WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=cvisoIJt8H4 NOTE MEETING SECTIONS: Part 1 (Video ID: cvisoIJt8H4): - 00:05:16: Meeting Call to Order, Introductions, and Lobbyist Regulations - 00:09:21: 1600 Washington Ave: Demolition and New Construction Proposal - 00:13:10: Applicant Presentation: Urban Core Housing, Historical Homage - 00:17:07: Architectural Details: Balconies, Materials, Lobby Design - 00:22:35: Board Questions: Laurel Building's Demolition Justification - 00:27:33: Board Questions: Zoning Approval Contingency Plan - 00:28:53: Applicant Response: Building Condition, Housing Goals, Design - 00:30:50: Board Question 1: Incorporating Laurel facade, Cost - 00:33:11: Board Question 2: Comparing to other projects like Bogenvia, and rationale for disregarding it - 00:35:15: Ambassador Seas Speaks: Safety concerns of the Building - 00:47:51: Public Comment: Anabelle from Lincoln Road, excited for the project - 00:52:44: Public Comment: Preservation league opposes building demolition - 00:54:26: Public Comment: Matthew Ganoff Neighborhood opinion - 00:56:22: Public Comment: Johan Moore, neighborhood association dissaproval - 00:58:57: Public Comment: Troy Wright, Washington Ave support - 01:00:36: Applicant rebuttal: Neighborhood concerns, Comprehensive plan priorities - 01:04:09: Board Commentary and Debates: Tribute vs. Demolition Precedent - 01:11:39: Board Commentary and Debates: 50% Rule, commercial elevation, retain/reconstruct - 01:15:26: Board Commentary: Future-Proofing, Balcony Design, Facade replication - 01:21:17: Deciding Factor: Ambassador, Reconstructing Facade, Conditions - 01:31:19: Next Application: 235 Washington Avenue Review Begins - 01:34:36: 235 Washington Applicant Introduction and Chronology - 01:38:09: Justification for Demolition and Four Design Options - 01:44:41: City Rejection of Police Building Staging Area - 01:44:57: Latest Iteration: Facade Reconstruction Details - 01:46:51: Board Question - Reconstructed Section Storage Space - 01:47:23: Board Question - Staff Recommendation Against Reconstruction - 01:47:56: Board Question - Fencing, Landscaping, and Street Trees - 01:50:45: Board Question - Window Design and Security Concerns - 01:51:16: Board Question - Location of Facade Reconstruction - 01:51:37: Board Question - Alley Demolition and High Voltage Lines - 01:54:38: Board Question - Partial Front Elevation Demolition - 01:56:03: Public Comment - Meg Lyustrau - Demolition Opposition - 01:59:50: Public Comment - Beaky Class - Narrowly Deciding Approval - 02:02:30: Public Comment - Keith Marks - Support for Applicant - 02:04:24: Board Questions and Engineer Justification of Demolition - 02:13:29: Engineer Questioned on Retaining Facade Cost - 02:13:47: Board Commentary - Storage in Facade - 02:14:49: Board Commentary - Security and Public View Considerations - 02:17:15: Board Commentary - Options to retain existing facade - 02:18:37: Board Commentary - Louvre and Window Opening Thoughts - 02:23:33: Discussion of Breeze Block and Preservation Opinions - 02:23:54: Motion to Retain Existing Facade - Fails - 02:27:00: Second Motion - Reconstruct Facade - Passes - 02:29:10: Motion for Variance to Continue Street Setback - Passes - 02:31:09: 716-720 Lincoln Road - Storefront Demolition Application - 02:35:35: Lincoln Road Storefront Analysis - 02:41:59: Proposed Reconfiguration of Existing Terrazzo Pattern - 02:44:10: Board Questions and Retail Doorway Location Clarification - 02:45:15: Lincoln Road Improvements and Building Cards Review - 02:47:10: Storefront Redesign for Present Merchandising Space - 02:48:31: Evolution of Space Design and Building Storefront - 02:51:32: New Doorset 3 feet Setback - 02:52:03: New Threshold - 02:52:42: Public Comment - Mecha Lustrau Supports Storefront Changes - 02:53:39: Annabelle Yop Discussing Positive Improvement - 02:54:33: Board Commentary - Removal of New Wall and Side Lights - 02:57:44: Building Knee Walls and Future Planning - 02:58:06: Motion to Approve Storefronts and Staff Conditions - Passes Part: 1 1 00:00:21.920 --> 00:03:54.360 be here. Get down. N feel la. Baby, baby. Another Heat. Hey, Heat. 2 00:04:13.760 --> 00:05:16.639 Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. N. Thank you. Thank you. 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. 3 00:05:16.639 --> 00:05:33.440 Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. >> Good morning. Good morning everyone and uh welcome to our May 12th historic preservation board meeting. Uh my name 4 00:05:33.440 --> 00:05:49.759 is Lindsay Levelvel uh chairing the historic preservation board and um I'm going to ask the city attorney to explain how we can participate in this meeting. Um and then I'll give a little outline of the sequence that I'd like to follow and then we'll proceed with the 5 00:05:49.759 --> 00:06:06.240 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 applicants, staff, and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. 6 00:06:06.240 --> 00:06:22.560 Those wishing to participate via Zoom may dial the toll-free number which is 888-4754499 and enter the webinar ID which is 817-48347488 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 7 00:06:22.560 --> 00:06:41.600 817-48347488. Individuals wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if using Zoom 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 8 00:06:41.600 --> 00:06:57.440 appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, including as an architect, attorney, or representative of an applicant, or 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 9 00:06:57.440 --> 00:07:12.800 testifying as an expert witness providing only 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 10 00:07:12.800 --> 00:07:28.479 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 11 00:07:28.479 --> 00:07:43.919 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 testifying, please raise your right hand. Do you 12 00:07:43.919 --> 00:08:02.960 swear that the testimony you'll be giving is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. Good morning again. Thank you. Um, so I wanted to run through quickly just an outline of how I'd like to proceed so that you know as a refresher 13 00:08:02.960 --> 00:08:18.560 for uh the folks who have been on the board for a while and as a refresher as as some new information for those who are new joining us. So, the order that we have historically followed, at least as long as I've been on the board, that I'd like to follow. Um, is for staff to 14 00:08:18.560 --> 00:08:34.320 present the item and make the staff recommendations, then for board for the boards to board members to ask questions of staff, any questions that are directed towards staff. Then we'll have the applicant present. Um, and then we'll have questions for the applicant. 15 00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:49.680 Um, any responses from the applicant. Um, I'd like to have them not a back and forth, but just kind of gather the questions and then answer them at once. Um, and then we will do board disclosures and open the public hearing and then we'll do board comment 16 00:08:49.680 --> 00:09:05.920 afterwards. Sound good? Okay. So, um, let's see here. We've got our um, we're going to skip the minutes. >> We're going to we're going to move the minutes to next month's agenda because we didn't have we had an issue with the 17 00:09:05.920 --> 00:09:21.959 technical difficulties for that. So, we're going to move that to next month and start with the first action item, which is the 1600 um Washington Avenue application. >> Great. So, we'll go ahead and start with 1600 Washington Avenue. >> So, the first action item on the agenda is um HPB25-0656. 18 00:09:22.480 --> 00:09:42.959 This >> we're going to move the minutes to next month. >> We're going to move the minutes to next month. >> Sorry. So the first action item is a HPB25-0656 for um 1,600 Washington Avenue. This includes also um 1601 Drexel Avenue and 19 00:09:42.959 --> 00:09:58.320 42516th Street. The applicant request a certificate of appropriateness for the total demolition of two structures and the construction of a new 15story mixeduse building. Um structures proposed for demolition are the one-story non-contributing commercial building at 1600 Washington Avenue 20 00:09:58.320 --> 00:10:14.240 constructed in 1952 and the two-story contributing Laurel apartments at 42516th Street constructed in 1938 and designed by Henry Hallhouser in the streamlined modern style. The lower apartments are characterized by recess port hole windows, rounded corner eyebrows, and horizontal fluting between 21 00:10:14.240 --> 00:10:28.880 windows. The existing five-story parking garage at 1601 Drexel Avenue was designed by the same architect for this project, Enrique Norton, and constructed 1910 that will be retained and incorporated into the new development, providing parking with along with loading and servicing for this project. 22 00:10:28.880 --> 00:10:46.320 Um, this this project is contingent upon the passing of the pending CD3 urban core residential plan amendments, which are currently pending before the city commission. Now, at the October 21st, 25 meeting, which is the last time the board reviewed the prior design for this project, um um the need for appropriate 23 00:10:46.320 --> 00:11:02.480 recognition of the contributing Laurel apartment buildings was recognized by staff and the board. Um as well as um the need to incorporate revised um articulation into the southern facade of the proposed building. The prior design was um overly monotonous with repetitive 24 00:11:02.480 --> 00:11:18.079 floor plans at each level. Um as well as the board asked the the applicant to look at the um the the loading area and access from 16th Street in terms of landscaping and minimizing the the width of that opening. And fourth, there was an issue with the renderings not not um 25 00:11:18.079 --> 00:11:34.560 aligning with the with the um landscape plans. Staff believes that those issues have been addressed with the current proposal. Um, in terms of the recognizing Laurel Apartments, the applicator is proposing to etch facade of the two-story wholeouser building into the lobby glazing of the at the approximate location of the existing 26 00:11:34.560 --> 00:11:50.320 building um which is um intended to reflect the original streamline Madera style composition of the the Laurel Apartments. Um staff is supportive of this um method of of recalling that that um structure which was indicated as um structurally deficient is and why 27 00:11:50.320 --> 00:12:05.519 they're proposing to to demolish that structure. Um, we do believe that the articulation of the south southern facade has been further developed and we do believe it respects the design integrity of the architect and Rick and Arton responding to the design concerns of staff in the board. Um, regarding the 28 00:12:05.519 --> 00:12:21.839 the service alley, the applicant has reduced the the width of that and provided landscaping on either side. We do believe that has addressed both staff's concerns and the board's concern regarding that landscaping. Um, lastly, regarding the the waiver, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the LDRs, which requires the ground floor of new 29 00:12:21.839 --> 00:12:38.079 construction to be located no later no lower than the future kind of road elevation. Now, this waiver is requested because the existing five-story building um to the west is part of the same development site and the code requires that that be elevated unless a waiver is granted. Of course, that building was recently constructed, so they can't just 30 00:12:38.079 --> 00:12:53.920 elevate that structure and that's why they're asking for for a waiver of this section of the code. Uh, we are supportive of the overall um design. We think they've made a substantial change and a substantial improvement. This is unlike any other tower I've seen in terms of um mid-rise buildings in in the city. So, we are supportive of this new 31 00:12:53.920 --> 00:13:10.160 this design. I recommending approval in accordance with the conditions listed in the attached draft order. That'll turn it over to Mr. Kasden for the applicant. >> Thank you, Mr. Belushia. If you uh put up the presentation, please. uh Nissan Casden and Cecilia Torres 32 00:13:10.160 --> 00:13:25.680 Toledo of Acreman representing the applicant 420 Lincoln Road Development LLC. With me uh with us here this morning as well is the principal of that company that owns that block and has been the steward of that block for over 30 years. 33 00:13:25.680 --> 00:13:43.920 Ambassador Paul Seahas, a longtime resident of Miami Beach as well. and the uh architect of record Joseé Gomez is here with us today as well on this presentation. Uh you're all familiar with the site. I don't think we need to spend any time 34 00:13:43.920 --> 00:14:00.880 talking about that. I do want to just briefly uh remind you of the theory behind this urban core zoning. This historically has been the downtown of Miami Beach where offices were, retail 35 00:14:00.880 --> 00:14:17.839 and activity centers. And so this is about reviving and providing housing in the downtown of Miami Beach. You see these old images. This is the 420 building which as I think you know Ambassador Seahas has has has carefully preserved and restored over a 30-year 36 00:14:17.839 --> 00:14:33.040 period. This urban core is also where the city some of the city's largest structures are in terms of height and mass. You look at the 407 Lincoln Road building across from 420 well over 150 ft. The 37 00:14:33.040 --> 00:14:49.600 Lowe's Hotel just a couple blocks over on Collins Avenue over 200 feet. And of course the new convention center hotel which is in construction almost 200 feet. So this is an appropriate area for this kind of development. I do want to make one other mention as well. Two two 38 00:14:49.600 --> 00:15:05.519 other points that are important to understand the context of this development. Number one, the city's comprehensive plan. Well, even before that, if you look at the statistics, the population of Miami Beach has declined by almost 39 00:15:05.519 --> 00:15:21.839 10,000 people. What has happened is that the people who uh live on Miami Beach, there are no places for the people who work on Miami Beach to live or inadequate places for that. So, if you look at the MacArthur Causeway and the Julia Tuttle causeway, 40 00:15:21.839 --> 00:15:38.480 you'll see that what the city needs is housing for people who work on Miami Beach. And that is what this will provide through this new overlay zoning which by the way prohibits short-term rentals so it can be residential only. 41 00:15:38.480 --> 00:15:56.240 And that is the essence of what this uh of what this is about is to provide housing in the urban core center where there are jobs and housing is needed. The project uh and I'll bring up Jose Gomez briefly to go through this. First, 42 00:15:56.240 --> 00:16:12.079 I would like to thank this board for its very helpful input in in uh working with the design of this particular project to make it the best project that it can be. And there were three elements in particular most recently that the board 43 00:16:12.079 --> 00:16:28.800 the last time we came before us you had asked about. One was the additional articulation of the facade of the building's mathing massing along 16th Street. and you'll see how that was successfully done. Two, uh, an 44 00:16:28.800 --> 00:16:45.920 appropriate recognition and homage to the historic structure that is being demolished. And if I may, I would like to point out particularly, I think, uh, uh, Mitch Novik's contribution in coming up with something that is innovative and very a very, uh, worthy recognition of 45 00:16:45.920 --> 00:17:04.279 that. And third was the uh treatment of the alley along 16th Street to ensure an enhanced pedestrian experience. I'll bring Jose Gomez up. He will take you through these design modifications and then we will be available for any questions. 