back of house. It's going to serve vendors, pickup trucks. There's
a lot of other activity going on back there, which I'll go through, but you can kind of see by this photo that it's a congested area. Okay. So, kind of going through to the top right there, just to point out all the activity that's going on in that service driveway. You have the garage
driveway. That's the only driveway to a 550 space garage. That's where all the vehicles enter and exit for that valet garage. You have the valet tunnel. Currently, cars are coming in and out of that tunnel. It's only supposed to be one way. It dead ends. So, you have a you have a drop off pickup area, a valet
drop off pickup area that dead ends. So, you're backing up. Where do you see that? That's not typical. I wouldn't improve that. And then you have the a loading dock and some additional parking. That's all going on in that one little area. Okay. And you know the the
even the valet operation on 22nd Street based on their traffic study, they're proposing that you're going to need 26 valet attendants with additional capacity the with the improvements. That's not typical. 26 valet attendants. That's that's just an irregular
condition. Okay. So this is this image is really speaking to the amount of conflicts, the amount of movements in that area where the valet drop off pip is proposed. So you have the cars entering and exiting the garage. You right now have cars that
are actually coming the wrong way down the the valet tunnel that would be pulling into the garage. That blue highlighted area is where that valet drop off pickup area would be located. And you then you also have cars entering and exiting from Collins and you have the loading dock.
So, this is an autoturn analysis that was actually done by the applicant's traffic engineer showing the movements at the valet drop off pickup area. So, a car would pull in, drop off their vehicle, maybe it can fit two cars there. Then, the the valet would have to back up to pull into the garage where
you're going to have all the conflicts of the cars coming in and out of the garage and from the valet tunnel and potentially even the loading dock. It's a lot of congestion. And then when you're picking up, you would have the same situation where they would have to back up to then back into the valet
area. Again, you're going to have pedestrian activity in this area. There's just a lot of conflict, a lot of issues going on. So, this is the valet tunnel. So, how it should work is you drop off your car and the valet circulates around Collins. However, what
they're doing today, what we observed where they're going the wrong way down the valet tunnel to then get to the garage driveway. So, they're going the opposite direction and they're going both ways to avoid going on to Collins and avoid driving down 22nd Street because of the queuing. Can I just have
one more minute, please? So, this speaks to that queueing issue on Collins. There currently is both static signage saying do not block the intersection and digital signage. alerting drivers to be prepared to stop.
So, this just recognizes that FDA recognizes it's a problem right now because of all the the queueing on Collins that cars are trying to get through those 22nd and 23rd Street intersections and they're getting stuck in those intersections. Okay. So, what's that going to do when
you add more traffic to that area? It's going to exasperate the problem. So, we reviewed the traffic study that was done by the applicant. One of the things I just want to point out is they did their counts in September during low season and they added in a 6% seasonality factor. Now we all know Miami Beach on
Collins the difference between peak activity versus September low activity there isn't a difference of 6% it's much greater. So even the analysis is flawed in that regard with adding such a low uh seasonality factor.
So again, on Collins, you have unacceptable conditions with traffic. And what they're proposing as part of this is to reduce the signal timing, the green signal timing on Collins on 22nd Street. So if you reduce the signal
timing by 20 seconds on Collins, what are you doing? You're reducing the flow of traffic along Collins. What's that going to do? going to add more uh passenger vehicles to want to try and get through that intersection, exasperating the problem of blocking
those intersections um to accompany the additional traffic on 22nd Street uh at that ballet drop off pickup area. And this also >> Excuse me. Sorry, >> your your time has ended. Do you do you have do you need another minute or >> Yeah, one more minute, please. I'm sorry.
>> Minute, please. Thank you. >> And then this is just speaking to like the two arrows. So if you're heading southbound on Collins, there's no designated left turn lane on Collins. So you're waiting for a gap um from the northbound traffic on Collins. And so the additional traffic there will obviously lead to additional queuing on
Collins, but it also creates confusion. Do you pull if you're not familiar with that area, you might pull into the Ron driveway? And then if you pull into the Ron driveway, you're like, "Oh my god, I don't want to get back into all that traffic." So you might try and make an illegal mo motion movement by making a
Uturn into that W hotel which obviously is very dangerous. Um, and then just touching on the parking as part of the previous conditional use permit, there was a 51 space deficit and now you're adding additional seating capacity. And
based on the Miami Beach zoning code, you were provide you're supposed to provide one space per four seats, which would increase the deficit to potentially around 140 spaces on that site, which then could lead to them parking offsite, adding more traffic to the area, reducing the efficiency of the
valet. I'm done. Thank you. >> Are there any other members of the public who >> chair? May we uh rebut >> I I would recommend Mr. Kasen, I would recommend presenting a rebuttal at the conclusion of the >> public comment if you don't mind. Thank you.
>> So, is there any public additional public comment? And do we have anybody online as well? >> Sure. Let me look. Let me look online. >> Okay. Come on up. >> You can take a seat if you'd like. >> Good morning. Uh board members. My name
is Meg Wto. I'm the executive director of the Miami Design Preservation League. Um we support thoughtful architectural improvements to the property and appreciate the quality of the overall design presented. At the same time, we encourage continued refinement of the proposal so that the project respects the important public and environmental
protections that govern Miami Beach's oceanfront. And I would note that our objections, as I'll explain, have to do more with the dune overlay and the use of public space for private purposes than with what has been discussed just recently. We found several aspects of the architectural proposal to be
thoughtful and well executed. In particular, the overall design direction appears to be carefully considered and generally compatible with the architectural character of the site. At the same time, we have strong concerns regarding the variances requested as part of the application, particularly those that would allow expanded deck
areas, shade structures, and reduced setbacks within the Dune Preservation Overlay District and the Oceanfront Overlay District. These overlays exist specifically to protect the public realm along Miami Beach's oceanfront and to maintain the delicate balance between private development and the shared
coastal environment. While we appreciate the design quality of the proposed improvements, there is strong concern that the requested variances encroach into areas that are intended to remain open and visually accessible to the public. The oceanfront is one of Miami Beach's most important civic spaces, and
maintaining a clear distinction between private development and public coastal areas is essential to preserving the character of the shoreline. For these reasons, we encourage the applicant of the board to carefully review the requested variances and to consider whether the project can achieve its goals while minimizing encroachment in the public realm and maintaining the
intent of the overlay districts. Thank you. Thank you. >> You may. >> Our position was created last week before there were any changes submitted. We just found out about those today. >> Okay. Thank you. Good morning everyone. My name is Debbie
Quaid. I live at 2301 Collins Avenue. As a resident of the Rooney Palace for over 20 years, I've witnessed the evolution of the Collins Park neighborhood firsthand. And I want to formally urge the board to deny the current application by the W Hotel as it fails
to meet the essential criteria of maintaining neighborhood consistency and preserving the quality of life for the residents. 20 years ago, a settlement agreement was reached between the Rooney Palace and the W Hotel owners. This agreement created a successful balanced
ecosystem that allowed both the hotel to thrive, ultimately leading to its approximately $430 million sale. The current owners purchased the property with full knowledge of its physical and operational limits by seeking to expand seating and valet services. Now, they're
attempting to bypass the very balance that has defined this block for two decades. The Collins Park area is unique. It's a unique walkable cultural hub. It serves as a daily corridor for the students of Miami City Ballet, Hebrew Academy, Beach High, the library,
Museum, as well as seniors and tourists. The Rooney Palace and one hotel directly next door have over,00 units as residential and tourist occupancy. Most are walking every day in the neighborhood for restaurants, cafes, and shopping. The north driveway of the
W Hotel sits at a high congested artery with cars as well as walking pedestrians. Having crossed this intersection thousands of times as a resident, I can attest to its current danger. Adding a valet drop off here is not merely a commercial adjustment. It's
a significant public safety hazard that contradicts the city's goals for a walkable, safe streetscape. As a board, you have to pay attention to safety. Historic preservation is about more than just buildings. It's about preserving
the soul and the lived experience of a community. The applicant is seeking more than what they purchased at the direct expense of residents who have anchored this neighborhood for decades. I respectfully request that the board prior prioritize the um safety and
quality of life for Miami Beach residents by denying the expansion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else in chambers? Dennis, >> we can go to online while we're waiting. >> Yes. Our next call, our next our first
caller online is um Stephen Starker. >> Stephen, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please state your name and address. >> Uh Steven Starker, 2201 Collins Avenue, W Hotel. Um appreciate the quick uh
allowment for comment. I've been a longtime resident of the W. Um have seen obviously the the evolution of the neighborhood as well and uh I am supportive of re renovating the building
in a very uh architecturally uh um positive way to keep up the value of the neighborhood. um uh my my obviously my real estate uh and and kind of continue to keep up with what's happening broader uhly in in
Miami Beach as well. And so uh thank you to the committee. I appreciate it. >> And so now back to chambers. >> Honorable board members, my name is Dr. Renee Arnold and I've lived at the Ron Palace for four years, apartment 810.
I'm lucky enough to look east but unfortunate enough to hear the W Hotel quite well and have met many uh opportunities to call code compliance uh because of the sound emanating from the current nightclub. I have a doctorate in
clinical pharmarmacology and I'm an entrepreneur and residence at the National Institutes of Health with a area of expertise in health health outcomes. I can tell you that the health outcomes of this neighborhood will be quite negatively affected by the
proposed expansion of the nightclub and valet parking on the north side of the W Hotel. As has already been discussed by Mr. Taxman, the intersection at 23rd Street and Collins Avenue is already a morass of pedestrians
uh jaywalking, crossing every which way, going east, west. Um I I have many opportunities to tell people be careful, don't cross with your walker. Um cars are coming from every direction that you don't even realize.
Uh there are multiple lights at this intersection that are illtimed and set to fail. Specifically, this one intersection has to handle the north and south on Collins Avenue, the east and west. You've got people that are walking on the east side of Collins across those
two active driveways. the W Hotel and the Rooney Palace. This doesn't even take into consideration the illegal U-turns that happen when cars are trying to go southbound to get into the one hotel and they because of the stansions that are
now there, they can't do that directly. So, you have a Range Rover, for example, coming up to the intersection at 23rd and Collins wants to make a Uturn so that they can now get into the one hotel. can't make it directly because they don't have the range, the radius.
They have to back up further impacting traffic and pedestrians. I'll be right I'll be done in one sec. It's only a matter of time before there's a fatality because of this situation. It will only get worse with the increased intensity brought on by the proposed W hotel expansions. I urge
you to make certain that the planning board considers the enormous potential impact on the quality of life to the residents of the entire neighborhood before the HPB approves the project. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. I believe we have other callers online. >> There's some callers online. Yes. Our
next one is um Dennis Wedlick. >> Hello. This is Dennis Wedlick. And >> Dennis, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you very much. Uh I am a unit owner at the Ronit Palace and I am a licensed architect with extensive
overseeing uh experience on construction within Miami Beach Historic District. And I just want to compliment the board for spending one hour discussing the impact of a pedestrian kiosk and uh what
impact it would have on pedestrians. And I also want to compliment those architects and those attorneys for being so concerned about what impact they would have and and just kind of remind you that you denied um a kiosk because
you weren't satisfied by its impact. But this W hotel application is also to build an outdoor music venue. That is the deck. It's an outdoor music venue and it is decidedly incomplete, preventing you and the public from
properly assessing the project's impacts on the surroundings. To name a few deficiencies, it has inadequate site analysis, lack of documentation for significant design features, and most importantly, an absence of technical specifications and acoustical analysis.
The application lacks detailed architectural specifications and a professional acoustical analysis for an outdoor late night outdoor music venue. Without these, it is impossible to verify if the proposed mitigations will be effective to protect the
surroundings. HPB is tasked with ensuring that noise from an outdoor music venue is adequately shielded from adjacent properties and it would be an alarming precedence for all the historic districts of Miami Beach if that is not
taken carefully into consideration and if the architects and attorneys don't don't respectfully demonstrate to you how they are concerned about this issue for the neighborhood, the surroundings and the people who live who live within hundreds of feet of this venue. I thank
you very much. I ask you to um not approve this submission. >> Thank you, Mr. Wedlick. Do we have anybody else in chambers before we move forward with another online caller? >> Try to be >> Okay.
>> Hi, I'm Michael Arnold and uh I'm a registered voter here in Miami Beach. live at the Ron Palace and I face northeast. So I don't directly face the W, but just this weekend we had to call code
compliance about the noise that I can't talk to a friend in the living room because of the sound of the music. And I worry about uh the venue that's going to add 200 people or whatever and what that sound is going to be like. That's not
what I signed up for. uh in my you know to live in my apartment. Again, I may be the only person here. Uh I don't own a car. I walk everywhere and I'm concerned about that traffic at 23rd Street in Collins. I I probably am wasting my time
going over it, but everybody seems to know the the signals with the lights and everything. And it just seems like this new valet parking on the north side with cars pulling in and now there's they're gonna have to make a K turn to get out
loading the new membersonly valet. I don't know why they can't just have the valet parking on 22nd Street that doesn't it's not on the Rooney. There's they they already have valet parking there. Why don't they just keep it there? Why does it have to go to 23rd
Street? It just seems like a chaotic situation is going to get worse. People talked about, oh, there they submitted new plans on Friday or something. Again, I'm just a regular guy here. Uh, it it just seems like it's it's very rushed
and haphazard. I think there needs to be more time for the for the planning board maybe to address these issues, studies that need to be done uh before this is just shoved down people's throats and and and approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I believe we have at
least one more online. >> We have uh three online. The next is Lynn Nunes. >> Lynn, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Lynn, are you there? >> Sorry. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Hello? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Sorry about that. I swear. >> Yes, I do. I swear. Yeah. >> Um, so I've been on the board for about three years. I am the current board president of the Roni. Um, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Yes, >> we can hear you.
>> Okay. Oh, sorry. Sorry. So just to give you an idea of the amount of impact this will have 238 units face south which would be directly impacted by uh this new increase of occupancy of the club and all the residents of the Rooney are
going to be impacted by this new valet drop off. But that being said I don't want to kind of beat a dead horse in repeating a lot of uh the shared concerns of the people that spoke before me and many in the building as well who couldn't attend today. But I want to share some information that um they're
not privy to. Maybe the board isn't as well. Uh originally when we originally when the Rooney found out about this project was not through engagement from the W. It was through a public notice. Upon receiving that we immediately contacted
the W to get more information, find out what's going on. So it was through our outreach where we engaged uh the W. Uh we were able to set up a very preliminary walk just to see what was going on at my asking. After doing that um you know conversation ended and I
instructed our council to reach out to the W and he made four different attempts to engage uh the W to come to some type of understanding and work this through. I think the reality is we want this project to be successful but we want it to be done in a fair, balanced, respectful manner. It took four
different attempts and we were finally able to arrange a meeting which occurred on Thursday. This Thursday, this is a $100 million project and we were afforded the courtesy to meet with the new attorney Niss, which is a very, you know, very nice guy. That was on
Thursday. They gave us three business days to digest this information, add our input, kind of come up with creative ideas, and that's just simply in in my belief not in good faith. I don't think it gave us the opportunity to express our concerns, to digest information, to figure things out, offer alternatives,
and or give our blessing into what's happening. So, just based on that, I don't think it's appropriate for the historic preservation board to to approve it without at least uh having us work with uh the W to figure out some creative solutions that's benefits both people and are fair. So, I just don't
think at this point um you the board should approve the project as it stands. We're amendable to working with them, but not under these conditions where we were given three days to try to accomplish something. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Next. David Edstein.