46 00:17:07.199 --> 00:17:22.480 Good morning everyone. We'll say Gomez Balance Gomez Architects. Uh we are the architects of record for the project working with uh Tay Enrique Norton. Enrique was the architect for the garage 47 00:17:22.480 --> 00:17:38.799 adjacent to the new building and you're going to be able to see his signature sort of uh incorporated into this uh into this building as well. So this is what we brought before you um 48 00:17:38.799 --> 00:17:54.400 last year. Uh the building was uh a very uh clean uh sort of uh traditionally uh Norton building. However, uh it uh it was felt that uh it lacked articulation. 49 00:17:54.400 --> 00:18:11.679 Um, one of the, uh, out of many studies that Enrique prepared, I think he came up with this, uh, very organized rhythm with the balconies that uh, might it might seem at first a random attempt to 50 00:18:11.679 --> 00:18:28.799 articulate the facade, but you can see that there's a pattern to it. There is just like a fabric pattern that you seen the top levels uh follow a uh a certain pattern then it it kind of repeats itself in sever several levels of the 51 00:18:28.799 --> 00:18:44.240 building. So um the balconies project out in and out. So you have this play of light and shadows that are going to be reflecting on the building. Uh the podium is uh 52 00:18:44.240 --> 00:18:59.360 slightly uh elevated to meet the FEMA requirements. We have at the ground level commercial and residential above that. So the the basic concept of the building as Enrique looked at it, he took the 53 00:18:59.360 --> 00:19:18.400 mousing, sliced it, shift it to create uh the um uh the the u the circulation the within the building um and basically broke or subtracted a piece in order to 54 00:19:18.400 --> 00:19:33.679 allow circulation that I'll explain. and it goes through Drexel and comes out the alley. So basically that is the uh the the portion that was uh taken out or subtracted from the massing and then you 55 00:19:33.679 --> 00:19:50.720 see where he took the facade and start playing with that very very organized uh play of the balconies here starting to see from um 16th looking east uh northeast you you can 56 00:19:50.720 --> 00:20:08.200 start seeing the facade the play uh of the uh that happens when um he shifts the balcony uh pushes in and and in and out and that gives you that sort of a fabric on the south facade. 57 00:20:08.720 --> 00:20:26.080 This here is is a homage to the historic portion of the building. What we are proposing here is a clear low iron glass uh box that is basically the lobby of the building and then the um elevation 58 00:20:26.080 --> 00:20:43.360 the facade of the historic building is uh delineated on the glass and we have a product that you might have seen before. I'll pass. Can someone pass this one? So there is a um a new uh product by 59 00:20:43.360 --> 00:20:58.640 Veraricon where the inner layer is actually edged with uh whichever color we want, whichever pattern and that inner layer then there's a second glass of layer uh or or another layer of glass 60 00:20:58.640 --> 00:21:14.640 that is put above it where um the image will never fade. It's just uh similar uh it's a different process but similar to a building uh near here on 17th and Michigan I believe is in the corner is a 61 00:21:14.640 --> 00:21:29.840 white building that has that white inner layer but now the that inner layer is actually uh a much more contemporary product that will never fade. this here. Uh there was a comment about 62 00:21:29.840 --> 00:21:46.960 the the the gate as you exit. Uh it's it's a very minimal uh gate and what uh after speaking to Enrique uh about what to do with that gate, he liked to break up the the gate that is existing that 63 00:21:46.960 --> 00:22:03.919 has a pattern and that will integrate or help link the garage design with the uh the new tower. This here is on Washington. And on Washington, you're seeing where um he's bringing some of the design that 64 00:22:03.919 --> 00:22:18.880 you have seen before in the garage. He's putting a small piece on the Washington side adjacent to the commercial. And that's basically it. That sort of I believe addresses the the points of 65 00:22:18.880 --> 00:22:35.120 concern that uh the board had last time. So if you have any questions, I'm here. Thank you. That concludes our presentation. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, so we missed questions for staff. Do we have any questions for staff before we proceed? 66 00:22:35.120 --> 00:22:53.039 >> Yes, sure. >> Yes. Page nine of 10 of staff's report, second paragraph. Staff notes that the structure is no longer part of the cohesive grouping of buildings. Its once 67 00:22:53.039 --> 00:23:11.520 prominent east facade has long been eclipsed by the construction of the retail building immediately to the east. Now, okay, that was the primary elevation, but you can certainly uh understand that 68 00:23:11.520 --> 00:23:25.760 Houser knew it was going to be eclipsed eventually. Uh and my question to you is what about the secondary elevation along 16th Street which I believe in itself 69 00:23:25.760 --> 00:23:43.679 acts as a primary elevation in uh it just seems like you're disregarding this building entirely uh based on the perceived uh what was a primary elevation that uh 70 00:23:43.679 --> 00:24:00.480 obviously was not going to be for any extended period of time. >> Sure. So, we're not disregarding the elevation. I do think there's two two combined points here. As Mr. Kasin stated, this is in the urban core area where, you know, regardless, separate from their proposed code amendment, the 71 00:24:00.480 --> 00:24:17.039 height allowed here is 100 ft. So, you know, this this area was intended to be something that's developed more substantially in terms of the urban core. So that factors into um our decision to support the the proposed demolition as well as the structural report that found the deficiencies and 72 00:24:17.039 --> 00:24:33.279 you know keeping that structure. So we think combined the the option to provide indication of what was there previously with this this glass homage to the original building. We think it's appropriate and and warranted versus just you know not having anything there. We do believe that it's good for the history to show what was there 73 00:24:33.279 --> 00:24:48.159 previously while also allowing new construction to be developed to be developed in terms of what the urban core um um concept was which is the higher you know city center area of of this of this portion of Lincoln Road. >> Uh let me just uh briefly respond. Is 74 00:24:48.159 --> 00:25:04.880 that okay? Madam Chair, uh I have zero issue with the height. uh nor do I uh nor is my position the retention of the entire hoouser structure. But as uh I alluded to last time we heard this and 75 00:25:04.880 --> 00:25:20.080 Nissan uh referenced it, uh my concern is why could the front or or the uh southern facade uh wrapping to that first eyebrow, first 76 00:25:20.080 --> 00:25:36.720 five feet not be incorporated into the new tower. Uh, I think that is a real homage to preservation and uh, >> yeah, I think that that that could be an option as long as it's they're able to 77 00:25:36.720 --> 00:25:51.600 retain that structure versus reconstructing it. So, I think we wouldn't want to see a reconstructed facade. But, if they could actually um, keep that structure and maintain that portion for a certain distance, that that would be an acceptable alternative as well. And what we're talking about is 78 00:25:51.600 --> 00:26:08.080 uh a handful of columns and tie beams that would likely need to be replaced as well as uh the foundation of the uh >> yeah I think we want to see like what is left in terms of after demolition in terms of like a Swiss cheese what is left in terms of the structure when you 79 00:26:08.080 --> 00:26:25.120 take out when you take away um the deficient elements and I just want to put note one last thing um this structure has had such a variety of approvals over the years from the original which was de demolition back in 2005 when the board approved the demolition for a new structure here which was a very um unique cantalievered 80 00:26:25.120 --> 00:26:40.640 structure. >> I recall >> exactly and then later on the board approved um um a slightly um I think it was um recall elevated or um >> there was retention of >> retention and move structure. So this this building has had like the whole range of possible approvals over the 81 00:26:40.640 --> 00:26:56.240 last now 20 years for this site. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Do you have a question for staff? Well, I I just want to for any of you who may or may not know, look at the east the west side of Collins Avenue between 22nd 82 00:26:56.240 --> 00:27:12.000 Street and and uh uh between 22nd and 23rd. There's the Campanneal building which was preserved and a new building was built around it, on top of it, behind it, and connected it and paid homage to it. And that's 83 00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:33.840 what I'd like to see happen here. Madam Chair, at the appropriate time, if I can address these comments, >> any other questions for uh for staff rather. >> Just quick question. What if the the current plan that's under consideration 84 00:27:33.840 --> 00:27:50.400 that the commissioners uh does not get approved? So, let's say we approve this today and then that one does not get approved. So, what happens then? >> They have to come back to this board for a modification. So what would be the the biggest changes that the project will have to suffer to 85 00:27:50.400 --> 00:28:06.080 comply with? >> Well, the biggest change is going to be probably just a reduction in mass or height. >> Um because the the code now is um 100 ft. So if they were to reduce it from the proposed 150 to 100, it would change the design. So we would want to have that back. We would just want to have we would not just want to have it just 86 00:28:06.080 --> 00:28:21.360 reduce, you know, cut back cut off at the 100 foot level. We want to see how that's addressed. And then the um the second is a reduction in F from the um allowed 2.75 to 3.5 or vice versa. So that would come back to the board to see how they re allocate the the F in the 87 00:28:21.360 --> 00:28:37.760 end. It would be a less um less mass on the site. So we want to see how it would change the design of the building. So it would require to come back to the board. >> So then the demolition of the building will be contingent to the approval of the new project or once approved demolition to the >> No. So they can't they can't get a demolition permit for the um that 88 00:28:37.760 --> 00:28:53.760 structure until they get the the permit for the new the new construction. >> All right. That's I just want to make sure >> they wouldn't allow expected of demolition. They couldn't come in tomorrow and then demolish the building and then you know go go from there. >> Any further questions for staff? >> Go ahead. 89 00:28:53.760 --> 00:29:08.480 >> Thank you. I just like to briefly respond to a couple particularly with respect to the um the building that's to be demolished. Of course, there was an extensive engineering study by Yseph Hatchim, which has been presented to you 90 00:29:08.480 --> 00:29:24.720 before about the severely deteriorated condition of that building. In addition to that, in order to be able to uh one proposal potentially was to make it compliant uh because anything you do would be in 91 00:29:24.720 --> 00:29:39.520 excess of 50% of the value of the building to elevate it uh would not be possible. the the building would crumble. And so uh as a and as an additional practical matter, I would say 92 00:29:39.520 --> 00:29:56.880 this project as it is the the desire is to bring rental housing. This is what the city's comprehensive plan calls for. It's one of the top objectives of the city's comp plan. uh uh to try to integrate a completely compromised 93 00:29:56.880 --> 00:30:13.919 facade into a new structure would be extraordinarily expensive and and we think not as effective. Now, I'd like, if I may, Jose Gomez can show you that there is actually depth to this. Can we pull the presentation back up 94 00:30:13.919 --> 00:30:29.360 there? So, you can see here, Mitch, to address your comment, it's really not just a flat piece of glass. is actually three-dimensional. It projects out of the building by 10 ft. That's I think it's a it's a good distance to project 95 00:30:29.360 --> 00:30:46.640 out the the area that will become the lobby, the most important experience. You're always going to be feeling the memory of this building. It's going to be seen. It's there. It's not going away. And again, it's it's three-dimensional. It's not just a flat 96 00:30:46.640 --> 00:31:04.720 piece of glass. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, do we have questions or comments for the applicant? >> Well, Jose, uh, >> yeah, >> you know, I looked at that image and if 97 00:31:04.720 --> 00:31:22.240 you could just superimpose what's existing into that, it could also, uh, uh, in my eyes, it would certainly be very interesting. And that space would not be used uh for residential housing. That would be some 98 00:31:22.240 --> 00:31:39.600 sort of uh commercial component as indicated on your plans, Mitch. It's a it's a more contemporary approach to respecting the historic building. I think, you know, we are respecting the building. I think uh 99 00:31:39.600 --> 00:31:55.519 Enrique uh understood your comment in particular and the board's comment and and staff comment and we've been working with staff to basically create an architecture that is not uh it's not going to forget the building. It's going 100 00:31:55.519 --> 00:32:13.279 to always uh respect the history of this building. It's not going away. >> It's also if the residential lobby which we feel is for multiple reasons more appropriate. First of all, as you get up to 16th Street and that side, you're getting to the residential neighborhood 101 00:32:13.279 --> 00:32:29.279 rather than on Washington Avenue, which is more appropriate for commercial. >> Yeah. Niss, uh, you're familiar with Bogenv Apartments, 9340 Collins. That's the Kushna project where they've incorporated 102 00:32:29.279 --> 00:32:45.440 >> a piece of uh one of the first buildings designated in Surfside into its architecture prominently featured in fact in their advertising uh they're touting the fact that they have this 103 00:32:45.440 --> 00:33:01.440 historic component as their main entry and this could be uh very similar. I'm I'm very familiar with that project as I did the original approvals including uh before Kushner purchased it including uh 104 00:33:01.440 --> 00:33:16.960 the uh part portion of the facade that is a very different site. It is a very large large site. It's a long site. Uh the buildings actually that are being built are uh only three stories in 105 00:33:16.960 --> 00:33:32.159 height. It's a totally different situation than here where we we need to incorporate this into the uh facade of a much larger residential building. >> It's it's not a herculean task. In fact, 106 00:33:32.159 --> 00:33:49.760 >> it's a very different I mean it's a very different site than the one that we were working with at 93rd in Collins. Very different. If we had that kind of >> I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about the concept and the intent. uh they embraced the historic element 107 00:33:49.760 --> 00:34:08.159 where you guys are trying to uh clearly want to discard it and it does exist today. So no >> there doesn't necessarily need to be a a homage to it as it does exist. You know, the direction we received from the board 108 00:34:08.159 --> 00:34:25.200 uh last time was that that that it was it was understood as to the reasons and the necessity of the demolition of the original structure