>> David, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name and address. >> David Edelstein. I uh bought the Holiday in in 2005 and designed and built every square inch
of the W Hotel as it sits today. I spent a lot of time with the board, the Historic Preservation Board, City Planning, as well as our neighbors, and I'm proud of what we created. In 2020 and 2021,
I and the rest of the unit owners renovated all 400 rooms of the hotel. We spent over $40 million. In 2022 to 2023, we redid the entire exterior of the
hotel. That costs over $15 million. The next stage was to redo the lobby, the pool area, and the exterior restaurants. I have not been involved in the planning or design as it sits before you today. I
saw it for the first time a couple of days ago and I wholeheartedly approve and endorse the approval of this design. I think it was the next step that I would have taken if I was still the owner. I do own
five units in the building. I maintain my residence there. And as a unit owner and as the developer of this property, I embrace and endorse and congratulate the design team on a fabulous job. I
respectfully request that the board unanim unanimously approve. Thank you. >> Next caller is um Arpan. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> He lowered his hand. Um, last caller, Curtis Devito. >> Curtis, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name and address. >> Curtis Devito, 2020. Collins Avenue. I
am a resident of the Ron Palace, where I have owned a unit for 24 years. I respectfully oppose the proposed private club in the addition of a valley drop off and club entrance on the 23rd Street side of the W Hotel. The Collins Park neighborhood, home to the Rooney Palace
in the W Hotel, is a vibrant mixeduse district known for its unique blend of historic character, cultural institutions, and highquality public spaces serving residents and visitors of all ages. This proposal threatens to upset that
balance. First, the proposal will negatively affect the quality of life for me and my neighbors. The Rooney Palace is a residential building. It's not a condo hotel, nor does it allow Airbnb type short-term rentals. It is our home, and many of us have lived
there for decades. Current operations at the W Hotel already generate substantial noise concerns, as you've heard this morning. For our sake, to keep our neighborhood livable, and to protect the integrity of this residential historic district, I urge the board to require
measures to strictly limit outdoor music and its impact on neighbors. Second, the proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood's historic character that the board is charged with protecting. The original approval of the W Hotel
followed careful study to determine appropriate density for its location within the Collins Waterfront Historic District and adjacent to the Museum Historic District. The proposed increase in intensity goes significantly beyond what was originally allowed. For those
of us who live, walk, and cycle here daily, the area is already at or beyond its appropriate level of activity. This proposal will further erode the human scale character that defines this neighborhood. For these reasons, I
respectfully request that you deny the application or defer it until all impacts are fully evaluated. Thank you. >> That concludes our um online callers. >> Okay. And chambers. >> My name is Pamela Ryold, Mayor. I reside
at the Rooney Palace. I don't have any fancy architectural drawings and I'm not an expert on anything except living at the Rooney. My unease with the 23rd Street and Collins Avenue intersection is widely known as a nightmare to navigate. The
safety on the street for pedestrians, strollers, bicycles, scooters, buses, double parking vehicles, car services loading and unloading passengers. This should be enough reason to reconsider this proposal. The backup beeping of the trucks that have started as early as
3:26 a.m. on occasion and often before the regulated time of 7 a.m. is acceptable behavior for daily life with the loading dock. The addition of clubs and outside dining with music will bring more headaches to those that call this their home. The music with predominant
predominantly bass melodies makes my Apple Watch warn me that I'm in a loud environment while I'm sitting trying to listen to TV. And this exposure can dis damage my hearing. Quote, "Apple." Feeling the vibrations of the music in
my apartment should not be okay. Asking for relief to have a safe environment is not a courtesy. It's a reasonable expectation. I'm a native Miamiian and I chose this urban life that I love in Miami Beach. I serve community here on being on the
women's commission as vice uh chairman. I serve on the Collins Park neighborhood board as secretary. Maybe my city can spare my neighbors and I by not adding additional chaos to my quality of life.
Good morning board members. My name is Joseph Nidani. I'm a professional licensed engineer in the state of Florida and I have been living in the 12th floor of the Ron Hotel of the Ron Condominium for 25 years. My balcony
faces the W Hotel. The new owners of the W Hotel have been very disrespectful of the noise ordinances. Early in 2025, the W Hotel started having loud music around the swimming pool from 10:00 a.m. till
6:00 p.m. And several times each month, the W Hotel has parties in their open night nightclub and around the pool with live bands and pre-recorded music that sometimes last until 2:00 in the morning. much later than permitted.
Please listen to the video that I made recorded on the December 6, 2025, 12:28 a.m. during a W Hotel party. Let me see if I can find and I have several more of those. This
is at past midnight and has been in my personal case. I had quote co- compliance at least eight times during the last four months regarding similar noises. In addition, during the day, their noise from the from the W Hotel
during the day is so loud that we have to have our televisions and sound music very loud so we don't hear the bang bang bang noise coming from the music. Uh from my point of view, obviously I don't
approve the project before any other studies are made related to traffic studies and particularly noise studies. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Mel Rose. I apologize. I don't have anything written down. I didn't know that I was going to
speak. But uh I live at Ron Palace. I live on the 16th floor. I face the W Hotel. And um in my experience because of the configuration of the buildings, it's a tunnel so that the the sound just
comes right up. I mean, I can hear people talking in the pool. Um so you can imagine when there's a party and there's loud music, it's especially bad. And I I I also I meant to say I'm I'm also a board member of the Star Hampton
House. Had to put that in there. Anyway, um I'm not opposed to music. I love music, but but what we hear what what affects us at Rooney is this bass that is a thumping. It sounds like thunder. And I
hear it inside my apartment with all my windows and doors shut. And it gives you a headache. It makes you anxious. It's not livable. I love living here. I love Miami Beach. I we my husband and I have been here for about four years. We we
adore it, but it's becoming difficult to live here. I need sleep. 5:00 in the morning, there are trucks that come into the W loading dock and they do a three-point turn and they beep the whole time all the way in, all the way out and
it wakes us up. And so we live with that. And then you're going to put more on top of that. It's untenable. It is. And one more thing I wanted to say. The other day I watched as an 18-wheeler
turned around on Collins Avenue and backed in to the W half street. It's not a street, it's a half street. Backed in and beeped the whole way and traffic on both sides of Collins was stopped for about five minutes. So,
thank you. I hope you do not approve this today. Thank you. Uh good morning board. My name is M Kolak. I'm resident at the Roni Palace 2301 Collins Avenue and I'm on the 14th floor facing the W directly. So and um
listening to both sides today starting with Mr. Kasden's comments about uh the Ruben brothers and the great effect it's going to be here in Miami Beach that we should be grateful that they invested. I don't I don't agree with that. I mean, Miami Beach is not a two bit town
anymore. People want to invest here. I don't think they need extra incentives or uh uh the loss of our lifestyle that we have at the I want and a lot of us want is peaceful enjoyment of our properties. I've owned
since 99. I was here 21 years ago and we thought we had things settled. There was issues along the way but resolved, you know, but right now there is such a hardline difference. I don't know what the board's going to do. But I think one of your um responsibilities about that
buffering is how we fit into the u adjacent neighbors which we are and will have the most effect. specific point today. 5:45 a.m. I was woken up by a truck reversing, pulled open the blinds. There it is at the W just by the uh
valet. All the bays were full. And then couple hours later, I took out the dog to walk. There's a huge 30ft long garbage bin, 30 or 40 sitting there exposed in front because all the bays were filled where the garbage should be. That happens a lot. There's a W food
truck taking part and then the fire lane of that 23rd Street, the half street that W has was full of cars and mechanics or whoever has to come to fix things. Don't forget the D the W is also private. So privately owned condos need
their own workmen and that there's no other uh place that these people can park. It's complete chaos and it's terrifying. But to me, the noise is the big one that's going to drive us all out there. Thank you. Thank you. >> We have a caller online that hung up
previously. Um, Arpon, >> do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name and address. >> Yes, my name is Arpin Periq. Um, I have unit 523 in the W and, uh, I wanted to
just, uh, say that I support this project wholeheartedly. Um, you know, I have a unit that's right across the ro and when they were doing their pool update, I was dealing with noise for over a year and a half and same thing with the sounds and with the all of that
nonsense. So, um, you know, I feel that we really need an upgrade on the property. It has been way too long. It's a dated property to a certain extent and it needs to go through. That's my comment. Thank you so much. >> That concludes our public comment.
Okay, Madam Chair, if I may have uh I think I need about seven minutes to respond to uh the uh Mr. Robin's comments as well as the expert that they they brought forward.
>> So, um you know, I'd like to I'd like to start by putting this in context. What is actually before you and what are we considering? There were no comments about the new
pool redesign and pool area. There were no comments about the petisserie. There were no comments about the lobby. There were no comments even about the drop off on 22nd Street. Uh there were comments about the what is
happening with regard to the uh the uh private lounge, the VIP lounge. And if if we may have my presentation put back up because there's some misinformation that was given by the opposing side. If we could put that back up, please.
Uh, okay. While there, there we go. Thank you. I'd like to go I'm going to go towards the end of this presentation. uh this uh with respect to the proposed site plan, they are they made the
statement that we are increasing the capacity of what has been the nightclub will be a private lounge, VIP lounge. That's not correct. We are actually reducing the size of it. And if you can
see what we have there, that blue line outlines the seating that they are saying is outdoors, but it is covered. It is under the curtilage of the existing building. In other words, what they're doing is opening up the walls,
but keeping the roof and all the supports so we'll be covered completely covered by concrete uh ceiling that it currently exists. Not expanding it, just making it outdoor seating instead of indoor seating. So, that's something that's very important and that therefore
will have no impact whatsoever on the neighbor's property. They you heard all these comments and discussion. there was about about noise about operations uh about uh all of that as you know as you have been told that is not the
domain of this board. So the one thing that they try to hang their hat on is well the traffic and the traffic circulation and the uh code condition the requirement or standard that is referred to. Let me read it carefully to you.
Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that clearly defined segregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings is provided. the focus is on pedestrian access.
And it goes on to say uh for driveways and parking spaces safely and conveniently arrange and have a minimal impact on pedestrian circulation throughout the site and that uh that to interfere as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow
flow on the roads and pedestrian movement onto and within the site. That's what the focus of that criteria is. And with respect to that, I would point out we are not creating any new driveways. We're not create changing the
traffic or curb cuts, not creating the changing the traffic pattern one iota. And so you would be typically looking at where's the curb cut going to go, where's the driveway going to go. We're not changing any of that. I'd like to briefly, even though it is not really
properly in a way before your board, I'd like to have Kevin Dardarski come up and briefly rebut some of the mistaken statements that were made by their traffic expert. >> Good morning everybody or good afternoon. My name is Derek Deski. I work at Kimley Horn. Uh I'm the traffic
engineer on the project. I'm going to touch on five main points that Mr. Taxman brought up earlier. The first one is he showed an image of a t-bone, a graphic um on his PowerPoint. That scenario today is not permitted. Um that
location operates under what we would call a split phase operation where conflicting movements are not permitted. Right? That's a deliberate safety measure. So in addition to that, DOT has supplemented the westbound approaches with a no right turn on red. So you know that scenario right now is technically
not permitted. The second point I'd like to make is about the concerns about the drop off on the north end. Now loading and valet will remain today. The main valley operations will still occur on the south. The only change is the
addition of a very exclusive members lounge area which generates at a maximum 18 trips in the afternoon. So the traffic volumes are pretty low. Um there was another point about collecting data in September. Now that's a valid
time collection period. Schools were in session and we did factor up the we did factor up the volumes by 6% which is allowed and that follows typical FTO standard. So that is also an incorrect statement. And then the last thing I'd like to say is we did go through an
independent review um with a consultant who reviewed and approved this. We provided a methodology before we submitted our study and everything's been done above board. So >> thank you. So yes and that's very important. There was an independent review of it and again all of these things will be
considered in context of a conditional use permit application. The one thing I would like to say in with respect to the conditions is that uh the condition on the south side of on 22nd Street where the staff
has recommended the introduction of a curb raised curb uh from the drive to divide the driveway from the sidewalk. There are physical and practical problems that we would have with regard to that because we'd have to change the
entirety of the sidewalk. But understanding what the concern is, uh what we would be willing to do is work with staff to come up to design some means of separation of the pedestrian area and the vehicular area so vehicles
can't back up on the sidewalk. Perhaps Ballards, something of that sort. So, uh, I would request that that condition be modified to say we'll work with staff to come up with some barrier or barricade that would that would provide
that and that really um, the other thing as I mentioned critical importance to us is cannot be conditioned. You heard we will be talking I guarantee you we'll be talking to the Rooney residents a lot as we go forward with our conditional use
permit approval and there are some issue there are some legitimate issues with regard to operations that they are fully entitled to be raising. This is not the forum. We will meet with them, but we need to get moving with the actual physical construction. And you heard
again literally no objection to the kinds of things, the petisserie, the new beach bar and pool area, you know, the porta kosher. Those are the things that brought this item to your board for review. The interior stuff is not even a
historic lobby. That's a major portion of it, but it's not really uh for your board's review. You heard no objections whatsoever to the main outside elements except the valet drop off on the north end. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Just want to make certain the record is clear. So, >> may I make some objections? First of all, the so-called peer review was not provided to us until this morning, though we requested it a month ago, 3
weeks ago, two weeks ago, and we were told we were told it was not there when we contacted the planning department. The planning department, Mr. Belaluch, handed to me today, and he apologized and said I it was in another file in the planning board, not in this file. So,
however, we should have received that and had an opportunity to review that timely and had our traffic engineer removed the striker because we did not have an opportunity to question or cross-examine that witness. And that's a requirement that the person who prepares traffic engineering reports should be
available for cross-examination. He has not been made available. >> Not required that the peer review be here, >> but it was submitted. >> So, gentlemen, I'm going to ask you to stop cross talking, please. Thank you, Mr. Robbins, if you conclude. And Mr. Casten, I'll give you time for final rebuttal and then we're going to >> Thank you. You're welcome.
>> Okay. And just want to make it clear that it does the criteria which is in the staff report includes not only pedestrian but traffic vehicle ingress and you can read the language. It's right in your staff report. It's not just about pedestrians though
pedestrians are a big concern. That's all I have to say today. Thank you. I look forward to hearing your deliberations on these critical issues. >> Thank you. And with that, we're going to close public comment. So if you'd like your final rebuttal, I'll give you one more minute. >> Thank you. Very briefly, the comment with respect to partially satisfied with
respect to pedestrian vehicular circulation dealt with the issue on the 22nd street which was the need to introduce a curb to make sure that vehicles do not park perpendicular. That is the only thing that was addressed by
that condition. and we are telling you that we are willing to uh as a condition work with staff to provide a structured separation so that that can't happen. Thank you. >> So I've asked this we've we're closing public or going with public comment.
I've asked the city attorney to because it was raised in public comment >> we've we've >> we've closed the public hearing. Sorry, we had a very long public comment period. >> I entered sort of I came for a meeting and then I was invited here. So, I just
wanted to say one com. >> No, no. So, no. Thank you. >> Um, >> so I'm the applicant. I I'm here to answer questions they may have. >> No. So, I'm I've asked the city attorney
to speak to um the circulation, the pedestrian. It was brought up in public comment. what is an under what is under our purview as um under a previous application that was heard earlier today versus this particular application. So if you can address that. >> Sure. So so just to recap what's before
you is an is an application for a certificate of appropriateness. your certificate of appropriateness criteria uh include a review of and I'm just going to read some of this verbatim. Uh pedestrian and vehicular traffic
movement within and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that clearly defined segregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings is provided is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces are usable, safely, and conveniently arranged and have a minim minimal impact on pedestrian
circulation throughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere with as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow on these roads and pedestrian movement onto and within the site as well as permit both pedestrians and vehic vehicles a safe ingress and
egress to the site. Um staff has included analysis analysis of this criterion as part of its narrative in the staff report and and there is a recommended condition because this project also requires a conditional use
permit uh for for a neighborhood impact establishment. Um the the planning board is required uh to to consider issues like and I'm I'm just going to read so so the board is clear um a parking plan
which fully describes where and how the parking is to be provided and utilized including including valet uh and the manner in which it is to be managed. a traffic circulation analysis and plan which details the impact of projected traffic on the immediate neighborhood
and how this impact is to be mitigated. And I'll also raise because it's come up during during this uh during this hearing a noise attenuation plan which addresses how noise will be controlled to meet the requirements of the noise ordinance. So, you know, to the extent that there may be some overlap between
this board's review of of um of of pedestrian pedestrian and vehicular uh movements and circulation on the site and adjacent to the site, as well as the issues that the planning board will be looking at, which really are um are part
of the planning board's review of the of the use and the operate the operational plan for this property. I I you know, the planning board at the end of the day, any any comments that this board um uh makes or any conditions you impose that relate to any of these issues
really need to yield to the planning board's review of of a conditional use permit application because at the end of the day, you know, not every application for a CFA requires planning board approval. This one does. So in this instance, the operational issues I mean
while you may have some purview here um the operational issues are ultimately going to be decided by the planning board. >> Thank you Mr. City Attorney. >> We're going to go to board commentary. If you want to have a you can stand or have a seat, whatever you prefer, but
we're going to go to board commentary. >> Could we ask him to sit so we can see the board? It's blocking you. I just asked for >> I'll be happy to sit down. If you have questions, I'll make myself a >> Thank you very much.