and that we needed to come up with an appropriate homage. So we worked in the direction of coming up with that 109 00:34:25.200 --> 00:34:41.599 and there were certain other concepts which were proposed and then we came up with this concept. I can only say that uh it doesn't to do anything else actually would also not practically work probably not be as great an homage and and and quite 110 00:34:41.599 --> 00:34:58.800 frankly the cost element would be extraordinary uh as well I don't >> you you have a creative team of designers architects uh it's you know changing columns and tie beams 111 00:34:58.800 --> 00:35:15.680 it's specialty work, but we're it's not unreasonable here because as I mentioned, it's a it's a handful. >> Well, excuse me. Yes. Uh thank you uh Madame Chair, members of the board. Uh I 112 00:35:15.680 --> 00:35:33.119 appreciate your the time that you put into this. Uh I uh had to be here uh because as you know, I live on a beach. I've lived on the beach for many years. And this building, as uh you see, 113 00:35:33.119 --> 00:35:49.920 uh Lincoln Road has had several turnovers. Uh and I've owned this building for 30 years, and I love it. Uh we restore it, and we continue to keep it uh the best possible way under the 114 00:35:49.920 --> 00:36:06.000 worst circumstances. As you know, Lincoln Road has been up here and it's been down here and I have been a solid uh patron and maintaining it as much as we can so that we keep that historical 115 00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:20.880 building. I love the beach. I live here and I've uh brought Enria Norton uh not at just having uh somebody but somebody who had built a garage and it 116 00:36:20.880 --> 00:36:36.560 was a claim. Uh if you know and you been to that garage, you know that that garage has no columns. It has very clear. It has 59 cameras and it's the cleanest garage in town. And that's what 117 00:36:36.560 --> 00:36:52.560 I asked Enrique to design and to implement there because what I tried to do is quality. So I didn't just bring anybody to to do this and I thought about bringing Enrique Norton who had 118 00:36:52.560 --> 00:37:09.359 built this beautiful garage uh to to build and design this building. And of course, Jose has been a friend and an internal architect who has helped me for many years. Uh actually, Mr. Bellison uh 119 00:37:09.359 --> 00:37:25.680 helped me from the beginning to keep that building restored. And uh he can tell you that throughout the years, we keep making sure that that building has all the historical aspects. But I have to tell you that that little building 120 00:37:25.680 --> 00:37:42.240 there that exists is a danger to the community, to the people because it it was supposed to be demolished. A previous board had approved the demolition of it. Uh when 121 00:37:42.240 --> 00:37:59.119 we had a plan for the Cantaliber thing and of course it was impossible. the the the cost and the weight could not support the Cantal building that we loved actually the design now we love 122 00:37:59.119 --> 00:38:16.240 this design we appreciate the input uh Mr. ballian staff in saying these are the things that you need to articulate in this building. We told Enrique and you know dealing with famous architects you're dealing with a little bit of a 123 00:38:16.240 --> 00:38:33.440 tough fight because they want you know their thing and I had to really impose that and said no no no we're going to go with the recommendations of the staff because this is what needs to be done. They want articulation and we need to do it and with the help of Jose we were 124 00:38:33.440 --> 00:38:50.000 able to accomplish that. So I'm what I'm saying is the existing building is dangerous. There's a liability involved. As you know there's a bar there that uses that alley to bring people in. If 125 00:38:50.000 --> 00:39:05.920 if that building is not demolished as soon as possible, you we're going to have a liability issue. and you all know it and if you walk by it, you could see it and I'll be happy to open it for you and you will be horrified to see. And I 126 00:39:05.920 --> 00:39:22.160 know the historical issue. How about if we instead of doing the glass, we build instead of the glass give you the building, rebuild the building front, which is not by the way not the front of 127 00:39:22.160 --> 00:39:37.839 the building. If you go back historically, the front of the building was facing uh Washington Avenue and then over the years they put other buildings in front of it, but all you see here of this building is the side of the 128 00:39:37.839 --> 00:39:52.720 building, not the front of the building. So my proposal to you is no glass. Let's build the actual building. And that to me 129 00:39:52.720 --> 00:40:08.320 Thank you, Miss Ambassador. Uh Se Paul, how's uh Pablo doing? Tell him is doing great. >> Good. Good kid you got there. >> Thank you. >> Um >> you've been the steward of uh the entire 130 00:40:08.320 --> 00:40:24.400 property for uh decades. uh you maintain everything or you have maintained everything uh exquisitly with exception to this uh important structure and again my 131 00:40:24.400 --> 00:40:40.320 stance is I'd like to see the uh facade along 16th Street uh uh many considered uh consider a secondary elevation to me uh 132 00:40:40.320 --> 00:40:56.640 It's important. I uh also am steward of a hoouser building that I've always considered to be a sibling of this building. Nissan uh is where that that's at 610 Jefferson Avenue where the 133 00:40:56.640 --> 00:41:15.359 secondary facade is facing the street and like your own it's extraordinary port hole windows banding eyebrows uh the terracotta entries. Uh what I'd like to see is is certainly uh piddly in the 134 00:41:15.359 --> 00:41:30.480 scheme of things. It's not insurmountable. It's it's rather simple. And we being a historic preservation board, it's appropriate. And uh I know you're a man of wisdom and 135 00:41:30.480 --> 00:41:45.359 uh hopefully uh we'll come around and meet. Thank you. But hopefully I'll get your support by offering what I just offered, giving you the front instead of glass, 136 00:41:45.359 --> 00:42:02.400 >> the same as the building, not not a replication. What you have there can be uh stabilized and incorporated into the new structure. Come on, Jose. No, it's not. >> I've I I've been I've been doing this 137 00:42:02.400 --> 00:42:18.560 shoring up and stabiliz stabilizing buildings for uh decades. >> So So Mitch, I um if you recall across the street from your building uh on 9inth uh we reconstructed the core rock 138 00:42:18.560 --> 00:42:34.240 house. We reconstructed the building adjacent to it. We linked it with a very contemporary piece of architecture. Sadly, it's not very visible, but it's a I think a beautiful job. Um, 139 00:42:34.240 --> 00:42:50.720 this building is in a totally different condition. This structure today is in a totally different condition even of the rock house and and we reconstructed the rock house. I can tell you how bad certain buildings are. This one is one 140 00:42:50.720 --> 00:43:07.760 of the most terrible. What uh Ambassador Paul has suggested is basically the same architecture that you're seeing the contemporary in glass and rebuilding 10 ft back 141 00:43:07.760 --> 00:43:24.640 the three sides of that building. I think at the end of the day you're going to get a much better structure, a much better building. Um although I still believe that Enria Norton's glass facade it's pays the the 142 00:43:24.640 --> 00:43:42.480 homage to the historic I think what's being offered is the next best thing I wonder but I'd like to bring another thing to the if you could put up the presentation again I'd like to underscore what Jose is talking about 143 00:43:42.480 --> 00:44:01.280 which is let's get to the uh this is the structural report. The foundations of the structure cannot endure the elevation process and will fail during the process which would have to occur uh if because it' be more than a 50% 144 00:44:01.280 --> 00:44:18.640 value of the renovation. The foundation of the house is weak enough to crumble under such loads during the jacking process due to the footer being on shallow foundation. All the main structural members of the structure are compromised and need to be demolished and replaced. This is the state of of of 145 00:44:18.640 --> 00:44:35.040 this building. It is literally under according to our engineer not able to be even keeping it in a portion of it in place. There's high probability that it will crumble. I'll also say this from my experience on other projects. For 146 00:44:35.040 --> 00:44:50.960 instance, uh let's talk about the Versailles. Um I think if uh candidly uh if they knew how much it would cost to because remember what you have to do selectively demolish brace you have a 147 00:44:50.960 --> 00:45:07.119 tight construction site there to build a building on that site as well. they would replication actually of the facade would have been infinitely more incentivizing to maintaining the look and the design and I I think as a 148 00:45:07.119 --> 00:45:22.319 practical matter we as a city have to understand that if if that facade is important and Ambassador Seahas has offered to maintain it the only way practically to do that and to achieve it is to be able frankly to recreate it 149 00:45:22.319 --> 00:45:39.440 which he's willing to do or the Enrique Norton solution of the Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, and we all remember the Sati had to um, completely rebuild the Sassoon. They tried to save it. Demolition by neglect, couldn't be saved, and that here's the 150 00:45:39.440 --> 00:45:57.040 plans. Rebuild it as it was. There are most people today that wouldn't realize that that's not the original building. So, >> and it's more enduring, >> and so we can't lose our heritage. We can't just, you know, we can't be held hostage and have de demolition by neglect and just say, "Oh, well, I mean, 151 00:45:57.040 --> 00:46:14.319 to me, if we rebuild what was there at whatever height you want or whatever, it's a lot better than what you're giving us right here in my opinion." >> And Ambassador Seas has offered to to redo that. And you, Mr. Brereslin, you're completely right. And by the way, now we have the Satai, the original 152 00:46:14.319 --> 00:46:29.599 Vander, it was the Dempsey Vanderbilt hotel. the rebuilding of it is enduring forever because stronger construction it has that look the exact look and that is as a practical matter if we want to be able to do these projects we have to be 153 00:46:29.599 --> 00:46:45.359 able to do it this way I don't I don't agree with that Niss uh one or twostory build one one and twostory buildings are the easiest buildings to preserve in this case uh like many others like many 154 00:46:45.359 --> 00:47:01.440 others an exoskele You can see it on the seagull today. Uh the Versailles, that's uh a tower. Uh this this is a small restorative project that could easily be done with the right uh 155 00:47:01.440 --> 00:47:17.599 >> not on that not on that tight of sight and not given a structure that is literally in the condition that's described in the engineers report. >> Again, columns and tie beams are easy to replace when you know how to do it. I I also have some comments, but do you 156 00:47:17.599 --> 00:47:33.280 want to take public comment first? >> We're We're not there yet. Okay. Yeah. Does anybody have questions for the applicant? I'd like to reiterate. I gave you an entire explanation of how we need to run the meeting and I'd like to avoid the back and forth. I understand we have 157 00:47:33.280 --> 00:47:49.800 passion on this board, but we also have seven members on the board. So, we want to make sure that everybody has a chance to ask the questions and get those addressed in an orderly fashion and also give the applicant like the time in front of us that they deserve. So, does anybody else have questions for the applicant? 158 00:47:51.440 --> 00:48:06.319 >> Thank you. >> Um, could you put the rendering up again of the street front? Is that a No. Uh, keep going there. Is that like a 15t high gate on the alley? Like I'm 159 00:48:06.319 --> 00:48:23.440 confused by the the car parked in what's the car parked in front of? >> The the the width of the gate is only 12 feet. It's a oneway uh alley coming south. Uh and the gate the current gate right now that was designed by Rick and Norton is the one that you see there. 160 00:48:23.440 --> 00:48:40.720 Unfortunately, on the rendering, it was just depicted as a uh just a blank uh gate, but the idea is for the gate to be >> So, it's not just a big piece of metal. >> Oh, no, no, no. It's going to be it's going to have the uh the the qualities of the uh Enrique Norton gate which is 161 00:48:40.720 --> 00:48:57.119 already in place. We don't want to remove that. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any other board questions for the applicant before we go to public commentary? >> I just want to clarify that entrance. So that gate that currently exists next to the garage structure is remaining and in 162 00:48:57.119 --> 00:49:13.040 your rendering you're just kind of not properly replicating it. Is that correct? We're going to we're going to use the same gate that was already designed by Enrique Norton that is a 12 foot wide gate, >> but then it has a little I'm sorry, but it has a little pedestrian access I 163 00:49:13.040 --> 00:49:29.040 believe next to it. >> No, we're not going to have the pedestrian access because that's where we would like to uh start the the new construction. >> Okay. So then I just want to try to understand what's remaining of the existing and what's being demolished. So 164 00:49:29.040 --> 00:49:47.040 if you could bring back that um >> rendering and just Yeah. So >> can you show the can you show the existing please? >> Sure. >> Yeah. So from this what's going >> the portion the portion um you see that 165 00:49:47.040 --> 00:50:02.720 column on the beam on top. >> Yeah. >> That that portion that beam will be removed. the column will be removed and the gate will be shifted so that it's right on line with the historic the 166 00:50:02.720 --> 00:50:17.040 homage that we're doing for the historic. >> Okay. So this whole thing will be one large gate. >> No, no, no. It's the same 12T 12T wide gate. It's just going to be shift >> shifted to the edge >> to the east. >> Okay. All right. 167 00:50:17.040 --> 00:50:32.559 >> So and it's the original gate designed by Enrique. Gotcha. And again, that same design, he's bringing it to Washington. So, you're going to have, if you look at the rendering from Washington, he's bringing a portion of that on the other 168 00:50:32.559 --> 00:50:52.720 side. So, sort of integrate the whole uh putting a signature throughout the uh >> complex. Mhm. >> Do we have any board disclosures? >> Um because I missed the initial meeting. I I met with Nissan Kasen and his team to review the project. Also a faculty 169 00:50:52.720 --> 00:51:16.559 member at the Paul Seah School of Architecture. >> Um so I think we'll open up for public comment. >> Good morning chair. Good morning members. Annabelle Yopies Lincoln Road Business Improvement District Executive Director. I'm here on behalf of the 170 00:51:16.559 --> 00:51:32.720 board and of course on behalf of um Ambassador Seahas on how excited we are about this project, how excited we are that we're going to get yearround residents living in this district. To say that we need year-round residents to build the community around Lincoln Road 171 00:51:32.720 --> 00:51:48.640 and its surrounding area is absolutely key to the success of the district. There's a lot of great things happening at Lincoln Road, but we need a community. We don't just need tourists. Tourists are great. It's it's an amazing business for our city, but residents 172 00:51:48.640 --> 00:52:04.079 build a community and this development is really key to getting us there. Um, I think the amount of attention that's happening in our district, not just uh along Collins Avenue, but this development and other developments we're seeing on Alton Road that brings 173 00:52:04.079 --> 00:52:19.920 residential to our area is so paramount. And we are so excited to have this move forward. We think the design is beautiful. We think it the fact that it's not Airbnb that we're going to have the right community in there is what we need and so we look to the board to 174 00:52:19.920 --> 00:52:44.160 please help us get there because it's going to be a win-win for everybody. So, thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers? Good morning members of the Historic Preservation Board. Meg Lustto, executive director of the Miami Design 175 00:52:44.160 --> 00:53:00.880 Preservation League. While we appreciate the need for market rate housing on Miami Beach, we continue to oppose the proposed demolition of the contributing Henry Hoouser Streamline Madern building and the design of the proposed apartment building. In 2018, city preservation staff described this building as having 176 00:53:00.880 --> 00:53:17.520 a quote high degree of historic and architectural integrity with only limited modifications and commended the applicant for proposing to retain and restore it. Now, years later, the same owner says the building cannot be saved, a clear case of demolition by neglect, where they have allowed a previously intact contributing building to 177 00:53:17.520 --> 00:53:34.720 deteriorate to justify its demolition. And um I realize today that I have been a preservation professional for 30 years. And in that time in many different cities, I've seen dozens perhaps hundreds of demolition requests from entities that purchase buildings in 178 00:53:34.720 --> 00:53:51.040 protected zones, protected historic districts, then did not maintain them, and then claimed that the buildings were beyond saving. When we allow that strategy to succeed, we are tacitly encouraging others to use the same strategy. When we allow pastiches to replace actual historic buildings, we are 179 00:53:51.040 --> 00:54:05.680 undercutting the authenticity that is at the philosophical core of historic preservation. Miami Beach's historic architecture is irreplaceable. We only have so many hoouser buildings left. We will never get these historic buildings back because demolition is forever. So, I would encourage you to deny the 180 00:54:05.680 --> 00:54:26.800 demolition. Thank you. >> Do we have anyone online? >> We do have a couple online callers. Yes. >> Perfect. Good morning. Matthew Ganoff, 125 Jefferson Avenue. I have a couple questions actually for the applicant. Uh, one, is this project supported by 181 00:54:26.800 --> 00:54:43.359 the neighborhood association that lives nearby? >> And Matthew, you can use your time however you wish and then uh if the applicant would like, they can respond to your questions during their rebuttal. >> Thank you. So, is it supported by the neighborhood association? That's 182 00:54:43.359 --> 00:55:00.079 question one. Question two, have they met with the neighborhood association to address their concerns? I know that the city has seen lots of development proposals over the last 10 years and many times the neighborhood associations do support it because they've worked together with applicants to bring 183 00:55:00.079 --> 00:55:16.880 projects that uh become more contextually appropriate with their neighborhoods. I'm not aware of them working together with the neighborhood association to address their concerns, which their concerns are in addition to the contributing hoouser building, it's also the design, the sizing, and the 184 00:55:16.880 --> 00:55:34.079 massing of the building onto the whole entire parcel because, as you know, um they own the entire block and they're putting the tower and concentrating all the F into a corner of it, which gives it a much larger effective uh intensity. 185 00:55:34.079 --> 00:55:50.880 or F than what they're asking. Um, and then lastly, you know, um, there's no zoning for this right now. I think that it could be perhaps premature to approve a design before the actual zoning text allows something like this. That all 186 00:55:50.880 --> 00:56:06.240 being said, I remember speaking at the planning board uh the planning board opposing a moratorium on F increases and right after I spoke was actually the uh the representatives from this property owner. Overall, building more housing, 187 00:56:06.240 --> 00:56:22.559 as we just heard the previous uh one of the previous speakers say, is a good thing for this city, but it has to be done appropriately and uh and I think that this board realizes that and will probably get us to that place. Thank you. We go to online. 188 00:56:22.559 --> 00:56:37.280 >> Go to our online callers. The first one is Johan Moore. >> Johan, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Uh Johan Moore, 717 Jefferson Avenue. I will make comments both uh on 189 00:56:37.280 --> 00:56:54.640 behalf of my neighborhood association and on my own behalf. Uh to answer Matthew's rhetorical question, uh the neighborhood association does not approve of the current design. The neighborhood association feels that it 190 00:56:54.640 --> 00:57:11.119 is absolutely not compliant with the neighborhood's standards uh for contextual appropriateness for facade design for impact on the neighborhood. We feel that the facade redesign in fact 191 00:57:11.119 --> 00:57:29.359 uh is a step back. Uh to quote a leading member of FPNA, nothing says affordable housing like balconies. That obviously was meant as a snarky comment by that member of FPNA. Uh we consider the current design to be uh offensive quite 192 00:57:29.359 --> 00:57:44.799 frankly. uh and we are uh surprised and dismayed at the developers absence of reaching out to the community by which I do not mean to imply that there was no reaching out but rather that the process 193 00:57:44.799 --> 00:58:02.799 uh became chilled uh on the part of the developer once the developer realized that the community that the neighborhood association was not going to support either this excess height structure uh nor its glass facade with the reflected 194 00:58:02.799 --> 00:58:19.359 sunlight and heat island effect. Uh the uh absence of a pushpull articulation of the facade that would address uh the heat island effect as well as breaking up the downward velocity of uh storm 195 00:58:19.359 --> 00:58:36.319 water runoff off the facade. Uh we object to the demolition uh by neglect as Ms. Lustau pointed out of a building. Uh we hear Paul Seas praising his stewardship uh of the unified site but 196 00:58:36.319 --> 00:58:53.000 neglecting to mention that this building be neglected. Thank you. >> Next caller is Troy Wright. >> Troy, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. You have two minutes. 197 00:58:57.119 --> 00:59:12.160 Did I lose it? Come on. Go ahead. Where did we lose you? >> Oh, there we go. Troy Wright, Washington Avenue Business Improvement District. Um, Ambassador Seahas uh has been an incredible property owner 198 00:59:12.160 --> 00:59:28.799 and strong advocate um for positive change on Washington Avenue. So, we appreciate the vision behind the new structural development and believe that the the redevelopment will significantly enhance the future of the corridor. Um, but there's no question that um the 199 00:59:28.799 --> 00:59:45.599 existing building needs to be repaired and the proposed facade already speaks volumes about the direction and the quality of the project. So, you know, the the project represents the type of forwardthinking investment Washington Avenue needs. uh the integration of the 200 00:59:45.599 --> 01:00:02.640 modern design, the activated street presence and improved architectural cult character uh will help strengthen the the connection between Washington and Lincoln Road. So, we support the project. Um we know the advances and changes that could possibly make on 201 01:00:02.640 --> 01:00:17.760 Washington Avenue. We need residential, which would be positive. Um the I guess the only downside for us is that we wish that uh that we wouldn't lose don't sit on the furniture a place that we will be sad to lose but Washington Avenue Business Improvement District we 202 01:00:17.760 --> 01:00:36.400 advocate uh this project >> that concludes the callers online. >> Okay. >> I have some brief uh >> you may >> brief response to the comments. uh number of things. 203 01:00:36.400 --> 01:00:52.559 The in terms of neighborhood outreach, there was a community meeting. There was input received from the uh uh uh uh residents of the Flamingo Park area. And of course, there was a response to that with the greater articulation of the facade. 204 01:00:52.559 --> 01:01:08.960 But more importantly, there are other neighborhoods whose opinion count. And you've heard from two of them, Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue. And this is in the CD3 district, which is a district in which this style of development that some of the speakers online were 205 01:01:08.960 --> 01:01:25.359 opposing is actually allowed and is appropriate uh albeit on the edge of that. So put that in that context. Um, also, uh, we cannot lose sight of the fact 206 01:01:25.359 --> 01:01:40.799 that the city's comprehensive plan specifically calls for incentives for residential development, particularly in overlay districts and in the urban core. This is what the city's policy goal is. 207 01:01:40.799 --> 01:01:58.079 We need to create residences for people who work in the city so everyone doesn't have to commute. Uh finally, I'd like to address two other minor points. uh rest the there the uh previously when 208 01:01:58.079 --> 01:02:15.440 there was one of the prior uh approvals on this project about restoring the building, it was actually contemplating the building being relocated, not being in the same place that it was. And we know from the engineers report that that is physically not possible at 209 01:02:15.440 --> 01:02:31.920 this point. and and we have you've heard from ambassador Seahas he has made the offer and this is really candidly the only practical solution to it to allow this project to go forward I mean it's nice for people to say we want to see housing 210 01:02:31.920 --> 01:02:47.520 but then they they are opposing what is needed to make this project a reality seas has proposed that the facade can be rebuilt uh instead of the glass etched glass solution we're fine with either of 211 01:02:47.520 --> 01:03:04.240 those. The final point I would like to make, and perhaps Ambassador Seahas can't say it himself, but just think about this for a minute. He has owned, restored the 420 Lincoln Road building, one of the largest and most important 212 01:03:04.240 --> 01:03:21.200 historic buildings in this city for over three decades. everything from the facades of the building to that magnificent lobby with its with its Bansky mural and to to in order for Ambassador Seahas 213 01:03:21.200 --> 01:03:36.799 to complete the block and to continue the viability of this overall development. He is probably as great a steward, if not the greatest steward of preservation in this city. And that's as though he's getting no credit for it because of this 214 01:03:36.799 --> 01:03:52.480 one thing that's being discussed. I think you should take that into effect in account as well because in the totality he is creating a block with great preservation the 420 building and residential that will endure for decades. Thank you. 215 01:03:52.480 --> 01:04:09.920 >> Thank you. >> Is this all market rate housing? >> You're not on the mic. >> Is this all market rate housing? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I'm going to board commentary, Nick. >> Um, a few things. I, uh, you know, as an 216 01:04:09.920 --> 01:04:25.440 architect, uh, I respect tremendously Enrique Norton. Um, and I wouldn't necessarily do it the same way, but it's kind of what he does. He's an architect of glass. Um, I worried a little bit that the sort of tribute is a little bit 217 01:04:25.440 --> 01:04:42.880 too much of a decal. So, I think I prefer uh the offer to sort of reconstruct the facade instead of that. Um I think it'll be a better project. And you know, I'm new to the board, but generally trying to consider like the implications of our deliberations. I 218 01:04:42.880 --> 01:04:58.079 think um I'm generally sort of, you know, conscious of the precedent we set when we sort of okay demolition and approve a tribute structure or something like that. So, not saying I would necessarily have this position for every project, 219 01:04:58.079 --> 01:05:13.920 but I think in this case uh I'm I'm okay with that. So, I'm supportive of that and I appreciate uh the compromise. I also, you know, agree with everything that's been said. I think this is going to be a great project for the neighborhood, for the city. I don't I I'm not sure I agree with one of the 220 01:05:13.920 --> 01:05:29.839 comments from the caller. I think the project is it is on the corner of Washington Avenue. it's not 100% in the middle of a of a low-rise low-skale residential neighborhood. So, generally, uh I'm supportive of it and um I hope 221 01:05:29.839 --> 01:05:45.440 the compromise uh can be supported by the board. >> Thank you. Any other board comment, Mitch? Oh, >> I do. I do. Nissan, thank you for the 222 01:05:45.440 --> 01:06:02.240 presentation and ambassador Seahas, thank you for coming in front of us presenting your case. Um, I think there is something a bigger issue for for me. I mean, I agree with my colleagues in terms of the historic preservation of the HoHazer building, but um, you know, 223 01:06:02.240 --> 01:06:18.720 a two-story building is not that difficult to restore, but be that as it may, I think what we're doing here today is setting a precedent. And our decision is historic in the fact that um allowing a 16story building on 16th 224 01:06:18.720 --> 01:06:33.200 Street. And I said that from the beginning. I just don't see it happening because down the road are we going to create a concrete canyon on Washington Avenue where all these buildings are going to sprout and say we need more 225 01:06:33.200 --> 01:06:49.440 workforce housing. I'm all for it. I agree. But I don't think we have to go up to 150 ft or 160 or 170 ft and allow that many units in that area. I think you know the economic model can be there with a shorter building. I appreciate 226 01:06:49.440 --> 01:07:06.160 what the architect has done in terms of his updated design but I don't think that a building of this magnitude of this size belongs in this particular area. And I think we're setting, like I said, dangerous precedent that was 227 01:07:06.160 --> 01:07:23.280 actually done, if you look at some of the buildings in the 60s and 70s on Miami Beach, completely out of context with the neighborhood. And I think this is it maybe belongs somewhere else, but not here. Thank you, >> Mitch. 228 01:07:23.280 --> 01:07:37.760 high school. You made me think of Council Towers. Uh the two buildings along Collins Avenue that uh have an uncanny resemblance. >> You're dating yourself. 229 01:07:37.760 --> 01:08:01.119 >> Yeah. Um, if your client is, uh, I appreciate his, uh, his, uh, coming to light with the, uh, the homage or or the retention in 230 01:08:01.119 --> 01:08:18.239 concept. I I you know if you could just say oh you know if you can just incorporate the facade as it is today uh of course repairing uh those structural components uh I I think you you you'll you'll 231 01:08:18.239 --> 01:08:40.560 you'll certainly get my thumbs up. Um >> we could I mean we can rebuild we can't retain >> the the concern is uh as my colleagues have mentioned is precedent. Uh we approve this demolition uh so so 232 01:08:40.560 --> 01:08:57.520 somebody can reconstruct. That's going to be the uh >> it's no legal precedent at all. >> I I I disagree with that. I I think we're very close or and uh if you could just 233 01:08:57.520 --> 01:09:12.719 take that initial step. You we're talking an exoskeleton holding up those walls, repairing the columns and tie beams. Uh >> and uh re remember the requirement of 234 01:09:12.719 --> 01:09:28.719 buildings now have to be three feet higher because of water. So this building is low. So it it could be raised as well. >> No, not according to >> the outside walls and then address the foundation. 