>> Any board commentary? >> Mitch? >> Sure. U just have there been any noise viol violations issued? >> We didn't check that. We checked that for the planning board. We didn't check that for this application. Now, of
course, if there are noise violations issued and um that's brought to the attention of code compliance and planning, the plan the plan director can bring them to the planning board. >> Okay. >> So, I'm a little confused by the outdoor
seating on the northern elevation. Is that you say outdoor, but you described it as being enclosed. Uh, will sound permeate that enclosure? >> No. Good question. And there was a
little u, you know, Mayor Gilbert used to have a great saying, sometimes when there's smoke, there's a smoke machine. The additional outdoor seating that you're talking about is they are taking part of the interior space of the existing what it is club which will
become a lounge and making that open air but they're retaining the entire structure around it. >> Not the walls. >> Well, except for the walls to towards the except for the walls towards the pool area. Yeah. So in other words, sound uh will not be
contained and can >> well if if you neighbors >> we can well again we have no uh that is governed by the the planning board in the CUP but if you look at it it was presented to you by the uh opposition as
though it was open air. It is a completely covered structure. It will be there will be openings towards the east. That's true, but that's all that's happening. And it will be the same concrete structure with walls on the
north roof, concrete roof overhead, but just an open porch out towards the pool and the beach. >> Let me ask a followup to staff. If we >> It also opens to the north. >> Got it. >> There's a wall out the north. >> Quick question about that. So if we
approve as part of the certificate of appropriateness, we're we would be approving that they could open a part of that club to be outdoor covered but outdoor. >> Approve modification to the plan. Yes. >> And so if we approve that and then it
goes to planning board, they're going to have to provide sound mitigation measures. Um, and if planning board finds that those are not sufficient, do they lose that right to open the walls or something? I'd have to take a
look and see exactly what exists right now in terms of that construction and how visible that is from um both the um the north and to the east. >> But not visibility. I mean the obviously if you take a wall down is going to
permeate more. >> Exactly. Yes. But I I think here in this case it does require five votes for demolition as part of this application. So we do have five votes um to approve that demolition. We could not approve that administratively the opening up. So that is subject to this board to review and approval that that opening up on the
on the north and east. >> The challenge is like the sort of the divide between what is our perview and what's planning board. If we if we approve something is it then it's not for planning. >> So one thing that the board has done in the past is the opposite. Let's say an application typically may go to the
planning board first. We had this case, I think it was for um the 1500 block of Washington where um the planning board reviewed the the file first and we had input from the historic preservation board on on something that was happening at the street level. So the planning board reviewed it, continued the application to get comments from the
planning board and I'm sorry, from the HPV and then took that in consideration when they reviewed the application again. In this case, um they have not yet finalized their planning board applications, but that's hard to happen. One thing I was going to suggest since the applicant has not finalized their
plans for the the beach club area. So if there's some certain elements that you don't want to approve now, you could say we're going to take out from the approval, for example, the the covered valet drop off area on the north if that's, you know, if the board wants to remove that from this part of this application this time and have the applicant submit that as part of their
proposed um beach club um improvements later on or other improvements that they're going to come back to the board, you know, in the future. So I would suggest focusing on what what is the easiest thing to approve today to get some approval and continue portions of the application to later time to be addressed you know um as part of the
plan application before it comes back here or um have the applicant you know more time to to provide additional details on that because I know for this application it was rather rush rush because we had a full submitt for last month a change of attorneys there was
some removal of of of of um um occupancies removal of seating but those plans were never presented to the board until today. So, I could understand how, you know, there's some um some um some concern with the board in terms of how that we do not have the full plans to
show that. So, I think it's perfectly appropriate to approve not the entire application today, only part of it, and continue portions of the application that maybe um are most controversial at this time. >> When Nissan, when are you planning to go to the planning board? Four months from
now. probably. We're thinking July. It's going to uh probably >> go ahead, Mitch. >> Yeah. Uh Nissan, you you uh you've discussed uh creating a raised curb or ballards on the south elevation. Why
could not the drop off, the uh VIP drop off take place uh along the south uh 22nd Street? >> Uh I think that operationally they feel that it will be a better sort of
distribution. Uh and remember the valet drop off that they're contemplating. Again, we're not getting approval for that. That comes through the planning board. But the uh all you would be approving is actually the creation of the structure that would accommodate that. If for some reason the planning
board says no, you can't have it there, then we would have to remove that portion of the improvements. But that is for first of all, you have to understand what the what the contemplated use is today. There's a club. This is going to
be a a a VIP lounge. And so it's going to be a not as intense, a less intense, a higherend use to go with the hotel. And the valet drop off that they're contemplating there. And that driveway is for what they would call VVIPs. Very
low number of uh of uses that has been that is in our traffic report that is also in the peerreview report. >> All right. And another question. Uh I uh remember this project when it uh when it
received the approval. I served on this board at the time. The tunnel is it currently one way? >> Yes, it is. >> And I I've heard mentioned that it'll become
uh birectional uh if uh we approve a uh >> northern. The way we modeled um the valet, it it's it's operating as one way. So the circulation wouldn't change, right? So the tunnel, if you're using that drop
off on the north, the valet attendant will go through the tunnel and it comes back down around onto 22nd and it it makes that loop. There's no no one's going back up the other way. >> Okay. So currently what we just stated implies that it
moves north to south the tunnel. >> No, it goes south to north. >> So you're >> or depending on which way you're looking at looking at it. >> I I I need clarification on this.
>> Okay. So we'll start with with how it operates, right? You're on 22nd Street. You drop off the car to the valet attendant, picks it up, gets onto Collins, pulls into the parking garage to park the car. That valet attendant will go pick up the car, proceed into
the tunnel, come back around, drop off the car at the drop off location. And that circulation is not changing. And that approach is more conservative because the distances that are covered are longer, right? And that is what the city felt most comfortable with too.
still somewhat confused, but uh >> yeah, so real quick >> it goes clockwise. >> Yeah, I was gonna say I was it goes clockwise my question >> or well that's what it's supposed to be doing. >> Okay. >> Can I can I ask traffic affects
pedestrian which we're supposed to consider, right? Are are there like is there like a gate for the loading dock that separates it from Collins >> on the west of the property? >> I don't think so. Is there anything that
>> But that is remember we're talking about the existing condition that has for the past 20 years. >> What they plan on doing with the driveway is actually uh beautifying it. It will be continued to be used for service which is further to the uh
western end of the property. And then at the farther east end of the property, there will be that valet drop off area which would then enable them to go into the into the tunnel and also would screen some of the uh screen some of the
uh back of house operations. But remember it no new curb cuts, no new driveways, nothing's changing. Although I suppose that's true physically, but uh right now it's it's purely a loading dock
>> and so there's additional cars entering there different times a day because presumably loading dock is in the morning, >> not in the evening. >> I will say uh one last thing. I'm I'm grateful not to be on the planning board anymore because of applications like
this. You've dealt with these issues a lot. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> go ahead. >> I'm just uh a bit foggy about what you're talking about. So, currently as it exists, the circulation is north to south in the tunnel,
>> right? >> The tunnel specifically, but >> it's clockwise in plan view. >> Correct. >> Correct. Is that changing? >> No. >> Okay. So the only addition is the number of cars that are going to be queuing on
the north side. >> Correct. >> Currently, how many cars can you queue on that north side? >> Well, because it's such a low drip trip generator, we're not expecting, you know, cues. I think I mentioned earlier maximum of 18 trips is what we'd expect
in the PM in the afternoon period. And so I think you can fit at least two, but um >> but this is a lounge. You expect nighttime traffic too? No, you're talking about afternoon. What about at night when it's operational? >> So, the core purpose of the tropic study
is to analyze the two worst hours of the day. And so, we collected 72-hour counts from Thursday to Sunday to determine what two hours were going to be, you know, the worst worst periods with the highest number of volumes. And so that PM peak period that we analyzed is
not in the late evening because the volumes along Collins were very low and so the project in general would not have that adverse of an impact. >> I'm sorry. When is volume on Collins low again? >> In the lower in the evening I guess I'll correct >> and this the late evening.
>> Okay, one more question Nissan please. >> How high are the ceilings in this area that's currently enclosed that you expect to open up? roughly. Is it 10 feet? Is it 20 feet? Is it 30? >> 18 feet. >> 18 feet. That's a substantial opening.
>> So, the green area that you showed in your um proposed enlarged site plan >> that is going to be completely outdoors. Correct. >> Uh a portion if we can bring it back up so that >> on the east side I think it is.
>> Let me run. There we go. So that area in the green >> you see the area uh right now there is what amounts to about three rows of tables which you can see there that area is currently completely enclosed. It
will continue to have the roof. Uh that's all part of the existing club as it is >> the area bounded in blue >> in blue right that's all completely enclosed now there will be openings of that area so that it becomes an uh an
outdoor uh you know fresh air uh indoor outdoor space but the roof remains as well >> but the green area >> well the green area is uh the green area is just a u sort of a walkway between that and and the area below which you
see which is uh uh an outside uh area for uh uh dining. >> So it would be within our purview I guess this is to you Michael. It would be within our p per purview down the road to indicate whether we accept or
not any noise mitigation elements that would be protecting this area to noise to our neighbors on the north >> if it rose to the level of requiring HPV review. There could be instances where they could add um noise protective or
noise attenuating um elements that could be done administratively without coming having to come back for before you guys. Um but I think it sounds like there's there's a lot of um lack of clarity about what's happening in this area and I think it's because the the lack of clarity in the plan. So I think definitely if the board is not happy
with the submission for this part, we could continue this this part of the application to a future date if they have not sufficiently detailed. I'm looking for some photos of this area right now as part of the application. I don't see photos of this area for us to really judge. Do we have some >> Let me let me add a couple points that may help clarify. Um on that previous
image with the blue and the green outlines, the green outline is an existing deck area which will remain a deck area. Um and with underneath the structure where a portion of the exterior envelope is being removed to
increase the open air seating, that's really like a porch. I did say the slab above is 18 ft above. That's a slab. We're going to need to build down a sophet to enclose HVAC and other equipment. Some of which is existing and
some of which is probably going to be new. >> So can you identify for us which area on that blue that will become open? Um I think so our purview here is somewhat it's limited right as Mr. Kasm had
reminded us several times. So I think like one of the few things that's left for us to deliberate here is almost the design part and I feel like the drawings and the plans are not specific enough for us to rendering here. >> We're we're I you know I apologize I'm
now showing you a rendering of what that area would look like. Where the structural columns are is today enclosed. That area would be opened up and that is what the area would look like. That's today. >> That's today. That's the current.
>> Yeah. The focus of that rendering. >> No, but that that wall I'm sorry, >> pardon me. That wall would be removed and additional area would become part of the opening. >> The porch would be deeper. >> The porch would be deeper. >> The focus of this rendering is is the
potential sound mitigation u strategy. >> Where is that portion that will be open? Because we still I don't think any of us have understood that part yet. It's where the double doors are and and the two metal doors to the right. That's that's currently the the two metal doors
serve a bathroom and the double door is the entrance into the current um >> No, no, I understand that. What I'm trying to understand is how far into the building you are cutting it. >> It's one structural bay, so it'll be twice as deep as what you see. Now, >> when when will you guys be returning for
the beach cafe uh portion of this? >> I I'm I'm not I'm not sure. But the reason why this is important to us is because uh even though this is not a historic uh not a contributing building, this is the one element that involves some demolition because we have to
demolish that wall. And so that's a major sort of construction lead item. Again, uh we will you know how it's used, sound, hours, all will have to go before the planning board. But in terms of that's a significant construction
item, >> right? >> But we are limited to the design of it and without like seeing a visual of what it becomes, it's difficult to approve it. I mean there's I mean you know the the whole thing is a bit complicated. >> Is it possible you could return with that like visuals and enlarged plan
exactly what it's going to become just for clarity? >> Yes. >> But we could per you know perhaps return with that sooner. >> Yeah. uh you know okay glad to >> because I think we I don't want to speak for everyone but you know I'd be much more comfortable approving the other parts that we can clearly see uh just to
eliminate any confusion >> right and I think if we could have enlarged plans of the peticery area and how that intersects with the right of way and the pedestrian circulation and the vehicle circulation and the setbacks I think that will help us to be to
understand the project and be in favor because right now I think you're asking is to approve a design based on a verbal description and that's for us especially architects is a very hard thing to do >> right although this I I with respect to the best I think we've shown you what it
will look like >> with respect to the beach the new beach bar yes and obviously the interior spaces and the porto kosher I think I understand the question you're asking about how's this going to look >> y >> and we can come back >> so when are you planning to apply for
the building apartment pardon for >> the building department construction >> as soon as possible. >> And when that would be do you have like a a schedule a wish list or something? >> I don't know. Well, we're still resolving the uh production schedule. Um
we we have most of our consultants on board. Not all of them. Um it we're going as fast as we can. But what we can do is uh take this bifurcate this particular portion out come back to you with more fuller renderings and etc of what it
would look like. >> Haskell has >> that would help quite a bit because I'm still a little bit confused to address the um uh neighbors concerns >> about the noise the thumping noise that's coming at night or during the day. Where is that on the plan? Where is
that noise emanating or originating from? Now, >> I honestly don't know. I'm not an acoustical engineer. It's not my area of expertise. >> I can tell you as as a member of the planning board, it was a lot of that and it's a complex issue and I think they're going to have to they're going to have
to show that in that application. And if if there are numerous code complaints, planning board will call them for a progress report. The reason I bring this up is because if this new venue that you're trying you're proposing has no effect on noise that's originating that
they're complaining about I think there are non issues. So I'd like to know where is this noise originating from? Is it part of what you're proposing or something new? >> I didn't hear the question. >> The noise that the residents are complaining about, where is it
originating from? What portion of the structure? Where is it coming from? >> Probably the nightclub, right? >> I I mean I I don't know if it is even originating from our space, but again, we are regulated by the code in terms of sound. If it is and it violates the
code, we could be cited. The report that was pulled uh at the time of application shows no open violations. Now, that was a few weeks ago. Uh so, >> I mean, Nissan, they're complaining about continuous noise issues. I I would
assume that >> I you know and I I I can appreciate that and it's certainly something we will be I will be discussing and we will be looking into but it doesn't uh that relates again to the operation and whether what we have
approved and whether we're in compliance with the code. It's not fair to say we're going to hold up your design approval on everything else and because you may have some noise violations although we're showing no violations currently. >> So
>> we and we'll deal with it. I mean it look a legitimate question and we're involved now and we're going to make sure and I think the intention of the owners >> is to really upgrade the product that they deliver there. So it's not a wild
party scene but much higher end. They're investing a lot of money. So, valid concerns. We'll deal with it. I >> I mean, I I think what the owners are proposing internally is beautiful. The work that we've done is extensive, and I applaud you for what you've done, but we
certainly have to be mindful of what the concerns are of the neighbors. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Do we have any commentary from anyone who has not spoken yet? >> I guess that's any further commentary. Okay. Um, so I I
agree with my fellow board members. I think the the what you're proposing um internally, the peticissery, um, is is very beautiful and very well done. Um, I think based on what I'm hearing here that we're probably going to be looking
at a partial approval of the um, hold on, I had it in front of me. Uh >> if I may I if I may madam chair I think the one item that we would pull out well I don't want to speak for the board but
there is the port the the elements the interior elements of course really uh are needed but not so much the purview of this board but the porticochair the the redoing of the pool area the beach bar remember we've taken out the
northeast corner that's not part of this application and of course the pest patisicuri as well. There was comment about the uh addition the taking part of what is now the nightclub and opening it
up and coming back to you with uh uh I think it's in our package the architects architectural package but we can come back to you with that at uh if we separate that off at a subsequent meeting and then the other uh question
you deal with is of course the valet drop off which operationally uh the planning board will be dealing with that. And we have the the other the other two points that are of course a major concern to us is one the curb, but
if it's acceptable, we would work with staff to come up with some structural uh uh barrier that would prevent cars from going up on the curb other than a curb cut. And of course we the condition uh
we can't be held hostage for this all these physical improvements uh waiting for conditional use permit approval. >> Do you have a comment? >> So I just one question um on the pool improvements. Is there any change to the
sound system around the pool? >> I don't think we've gotten to that point yet. worth uh they're, you know, this is just design at this point and whatever sound systems going to be there is going to have to be approved by >> the CUP by the planning board.
>> Okay. >> You're not approving any sound system. >> Yeah. >> Do we have any further commentary? >> Niss, could you reiterate the modifications you're making to the pool area? >> The Well, I I we can show them again.
Basically, they're resurfacing the pool. what they're doing. You saw they had those two less attractive sort of beach uh bar areas and they're going to be having one uh one area which is going to be more open, lighter,
>> the coping. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They're primarily finishes around the pool and the pool deck. And as was mentioned, the the bar is is decreasing in size and becoming less. >> Yeah. Also the landscaping we are going
to be uh uh fixing it so that there is some visibil vis required visibility from that to the beachwalk as well. >> Okay. >> Do we have a motion for >> Yeah. I guess the only I guess the only
final determination would be the three modifications to conditions IC2, IC3 C and IC3E, which I'm comfortable with IC3E. Michael, maybe you could help us write it. Are Ballards an acceptable or can we? >> Yeah, that that's that's a that's a
acceptable option, right? >> You can modify that to be include option for ballards. >> Okay. Yeah, I think everybody would be comfortable with that. Um I'm okay with taking IC3C out. Uh given that for the pet
>> I think we can say she'll comply with the the setback requirements or any modification she'll comply with required setbacks. >> Right. Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and then the only issue is IC2. Um I'm okay with IC2 seeking a permit before the cup so long as it's it's
clear to planning board that we aren't endorsing the operations of the of the project. Well, that that's really going to be be subject to determination by the planning director. So, if the planning director feels that that he cannot approve the plans that increase the occupancy or seating without planning board approval, then we we won't approve
the building permit. But there could be some sort of documentation that the owner has to submit to allow that permit to to proceed. >> So, do we need to amend that? >> Well, do you do you want to leave it in or take it out? Do you want to say subject to the planning director? Why don't we take it out and say it's subject to the planning director >> unless anyone
>> Well, I if I may, I I think you just need to take it out, >> right? >> Because we have to get the CUP >> in order to have any uh oper governing the entirety of our operations. So, uh this is really just about physical
physical building. We would we would request that it doesn't really take a determination. Now, at the point in time that we're going to get a uh build a CO uh and a CU and they're going to say, "Well, how can you operate?" We we have
to have a cup at that point in time. We don't at this point. >> And it could be the case that you get a permit and you potentially build something and then you don't receive a coop and not be able to use it. >> You also you also could take that condition, not put it in this order. They're going to come back to you for
these other elements. You could put that in that order. >> What I'm not following. >> I was saying sounds like the issues that the board is having is uh issue with today are the improvements related to the nightclub on the um open up the nightclub on the exterior, the valet um
stand on the north. Those are elements are going to come back to the board, I believe. So if the if the board at that time felt that those are issues that they want to have a condition that condition placed back into the order saying that those improvements cannot be constructed until the planning board approves the um modified cup. The board
could put that condition at that that time >> at that point in time. >> Yeah. >> But but remember even if the planning board didn't uh didn't approve a cup we would be restricted and we'd have to operate the hotel as it's operated now. >> Understand? Like so there there's an outside chance. Say for example the
board approved all this and they modified their application to reduce their seating, reduce their occupancy, they would not have to go back to planning board. So this sort of like um requires them to go back to the planning board. >> So >> even if they reduce their occupancy and um seats >> so just a quick question. So if that condition is irrelevant, why was it
placed in front of us? >> Yeah. >> No, I I don't think I don't think it is irrelevant. I think it is important because I think even without that condition um the planning director could say we're not going to approve your plans show an increase in occupancy and seating. We could say this is associated with your um um um neighbor impact
venues that we're not we're not going to approve this if you haven't had a modification to your CP. >> No, no. What I was saying is that if that condition if that um condition was not necessary because the >> I put it in there because of the I'm trying to understand the changes related
to the exterior that impact noise, traffic, those issues. >> Mr. Well, we could say because this is the fact that things such as uh op operation and occupancy and seating will be subject to approval by
uh uh the planning board >> but take this out in terms of that we got have to get that cup. So we'll know go everyone knows going in we're going to have to get the planning board to approve those elements but we can proceed with the design. We may have to
have less people there. Seat, you know, if they don't approve it, we may the seating may be less, the occupancy may be less. >> But if they if they didn't have sufficient seating to trigger the cup hearing for planning board, then then it would be under our purview. >> Yes. >> But if we direct them to go to the
planning board in our order to resolve this issue, can we do that outside of the requirement for them to go to planning board? In other words, >> I think so. If this if this application was not going to planning board, then you could place conditions in regarding hours and sound and things like that.
So, I think you could state that if for some reason the plans are modified to no longer require planning board review that the application will come back to the historic preservation board >> to review those issues. >> Yeah, why don't we say that? Okay. >> Okay. >> May I speak for one minute 30 seconds? I
it seems like we're going to sever out the north driveway valet parking and the outdoor seating on the Miami on the club and that will be done at a later date. Given that given that it's still going to go to planning board for cup
approval, we are supportive of the work that they're going to do in the rest of the site subject to determination of occupancy and demand and the valet issues. But we will accept as far as the south valley that that could be done,
you know, before the planning board. But we would just want to make certain that when it comes back, we do have review of the north drop off area, the actual structure for this board to review to see if sufficient and appropriate, as well as
the outdoor seating and how that's going to be handled with respect to the buffering, which is your responsibility. If you take those out, we will support for the purposes of this review the project and we will not challenge it, but we will go to the planning board and
deal with those issues at the planning board. >> So, I just want to be clear as to where the pony is on that issue. >> No, but I I think we keep it, Kent, that only we're going to we're going to review that here if it doesn't go to planning board. Otherwise, we leave it within their purview for the for the sound impact because
>> they're not presenting that stuff here. is to approve those items except what Kent mentioned. Those will be continued to um a future meeting the board would look at it as well as the planning board for the operations. But this >> and we will sit down with them and work with them. We h we intend to do that to
try to resolve this. >> I I I appreciate the spirit, but there's a little a wrinkle to that. Let's so let's be specific. We're talking about the northern uh I mean if that is the direction the board is going in bifurcating approving the rest coming
back to this board for its approval of the northern valet drop off with respect to the let's be careful in the wording it's not the outdoor seating it is simply the opening up of the portion of the existing building to outdoor seating
>> demolition >> right what demolition Not the entirety of outdoor seating. >> Just the certificate of appropriateness for th those modifications, right? Yeah. >> Can somebody uh drop that?
>> I will try. Okay. So, >> and correct me if I miss anything and probably will be. So, I'll make a motion to approve the following items on this application. the part share um with the condition that the applicant work with
staff to resolve the six-inch curb or in the other device to clarify traffic circulation. Uh the pool area as proposed and the opening up of the portion of the enclosed club to outdoor seating.
Um >> I think that's that's going to come back. >> That will come back. Yes. Oh, I thought that one we had include there. No. Okay. So then we're doing only the two areas and the pool area. So be the parker, the pool area and the particip if I may
it be everything but the port the the valet new valet drop off and the uh >> northern >> the the the the wall that we're >> so then we exclude instead the rice. So I rephrase it. So I make a
motion to approve the application excluding the north drop off area and the proposed changes to the >> nightclub >> to the nightclub >> instead of curb we have our other physical area >> and then the conditions. Okay,
>> I'm sorry but a lot's been going back and forth. If we could just restate it so I could be clear. Uh >> I don't think we're done yet. Okay, >> let let us finish and then we will try to restate it. >> Okay, can I
>> Everybody's giving me some red marks. >> This was mentioned earlier. I just want to make sure that it gets >> So, okay. So, I we'll start again. So, the approval of the application excluding the north drop off area and the opening of the club to door city and
the conditions will be the following. the uh >> the car drop off area on the north. >> The north. Yes. >> The valet drop off are in the south to disc uh to discuss with staff uh either a six a 6 in curb to prevent the
vehicles from encroaching on the public sidewalk or any other device to achieve that. And then that >> to staff's approval. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And then the existing condition IC2 we are modifying to if the planning
board if it's not going to planning board for CUP the project needs to return to the historic preservation board to discuss approve operation hours of operation and uh everything else it's under the condition.
>> I if I if I may if we can make one thing though very clear. So you're removing that so we can get a building permit based on this approval. >> Well, I don't know. That's that's object subject to determination by the planning director because if your plans come in
and show you're expanding the occupancy and you don't have a modified CUP, we could easily say you can't get a you can't get a building permit until you have those those plans um for modification reviewed by the planning board. >> For the physical, how will that work? So I I think I think the answer is
>> yeah for the physical improvements we don't have to show seats and tables >> and and and we won't >> yes as long as you're showing >> I mean I think this is candidly a little bit muddying it the c you know if we if we trigger anything that needs a cup any change in operations we go to the
planning board. uh if this is simply for the physical improvements and I think it muddies things to try to to tie it to a that would come back to this board for restrictions on operations. I really think it's much cleaner to keep those
processes legally separate as they are. So absent going to planning board that would be before us. And so what we're saying is that if you make changes to your seating or operations that fall below the requirement for it to go to planning board that it would have otherwise had to come before us that
because you're no longer going to planning board you will have to come back before us. If it still has to go to planning board then that's fine but otherwise you would have had to bring that to us today. >> So I think but but I but I question though let me just one clarification. So I think now based upon the physical changes being made. So let's say even
taking a second look at this since they are making physical changes by removing the wall and and other other elements including the addition of the valley and north side even if they don't change the occupancy or reduce it this still has to go to plan and board as a modification. And I and I remind you as well, you
know, years ago, Michael, when you were first starting, >> HPB orders had conditions involving operations. That was by design specifically separated so that let's say
if this board was to impose a condition on an operation and someone uh some new owner comes in, you'd have to get the CU go to get a CUP and you'd have to go to this board on operations. the operation stuff is is planning board, not this
board. >> And there and and there is a CUP. So that makes sense. If there was not a cup, then I then I think we could do the opposite. But now there is a >> even even if there's not a CUP, I don't think this board can be saying hours of operations as long as you're code compliant. >> The the board does have authority over
pedestrian and veicular certain pedestrian and veicular issues that relate to the operation. So I think you know where there is overlapping jurisdiction between the HPB and the planning board assuming a COP application will be filed this board should yield to the planning board. Um
if the if your offload and your you know seating layout is revised not to require planning board approval then you would be before I think that's what we're what we're saying is that you would need to come before the board to address any of those issues where the HPB does have authority. But I think but that would go
that would that would happen anyway. That would you don't have to put that in an order. >> Not necessarily if if I mean the board's had discussion today about >> what would those issues I mean >> yielding to the planning board on on traffic issues.
>> But the Yeah. But the planning board can't uh sorry the HPB can't say what the hours of operation should be, what the level of noise should be, what the occupant load should be. I think it's muddling things up if we right now we
can only do what the existing cup allows including hours of operation including noise etc. I think we can state that based upon the changes being approved here today, a modification of the COP is required at the planning board, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because if it weren't going to
planning board, then I would want to see a noise mitigation study or for this certificate, >> which is why I suggested, can we just direct can we say within our order that they have to go to planning board even if they decide to back down on some of those changes? That's the question I was
asking earlier. And and I don't think you need I think what what Michael's saying is that because of the changes to the to the site plan that the HPB would be approving today, the the applicant is going to require COP approval anyway. So >> Okay. >> We don't need to state it. >> Great. >> Right. >> Simple.
>> So I think I mean we have a motion. >> Yes. >> Um and I think to restate if I if I may motion. Okay. Thanks. So, uh is to approve the
approve the application with the exception of the uh northern uh >> valet entrance and the demolition uh between the proposed members only club and the pool. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then
>> to come back >> to come back. Correct. Um, so we're going to continue those portions of the application and then the conditions that were in the staff order that are being modified based on the application.
Um, so we are removing condition IC2. Is that what we >> have decided upon or are we modifying IC2? >> That's a question for the board, Mr. Casten.
We're removing it. Removing it. >> Okay. Okay. We're removing IC2. >> Um and then we are modifying IC3 E. So we're not eliminating that first sentence but making a change to
it. Um after 6 in curb we're going to add this is my recommendation but language or other physical barrier i.e. Ballards, EG ballard, whatever other physical barrier um subject to staff approval
>> um to physically prevent vehicles from encroaching under the public sidewalk. Okay. >> Um and we will not be eliminating the last sentence, but again that's board approval.
>> Not board approval, excuse me, staff approval. Also the uh madam chair uh IC3C which will be >> I'm not I'm not there yet. I was coming back to it. I I skipped it intentionally. Okay. >> Um I did have one question on IC3C and I
don't know if this is necessary for a friendly amendment. It was represented by the applicant that everything was movable, but I will say at least in one of the renderings it looks like the planters are fixed. So I I just want to make sure that the drawings
and site plan represent that they are actually movable and that there is no approval for fixed. >> We're not we're not approving any variance. >> Yeah, I'm with you. But because the you know so the condition said based on the
submitted plans doesn't comply. I want to make sure that the plans ultimately do comply. >> The requirement would be that they'll be code compliant and we'll have to submit plans showing that. Okay. >> Well, the clear condition basically says that any any modifications to the south um the board may be approving seating
areas have to have to comply with the the code requirements. >> Yep, that's fine with me. Okay. So, those are that's the motion as it stands. Did I miss anything? And is that does that accurately represent Elizabeth what you were moving? >> Yes, it did. Great job.
>> Okay. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> So that motion passes of six to zero. Can we get a motion now to continue those elements that were excluded?
>> Yeah. I make a motion to continue the >> the nightclub renovation and the valley drop off to the north. >> When's the deadline, Michael? To >> you need to submit by Monday for the May meeting. So you're probably looking at June. >> So June
>> June. and take a break. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, for the benefit of everyone else in chambers, just so you know, when we conclude this application, we're going to take approximately 20 minutes for lunch. I just wanted to let everyone know >> June meeting.
>> Okay. And Leon will be available to meet with Mr. Casden and his very knowledgeable team to be able to work this out potentially. >> I'm always available to meet with my >> with my with my high school >> Hey, I want to get a high school and law
and law school uh classmate. >> Not yet. >> Okay. So, that motion is to move it to the June meeting. >> That's June 9th. I have a second on that. >> June 9th. >> Second on the second, >> Mr. Moral. All in favor? >> I opposed. The motion passes. >> Thank you very much. Thank you.
>> So, now take a 20-minute break for lunch. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. Good afternoon and welcome back to our April 14th historic preservation board
meeting. Um I will turn it over to the city attorney in case we have anybody who needs to be sworn in that has come in this afternoon and then we'll move on to our next applicant. >> Sure. Uh if there's anyone in the room who was not sworn in this morning and
intends to testify, please raise your right hands. Kobe. Hi. Do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. Our next application is HPB25-0645
for 235 Washington Avenue. This is an application requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the total demolition of the existing two-story structure and its replacement with the construction of a new recreation field for the abuing previously approved school located at 251 Washington Avenue. This application
was before you last on um last month and the remember the applicant had present presented us some options for uh recreating the the front facade including an actual recreation, retaining it or um creating a sort of
interpretive design that were called the original structure on site. Since the last meeting, the applicant has filed an amended application for a variance um for the main meeting because this now includes a reconstruction or a new construction of a front facade and wall
that inter sort of interpreted recalls the original design of the two-story structure because that application now includes a front setback variance. It's been advertised for May. So, at this point, the applicant's requesting some comments and feedback on their latest proposal and then for the board to continue this application to May um
where the board will make a final decision on the application. >> Lindsay. >> Yes, Mitch. >> Go ahead, Mitch. >> Michael, I'm sorry. What kind of variance? I didn't hear you. >> So, um right now >> setback is >> a setback, right? The building right now is located on the property line at the front. The code requires a 5ft setback.