235 01:09:28.719 --> 01:09:44.000 >> No, according to the engineers report that can it cannot be raised. And by the way, different from the Versailles, they're not raising that structure. For instance, this cannot be raised. It cannot meet code requirements to save that facade. 236 01:09:44.000 --> 01:10:00.800 >> So we can rebuild it. So, so what you're what you're saying is uh to reconstruct it, it's going to be different. It's going to be higher >> higher a little bit higher. >> Again, I I would argue that uh this 237 01:10:00.800 --> 01:10:18.640 could same thing could be done here with the original uh facade. >> Yes, it has been done. Um where where where have you raised for to meet new standards in the city? You you demolish 238 01:10:18.640 --> 01:10:35.920 Michael. Do do you have any uh examples? >> Well the we have some properties where the the board has approved relocating like small singlestory homes. We had one along I forgot the address now. Relocated from the west side of Collins to the Oceanside. >> Yeah. 239 01:10:35.920 --> 01:10:52.080 Think a Browns hotel. They picked it up, moved it on to a new slab at at a different flood plane, >> but not in the condition that this is not the condition that this building is in. I invite you to come over and see the condition of this building. 240 01:10:52.080 --> 01:11:07.840 >> You terrible. >> You're the steward of the building. Uh, you know, >> there's nothing I could do. The city condemned it. >> You've had it for 30 years, and when you purchased the property, it was occupied. remember the options that I have. 241 01:11:07.840 --> 01:11:23.040 >> Yeah. >> Do nothing and leave a liability liability building there and do absolutely nothing. >> That's and and >> what what what does the city gain? No housing that is needed, 242 01:11:23.040 --> 01:11:39.760 >> no t new taxes that has helped the budget to the city and you want to keep something that is not concern. >> I have I have a quick question. So, if if this doesn't have to be um residential, right? This is going to be um it'll be a commercial space or a part 243 01:11:39.760 --> 01:11:55.679 of the part of the lobby. Does it have to be elevated? Can it can it stay at the current elevation? >> That's right, Nissan. It's not habitable space. >> No, under the 50% rule. I think it would have to be elevated but be a commercial be a commercial um component. Wouldn't be a residential. So, >> it would be the lobby for the 244 01:11:55.679 --> 01:12:11.679 residential. It wouldn't >> because lobbies don't lobbies don't have to I'm trying to find a way to I think the the best the best effort I think the best pattern here based on my sh from the board is if you could keep part of that facade or keep the facade and for staff's perspective it's better to keep the facade than reconstruct it. So our 245 01:12:11.679 --> 01:12:27.280 we would always prefer um keeping versus reconstruction if it's possible to do that at that lower elevation. >> I mean we've studied it. It's been studied. We don't Mike, we don't think it's possible. And uh I think the practical I think candidly Mr. President 246 01:12:27.280 --> 01:12:44.480 put his finger on it. The practical solution is to do the alternative that Ambassador Seahos proposed. >> No, it's just that it's not possible to have >> Well, could it be we've had other projects where the the board has approved um um keeping the facade and 247 01:12:44.480 --> 01:13:00.400 constructing something new behind it. This facade becomes a garden wall and behind it is something else. So it's not even like a habitable structure and then your floor can be independent of that of that retained um elevation in the front. >> But go ahead. No, I say it from our engineering studies if there's a high 248 01:13:00.400 --> 01:13:16.159 probability that couldn't even be saved and braced. Not to mention the complication in terms of constructing a new building on such a small site. Let's candidly can we let's be practical about this. We can achieve 249 01:13:16.159 --> 01:13:32.080 what would be achievable for preservation by doing the alternative of recreating the facade, but don't make us go through uh back flips and somersaults to do something that we probably isn't even achievable given the condition of the building. >> Right. 250 01:13:32.080 --> 01:13:47.600 >> Niss madam chair Niss again I uh referred to Bogen via apartments. It's same same issue. They did not raise that structure. It's not a habitable space. >> Mitch, it's it just won't work. I mean, 251 01:13:47.600 --> 01:14:03.560 I appreciate your perspective, but it won't work for us. >> Mitch Mitch, you recall uh the construction of the gap building over here. And you you remember what happened with the historical portion of it? 252 01:14:04.159 --> 01:14:20.320 >> Same engineer. >> No, let's not blame the engineer. The steel was rotted. The concrete has salt on it. That that thing was crumbling and it crumbled because the board said you had to keep it and the minute they took 253 01:14:20.320 --> 01:14:36.960 it apart, >> that building crumble. This is the same kind of situation we done. How many historic buildings since 1987 have I done here? >> I have never seen a building in the conditions that I've seen this building. 254 01:14:36.960 --> 01:14:52.159 Now, replication, look, it's it's not the number one option as a historic consultant. Correct? It's not. And I agree with you. However, in this case, we're proposing a 255 01:14:52.159 --> 01:15:08.320 much better, more contemporary design that will reflect the memory of this building. I've restore a number of whole houseser buildings. However, this building cannot be maintained. This cannot be rebuilt. I mean, cannot 256 01:15:08.320 --> 01:15:26.239 be held up. The minute we take it apart, the windows, you take the windows apart, the headers are going to collapse. That's the kind of architecture that we have there. >> Thank you. >> So, we have additional board commentary. So, Elizabeth, 257 01:15:26.239 --> 01:15:43.440 >> it's been an interesting conversation. So, uh, no, I just like to add a few more things to the to the list of items to consider. So, I understand the city is a living organism and, um, but we also need to keep our identity and our 258 01:15:43.440 --> 01:15:59.440 historical and cultural heritage. But on the other hand, I realize that we are preparing the city for sea level rise and that's why new construction is required to be higher. And then I keep on asking myself, if we keep this uh historic building in place, what's going 259 01:15:59.440 --> 01:16:17.360 to happen to it in 5, 10, 15 years from now? So, we're just pushing the problem to the future and at the same time compromising the quality we could offer for the building at this point. So, I'm really torn between the two sides here. Um, I personally think that the uh 260 01:16:17.360 --> 01:16:34.239 engraved glass proposed for the entry doesn't do enough if we're trying to keep the memory of the building there. So, I prefer the second alternative to somewhat replicate. I hate the idea. Sometimes replicate reminds me of Disneyland that you're trying just to 261 01:16:34.239 --> 01:16:51.040 create Main Street Disneyland on Miami Beach. But sometimes given the conditions of the building and if it's properly done, I think would be a good alternative. And regarding the balconies, I appreciate the play with the movement with the solid balconies 262 01:16:51.040 --> 01:17:07.679 and the see-through ones. But however, I we've seen here several of the buildings in Miami Beach with which has historically solid balconies coming here asking for permission to demolish the solid balconies and replace them with 263 01:17:07.679 --> 01:17:23.600 glass because nowadays people want the the the view of the the city and given the fact that this building may be 15tory highs, I'm not sure if the solid balconies would be a good alternative giving the the preferences of residents 264 01:17:23.600 --> 01:17:39.280 nowadays. So I think the articulation of the facade would be better achieved with the volutric change but not necessarily the solid uh balconies versus the glass ones. Thank you and thank you so much for the presentation and your presence 265 01:17:39.280 --> 01:17:56.640 here. Ambassador >> Ray, did you have additional comments? >> Let's talk about the infamous Collins Park Hotel. Five buildings. They were supposed to restore all of them. One of them collapsed. The city handed them the the drawings. They rebuilt it exactly as 266 01:17:56.640 --> 01:18:12.320 it was and no one can tell the difference. I can guarantee you anybody coming there would not know that. So you can want to save a bu a building. You may want to try and then say it didn't happen and you have to reconstruct it. It's not the end of the world in my 267 01:18:12.320 --> 01:18:33.120 opinion. >> Brady, no commentary. Okay. Thank you uh Nissan. Thank you Ambassador Seas for coming before us. Um you know my take on this Nissan made a comment in in response to someone's 268 01:18:33.120 --> 01:18:49.360 discussion or use of the word precedent. I think as attorneys we look at precedent a little bit differently than necessarily in this instance. Um, however, even in in that realm, we look at it on a, you know, it's a fact contingent basis. And so, looking at the 269 01:18:49.360 --> 01:19:06.400 facts of this situation, um, I I tend to agree with Nick in this particular instance. Um, look, I I never want to lose a building. you know, I I wish we still had those those blue fronts, those blue 270 01:19:06.400 --> 01:19:22.480 door fronts facing, you know, facing east towards Washington without the commercial building in front of it, but that's not where we are. Um, and so in this particular instance, and not in every instance, 271 01:19:22.480 --> 01:19:42.000 um, I think I would be supportive of the project in general. Um, I'm not a huge fan of reconstruction. Um, while I agree no one knows that it's different. That's kind of the problem, right? 272 01:19:42.000 --> 01:19:58.239 That no one knows that it's >> No, no, no, no. I agree. But, but that no one knows that it it's original. Honestly, I went on an art deco tour when I first moved here and they tried to tell me that uh Jackie Gleason was art deco. And as anybody who's lived here long enough knows that was all 273 01:19:58.239 --> 01:20:14.400 added what in the '8s maybe exactly. So um but people don't know. Um so that's my commentary. I understand and appreciate what's going on. I understand there's a lot of competing interests. Um 274 01:20:14.400 --> 01:20:30.159 I recognize um some of the needs that we we have in this community. Um I I think I would echo some of Elizabeth's comments. um regarding the balconies. Um as someone who lives in a 1930s historic building 275 01:20:30.159 --> 01:20:44.960 who doesn't have any outdoor space, you know, I I can understand what someone might want um in something that's new. Um that's my commentary. However, you based on the tenor of the conversation thus 276 01:20:44.960 --> 01:21:02.400 far, um I think what I would recommend is for us to take a straw poll. Um because we have >> five. You need >> Well, no, no, I know we need five, but how many? We have a certificate of purpose for demolition. 277 01:21:02.400 --> 01:21:17.040 >> Well, it all requires in together one vote for for five affirmative votes that includes the demolition and new construction. Okay. We don't there's no variances here. So, we could all do it all in one one motion. >> Chair, if I may and to this suggestion 278 01:21:17.040 --> 01:21:34.560 that was brought up uh and I if I may ask directly, Mr. Brelent if we go with the alternative of rebuilding the facade, the portions of the facade. Is that acceptable to you? >> Yes. Okay, 279 01:21:34.560 --> 01:21:50.080 >> N. I'm sorry. >> You're not on mic. >> That would take it to the uh termination of that eyebrow that would be I guess directing directed north. 280 01:21:50.080 --> 01:22:06.560 What's at the first five ft or so? >> Well, that's a good point. Let's be clear about that because it would wrap somewhat around the corner like the >> iterates the glass. There's there's a reveal and 281 01:22:06.560 --> 01:22:23.120 >> yeah, Mitch, the um the eyebrow is actually on the eastern side. >> Yes. >> I don't have an image here. I have it from the front so I can see. It's about 10 ft is what we would uh need. >> Yeah. Okay, Lindsay. 282 01:22:23.120 --> 01:22:38.320 >> 10 ft probably takes care of the >> Thanks to Google Maps. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> I have I have a question I guess for staff. If if we were to approve the reconstruction, is there like um a 283 01:22:38.320 --> 01:22:55.199 standard like how how is that documented and for accuracy? Then >> they'd be required to document the building including like um um um current asbuilt drawings of the of the of the property itself and then their new construction documents would show the method for reconstruction. And one of 284 01:22:55.199 --> 01:23:10.000 the things we' ask for for the board's input if this is the way to go. I believe right now the building is like a 5ft setback from the property line at the front. The code also does not allow more than a one-story rooftop addition. So I believe they want to move the building to the to the property line in the south and then construct the 285 01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:25.040 whatever the to the eyebrow that's 10 ft. Now above that balconies can project over it but the interior living space could not project over that building except be in vi well actually it's new construction so it wouldn't it wouldn't be in violation of the of the rooftop addition ordinance. So so that the the 286 01:23:25.040 --> 01:23:40.639 the move back reconstruction is is irrelevant at that point >> but they wouldn't need to come back to the board to show us render. No, I think I think as long as if the board is comfortable, we know it's going to be either it's going to be moved or not. So, I'd let the applicant let us know. Do they need to move the building 287 01:23:40.639 --> 01:23:55.760 compared to where it is right now? And if so, we should know that as part of this approval. >> Yes, we would have to. >> Michael, I'm sorry, Lind. >> Go ahead. >> Uh the building, the new structure, it can't can lever over. >> Wait, so you can Yes. So, because we're 288 01:23:55.760 --> 01:24:11.280 building it versus um Okay. This is no longer an addition. >> This is no longer a rooftop edition. This is a new construction. So that would not apply. Correct. >> Okay. So the building could stay in place and you guys can build your housing above it. >> No, it has to move it have to move back 289 01:24:11.280 --> 01:24:28.560 as a new building. But I mean we would be re replicating it. We would just be moved a few feet. >> Which way is it moving? >> Back. >> South. South. Yes. South. >> 10 feet or how much? >> How many feet through the property line? 290 01:24:28.560 --> 01:24:48.320 >> Five feet. I think >> five feet. Do we have a motion? >> I think the standard should be that Yeah, you can't tell that it's not the original. Like it's an exact replica to the >> It would be an exact replica. Guys, come on. We're all You're architects, 291 01:24:48.320 --> 01:25:05.120 engineers, very very smart people here. You know, this is not a very difficult building to replicate. My goodness. This is 8 in. >> I just don't want to leave any room for interpretation. There's no details. >> We would want to have like a block on the front that would indicate this is a reconstructed portion of the building. 