So they they're proposing to um put the put the the reinterpreted facade along the same elevation, the same setback as the current building, which doesn't comply with the setback because it's a new structure. They're asking for that variance and that's going to be part of their application for May, but they're going to show you today what they're
proposing in terms of that that facade. >> So today they're seeking approval for the demolition. >> No, just comments and feedback and then continue till May. May I believe, right, Mr. Lin? >> I love you all to approve of the design today. We will be back in May for the variant, but I'm not going to argue with
Michael. Whatever whatever Michael wants. >> Yeah. I think we don't want to have the board approve a design and then have the variance come back next month. So, we're asking for the board to comment if the board likes the design, give feedback, and there should be an easy application for for May hopefully. >> Right. >> We did have a lot of public comment in
support of the application in May. >> And Mr. Lin, would you like to continue with your presentation? >> Sure. Before we start before we start the presentation, do we have any questions for staff related to how we're handling this or >> go ahead. I'm sorry.
>> No problem, Madam Chair. Bring up the presentation. >> Yes, it's here. >> Okay. So, good afternoon, Madam Chair. Board member staff. Michael Larkin 2 South Biscane Boulevard here representing the applicant. With me today is Ryan Alderman, our architect. Our landscape architect is Charles Atkins. He's appearing via Zoom. We have
our historic resource consultant Steven Abdikov, my colleague uh our partner Paul Savage, and my colleague Rob Alvarez. Next slide. So, you all know uh Base Camp is one of the newest private schools in our Miami
Beach universe. It has uh opened to some acclaim with its small classroom setting and its innovative curriculum has made quite a splash in the last five years. Next slide. These are the the building that you all approved in 2022. It's rapidly nearing
completion. As I told you all last year, I went in a hard hat hearing. I was amazed at the complexity of the construction and I was scared for my life sometimes, but uh it went it's going very well and it should be done very soon. Next slide. So this is a
context slide noting what's shaded is the subject property and then that's a 2D elevation at the bottom of that slide. Next slide. Staff was in support of our application uh at last month's hearing. They had asked for an architectural expression.
We did what we could uh prior to the hearing, but it wasn't sufficient time for us to really think it through. That's why you all thankfully let us continue the application until today. And before madam chair are the samples we made a ceramic block that you can
pass around. Uh one is with a 3D printer. The other we actually went to a store close to the design district and was able to get some samples. Next slide. This is the original bungalow, the wooden bungalow that was at 3 313
Meridian Avenue in the south of Fifth neighborhood. My involvement with this application was a long long time ago. Um, but that's what the bungalow did look like and it did not stand the test of time. It was deemed unsafe structure and ultimately demolished and that's
when this board came into the picture and requested something uh and we came back a few years later and requested something different. And I'm going to let Stephen Abdikov get into uh this portion of the presentation. >> Thank you, Michael. Uh, Madam Chair, board members, staff, appreciative to
uh, speak to you once again here today. Steve Abdaw, principal of Heritage Architectural Associates, 4,300 Biscane Boulevard. Um, where retention of original historic structures uh can't be achieved, the provision of a referential
homage is an appropriate uh treatment from a preservation standpoint. It's been something that's been uh successfully completed here in Miami Beach before, elsewhere around the country, and for many, many years. We're going to show some examples of those uh based upon the testimony of the previous
hearing and what additional information we're going to hear later today. It is uh not feasible to retain the building here and therefore we're going to incorporate a referential structure for the site. Um what we're going to see here, this is an example at 313 meridian
of that of the bungalow, the interpretation of the bungalow that you saw in Michael's slide. Um this is what it looks like in reality here. Uh the it's an interpretation and transformation of the form of the bungalow. It's not a replication but it
transforms it forward with light materials with louvers. There are aluminum with bronze finish. So they suggest the volume of the building in the in the form and theration but there an interpretive component and you can see how it pays honor to the history and
the location of that bungalow that you saw in Michael's image. As I mentioned, you see examples of um interpretive components in other locations. I find these particularly interesting here. These are located in the central east side district of
Portland, Oregon, which was an industrial area. These aren't specific buildings that they're referencing, but really building typology here. The image on the left really was suggestive and evocative of the type of building that they used to build ships in that area. And the image on the right evokes the
warehouse and manufacturing rectal linear type buildings there. This was completed in 2012 and uh was of weathered iron. Uh this image here is from 1976 actually and it's an homage to Benjamin Franklin's
residence which was in in Philadelphia. The park service did some archaeological investigation of this and determine the location of the site and retained ventur Scott Brown architects very very prominent u postmodern architects to undertake this homage. Here we can see
how the metal the steel tube columns uh shape form the shape of the building the slope of the building in an abstract way. Even the architectural detailing of the fan light and the the federal style detailing is uh obtained and transformed here utilizing this approach.
And here is the Parkside Hotel built built in 1938 designed by B Kingston Hall. It's a modest art deco building. It has a tripartite rhythm to the facade. the the central bay is subtly emphasized by its elevation the top
whereas it kind that's juxaposed with the horizontality of the eyebrows and the banded treatments around the windows. So our intent is to interpret the the facade here and and and retain the scale, the proportions and and significantly I think the streetscape
along Washington Avenue with this type of approach here which you can see utilizes the ceramic blocks which were passed up there which you can which you can see they're open. They're like breeze blocks which has a historic precedence here from mid-century tropical myo architecture.
um just you know details of the products where we're talking about potentially utilizing different colors to interpret the openings the detailing the storefronts and then of course to emphasize the interpretation of the storefront fiber reinforced concrete uh
utilized for the reinterpretation the eyebrows and here we can see that interpretation you know the proportions the scale the definition of the street it references but it's not a literal recreation of that facade. We can see how the different colors are utilized to
incorporate those elements, how it reinforces the ver the tripartite uh rhythm of the facade and the use of the um eyebrows with the reinforced concrete. I think it's important to note that these are open. I think they're 55%
open, so it allows the wind to go through there, the breezes, the natural light, which is consistent with this recreational use. On an image from the south, you can see the placement of the homage along the streetscape there to the left with a
view of the school up to the north. And in in rendering in three dimension, we can see the treatment, how how it interprets that facade, how it defines the streetscape, how the elements that are there reference, you can see the
eyebrows, the coloration, the interpretation of those features of this modest eco building. significantly we keep the aspect related to the urban fabric and allow for the use of the playground and ventilation to that space. Just see uh we can see the
reference of that product here. The breeze blocks is a significant component in Miami Beach architecture in South Florida in Myo. The building on the left, it's utilized in the central breezeway area. The upper facade of the Union uh bank building there is a screened component with the breeze
blocks and it's utilized in the building on the right to provide reinforcement of a horizontal emphasis there that type of that building type with that railing system. So to conclude in terms of the analysis of this we feel it's an an appropriate referential treatment. It's
utilized successfully in other locations and here in Miami Beach and I think it would help to provide uh that functional playground but at the same time reinforce the urban streetscape sense along Washington and consequently this homage feature would need to be placed
within the front setback and there'll be a variance required for that. So I turn it back to you Michael. >> Yep. Thank you Steve. Next slide. Let Rob do it. >> Thank you Steve. Appreciate it. So, as we told you all before, we cannot undertake any type of demolition from
the rear based upon the alley constraints and the OSHA power line regulations. Next slide. As you can see, our MOT plan, which is a plan that's that's approved by the public works department, emphasizes heavily the front of our property because we can't have any heavy
equipment come in from the alley or close the alley or do any demol there was no demolition be done on this vacant lot, but we had to shift all of our construction up toward the eastern half of Washington Avenue, which is partially closed now, uh to allow our construction
staging area to occur in the front of the property. Next slide. As you can see on the right hand side, this is where a typical dump truck and excavator would be. It would absolutely close the alley and the public works department will never let the alley be closed and it's a vital artery for
people have their parking in the rear and for the city's daily sanitation pickup. Next slide. As you can see, these are photos we took after the last hearing to show just how active the alley is with a parking adjacent to the alley itself and the
trash rooms. Next slide. This is our correspondence with the public works department. I wanted to exhaust every angle and I asked them in different ways uh whether the alley could we ever close the alley and their answer back whether it was the first my first question or my second question is
no. the alley can never really be close for a project like this perhaps for some extreme infrastructure work. So, Madam Chair, could I have about five minutes or less? >> That's fine. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so the public works department solidified in my belief that no, they will not entertain
closing of the alley. Next slide. This is two good photos that show the power poles on the right hand side. They're right up next to our property, which would inhibit the movement of the excavator. And on the left hand side it shows clearly the power lines are coming
in such close proximity to our rear property line. Next slide. This is a summary of the OSHA regulation. Basically it's the third bullet limiting equipment approach based upon voltage. The voltage of those lines. The kilovolts is about 50
kilovolts meaning a 10-ft radius that has to extend in a circle from all these power lines. Next slide. So what that looks like in plan is if you can see on the right hand side where it says 10 feet and that shaded area that's where the excavator cannot
operate because that's within the 10 ft of the lowest power line there. Next slide. This is another view of it looking uh just from south to north. All those concentric circles are basically different radi emanating out from the
power line with the lowest one is one that's the most relevant because that's 10 feet from the lowest power line which would inhibit the use of the excavator in that area of our property. Next slide. And again, this brings you back home what we're asking you all to consider
today uh for our architectural expression and our homage to the existing building. Next slide. Thank you, Madam Chair. board members like to reserve some time for rebuttal. >> Do we have any board disclosure? >> Um, yes. I met I met with uh Paul Savage
from Michael Arkins office to review the project. >> Um, I previously met I mean I disclosed this last meeting, but I'll disclose it again. I met with uh Mr. Savage via Zoom. Okay. Do we have any questions for the
applicant? >> Sure. >> Regarding using an excavator to demolish this building, uh, have you considered using alternative uh, equipment?
>> I think we couldn't use any heavy equipment. Excavator is the most common type of heavy equipment you'd use to engage in demolition, but it's just that the radius that extends downward from the lowest line would prohibit any type
of equipment. >> Your neighbor to the south is a government uh owned building >> with a huge rear setback. Uh I didn't realize that at our last hearing.
Uh, have you considered asking the city, hey, can you uh forego using these two spaces, parking spaces for uh uh uh whenever time is necessary, I go there
and the the parking lot is empty. It's the uh internal affair uh headquarters of the police. >> Yeah, it's pretty Yeah. Um, haven't thought to ask them, but bear in mind this is like a two vehicle process where
it would not only be the excavator, but it's also the dump truck. >> Dump truck. Yeah. >> You know, and and they either it's only a 20 foot wide alley, >> you know, it's not a large alley. >> Okay. Uh transformation interpretation
homage uh to the structure which exists. Uh we are the historic preservation board. I I think at the last hearing we were very reasonable. Hey, take down the building,
leave the uh facade which has been there since 1938. The you know the the the streetscape uh that's an integral part of the streetscape. Uh I'm uh bewildered why why we would uh seek
to demolish that portion of the structure. >> Well, you did want to retain that facade. That's correct. But as I've tried to explain, we can't really engage any demolition from the rear. >> Come on, Mike. >> So, what we're proposing this
conversation last >> is this architectural expression. >> Yeah. I've seen the Charles Hotel. It was demolished from the top down. They didn't need an excavator. This could This what what you're asking for is unreasonable.
I think it is reasonable to allow the school to have a recreational yard. I think that there are a range of historic buildings on the beach. I think that this one is is pretty humble and it's in
terrible condition. So I think when you have to engage any type of balancing act, I think that uh it would be helpful to consider that schools are also integral part of communities and they really do give hearts to communities. >> I'm all for schools. I'm all for
playgrounds. That's that that's irrelevant here. this is uh an important uh this is a historic structure. You're asking us to pay homage to it or reinterpret it. I don't
see that being a uh a valid argument here. We again, we are the Historic Preservation Board. >> Well, I'm not asking you to sherk your duty with that. I'm asking you to just consider that what we're we're offering
today for your consideration is worthy of your consideration and it's not like it has never been done before. Like sometimes these are done and these architectural expressions are done throughout the country as we tried to show you. >> I hear you.
>> Do you have other questions for the applicant? I have I have a quick uh procedural question. If if if we grant permission to do this um what do we call like a a tribute or something uh whatever it is
um is that become permanently deed like that has to be maintained in perpetuity and until another hundred years when interpretation of that interpretation needs to be done? I mean it's it's going to run with the land requirement for the site if anybody were to purchase the land or you know transfer it. It's a
requirement that the historic preservation board approved this structure as a replacement for the demolished building. So any proposal to change that would require an amendment to that application or a return back to this board um for review and approval. They couldn't just build this and then
come back and demolish it and have somebody board is recorded in the public record so it functions like a covenant. Okay. And so I just want to clarify because you said this at the outset and it wasn't really addressed in the presentation and for the benefit of our
our new board member which I think he knows this but you know the variance that you're well the de demolition is the is the piece the big piece and then the variance would be next week and then the architectural
expression would be the replacement after for that demolition. >> Yes, you all could approve it all in one hearing. It's all like you have a certificate appropriateness for design for the architectural expression, a COA
for demolition for the existing structure, right? >> And the variance is a third request, but it's all really grouped together in one motion. Like for example, if the if the board is comfortable next month or this month with the overall design but not with variance, then they could you could
approve the application without the variance which require them to set the building back set the structure back five feet or um if they were to say were to grant approval today, it'd be without the variance, right? So um those those are the options really. >> But the variance has to be noticed and
so therefore cannot be heard today. Correct. >> So yeah, so the the board cannot approve the variance today. They could have that's we think the best option is to preview review provide comments and then hopefully they can wait gauge if they have five votes because it requires five votes for um demolition and five votes for the variance. >> Okay,
thanks. Any other questions? >> I don't know if I should ask this question now or wait for next month, but can you go over why the need for the variance on the front setback? >> Sure. So it's the RPS3 zoning district and often in this district you have
something unique called the maximum minimum setback where even if you wanted to set the building further back then setback you can't. It's not applicable here but it's just a unique aspect of these performance standard district regulations that Andre Dweeney and Liz Plater Zyber came up with in the mid90s.
This is a little bit different. It's the RPS3 and it does give a front setback of 5T. So once the building is gone, then there's no vesting. The building's gone and it's treated as a vacant lot and any new construction would trigger a front
setback variance. But we feel it's important to keep the street wall because you look at the building to the south where it is and the school in large part where it is to the north, you would keep a uniform street wall. So that's why I think it's important to seek the variance. >> Understood.
>> But also that's the current location of the building, right? It's on the front property line. So >> Mhm. >> the the options discussed were keep the facade as you know demolish the rest of the building, keep the facade. That was one option. It was also discussed that if they could couldn't physically do
that because they had to go through it to demolish the rest of the building. The idea was to remove it and put it back. The problem with that is losing the structure. It's going to be difficult to take that apart, put it back together. In the end, it's it's going to fall apart probably anyway. So we felt like we're going to demolish the building entirely rather than try to
recreate the facade, put back something else that's more of an interpretation of the facade versus trying to put back something that's no longer a building and just going to be a facade, you know, along the street front. This is going to be clear. This is obviously something that's not part of a building and would make somebody wonder what what is this?