292 01:25:05.120 --> 01:25:19.840 So there's no >> this this is a simple building to replicate and it would be recognizable. >> We don't want to deceive. >> I I'd like to take a stab at a motion. >> Okay. Mitch, >> I'd make a motion to approve this 293 01:25:19.840 --> 01:25:38.080 project which is inclusive of the retention of the facade going back uh 10 ft or what whatever it is. Uh and that's my motion. 294 01:25:38.080 --> 01:25:54.320 >> No, we can't >> we can't accept. >> No, we can't. reconstruction. >> Is there a second to the motion? >> I'm I'm against reconstruction >> because that's going to open the floodgates uh for uh 295 01:25:54.320 --> 01:26:12.239 future. >> So, we have a motion pending. Do we have a second? >> Is there another motion? >> So, that motion fails. Yeah, I would make a second motion that we move the project forward um with the offer to 296 01:26:12.239 --> 01:26:30.000 reconstruct the the the facade 10 ft back. Is that what we're talking about? >> Forward. >> Forward. >> I mean the facade and it goes the wrapping around be 10 ft 10 ft from the existing facade or the existing facade will be moved towards the property line. 297 01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:45.760 Yeah, I would move that for more of sort of a building line on the >> recreation of the existing facade would be moved forward. >> Again, I you know I I respect the board tremendously and I'm not saying I'd be in favor of this in every case, but in this case I am. So I would move that 298 01:26:45.760 --> 01:27:00.800 forward. >> Do we have a second? >> Can I add a friend amendment? I would like the applicant to bring the project back for us before the final approval. Sorry about that. But I think there are too many pieces moving here and not 299 01:27:00.800 --> 01:27:17.440 everybody is 100% comfortable with the demolition and the reproduction of the existing facade. So yeah, I would like to see it before we give the >> only if I may and I respect and by the way I respect your your your desire to 300 01:27:17.440 --> 01:27:34.080 on the balconies and help but the only thing that's changed. I mean this is is what we're saying from what has been presented and what has been reviewed by staff is that we are just replicating a portion of the facade as opposed to 301 01:27:34.080 --> 01:27:49.679 doing the glass etched homage. We would ask so that we could move forward with this that we get an a final approval and uh uh you know in and that staff would review obviously those plans in 302 01:27:49.679 --> 01:28:06.400 terms of the retention but it would create too much uncertainty if we have to come back again. Miss Kavario, if I may, >> let me um if if you look at the rendering that we have proposed in the glass, 303 01:28:06.400 --> 01:28:21.760 >> uh just we can put it up. Basically, this will be the reconstructed facade. All you see there, that's that is the same exact location. it have been moved 304 01:28:21.760 --> 01:28:37.199 closer to the sidewalk >> and then the retail portion sets back 10 feet. So really that facade especially now that we're talking about a reconstruction is going to stand out. That's going to be the lobby. That's the 305 01:28:37.199 --> 01:28:54.639 heart of the building. So now all of a sudden we're taking we're reconstructing a facade which will be identical to the existing building. is just moved forward to the sidewalk. And that's basically what you're going to get with that look. 306 01:28:54.639 --> 01:29:12.719 That is stuckle. Hopefully, our guys will do a better job than that stuckle work that you see there. >> And I hope you don't just play it white. >> So, we currently have a a motion and a second and we have a friendly amendment. Are you still maintaining your friendly 307 01:29:12.719 --> 01:29:30.159 amendment? I mean I will give leave to my colleagues at the board if they feel like my friendly amendment is welcome which stays if they feel it's not necessary we can drop it. >> Okay. I I'd just like to add for the record which I think responds to to Elizabeth's concern is that um this 308 01:29:30.159 --> 01:29:45.600 there is a condition in the draft order that this certificate of appropriateness is subject to the adoption of the related uh LDR amendments. So if those LDR amendments are are not adopted, then this project would need to be revised. >> Right. 309 01:29:45.600 --> 01:30:03.440 >> Subject to the approval of the board of course. >> So I remark that Mr. Jelp was the maker of the motion. Mr. Hollingworth was the second. There's no acceptance of the um friendly amendment. So >> there is no. >> Should we take a roll call, please? So, 310 01:30:03.440 --> 01:30:19.920 this is this is to um approve the project including the the demolition of the building along with the reconstruction of the first 10 ft moving that structure um to the south to the property line. Any other um conditions? >> Maybe I I guess maybe it goes without 311 01:30:19.920 --> 01:30:37.440 saying, but renderings of that will be provided to staff, coordinated with staff. >> Yes, they provide updated renderings as as needed to to show. >> So, I'll do a roll call. Um Mr. Haulingworth. >> Yes. Uh, Mr. Meyer, >> no. 312 01:30:37.440 --> 01:30:54.560 >> Miss Levelvel, >> yes. >> Mr. Chelpy, >> yes. >> Mr. Novik, >> no. >> Mr. President, >> yes. >> Mr. Kamago, >> yes. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you very much. And uh also what 313 01:30:54.560 --> 01:31:19.840 you have done here today, it will help facilitate a very important project for the life of the center part of this city. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. 314 01:31:19.840 --> 01:32:10.239 >> And once again, pulls it out. Great job. Thank you. Thank you so much. >> Moving along to our next application. Next application is HPB25-0645 235 Washington Avenue. Second. The applicant is requesting a 315 01:32:10.239 --> 01:32:26.320 certificate appropriateness for the total demolition of an existing two-story contributing building and its replacement of the recreational open space and a playground serving the adjacent base camp 305 school at 251 Washington Avenue together with a reconstruction now of a new interpretive facade element along Washington Avenue 316 01:32:26.320 --> 01:32:42.400 which now includes a front setback variance of 5T. The exist existing structure was constructed in 1938 and designed by B Kingston Hall in the art deco style. Structural condition assessment was prepared by Yusfakam Consulting Engineering dated December 19th, 2025 concluding that these 317 01:32:42.400 --> 01:32:58.239 structural materials are compromised and that report recommended demolition. Now the board has seen this um most recently last month as well as um several months um prior to that. The application was continued from the meeting last month because the applicant had to advertise a new front variance because a proposal 318 01:32:58.239 --> 01:33:14.960 included now reconstruction almost like the um the last project but this this code here requires a build to line of 5T of 5ft setback. They're proposing to to keep it at its current location which is at at the front property line. Staff is supportive of the demolition including the reconstructed um the reconstructed 319 01:33:14.960 --> 01:33:30.719 facade interpretation. rest support of the application including the variance and recommending approval in accordance with the conditions in the attached draft order. With that, does anybody have any questions for staff? >> L. >> Questions for staff? >> Yes. 320 01:33:30.719 --> 01:33:48.400 Explain the variance need if they retain the existing facade. >> If they retain the existing facade, they do not need the variance. In this case, they're proposing to demolish completely and build their um interpretive facade at the current location where the existing facade is. So, this is a new 321 01:33:48.400 --> 01:34:03.840 construction. >> So, otherwise, they'd have to set it back 5 ft. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. >> And this is this is unique as well because this is in the RPS districts here is the only in the city where it's not just a minimum setback, it's a build to line. It's a minimum and maximum. 322 01:34:03.840 --> 01:34:18.000 >> A question for staff. If if they were to reconstruct it in place, it would need to it would not need a variance. >> It would not. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for staff? 323 01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:36.639 >> Yes. Uh Nick raised if they were to reconstruct it, however, if they were to build something else, they would need that variance. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Got it. Okay. 324 01:34:36.639 --> 01:34:52.080 >> Thank you, Madame Chair. My name is Paul Savage with Lices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I'm here on item number three of this morning's agenda at 235 Washington Avenue. I'm joined today uh with Rob Alvarez of our 325 01:34:52.080 --> 01:35:06.719 shop together with Michael Lurin. Our architect of record is Ryan Alderman and uh our engineer of record is Yousef Hakim Hakeim. He's on line today as well as our historic resource consultant 326 01:35:06.719 --> 01:35:24.239 Steve Advocac is here to my left. Um, as uh Michael Belalouch was explaining, we've been here a total this will make three times and we've um worked very hard and diligent and taken to heart all of the board member comments and the 327 01:35:24.239 --> 01:35:40.239 feedback and have gone back each time uh with some homework to do. and we've come back each time and refined our proposal. Uh knowing the uh knowledge and sophistication represented by this board, I'm not going to rehash all of 328 01:35:40.239 --> 01:35:56.639 the other um evidence that we put on, but rather just sort of go through a brief chronology, let you know where we were, the things that we addressed, and where we're why we're here today and where we're at and what we propose. So, 329 01:35:56.639 --> 01:36:13.520 as you may remember, uh this uh applicant is uh the base 305 school um which is coming up out of the ground at great speed, has already been approved to the immediate north. Um this school is very well received by the community. 330 01:36:13.520 --> 01:36:28.000 It's very well attended by the community. It's very uh much needed in this community and we're very proud to be affiliated with it and to represent it. Uh now that is the already approved structure that's coming up uh out of the 331 01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:46.320 ground now and this particular application involves the site uh to the immediate south at 235. Next slide please. Uh now just to give you a little preview, I'm going to bookend this presentation uh with four choices, four 332 01:36:46.320 --> 01:37:03.280 options that we've developed uh since completing the final application in December and January. As Michael Belalouch explained, uh we have come back uh the March 17th, the April 14th, and now the May 12th. And over that time and working with the board, we've come 333 01:37:03.280 --> 01:37:19.119 up with four options. was the first option out of the box was uh without any sort of preservation or or reconstruction was a fence that would match the uh the school and would carry for carry along with the design elements of the school with with ample 334 01:37:19.119 --> 01:37:36.000 landscaping. That's the one on the top left. Uh the next iteration was a aluminum louver uh h um an homage if you will that was based on the louver house example. uh that would be bronzed aluminum let in a lot of light and air 335 01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:52.880 and also track the facade. Um the third iteration was a uh breeze brick uh breeze block rather um uh which which which actually um would also allow a lot of light and air into the site. Um, and 336 01:37:52.880 --> 01:38:09.040 then the fourth iteration we're bringing on to this hearing is a reconstructed facade that would uh recreate all of the elements, the eyebrows um and the locations of the uh the existing structure. If we go to the next slide 337 01:38:09.040 --> 01:38:24.400 please. Um this is this is the first one. Um again uh the the the purpose of this application importantly is to provide a uh assembly and play area for the the the children. and we've put on evidence. I won't repeat that, but we 338 01:38:24.400 --> 01:38:40.400 heard a lot about the importance of this for the kids. We've heard from parents over the hearings that they that they need this and they they're very excited about this. There'll be a a mini soccer field there. Uh and this is the purpose of the uh of the of the use, if you 339 01:38:40.400 --> 01:38:57.600 will. Um but that that was the uh initial submission. Next slide. Uh again staff um also uh digested our professional engineering report which included uh chloride testing of of the 340 01:38:57.600 --> 01:39:13.199 of of all of the concrete that was uh spalling and otherwise failing. Um and so the retention of the structure uh was just not possible at this site. Uh and staff agrees in its professional evaluation and recommendation to this 341 01:39:13.199 --> 01:39:30.000 board. Uh they also importantly uh recommends that we further study the perimeter fencing to go ahead and develop an architectural expression that would pay homage and uh honor the the the facade. 342 01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:44.960 Next slide please. Um again we took that to heart and and realized that we had participated in the approval of the um of the louver house uh at 313 Meridian. Next slide. um which is in place today 343 01:39:44.960 --> 01:40:00.400 um and and features aluminum bronzed aluminum um and recreates uh u that historical resource. Next slide please. uh now turning to our particular site 344 01:40:00.400 --> 01:40:17.119 and uh looking at uh the eyebrows that are there and other elements uh and having um Steve Advikov who's here talk about that and also in the staff it's not really uh the the the elements and 345 01:40:17.119 --> 01:40:33.440 of this building are quote modest um but really is more important when looking at the overall urban fabric and the facade and the height That's there. Next slide, please. Uh, this was the louver house interpretation that we that we came with 346 01:40:33.440 --> 01:40:50.400 a bronze aluminum uh that would track the height uh and elements of the facade and also serve as as a fencing and a safety material for the kids. Next slide. Um, now, uh, thirdly, uh, we studied 347 01:40:50.400 --> 01:41:07.920 the, uh, breeze brick, uh, and also it's a little more refined. I mean, I when I was a kid, they had breeze bricks all over my school, and you could see through them. You could put your hand through them. Some of them are pre-cast concrete. Some of them are clay. This particular um um proposal by my client 348 01:41:07.920 --> 01:41:25.040 is a little more refined than that. They're actually they're actually uh ceramic. They're more expensive. Uh they would be colored ceramic um tiles. So, they were smoother. They're more expensive. it's a more elegant um and uh more refined uh building material. Uh so 349 01:41:25.040 --> 01:41:42.800 I just wanted to make that point. Uh and uh but th this would be uh the this was the materiality study that we did on this uh next slide please. Um this is a render of the replication using uh the uh the breeze bricks or sun brakes as 350 01:41:42.800 --> 01:41:58.320 they're called. if you use this tile that I'm discussing uh this glazed ceramic type tile and uh just to uh I'm I'm going to pick up a little bit uh pick up the pace here so I don't run out of time. Uh but th this was uh uh the study that we uh that we looked at the 351 01:41:58.320 --> 01:42:14.400 two wings on the side would of course be the north and south uh uh smaller