And um it is not unique to the city or the as the country has um was shown, but it is sort of something that has been done in the past. We do think it's appropriate if the board decides to demolish the the building. >> So let can I ask another question? So did you explore the possibility of
demolishing only partially the front elevation? So going back on what Michael was saying that to demolish and rebuild, could you demolish let's say 20 feet or 15 feet, whatever clearance you need for your heavy equipment to go through and
then once all that the equipment is gone out of the site to rebuild the piece of the existing facade or the existing portion of the building that you have demolished. >> So let me understand. So, you're suggesting demolish a portion of the
front facade, correct? >> Yeah. The minimum necessary for the construction, >> right? >> To allow the heavy equipment to come through and remove the rest of the building through the front. >> Mhm. >> Correct. We haven't explored that. Um,
not sure what it would look like >> because demolishing one part is better than the whole and having to rebuild the whole thing. So let's say if you need 10 ft or 15, I don't know exactly the clearance. So it will be only that portion that you have to rebuild and you have the portion that's existing to use
as a guideline for whatever details you may missed or whatever. So it's less honest on the on you guys and makes it easy the reconstruction. It would be a hybrid approach for sure. You could but
any any substantial retention of that from facade would require some bracing behind >> of course right >> any building that has been any historic building that has been redeveloped in Miami Beach required that
>> but it'll be permanent. Then you have to consider do you want to then you know put back the windows to match but it's not really a building. So it should should be more of like a a garden wall at that point with modification to those openings. So how do how do you modify that become sort of like
>> it's not going to be a new structure but >> how do you modify the existing facade to to to adapt to it no longer being a building but just the facade also in terms of um how it's going to wear in terms of weather. >> Right. So I would say the architectural record must have can come up with
options. I mean we have seen different different options of that in the past like the the house by um Rene Gonzalez he just kept the elevation and removed the windows and it becames it became more a decorative front wall. So there are different ways to reuse the existing
structure and I think it's up to your design team to figure out what make more sense. Michael, couple of things. Uh, we spoke about this at length last time. We had a couple of suggestions to your structural engineer >> and, uh, while I applaud your effort to
come up with a new and creative out of the- box thinking kind of an idea, >> uh, the area that is, uh, permeable through that new um, concept that you're thinking is not much different than all the openings in the building. If you
were to leave them open and leave the facade intact, uh you're showing two wing walls on the north side and the south side, you can still maintain that. And you could deconstruct the building from the inside out and maintain that wall, that facade
by building a frame inside of it, the same depth that you have the wing wall on the south and the north side. introduce a new foundation to support those momentresisting columns that will support that wall. And that building
will serve its purpose for many years to come. And we don't have to create this new and improved, if you will. So, we would have to do what Elizabeth is saying though and demolish a good part
of the front facade to allow >> You don't have to demolish any part of the front facade with what I'm suggesting. You demolish the rest of the building, >> but we can't >> maintain the maintain the facade and maintain the wing walls, if you will, on the south and the north side for lateral stability as well.
>> But we can't enter the building from the rear. We can't demolish. Can't you put in a a small Bobcat and start deconstructing the building from within from the front entry? >> From the front. So, >> it's a two-story building. >> So, you're saying demolish from the
front, but we'd have to >> demolish the interior, maintain the front facade. I mean, we don't have to go over this at this point. There's other ways to do it. And we could and I discussed it with your engineer the last time we took it further than what we're discussing now. There's no need to go
over that again. >> But are you saying >> there's a way to deconstruct that building without demolishing the facade and building a frame to support that facade? >> But are you saying demolish take heavy equipment in from the rear >> or are you saying use a bobcat to come
in from the front door? >> Demolish it from within uh and uh from the inside out and demolish the north, south, and east walls. Maintain the facade. Yes, there's a way to do it. It's been done before.
Nothing new here. I'm not reinventing the wheel. >> No, I'm just curious like how would we get the equipment in into the structure? >> We can I can I can sit down and and discuss it with you later after this, but there's a way to do this. >> I mean, this is not rocket science.
>> Okay. If we want to preserve, if we want to preserve the front facade of that building without destroying it, there's a way to do it. Technically, there's a way to do it. There's multiple ways to do it.
Okay. So, the board is a little bit uh has different voices. You know, Mitch is wanting to save in entirety uh or just retain the front wall. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Haskell is more inclined to your
position. Elizabeth is more inclined to some demolition to let in the heavy equipment from the front. >> Right. I think it needs to be I mean I was just offering another alternative. I think we need to explore all the alternatives and see which one is doable
or more doable than the others. >> Okay. Uh Nick and Madam Chair, what what are you all Where are you all? I I wasn't here last month, but wanted to ask um I mean when I've seen these facads
supported, there's a whole steel armature behind it that would have to remain in place, I guess. >> Yeah, it would. >> And um >> there's no steel behind it. You don't have to put steel behind the facade. >> Yeah. If you rip the rest of the building off, it's just going to
collapse. >> Yeah. >> An exoskeleton. >> Yeah. Usually there's like steel bracing. Um, I don't know. I mean, I like I I would hesitate. Um, I I I love the design. I
think the design is very cool. Uh, and I like it in the context of a school. I think it's like fairly interactive. Um, uh, kind of playful. Uh, I I wonder a little bit about if, you know, once we do this, if we're going to see copycat
versions of this, if we were to do it, and everybody says, "Well, we want to do the Sunbreak version. Um >> is it I guess you know nothing is guaranteed. It's a case by case basis >> exact we say if we say unique um >> the use here is different unique the
school >> um the the existing quality construction of the of the current story building. So yeah every site is unique you know condition it doesn't really set a precedent for future. >> I just want to make one point clear. I wholeheartedly support the school and
having a playing field for the school children. That's not the point here. Point here is whether we can preserve a historic structure. And my point is yes, we can. And you don't have to have the steel bracing in the back to support that wall. You can have momentresisting
columns that are deep enough as the deep the depth of the south wall and the north wall on a continuous footing to support that wall. We're only talking about what 18 feet 20 feet 20 foot tall wall >> 20
>> with 50% of it open 70% of it open there's no very little lateral resistance to wind once those windows are open >> is um you have an engineer does he agree with this >> yes um he'll be here next month I'm just
struggling with Haskell suggestions I know he's a super sharp engineer and I always trust what he says, but I can't fathom. I don't know how you would engage in the demolition of the structure. That's what I'm I'm perplexed. I usually have a good
answer, but I don't have a good answer because I can't visualize it. I'd be more than willing to sit down with you and and some sketches for you, but I think your engineer is quite competent and very knowledgeable in this kind of work and
can accomplish it himself if he was directed to do so. >> All right, Madam Chair, what's your thoughts? Um so I agree with my colleagues comments on you know should the demolition proceed
in total um the idea of the breeze block but I also am struggling a little bit with the demolition. I'm not an engineer, so I can't say what can and can't be done. But I am concerned because I thought this was brought up last time, but maybe it was just between
me and Michael after not you, Michael, the other Michael, um, after the meeting. Um, but what Mitch mentioned about the the police facility next door, I mean, there is a very large parking lot back there access.
I mean, arguably, I guess they could say no because they don't want to allow it, but you know, that seems to be an option, assuming there are no power lines running between there. And I'm I'm disappointed that wasn't explored from last time till today. Um because, you
know, I see the emails that you represent um from the city asking about the alley closure, right? So, clearly we're asking the city for use of facilities, etc., you know, can we do this, can we do that? And if that wasn't
explored, I think that's a mistake. I don't know what you could or couldn't bring in through the front. Um, I rely on my colleagues up here who are more expert in that in those arenas. Um,
but those are my thoughts. I I think if if and and here's the other thing. uh the examples that you gave besides the one that you did yourself. So, I'm going to set that one aside for a second. >> Um but the examples that you gave in
Philadelphia specifically because I think it said that was a representation of Benjamin Franklin's house and that they did excavation and found out that's where it was. So, it was already gone by the time the um the architectural expression was
built. It sounds like to me >> I'm getting some head nods from the audience. I'll just represent there's a head nod back there. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So I mean my point is that the building the structure itself was already gone. So today sitting before us you're saying I want to destro I want to demolish this building
and and and I don't think anybody here is against the idea of the the playground, the the park, the field um for the students of the school. I think it's just it's it's striking a balance. Um,
and I don't love I mean I know you're coming back next month for the variance regardless. Mhm. >> Um, so I'd love to I I would have loved to have already seen the exhaustion of this as far as because
I will take your word for it and the representation of your professionals that there is no way to access this from the back with heavy equipment. I think the question here is, and I'm not suggesting you take people in there to take it down by hand, >> but I think the question is, is there a
less impactful way or a smaller implementation that could be used to demolish >> because I don't know that you're going to get past the demolition of that front facade unless and until you can show that. Um, and and
>> I think the only thing I can think of, and I'm sorry to interrupt you. You want to continue? >> Go ahead. I mean >> like I wasn't aware of the of this board's desire for us to explore using the police property to the south until today. >> Okay, fine. I thought I thought it was brought up at last meeting, but I think it was a Wait a second. Why has I
thought I thought Mitch mentioned it in the meeting, but >> I'm sorry. >> Disgusting. >> I I usually listen to everything you say. I hang on your every word, but for some reason >> Well, thank you, Mike. >> You didn't take copious notes. >> Did not. Okay. >> All right. But we'll explore that. I think there could be a question of
liability the city would not want to touch and it's easier to say no than yes. Um but I will we can explore that. >> I'm sure your client will uh indemnify the city for this matter. But what I'm I'm probably intrigued by most what
Elizabeth has said as a as a solution is to demolish a part of the front facade to let the equipment easily traverse in and out and then I think probably reconstruct that facade to match the remaining facade. And then what Haskell
is saying also maybe there's an easier way to support this this structure at the end um rather than have an exoskeleton above ground. So, I'm listening. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, thank you for your time and we'll be back next month hopefully. >> Do we need to move to continue? >> I would ask the board to continue it till the May meeting. >> So, do we have a motion to continue till next meeting? >> We didn't take public comment. I forgot. Yes. >> For all that.
>> Yes, we will take public comment. My apologies. I did not mean to overlook you. That's quite a right. Good afternoon. Um, my name is Me Lustau. I'm the executive director of the Miami Design Preservation League. And, uh, we strongly oppose the proposed demolition of the former Parkside Hotel, the
contributing structure within the Ocean Beach Historic District. Constructed in 1938, the building exemplifies the modest human scale architecture that defines the historic character of Washington, sorry, not yes, of Washington Avenue in the broader district. The significance of the Ocean Beach Historic District lies not only in
its landmark buildings, but in the collective fabric created by these smaller structures. The Parkside Hotel with its intact scale massing restrained art deco detailing remains an essential part of that fabric and continues to contribute meaningfully to the pedestrian experience and historic
identity of the area. Allowing its demolition would set a dangerous precedent, eroding the integrity of the district and undermining the purpose of its designation. While the applicants have now proposed a glazed ceramic block facade is an homage to the original building, such a plan is fundamentally
at odds with the concept of authenticity and physical history that are foundational to historic preservation. The original building would still be lost, which would be profound loss and a tragic outcome that should not be permitted. For these reasons, we urge the board to deny the demolition request and require preservation and adaptive
reuse of the existing structure. And I would just add that I would encourage you to consider the precedent that approval would set, the message that would send to property owners and developers um especially considering the path that this project has taken to get to this point. Thank you.
>> Go ahead. >> Roger Miami Beach. just talking as a simple guy who walks around town and sees less and less beautiful historic buildings. Uh I've lived in Boston, I lived in Philadelphia. I know people
really respect the buildings and uh being here I know it's been a struggle to keep a lot of these buildings. I see younger generation has pretty much no interest because they don't have much to
uh encouragement really. Uh, but I'm kind of getting tired of hearing the word homage. Uh, well, while this modern recreation is attractive, it's not going to say, "Oh, I remember that old hotel that was
here in 18 whatever, 1938, I think." Uh, so I was really pleased when I left the last historic preservation board meeting last month because I was it was the first time and I've been coming a long time that I really thought this board was doing exactly what they're supposed
to do uh and you know keep when possible preserve uh preservation and I see the same thing today now too. At first, I was a little not sure and uh you know, I'm proud to be a Miami Beach resident
and uh I'm I'm proud that we have an historic preservation board that looks out for us. Thank you. >> We also have some callers coming. Okay, come. >> Hi. Um my name is Chris Purer and I'm a 10year uh South Fifth resident. I live a
couple blocks from this site. Um, I'm in favor of the demolition. Uh, I'm in favor of the school. I'm pro school. I'm pro- education. And the neighborhood as it is right now is a whole bunch of different types of architecture. Um, so
I don't think this I think we will do more good in this world by letting the school demolish the old hotel. Um, it's certainly doing no good right now. and um and thinking about the kids and thinking about the future and thinking
about all the good things that can come out of um helping this school. So that's it. That's all I got. My kids go to South Point, so I don't have any affiliation. Thank you. So I'm in favor of the demolition. Thanks. >> We have some callers online. Um the
first is Lady Wolfdel. >> Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name and address. >> Yes. Hi, my name is Lady Wolffield and I'm a resident of 300 South Point Drive.
Um, good afternoon everyone. Um, I want to begin by saying I truly respect the role you play in preserving the unique architectural identity of our city. At the same time, I ask you to also consider something equally important, the well-being of the childrens in our
community. Base Camp 305 plays a vital role in the south of Fifth area as it is the only middle school serving this community allowing families to remain in Miami Beach rather than leaving for their children's education. However, the
school has a major limitation. Our children has no proper outdoor space for physical activity. They don't have a place to run, play sports or participate in a structured physical education. And we all know that movement is essential for their health focus and development.
The proposal before you is not about overdevelopment or erasing history. It's about thoughtfully adapting and underutilized a structure to meet a real community need. The proposed ceramic facade respects Miami Beach character
while offering a modern and appropriate design solution. Most importantly, it creates something our children currently lack. A safe, dedicated outdoor space to play, grow, and thrive. This is more than a decision, a design
decision. It's about quality of life, education, and investing in the future of our city. We are not asking you to choose between preservation and progress. We are asking for a balance. As a parent, I simply ask you to picture our children, your community's children,
having a safe place to run, to play, and to just be kids. That's all we are asking for. I respectfully urge you to support this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Next caller, Bob Wolf.
>> Bob, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I can. My name is Bob Wolffield. I live at quarterfino tower 300 South Point Drive. I've been a resident of South of Fifth for 25 years. My my
daughter is currently a student at Base Camp and is going into the sixth grade middle school in the fall. And I I would hope that she she has a recreational space to use there in the fall. Uh I I I
see this as a member of the public and and a member of of the school community. Um I I I have some concerns. There was a statement made that if I understood it and heard it correctly that schools and playgrounds
are irrelevant. Um I think this is a balance here between green space versus concrete. South of Fifth Street is densely developed, replacing a dilapidated, nonfunctional building with a managed recreational
area for the sole option of a middle school south of theft is is is to me a no-brainer decision. Um, I understand there's issues as far as the demolition
and and it looks like it's going to be researched further, but uh this is not, you know, as far as alternatives to to um to coming in through the front and and and the
facade, damaging the facade. Um, this is not the Mandarin Oriental. This can't be imploded. Uh I if there is a way, well then fine. I think it should be explored. But I I think the point here is is that this school will be open in
the fall for sixth grade. and and and and I I think that the benefits of having a middle school that needs a recreational yard to be accredited is much more important than than
preserving something that that for for years I've lost >> Mr. Mr. Wolffield your time has expired. >> Our next caller is the name Embbe Fries. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Freeze. Thank you so much for everyone's commentary. Um, I was um I was present or over the Zoom call at the last meeting and I found today's presentation to be helpful
in light of, you know, putting together a more modern um touch to the neighborhood, but still respecting the histo. So, I'm in favor. I appreciate the preservations board's commentary, but
I think that the new proposal is very refreshing and will bring a lot of light to that neighborhood rather than just a old facade. Thank you. >> Last caller, Matthew Pender. >> Matthew, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> Thank you. Um, I want to echo something that that Chris had said. Chris Perier, I live in South Fifth as well. It that we have quite a variety of architecture. Um, I I can really appreciate what
everyone on the board here is doing and in trying to, you know, fulfill their duties in preserving a historical structure. Um, I would just encourage you though to look at that facade in context of the school that's next to it and to look at the design. um in the
spirit of the school that it's married to. Um to me, and again just my opinion, um knocking down the building and keeping the facade, the current facade is as genuine as something I would see at Universal Studios. It's just a it
ends up just being a wall and it's going to be um something that is probably going to clash with the architecture of the school next to it. I do think that, you know, there was some push back on the word homage, but having something
that marries to the structure that is being built there while still um showing respect to the building that um has been there for decades, I think is reasonable and it's appropriate within um this
neighborhood. So, thank you. >> That concludes the callers. So I believe do you have a question? >> Just just quick procedural question because I'm new. Um they could apply for
a demo permit and and we would just need to give a certificate of appropriateness to whatever they rebuild in its place. Right. >> No, they they the board has to approve the demolition. >> The board could the board can deny the demolition. The board today could approve what you have suggested. Approve
the demolition and retaining the front wall. The board the board could approve that today if you wanted to. If they wanted to. >> Yeah. And and that's what I was why I was trying to offer for benefit because since you weren't here, I mean the demolition is a big piece of this. The
question is what if demolition is permitted? What if anything remains or is reconstructed? So again several steps of and if it is a reconstruction then an necessary variance. So those are the three things
>> whether or not demolition is allowed to what extent if so and if some sort of reconstruction then the variance. Right? Those are the three things. >> Wait but I but but aren't I correct? They could apply
for a demo permit and propose something to be built in its place so long as we give it a certificate of appropriousness. They could then demo the the project, right? >> Yes. But you don't have to like Exactly. Yeah. >> But we don't typically we don't the board does not approve a demolition
without having a replacement design replacement structure something. It could be you know >> initially the application was to demolish it completely and have a play field. So that also meets the requirements of having um um not just for speculation but actual reconstruction for the site. If the board if the applicant would like to
receive approval today to demolish the structure and keep the front wall, the board could approve that. Or maybe the board applicant wants to continue um pursuing the option of of demolition by by accessing from the side property and come back with the board for a more
definitive answer to that um next month and still explore the the new construction being proposed in variance. Um what do you think, Michael? >> I could reach out to Chief Jones and property management and get their vote because it'll require their both
approvals. um and see. Um I don't think it's likely, but I will do it. Uh I think though, Elizabeth, as I'm working through, in my mind, Elizabeth's suggestion about retention of let's say like 60%. I just don't know if demolition of 40% to let the equipment
through would destabilize the remaining part of that wall. I'm not saying you're wrong. I can't not I'm going to stay in my lane, but I gives me my concern. Um, would the board be open to a more like a like a 100% reconstruction
where it's more stuckco? It's not what we've proposed is more modern, but we can just I know that Michael's not a fan of it, but we're between a rock and a hard place where I don't know if we could retain a portion. And I have yet to talk to
Haskell about his ideas, but it seems like if we could just reconstruct a more stucco looking wall. >> If you're coming back, maybe you present that as an option and give us the options that exist.
>> Okay. >> So, would the board like to engage in further discussion or do we have some sort of motion? I think that's where we were going. And then because I was skipping public comment mistakenly, my apologies. Um,
>> so I just want to ask my fellow board members. Everybody's okay with the demolition of the building or portions of the demolition of the building or portions of the building to be demolished to allow for the the school needs. The issue is just how much you want to preserve and how to preserve it.
Is that where we stand now? for me. Yes. >> Okay. No, because I think some of some members of the public had the the feeling that we're against the demolition and therefore we we may be judged as against school against children. And I don't think that's the
case. I think we're all in favor of having the school proceed. It's just a matter of finding the best um compromise here so we can have preserve the building and allow for the school. So, I mean, I think that I would raise here and this is not necessarily my position,
but I don't think somebody who was opposed to demolition at all necessarily is against school. I mean, so I I want I want to make that very clear. Um, you know, I I don't I don't know the opinions of everyone on this board, but even if someone was of that opinion as
far as opposing demolition, you know, that that means you're anti-school. I think it just means that, you know, you have, you know, certain beliefs that you hold. So I I don't know. I just I feel like I feel like that's worthy of clarification. >> No, I appreciate that.
>> So motion to continue to the June meeting or the May meeting. May >> I make that motion? >> Do we have a second for it to continue to the May >> second? >> All in favor? >> I opposed.
>> Five to zero. Continue till the May 12th meeting. >> Thank you very much for your time. Yes, >> it's coming back. >> Yeah, of course. And the next application on the agenda is >> 298 I'm sorry 100 Lincoln Road decopage
HPB 25-0679. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition of the existing port and associated site and ground floor construction and for the renovation of the port kosher together with associated site and ground floor improvements
including variances from the maximum encroachment into the rightway the maximum frontage along allowed along a primary elevation and the maximum height permitted for a porc. Now the applicant's proposing to retain the structure of the port share, redesign it, and because of that and and the
changes of the geometry, they're requesting some variances to essentially keep us there. Right now, as part of this, we're also um modifying the ground force storefront. We're supportive of the application. We did have a concern regarding there's no currently no pedestrian dedicated segregated
pedestrian access from the sidewalk um through the Port Kusher into the building. So, as a condition of approval, we're asking that the board include this condition to require that the staff review and approve a segregated pedestrian path from the sidewalk into the into the building. I'll turn it over to Mr. Marovich for
the presentation. >> Thank you, Michael. I appreciate the introduction. Uh, chair, vice chair, historic preservation board. My name is Carlos Smargage. I'm with the office of Burke Alell, Fernandez Lapanes, office of 200 South Piscane Boulevard. I'm here on behalf of the Deco Condominium
Association. Uh today with me is the design team uh Kobe Karp of Kobe Carp Architecture and Interior Design as well as Joseé Gomez of Benson Gomez and Architects. Um the property uh can I get the slide up on the um screen? Thank you. Uh the property, as you know, sits
at the eastern end of Lincoln Road, anchoring the south side of one of the city's primary gateways to the beach. The name decoplage itself blends art deco with the French suffix plage meaning beach putting the property squarely within the context of the mid-century Miami Beach design era. Um
here we go. Designed by Melvin Gman, the 620 unit condo was built in 1965 during Florida's first condo boom u just 5 years after Morris Lapidis transformed Lincoln Road into the pure mall we know today. The proposed portal share that
we're bringing today is a remodel that carries that legacy forward with a streamlined contemporary design that represents the and reflects the clean horizontal lines and resort modernism that both Lapidis and Grossman mastered. The project is uh this is the the
property seen here. The Burke shares on the north side. Um, this uh project is independent from but architecturally aligned with and contextually inspired by the proposed improvements on the 100 block of Lincoln Road seen here for reference only. The
property is a non-contributing structure within the Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue historic district uh and is zoned RM3 residential multif family highintensity. Uh here you see an area providing a little bit more context. You see Collins Avenue to the west, Lincoln Road to the north, the beachwalk and the
beach access uh point at the northeast of the property and the beachwalk to the east running north to south. Uh as mentioned before, the property is a non-contributing structure within the Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue Historic District. Uh we are here today to respectfully request a certificate of
properness for the uh partial demolition and renovation of the existing park share and the associate site and ground floor improvements. Uh three related variances are being requested. Uh one from the maximum encroachment into the right of way for porco shares. Uh one
for the maximum frontage allowed for along a primary facade for a portal share and one for a the maximum height permitted for a portal share. I'll mention now these are all from the same section of the code. Uh the portal share sections are within the encroachments uh
section of the resiliency code. That's where it's regulated. Uh with that being said, I'll now hand it off to Kobe um who's going to walk us through the existing conditions surrounding neighborhood and the proposed redesign of the portal share. >> Hi, good afternoon. My name is Kobe
Karp. I'm here with Jose Gomez who we've had the pleasure of working together since less balancing days. Um and next image was but basically what we are looking to do is um push. There we go. Is that good? >> Yeah. is to show the existing condition
of the site location. Um, basically we've had to remove the decorative elements were on there because they were life safety and they were falling off. So, we removed them. But in essence, what we are doing is we're taking the inspiration of uh the designs and the curves in the community in the
neighborhood um as well as on our property uh to create a port kosher drop off area um which we have been working together with the board members of the uh decopage for the past year now, right? So it's been a while, but that is
really what we are looking to do. We're looking to create a front yard um that complements the um front drop off as well for the Ritz that was previously approved as well as the termination of Lincoln Road with the plaza and the green space. And that has been the
direction um that we are looking to create here with the residential uh building immediately um on the south side of uh Lincoln. The materials and the finishes for this association which sees this as a step up from where the
decolage has been is really an inspiration to us. Um and obviously we are looking to also improve the drop off and the accessibility. We have staff comments and I think that we are in agreement. Yes, sir. With the staff
comments and so with that, Jose, did I miss anything? >> Thank you. I'll be here for any questions and or suggestions. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you, Kobe. Um here, this slide's a little bit uh out of position, but um
you can see here the two of the proposed variances that we're requesting. Uh one is on the top of the screen you'll see the um proposed encroachment into the right of way. Uh the existing portal share which is highlighted in a white uh that you can't really see on this screen
well but should be in your packages um is already encroaching into the rightway. Uh this is a proposal to extend that a little further. This will allow the uh parabolic and horizontal curve that you see on the proposed portal share. Um so that is the first
variance. The second variance is from the code's requirement uh that the porco share not exceed 30% of the building's primary frontage. Here the porcel share is proposing a 41.2% um
frontage width. Uh that is primarily uh seen but it's not only the car drop area which is what you're used to seeing with a portal share here. The portal share extends to the to the east and the west uh as it narrows and gets closer to the primary facade. Uh and then here on this
next screen, you can see a little bit more about the extension to the sidewalk. Uh the property line being the the the thick black line uh outside the gray shaded area um with the red line showing um where the setback is
required and our 4 in on the left of the screen there show uh where we're encroaching all the way till uh then also we're requesting variance for the extension of the non-conforming height. The existing portal share is already at 22 feet and six inches. We're proposing
to keep that exact height. We're not going any higher, any lower. We're just proposing to extend it horizontally. Uh and with that being said, um I do want to note that uh staff has given a favorable recommendation. We agree with the spirit of their conditions and have
uh no objections. Um and do want to highlight that approving this application will bring some meaningful change to the eastern block of Lincoln Road. uh that would not only allow the property to evolve with the continuing evolution of this block of Lincoln Road, but provide a new face and a new life to
the Becca Lodge. So, thank you for your time. I yield. >> Yeah. Do we have any board disclosure? >> No. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Excuse me.
Is there is there a max projection over the sidewalk that is allowed? >> Well, the the code the code says you can go within 18 inches of the curb. So, they're they're supposed to go 4 in beyond that requirement, which will then still require public works review and
approval. So, anything beyond the property line requires revocable permit. They're just going further than what the code, you know, otherwise would allow. I I think the design looks beautiful and totally changes the building, but why is that extra 22 in important?
>> So the the the way the code reads and and Michael and I have talked about this and um from my reading of the code, this section of the code seems to be very antiquated comes from probably from probably the ' 80s or ' 90s. Um honestly, the um but the way it reads,
it says it says that the the portal share needs to be set back from the sidewalk. So, it's starting to govern something which the residency code usually doesn't govern, which is the right of way. So, here it says that the it needs to be set back 18 inches from the sidewalk. The sidewalk in this case is um a couple feet away from the
property line. Uh and we're proposing to encroach a little further. The project has been designed with the pedestrians in mind. Uh no water will be rolling over on time in the case of a rain or anything like that. Uh we think the design kind of accentuates the prominent location of this building. So
>> I think as well too because there's working with the existing structure and changing the the curve. So you know without demolishing that structure does require some extension on other the both the east west and the the north side to fit in the curve without demolishing the structure.
>> I like the curve. Yeah. And you know generally you could you could do it as of right if you didn't do that but you came here and I think it looks great. So >> yeah. Thank you. >> In favor to the architects. Go ahead, Mitch.
>> Sure. I I I I I like your design. I would have also liked to have seen what the structure originally looked like back in the mid80s. I believe it was Crescent Heights who did the uh quick renovation of the structure. And uh I
remember the port of Corsair uh that was just structure bare, you know. Wow. >> Yeah, we have photos on our slide if we can bring it up um that show the existing condition. We're happy to kind of go back to it. Um but it's um
>> unless we have it introduced. No, I think that's that that's what was introduced in the mid uh >> mid 80s. You don't have anything earlier. >> That was that's the structural shape that you have over there. >> Structural shape. I I'm wondering how it
appeared. No photo documentation of something, let's say, from 1965. >> No. Um, no. That's that's actually the reconstruction. What you're seeing there in the cover. Um, what you're seeing there is before this is what we had
since the reconstruction was done for the uh for the condominium. >> Yeah, that was s I saw that being constructed. It was always that shape. It was always follow. So what we're doing here is just
trying to soften that that you know that >> again although not a contributing structure. I would have appreciated seeing uh an old photo or or even plants. >> This is the oldest photograph that I have from that. >> Yeah. No, respectfully you you'd be
surprising me if there was an understanding that there's something different before. This was what I had understood coming into the meeting that was there originally. So >> you're still maintaining your columns, your support columns within the property. Correct. >> We're keeping the same structure. All
we're doing is we're softening the u the shape of the structure. Okay. >> But the structure itself is still the same. >> Yeah. And this is the existing condition of the site. This is unfortunate, but when they went to go do some repairs, they realized there were some issues with the pro with the property and some
damage. I believe there was mo issues and some other stuff. >> How are those still members? >> So these are the existing prior members. >> Th those are likely original. >> Those are like Yeah, those are also from my understanding is my question. >> You talking about the bar choice?
>> Yeah, the bar choice. >> Do we have any other questions for the applicant? If not, we'll go to public comment and on Zoom. There is nobody online with their hand raised.
>> Anybody in chambers? >> I'd make a motion to approve this uh application. >> Okay. Do we have any further commentary before we go to Okay, we have a motion to approve. >> Let's do um two motions. One on the CFA and then a second motion on the three three variances. >> Okay.
>> I'll make the motion on the certificate certificate of appropriateness. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Motion and a second. >> All in favor? I >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Five. >> Now I'll make a motion on the two variances. >> Three.
>> Three. Three variances. I apologize. >> Second. There. Second on the motion. Mr. Mayer. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes. The variance approved of five to zero. >> Congratulations.
>> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. We're almost done. >> So the next to the last actually the last application on the agenda before the discussion item is HPB25-0682 for 298 Lincoln Road. An application has
been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition of the existing two-story commercial building and the substantial reconstruction of the original street facade. Um the board may know this um site well as like um a building was covered in
this metallic reflective um structure probably in the 80s or 90s and this application is proposing to bring it back more to what it was originally. Um, interestingly, this was the original um side elevation, side entrance of the Caribbe Theater, which was in in the
central portion. That area has already been modified where we have um five below and Ross. So, that central feature has already been been modified. Right now, the the most intact portion of this building is what remains along the eastern elevation, east eastern part of the building. This side is already
different. They're proposing to bring this largely back to what it was originally, but some some slight modifications for the materials. We are recommending some um modification to the color and finishes. They're proposing relatively dark finishes. We're recommending a more um anodized aluminum
or light finish to the to the metal. We're also recommending a um a low knee wall of approximately 10 in which is more typical what you would see with um storefronts along this portion of Lincoln Road. And it has been in the past where even for brand new buildings, new construction, interviewing, you know, storefronts, the board has
required some sort of knee wall to go in place um for uh new construction in historic district. So, we are recommending approval um conditioned upon addition of the um materials to be more reflective of a lighter lighter finish and the inclusion of an e-wall.
With that, turn over to Mr. Penn for his presentation. >> Good afternoon everybody. Graham pen 200 South Biscane Boulevard here with an incredibly short presentation we hope on a non-contributing structure. It's very exciting to have it. Uh the what what Mr. Roierro has handed out is the
renderings of what our proposed changes to the facade to bring it in line with staff's conditions. So that includes the knee wall, the change to the emoleian color, the change to the glass, as well as that pallet for the facade for the the metal grill. Uh so
what we're going to do at the end of this is ask the board to support that in uh that implementation of staff's condition because you know you we think we'd like to get your wisdom now and then we can move forward with that design. So, uh, to go back to the
beginning, I'm here representing AFBSP Lincoln Funding LLC. He's the property owner. From ownership, we've got Lazro Mirabal with us today. We've got Jose Gomez making a second appearance. Uh, and from my office, we have Mr. Mark Berero, Zack Benoloon, and Mr. Larkin
still here, and as well as Mr. Larkin. Um, so, as Michael explained, these are facade modifications to what is a non-contributing structure. And as you all know from looking at and you'll look and we'll show it to you again. If we can put the slides up guys I'll get through this quickly. The um this is you
know we have a 1980 I looked up with the building card um facade renovation that removed this the twostory appearance of the property with a replacement of that with that giant metal um facade element. This project reintroduces the twostory
uh appearance and activates that second story. So we will have active activity on both stories. So it is bringing it more in line with its ex its historic layout and improving the kind of its interaction with the street instead of that giant dead uh top. Okay. So where
we are we are in what we call the 200 to 300 block Lincoln road on the south side just east of the pedestrian malls termination at Washington. the uh we are tucked as Michael explained to the immediate west of what was a carab
I never pronounced that correctly. Um as you can see our our totally 80s uh facade renovation on the bottom right there which was again was what bringing in align with what at the time was I guess cool. Uh this Mitch you'll be
excited about this. This is what it originally looked like. So the this is from 1950 or thereabouts cuz given when Sirino to Berserk came out that's what 1950. So that's that's the benefit of uh being next to a movie theater it gives you a place in time. So you can see again the original layout. You have the
twotory orientation with the storefront and then the then the kind of the office space on top. This is the a little bit closeup of the 1980s uh renovation. And you can see of course the the the now the Ross building to our west to our east. This kind of
twotory commercial uh format is very common in this area. The the the 222 Lincoln building which is our twin essentially to the east on the other side of Ross has it. And then of course you can see the rainbow building it uh down the block on the other side of the
street has that similar kind of storefront with with windows on the second floor. So with that let me uh ask Jose to come up take you through the plan and we'll uh be here to answer any questions as we go forward.
>> Jose Gomez Balance and Gomez architects. Um so this is a very simple uh project we have here. Uh the existing building, as you can see, is a uh is a shell right now. It's an empty shell for future
retail. What we're working to do is upgrade the facade. Um let me just take you through um you can see here the comparison of the u the previous uh plan and and the proposed plan. uh basically
is uh our work is uh to clean up the shell and uh the proposed elevation. So this is uh what we brought uh last time or what we presented last time to uh to Michael. Uh it was a little
darker. Now we're proposing a much lighter color tone uh palette in the facade. So yeah, just to be clear about it, the on the left hand side is what was in the original submitt. The right hand side is one implementation of the conditions, but the the final imputation
implementation of the conditions is what you have in your handout because we got the final color uh the other day and we couldn't we couldn't upload it in time. So the only difference between what's on the right hand side of that slide and what's in the in your handout is the color of the metal uh the metal element.
>> Exactly. So here you can see that we implemented the uh kneew wall as a 10-in knee wall uh and the color was actually uh redone. What we're doing is uh paying attention to the original building and
then the facade does not have anymore the corrugation. So we're doing the corrugation with uh perforated metal and um and metal uh blades. Um, so these are just uh that the uh ground floor is all
uh just a uh the the glass door front is going to be butt glaze system. So just a very clean ground floor. These are just different images of it I'm showing you. I just want to run you through. It's been a long day. These are just demolition drawings uh how we
cleaning up the shell. This is the existing facade and what's behind which is basically everything has been um torn down. Uh this is a a section through the building the area that we are opening.
You can see about 42 in above the floor. We're going to have uh the windows replicating the the old windows. Um this is a new floor plan inside. We're going to be uh working on the uh the the the stairs, couple of bathrooms,
and putting an elevator. Uh this is the the 2D elevation for it section. And this is the um the the color palette which we were thinking about and now you
have the new color palette uh in your hands. And that's it. Very simple. So again, yeah, we uh of course we'd like to reserve time for rebuttal, but we would ask for your approval today um with staff's conditions with the direction to staff in support of the
color palette as handed out today. Um and uh again, we're our entire team is available, so just let us know. >> Go ahead. >> Quick question. Why is the knee wall required? I mean, I think it looks great, but why is it >> It's not required. Um we're putting it
we're recommending it be put back because it was original condition >> and it's typically the case where um you look down at the historic storefronts in Lincoln they all had knee walls. >> Okay. >> Of ranging ranging in heights. Got it. And of course something some are very excess. We don't want to have like a a
3ft tall knee wall knee wall. So 10 inches allows the visibility through and just you know pays homage to the um original storefronts and knee walls. >> Mitch. >> Yeah. A few uh points. the audio cameras electronic sign. Uh I would
swear I've seen the same facade in New York. Typical >> not 1980 uh >> uh signage or cladding. I'm looking at the uh the picture of the Caribbe
Theater and you could see uh the original facade. Does that still exist behind that acrylic or whatever it is? >> No, Mitch. Uh, we have looked in there
and it's everything has been removed and uh it's it's it's in terrible condition. What's back there? There's a beam which is what's going to carry our new a new facade. >> Gotcha. So, you described it. I I refer to it as fluting. It looks like fluting
concrete. You referred to it as corrugated metal. >> Well, it's it's a fluting. The original was a fluted uh stuckco finish. And what we're proposing is a corrugated metal, which is the same. You can call it fluted because it's the same design.
>> It's just a more contemporary material. >> Well, sort of not as easy. >> Why wouldn't you use stucco? Uh, we just think it's a a newer material, something that it resembles the original. >> Is it going to be anodized color or
>> It would be anodized. >> Okay, >> that's it. >> Great. Thank you. Thanks. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Just clarification. So, you changed the color, but still is the perforated one,
correct? >> Correct. Haskell any questions? >> No questions. Okay. >> Make a motion to approve >> first. Um, any public comment? >> Good afternoon, Meg Lustoto. Um, MDPL, we are in full support of this. It will
erase a very um prototypical 1980s facade and really return something that is elegant and adds to the ambiance of Lincoln Road. And uh we applaud the designers for this. Thank you. >> Do we have any further public comment on Zoom? >> There is nobody online with their hand
raised. >> Before you close the public hearing, are there any uh disclosures >> on this? >> I received an email from Graham, but did not respond. It's not personal. >> I didn't take it personal. make a motion to uh approve as submitted
with conditions from staff. >> I'll second that motion. >> Can I apologize? Can we get clarity that that you're supportive of the colors as proposed? >> Okay. >> Well, we we'll include the um exhibit you submitted today. >> Great. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I Any opposed? Motion passes 5 to zero. Pleasure. >> It's good to see everyone. Thank you so much. And before we end, we have a discussion item on the Raleigh Hotel. Just an update. Um something that may be coming to you in the near future regarding additional demolition and just the status of the building.
>> I'm sorry, Michael, I didn't hear you. >> This is a discussion item on the Raleigh Hotel. Okay. It's because there's there's an urgent need to let let you know regarding some um structural deficiencies in the building and foundation, and they're going to be making an application to the board. um in the future for some modifications. It
may require after the fact approval depending on the status of um the um >> you're talking about the existing facades of the structures that are being held up. >> The wrong here. >> Okay. I didn't realize. >> No, that's right. >> Gotcha.
>> Good. >> Good afternoon. See the best for last. Homeless was the first. Um good morning for the record. Alfredo Gonzalez. Alfredo officer 323. uh Southeast Second Avenue with me. I'm here today with the new owners of the Raleigh project which
include the Raleigh Hotel uh Nalik Capital. Um what I'd like to do just really quick is I I want to introduce uh Genga Sadid who is the um CEO of Nala Capital and just so you could they closed on it at the end of October of
2025. So they've just taken over and they've been diligently working on protecting the Raleigh structure. So, it was one of the first things they did since they had very limited due diligence prior to closing. So, um I'll give you an update on what's going on on the site, but I wanted uh my client to
at least come up and uh introduce himself and that way you know who the developer and projects he's done. And with that, thanks Alfredo. Could we get on the screen the um PowerPoint? Thank you. >> Uh good afternoon, chair and members of the board. I appreciate you giving me
the opportunity to introduce myself. >> Naming. My name is Jen Gasadi. Yes, absolutely. I'm going there. Um, it is a privilege to be here uh before you as the new steward of the Raleigh Hotel. Um, it is one of Miami Beach's most iconic and culturally significant
properties. Um, at Nala Capital, we view the Raleigh not simply as just a real estate asset. It is a landmark of extraordinary architectural, cultural, and civic importance. Our goal first and foremost is to honor and preserve the legacy that has made the Raleigh an
enduring symbol of Miami Beach and one of the defining expressions of its historic character. We approach this responsibility with deep respect for the building's heritage, its art deco identity, and its place in the history of this city. Our vision is rooted in
thoughtful restoration, sensitive reinvestment, preserving the spirit, elegance, and architectural significance of the property while ensuring that it can thrive for generations to come. Our intention is to restore this historic campus to its rightful place as one of
one of the great destinations of Miami Beach. A place that celebrates its past while carefully introducing a future of exceptional hospitality, residences, wellness, and cultural programming. Every aspect of our work has been guided by a simple PR
principle, preservation through stewardship. We believe the most successful historic properties are those that remain vibrant, relevant, and economically sustainable while staying true to the integrity of what made them special in the first place. We're
committed to working collaborative collaboratively with the board, with preservation professionals, and with the community to ensure that this vision honors the rally's legacy and contributes meaningfully to the continued vitality of Miami Beach. I appreciate the opportunity to introduce
my firm because this is a very important project for all of us in the room and those uh in the community. I started Nala Capital uh 12 years ago with a focus on properties in iconic and supply uh tight locations. Um we have built and
and invested in major markets including Miami Beach. We've invested in Beverly Hills, uh, New York City, where we're based, Chicago, uh, Philadelphia, and Austin. Our projects are complex. Our projects require a significant amount of overview from the communities that we're
in, their assemblages, their entitlements. There's a significant amount of engagement with preservation boards, and that respect for the preservation community goes deep into our culture. Um, all of our projects are uh, mixed use. Some of them are on the
board. This is, you know, we only put together a one-page example. We've, our most recent completion is the Rosewood Residences in Beverly Hills. That's the first standalone Rosewood residence in the world without a hotel component. That's a 10-year project because it took
uh an assemblage and working with the community and with the preservation board of Beverly Hills. We did the Austin proper hotel and residences. We uh frequent the the Shelborne proper here in Miami. That was a mixeduse projects project as well. um a lot of
entitlement and land use uh elements to it. We've invested in Philadelphia. We've invested in Chicago. Our most recent under construction project is 1122 Madison Avenue uh led by Studio Soffield on the design. It is a very classic Upper East Side location. It is
a landmark district. There's a lot of consideration to the community and to what we're doing. The the Metropolitan Museum is a block away. um a lot of local involvement in what buildings on the Upper East Side should look and feel like. Um a boutique project that we did
in New York, 152 Elizabeth Street, uh designed by Tadaw Ando, Michael Gavalini on the interiors. Again, a high focus on contextual design and embracing our neighborhoods. Um this is just a brief introduction. I I I thank you for the opportunity to introduce our firm and we
look forward to working with you and the community on this great project. Thank you. >> Thank you. And now I wanted to go over what's been going on with the Raleigh because I know that's the center of everyone's mind in question. Um, so we, as I said, my
client acquired closed on the property at the end of October. Since then, they've been able to have full access to the property and started their initial due diligence and and clearly observed that the Raleigh historic structure primarily uh was in real dire need of
getting attention and particularly shoring bracing and um attention and Okay. So, but I I wanted to let you know that as of January, they got the permits. They had to get the engineers in place. They started work in
January. By February they were completed 100% of all the exterior bracing and screening was done. Uh from that they started we started working on the interior shoring to protect the building. So that there is no concern. I know that I talked to some some of you
and commissioners and a lot of u the public always asking what's going on with the Raleigh. Um, so you'll see from some of the images, this is the exterior. You'll see now with the interior, 100%
of the shoring has been completed on the eastern portion. We're able to run through the foundations and go to they had a basement level. So, it's completely protected u as from the interior. 80% of the entire shoring is done. The portion that you'll see on the
screen is the e is the western portion. The first and a half floors from floor two above. It's been shored up, but we haven't been able to get to the ground because there is no basement. And we're working both both with the building department and the planning department
on being able to selectively create some demolition of the Terzo so we could run the foundation to stabilize the building and the urgency and that's what Michael alluded to that there will be some components that will come after the fact. It's it's tied to the Terzo of the
the the the Raleigh hotel primarily and we've worked with planning to make sure all the sampling is done. iconic images like that martini glass. Those things have been cut out, you know, so we could have this building. The intent is for the building to be 100% short and
protected by the end of this month, way before the hurricane season. That was a concern that was echoed by the city and everyone that and also the the ownership, the new ownership wanted to make sure that as they're preparing to move forward on their project, which they already started, uh we wouldn't
have any um setbacks with an issue with the historic structure. So, and I when I talk about the Raleigh, I also include the pool. The pool is in perfect condition. It's protected. Um but so you'll see that actually even I have
some images here. One one thing we did start doing the new owner started doing is the demolition. This is where uh Debbie Tacket we who had originally been an HBB was very excited of the penthouse edition. One of the things the former
owners agreed to after many different ownerships had not agreed was to scale back the original the 1996 edition penthouse edition to the Raleigh. So the permitted plans that my client has acquired has the scaling back and
removal since they were shore up the eastern portion. They're actually started doing that demolition and removing those portions of the 90s edition. Um and now though when in the end of the month 100% shuring is done they could start
working. There's active building permits that will allow them to start doing cons continue restoration of the entire site. Well we'll come to you and oh I wanted to point out one more thing which is outside the Raleigh but part of the site as well. Um these are some of the
limited terazzo um that we had to to get the foundations on the on the western side but um and that was yesterday and even we have new pictures are coming out today. So work is going on as we speak. Um wanted to also point out that in
addition to the Raleigh site the beach crossover over the dunes had been in disrepair for years. uh city a lot of um resident complaints that I mean although it was roped up some people wouldn't cross over because it's all broken up
planks uh the new owners immediately got um on that on the beach on the beach access got the FDB permits and I'm happy to you see some of the before pictures you'll see some of the images what's going to be after uh by May before May 1st it'll be completed so we're working
with FTP to make sure that it' be done before May 1st so not to impact act um turtles the turtle nestings uh which season just started uh and hatchings will be coming up in the next month or so. So this will be completed. It'll be
it'll be reintroduced to the public. So the new ownership has been actively working. We will then once we have all the components that require the after the fact we'll probably come to this board in July September. Um again both
the city has unity said that we couldn't wait till July or September not to do the and not do the shoring and not protect the building and and take the risk during hurricane season. So that's why it's going to be an after the fact. There will be a second application coming to this board prior towards the
end of fall for any of the modifications of the new tower. Any tweaks the project wants to have. We will come later on with time and that will be a separate process. Um, with that, that was pretty the presentation that I had for the board. Um, unless you have any
questions. >> This was basically before you to let you know that don't be surprised in a few months when you they come back to you and more terazzo was gone than was initially anticipated due to the additional um foundation measures they have to do for the for the um shoring and bracing. Initially we talked about
limited more limited demolition of the Terzo and then we found out based upon the um structural condition of the foundation or lack of a foundation in certain areas that they had to go further in terms of demolition that Teraso. That's why we are here for you today for that. >> And for the record the Raleigh historic
building is we're not adding any additional levels to it or struck weight. It's actually we're reducing by removing part of the penthouse, the foundation in such bad shape in order to preserve and protect the historic Raleigh building from the 40s. We need
to have this work done as uh soon as possible. That's why my client the moment he acquired it had engineers out there in December and immediately, you know, made the decision that he had to get started so we wouldn't have any other surprises. We didn't have a
situation where a building official had declared it unsafe and had an issue with, you know, demolition. So, we want to make sure that they had the the building short and braced and so that was not a problem, >> thank you, >> Mitch. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, okay, you'll uh damage the
terazzo and repair it. What What are you going to do? Put in uh pin pilings or new footings? What's the plan? it it will be primarily the new footings and then we have to especially in the front and even through the basement level
we'll have to remove a lot of the tozo is damaged and then we have to remove portions of it in order to lay the new foundation that'll protect the building for the next 50 60 years. Um so
that that's what you know we're we'll um predicate removing that terazzo but we've worked with the planning department to match all the colors that are on the site all the all we've have a 3D imaging of the terzo. So everything has been done prior to any work being
done. So, uh, in conjunction with the city, we could replicate and then preserve like like I said, I use the the example of the the famous martini and the martini bar that's being cut out. So, be preserved as as much as possible.
>> Question. I I think I have the right building. The upper floors are also clad in terazzo. >> Um, >> I I might be mixing it up with the national. >> No. >> Okay. Any
other questions that >> and the building's been gutted since Tommy Hilfinger who owned it back in 2016 who pulled the original permit. So the site's been on a construction site for over 10 years
>> and uh not and exposed and uh >> which is why the first step for the new owners was they wanted to make sure this building >> was protected structurally sound and not create an issue and they're very concerned about >> the historic character.
>> I I appreciate what you're doing and welcome to the community or back to the community. Thank you. >> Our next meeting is um May 12th. >> If anybody cannot attend, please let me know as soon as you can. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. See >> last very smooth. >> Good night. >> Thank you so much. >> We actually I didn't hear. >> No, we didn't say anything. I was just like, "All right, so next meeting is >> okay." >> I mean, sometimes I'm more formal.
>> That's okay.