elevations that would give structural rigidity to hold up the facade. Uh next slide please. Um uh at that at that time um the uh the the uh the staff remained 352 01:42:14.400 --> 01:42:30.800 supportive um of the ceramic sunbreak units um and the fiber reinforced concrete that we would retain in the eyebrows and they supported our study uh before this board and appreciated our work on that on that iteration. Next 353 01:42:30.800 --> 01:42:46.560 slide please. Uh this is another um another render of the sun uh brick type um treatment and and solution to this. Next slide please. Uh another render of and another study. We also do have our 354 01:42:46.560 --> 01:43:03.360 architective record here uh if you have any questions. Uh next slide. Um these are some examples of the schools like I mentioned uh uh and and other in hotels and and other uh mid-century type uh examples of the use of this material 355 01:43:03.360 --> 01:43:19.600 uh very prominent in Florida. Now u back now here we are in sort of chapter four of this story um uh and staff again uh recognizes the uh the great um deterioration of the structure as memorialized in our reports by our art 356 01:43:19.600 --> 01:43:38.159 by our engineer um and also uh understands that uh a a facade or an homage is appropriate here um and also recommends uh uh favorable action on the demolition. Um, next slide, please. Uh, uh, lastly, 357 01:43:38.159 --> 01:43:53.520 one of our homework items was to check with the city. Uh, we've we have confirmation from the chief of from actually three entities of the city. One is the chief of police, one is the office of risk management, and then thirdly is the office of the city 358 01:43:53.520 --> 01:44:09.840 manager. All three of which gave us a very uh a a very cold reception to the idea of using the adjacent um police building that's to the immediate south for staging and demolition uh or other work. 359 01:44:09.840 --> 01:44:26.719 Um we explained in the prior hearings how tight the uh the rear alleyway was etc. And we were asked to go explore maybe coming in from the south and the that that smaller police building there. and uh they have said that uh it's against the code. They don't like the liability. They don't like the the 360 01:44:26.719 --> 01:44:41.840 precedent of that. So, they would not let us um use the the city property for that purpose. I just want to make sure that um that the board knew that we did try and do that. And um just come around the horn here, Madam Chair. >> How much longer? 361 01:44:41.840 --> 01:44:57.199 >> Uh 45 seconds. You know, one two minutes. >> Two minutes. >> Yeah. Two minutes. Um and so uh just again not to recite four hearings worth of material but to um just come around the horn here and conclude if you can go 362 01:44:57.199 --> 01:45:13.360 to the next slides. Uh this is the uh the latest iteration is the facade reconstruction that you see here which would be traditional masonry. Um as discussed in the prior um matter before this one, it would be uh subject to the 363 01:45:13.360 --> 01:45:29.840 conditions of staff for a reconstruction. Uh and it would honor and and replicate uh you know the u the eyebrows and the circle and uh the openings as um as depicted there. Uh would come out to the front of the 364 01:45:29.840 --> 01:45:45.760 property line. Uh it would um it would be exactly to by the way the dimensions of the facade um and also you know provide security for the kids there provide some light and air using those aluminum openings but also uh reproduce 365 01:45:45.760 --> 01:46:03.440 the facade for this. Um in conclusion um here's a couple of more uh renders in my less than a minute left. Um I will I just wanted to say uh one final thing. Um facts matter. All of these are different um facts. Uh this is for an 366 01:46:03.440 --> 01:46:19.280 educational use. I would not be so fasile as to say that if you have something to say about this, you're against education or something like that. I think every we all appreciate everyone on the board is for education as the chairwoman mentioned last time. However, it does make a difference that 367 01:46:19.280 --> 01:46:35.520 this is not for a hotel and restaurant and to put as many people on the rooftop with $42 peach balinis or whatever we can sell. This is for something that is embraced by the community, used by the community. It's for a very wholesome 368 01:46:35.520 --> 01:46:51.600 reason and you as public officials are having to balance two very loudable public policies and we think that these choices we would respectfully ask that you evaluate them. We are here for questions and take a vote on one of the 369 01:46:51.600 --> 01:47:08.080 ones that you may prefer and we will uh maintain some time for rebuttal. Madam chair, >> do we have any questions for the applicant? Questions? a question on if you um reproduce the 370 01:47:08.080 --> 01:47:23.840 fourth section, would would you be putting like storage in there? I mean, when you're dealing with a playground and you have all these things for kids, it seems to me like you'd want to have a storage area you can put balls and whatever else they're playing with in there. And it doesn't look to me like 371 01:47:23.840 --> 01:47:40.639 you you planned that. But if you're going to replicate it, it seems to me you'd want to, you know, like have some interior storage uh in doing that. Right. So, um we we we are we are, you know, willing to to do that. It's going to have to have the the the north and 372 01:47:40.639 --> 01:47:56.960 south smaller elevations for structural rigidity. Um if we make it habitable for humans, it invokes a lot of the things that were discussed at the last hearing. But if but if you're only talking about storage, then uh that's something we can 373 01:47:56.960 --> 01:48:13.119 we can do uh and we'll probably need. Obviously, the school didn't plan on having this this uh schoolyard and all the things that they're going to have in that schoolyard. So, I would imagine the school itself is not going to have spaces to put all of the things they're 374 01:48:13.119 --> 01:48:29.600 going to be using there. >> Yes, sir. >> Your questions. >> I have a question for staff. So, Paul mentioned that staff did not recommend reconstruction and I just don't understand what's the thinking behind. So we typically don't recommend reconstruction because it senses a false 375 01:48:29.600 --> 01:48:46.000 narrative that someone tries you know may um misperceive this as being the original structure and then as well we're only um um replicating back a certain distance. So it's an awkward look to have just you know part of a building um um facing the street. We think that having this interpretive 376 01:48:46.000 --> 01:49:02.560 element with a breeze block is clearly it's more of a landscape element and it's not going to be misinterpreted as oh this was the original facade. So we think it's more true while respecting the the um um the design of the whole houseer building that the this was um who here not wholeouser was um um 377 01:49:02.560 --> 01:49:19.199 >> Kingston Hall. >> Kingston Hall. Right. So we feel this is more true to the um to the neighborhood while not trying to um be something that it's not. >> Randy, you had questions. >> Is um I was reading the description. It 378 01:49:19.199 --> 01:49:35.600 mentions fencing and landscaping on Washington. Is that behind this or is this open? When you look through this as it is shown in option four, do you see right through the field? There's no additional fence behind that with an additional gate behind it or is there? >> Uh, 379 01:49:35.600 --> 01:49:52.000 >> is this a security edge of the property then? >> Yes, it is. Yes, it is. And there's not a another set of fencing and another set of uh landscaping. That would be if we did nothing and just had a fence then we would have all kinds of landscaping and things. >> So the landscaping would be strictly 380 01:49:52.000 --> 01:50:09.040 street trees. Are you replacing there's several you've shown different options of landscaping on the streetscape. Is what is the landscape because it's it's different in every option you show. >> So the um you know the front of the existing structure is not exactly but 381 01:50:09.040 --> 01:50:26.000 almost to the property line to the to the sidewalk >> but the street trees. So >> they're different in every picture I show. >> The street trees on the rightway are to remain. >> So street trees on the right ofway are to remain. Those are um >> palms or trees because they're palms in one view and they're uh deciduous trees 382 01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:45.679 in another or canopy trees. >> So I and that was an accident perhaps. >> You show two very tall pal. >> So my architect is telling me that the palm trees may have been an accident. the the existing trees that are that are controlled by the in the public right of way will remain. 383 01:50:45.679 --> 01:50:59.679 >> Okay. >> And I believe those are I've been to the site many times. I think those are juvenile oak trees that are there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I had a question about the fence. So, you know, the reconstructed facade proposal, the windows at street level 384 01:50:59.679 --> 01:51:16.159 are filled in with like a louver system or something. That's like a fence basically, right? >> Glass in the facade. The second story would remain open. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for you? >> I have a question. Uh, if you reconstruct, it's at the same precise 385 01:51:16.159 --> 01:51:37.920 location that the existing building is at. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. Absolutely. The exact height and everything >> questions. >> Yeah. Michael, uh, I'm not calling you up, but I'm interested in, uh, you reiterating 386 01:51:37.920 --> 01:51:55.360 why, uh, this building couldn't be, uh, demolished from the rear alley. So, um, so we we spent at the last hearing quite a bit of time on that issue. Um, and I do have uh the slides 387 01:51:55.360 --> 01:52:10.719 available, but just to recap it or summarize in response to your question quickly, um, there are a lot of problems with that rear alley that we have direct and immediate personal experience with having worked on the construction of the 388 01:52:10.719 --> 01:52:27.520 school that's almost finished to the immediate north. the MOT license involving, you know, closing an area so that you take the deliveries and the cement truck and the de and the demol dem demolition equipment and the like. All of that now for the new school is on 389 01:52:27.520 --> 01:52:43.520 Washington. We're not allowed to do that uh to the rear in the alley for this site. And the problem is is that we >> site >> pardon me >> the initial site where the school is >> right that I'm saying by example that 390 01:52:43.520 --> 01:53:00.159 area is all on Washington okay so if we were to work on this site it would all similarly all be on Washington right however if we were trying to preserve the facade we cannot we can't preserve it and go into the building and and demolish it right it would necess 391 01:53:00.159 --> 01:53:16.880 necessitate the demolition of the facade and the back has has been uh is is covered by um high uh uh high um levels of >> voltage >> voltage. Sorry, thank you. High voltage uh power lines that have come in there 392 01:53:16.880 --> 01:53:33.679 >> that's above above the structure. >> You know, I was looking at the structure the past couple of days. You have window openings. You have an air conditioner that's running. Uh so I don't know if that's being uh occupied or if that's being used as an office. Uh but by the 393 01:53:33.679 --> 01:53:49.119 contractors. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh I don't understand why a uh you know, you go in there, you demolish the uh the the walls uh the rock l the sheetrock, whatever it is, 394 01:53:49.119 --> 01:54:05.679 you dump it out uh in the rear alley into a dump truck. Uh and you dismantle that structure. Uh I I I recall Michael mentioning you can't have a swinging uh excavator. Of course you can't have a swinging 395 01:54:05.679 --> 01:54:22.080 excavator in any alley, but uh that that building's no different than any other in terms of the viability of demolishing it >> from the rear. >> Excuse me. >> Can't use the rear alley. >> You're not on the mic. Sorry, we can't 396 01:54:22.080 --> 01:54:38.239 hear you. to to pick up debris, to dump debris. If you change a roof, where's it going to be done? Along Washington, >> I >> Okay. All right. That's it, >> Elizabeth. 397 01:54:38.239 --> 01:54:54.719 >> Yeah. So, that brought me another question. Last hearing, we discussed maybe partially demolishing the front elevation. Let's say 14, 15 ft, whatever it's needed for the equipment to go back and forth between Washington and the property. and then instead of reconstructing the entire elevation, 398 01:54:54.719 --> 01:55:10.639 you'd reconstruct only that partial demolition piece. Have you further investigated on the option? >> Yes. So um the uh our our engineer who is also attending by Zoom um evaluated 399 01:55:10.639 --> 01:55:28.480 the idea of cutting that would involve a vertical cut um of the structure and um and then moving uh moving that out of the way doing the work and either discarding that structure in part or re or trying to re 400 01:55:28.480 --> 01:55:46.080 reintegrate that structure. And based upon the uh chloride levels that are in the in the concrete and it's sping spalling and deterioration uh that is not feasible to to to make 401 01:55:46.080 --> 01:56:03.560 the vertical cuts to take out part of the facade. Uh and we had that um we have that in our materials also where he looked at certain he drew red lines about where potential vertical cuts were possible. 402 01:56:03.840 --> 01:56:20.159 >> Any other questions for the applicant? Do you have another question? Yeah, just a just a point because uh similar to the last item we heard uh if this were to be retained this uh primary facade, it 403 01:56:20.159 --> 01:56:41.320 would require the uh replacement of columns and tie beams and in that event uh the chloride level issue disappears and the vertical cuts could happen. Thank you. Do we have any board disclosures? 404 01:56:41.520 --> 01:56:59.920 >> No. Okay. I think we'll open public hearing. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. >> There's nobody online with their hand raised. >> Yeah, there is no one. >> No one. All right. >> Sorry, there's one. Oh, sorry. Now we have one person. Um, >> all right. We have someone in the in 405 01:56:59.920 --> 01:57:20.880 chambers, so we'll ask public to speak. Good morning again, members of the Historic Preservation Board. Um, Meg Lusto, executive director of Miami Design Preservation League. Again, we strongly oppose the proposed demolition of the former Parkside Hotel at 235 Washington Avenue. This building is a 406 01:57:20.880 --> 01:57:36.320 contributing structure within the locally designated Ocean Beach Historic District, one of the earliest and most historically significant areas of Miami Beach. Constructed in 1938, the Parkside Hotel represents the types type of modest humans scale hotel that defined the Ocean Beach neighborhood in the late 407 01:57:36.320 --> 01:57:52.480 1930s and helped shape the character of Washington Avenue. Buildings such as this formed the backbone of a community that welcomed everyday travelers and residents, offering a more accessible and intimate version of the Miami Beach experience beyond the Grand Oceanfront hotels. The Ocean Beach Historic District was designated specifically to 408 01:57:52.480 --> 01:58:10.080 preserve this story. Its significance lies not only in individual landmarks, but in this collective character created by these smaller buildings and the streetscapes they defined. Together, they form a cohesive historic environment that reflects the early development of Miami Beach as a vibrant seaside community. The Parkside Hotel, 409 01:58:10.080 --> 01:58:25.360 this building still clearly expresses its original design. Its two-story scale, flat roof line, balanced facade, and restrained art deco detailing remain intact and continue to contribute to the architectural rhythm and pedestrian character of Washington Avenue. The building is a quiet but essential part 410 01:58:25.360 --> 01:58:41.760 of the district's historic fabric. Allowing demolition in this case would establish a deeply troubling precedent. If contributing buildings can be removed simply to accommodate new amenities or open space for adjacent development, the long-term integrity of the historic district, this one and others, is placed at risk. Historic districts endure only 411 01:58:41.760 --> 01:58:57.119 when the buildings that define them are protected and allowed to remain part of the living city. The demolition of this building would therefore represent an unnecessary and avoidable loss of an historic building that continues to contribute meaningfully to the character of Washington Avenue in the oceanfront historic district. And for these 412 01:58:57.119 --> 01:59:13.599 reasons, we respectfully encourage you to deny the demolition request. And if I could just have 20 more seconds. Thank you. Uh the issue of precedence came up a little bit earlier and as again someone who's watched hundreds and hundreds of meetings, applicants cannot define us as something as a precedent in 413 01:59:13.599 --> 01:59:29.679 a future case. the historic preservation board cannot define to use to cite something as precedent. It's up to future applicants to say well two years ago, last month, 10 years ago uh yesterday, this board, the other board approved this very thing. So again, when you make these decisions, you are 414 01:59:29.679 --> 01:59:46.000 setting precedent and it is it is the determination of a future applicant to make to decide whether that counts. And I just want to hearken back to the comment that I made during the previous case about authenticity being the underpinning of historic preservation philosophically. Like that is what we're 415 01:59:46.000 --> 02:00:04.000 about. Replications are sometimes necessary. This is not one of those cases. We still have the building. Thank you. >> I'll have two callers online now. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> The first is um Beaky class. >> Do you swear to tell the truth, the 416 02:00:04.000 --> 02:00:20.000 whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I will. >> Thank you. >> Um good morning chair and and members of the historic preservation board. Um first of all, thank you for the time um you're giving to this application. Um I'm a resident of Miami Beach. I I live very close to the site actually on 417 02:00:20.000 --> 02:00:37.360 Second and Jefferson at the courts and I I commented two meetings ago as a as a neighbor already and also as a parent of a child at base camp. Um but today I I also wanted to add one point from my legal background. Um because I keep hearing uh the argument of president setting coming coming back and um before 418 02:00:37.360 --> 02:00:53.440 moving here um I I I'm from Belgium. I worked as an urban planning lawyer in Belgium representing the city and the preservation authorities. So I understand very well the importance of protecting historic fabric and I also understand the board's concern about um 419 02:00:53.440 --> 02:01:10.400 setting a bad president. But in this case I think the the board doesn't have to be afraid of setting setting that bad president. I I believe this case can be decided very narrowly um without opening the door too widely. Um I think um someone has said before or I heard 420 02:01:10.400 --> 02:01:26.639 before that um this is not a commercial developer trying to maximize value. This is a notfor-profit school um with founders that care really deeply about this community and about the families living here. they have a there's a clear educational need in the community and um 421 02:01:26.639 --> 02:01:42.080 the school needs outdoor space and a sports field for the children to be a real school and to serve the community properly. Um there is no private uh commercial upside in the way there would be with a typical development. So in my experience with cases similar to this um 422 02:01:42.080 --> 02:01:57.920 granted in Belgium but I think it applies here too. The safeguard against a bad president is not rigidity. Um the safeguard is is careful reasoning making clear why this case is different and um and defining the approval narrowly around its specific facts. Um so the 423 02:01:57.920 --> 02:02:14.080 board can make very clear here that any approval here is based on the specific and the cumulative facts. I think that's important of this case. A not for-p profofit school, a clear educational need, a meaningful community um benefits, outdoor and green space for children and no private commercial 424 02:02:14.080 --> 02:02:30.239 outside. um a future applicant would not be able to honestly rely on this case unless they they could show the same kinds of facts. So I I really respectfully >> Thank you. >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> Last caller is Keith. 425 02:02:30.239 --> 02:02:46.400 >> Keith, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Keith Marks 50 South Point Drive, also president of Self-Note Selfnness strongly supports the applicant. Uh we do understand 426 02:02:46.400 --> 02:03:02.719 the purpose of the historic board. We have been watching. We understand those who are attempting and trying to figure out a way to save the front facade. Uh I agree with the last person. Uh we got 427 02:03:02.719 --> 02:03:21.119 there needs to be and what seems to be missing at times a reasonleness test. good for the community versus saving a historic building, supposedly historic building that was last a youth hostel in 428 02:03:21.119 --> 02:03:36.320 horrible condition that needs to be torn down. I think that they've gone above and beyond in trying to respect the building and putting up two options for facade, but this is why there's live 429 02:03:36.320 --> 02:03:52.639 local. If you start playing games and and taking people who are trying to do good, building education, having a playground, and and making unreasonable demands of demolition of a 430 02:03:52.639 --> 02:04:07.920 building that will disintegrate when they get to that front facade. That's why Live Local passed. Please use le reason and logic and allow exceptions while still supporting those buildings 431 02:04:07.920 --> 02:04:24.960 that do add value and can be saved. Thank you. >> That concludes the online callers. >> So I understand we have a question from the board. Haskell >> Mr. Savage, can we get your engineer on the line? 432 02:04:24.960 --> 02:04:49.719 >> Yes. >> What's his name? >> His name is Ysef Hakeim. Do you know if he's online with a different um call name >> or if you can raise his hand if he's online? >> Yeah, we're texting him right now. 433 02:05:14.080 --> 02:05:34.159 M madam chair um while we're um finding our engineer um maybe I could use um my time wisely just a little bit and for um just to respond to um a couple of 434 02:05:34.159 --> 02:05:50.400 comments >> if you have rebuttal. Go ahead. >> Yeah, sure. Uh so um firstly, I want to say that uh unlike the prior applicant, we have the fullthroated support of the south of Fifth Neighborhood Association who wrote a letter in our record and who 435 02:05:50.400 --> 02:06:05.760 just called in but through their president. Uh so we do have um broad community support as you heard. Uh secondly, a lot of lot has been discussed about the president. Uh I was trained originally as an appellet 436 02:06:05.760 --> 02:06:22.320 attorney and all we did is site prior cases and precedent. uh and that is a very um narrow and technical thing to do and I I rarely hear it used in this forum and as as the caller explained uh 437 02:06:22.320 --> 02:06:39.440 every precedent is limited to the facts and circumstances presented in that application. So, uh I think that it would be um extremely rare for a fact pattern like this one to reemerge. Exactly. 438 02:06:39.440 --> 02:06:57.480 um that involving a a uh educational use like this. Having said that, let me check on the whereabouts of our engineer. >> I see. >> Okay, >> I see him online now. >> Okay, great. >> Yousef, can you raise your hand? 439 02:07:01.040 --> 02:07:45.280 Yousef, can you hear us? Are you there? If you're unmuted, can you unmute yourself? Yousef, um, can you unmute yourself? You're still muted. Okay, I'm good. >> There you go. We hear you now. >> Yousef, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 440 02:07:45.280 --> 02:08:00.000 truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead, Asca. >> Uh, Mr. Hashem, good morning. Uh, >> good morning. >> I've heard everyone's comments here and uh, this team has worked really hard to come up with multiple proposals and I 441 02:08:00.000 --> 02:08:17.840 appreciate the effort. I just want to make sure that we are exhausting every possible attempt to save this facade. Mr. It would occur to me that a two-story building like this would have that corridor having a um loadbearing 442 02:08:17.840 --> 02:08:33.440 wall supporting the joist running the floor joist and the roof joist running in a north south direction of the building. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. In that case, then the facade of the building on the west side is not 443 02:08:33.440 --> 02:08:51.360 relying on the floor joist to support it laterally in an east- west direction. Correct? >> No, that's not correct. >> Well, if you hold on one second. You just told me that the joists are running north and south. >> Yeah, that is correct. Right. >> But if you uh allow me to explain 444 02:08:51.360 --> 02:09:06.400 myself. >> Sure. Uh the joists are running north and south at every floor and the roof. That is correct. However, when we nail the plywood to the joist and we nail the plywood to the ledgers, we create we 445 02:09:06.400 --> 02:09:22.239 create the diaphragm on the building. >> We create we create the diaphragm at the second floor. We create a diaphragm on the roof level. So when that goes away, the diaphragm goes away and now that western facade is completely unsupported 446 02:09:22.239 --> 02:09:38.719 laterally. So So what your contention is that the plywood sheathing despite the fact that the joists are running north and south is pro providing the lateral restraint for the walls in an east west direction. 447 02:09:38.719 --> 02:09:54.800 >> 100%. >> Fair enough. Let's say I cut those jo Let's say I cut that flooring, right? And I provide intermittent support back to the joists that are running north and south. Now I've braced the building to allow modifications to 448 02:09:54.800 --> 02:10:10.400 that facade. At that point, you can install a uh foundation cap with helical piles with momentresisting columns to support that facade. Can you not 449 02:10:10.400 --> 02:10:27.360 >> uh uh again I I beg to uh object uh because the when you put up uh foundations with helico piles, helico piles do not have any lateral capacity. They have zero >> tension capacity. Correct. >> Yes. 450 02:10:27.360 --> 02:10:44.400 >> But the moment resisting columns on top of the footing will have lateral capacity. >> Yes. that that when you put a when you put a moment on the column and you're trying to put that moment on the foundation that foundation needs to resist >> that moment that moment and and and you 451 02:10:44.400 --> 02:11:00.560 cannot do that with helico piles because you can stagger them you can stagger them on the outside and the inside of the footing >> you know I don't want to get into a debate here with you I I know that you're an accomplished engineer but I can tell you one thing 452 02:11:00.560 --> 02:11:17.760 >> I don't think that you've studied it enough and and and that was to the point of my colleague here. >> This I was willing to um accept the replication of this wall, but I think that if you sat down for a couple of 453 02:11:17.760 --> 02:11:33.440 hours, you could pencil on the back of a napkin a design that would be probably less expensive than what you're proposing. >> Well, okay. There's one thing that uh we neglected to talk about uh other than 454 02:11:33.440 --> 02:11:49.679 you know if we can do foundations or we can do tension moment columns and all that is new construction that goes behind that existing wall that we have that existing wall we have is that we we haven't discussed that the the concrete 455 02:11:49.679 --> 02:12:06.400 matrix itself you know full of salts uh and and and weak and so that by itself needs to be addressed and the only way you can address that is by you know demolishing and rebuilding it. >> I'm sorry for interrupting you. That's a 456 02:12:06.400 --> 02:12:22.800 masonry infill wall with a perimeter uh reinforced concrete frame. >> Yeah. Yeah. The concrete itself is very weak and the river >> as you do that as you do that as you remove the the support for that wall you can infill those masonry cells with 457 02:12:22.800 --> 02:12:39.199 concrete. >> Okay. So we we we'll come back to the uh that that uh always happening discussion is that that you modified the wall so much that is there's nothing left in it that is original. 458 02:12:39.199 --> 02:12:54.000 >> No sir that that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is if you intermittently infill those masonry cells you've created a a a frame there. But this is not the issue for this discussion. I just wanted to explore if you've gone this path in a 459 02:12:54.000 --> 02:13:11.159 >> No, we have we have we have we ran the numbers on it and we're having very hard time trying to, you know, do all the changes to the to the original wall and then try to put the frame behind it and then the foundations for it. It wasn't just working. 460 02:13:12.960 --> 02:13:29.040 Have you gone to cost uh what it would cost to um replicate these uh versus um cost to retain the existing facade? >> I I did not run any any financial cost or models. No, 461 02:13:29.040 --> 02:13:47.119 >> I got you. Okay. Thank you. >> And then to get time. >> So, do we have any board commentary? Oh, I'm sorry. Did you ask for commentary or questions? >> He had asked to ask a question out of 462 02:13:47.119 --> 02:14:02.800 order. I said yes, but we're really board commentary. Correct. >> Discussion. I I guess if we go with the option of recreating and there's a opening in the windows, I would prefer there be a restriction that they don't allow any storage at the front and that 463 02:14:02.800 --> 02:14:18.639 there's a relationship of the sidewalk to the actual recreation area. I think filling that front area with storage would be the worst thing we could do that you would create these blank windows looking at a storage room as opposed to taking the facade if that's 464 02:14:18.639 --> 02:14:34.480 the direction of the board and letting a view into the recreation area really expanding that opportunity. So I would say no re if you want to put storage on that field it'd be at the back of the property certainly not on the front facing the public street otherwise 465 02:14:34.480 --> 02:14:49.119 there's no relationship between the street and the actual now you new use of the site so that was my only comment >> thank you >> I have a quick question for the applicant um on the board of my children's school there's a lot of 466 02:14:49.119 --> 02:15:06.639 resources put into creating like security privacy for the outdoor areas Is that a consideration that you all have discussed or do you want this to remain open to public view if the kids are like playing right behind the wall? >> Well, we we certainly wanted to have 467 02:15:06.639 --> 02:15:22.639 light and air. Yeah. >> Uh come through and that would not only serve our security purposes and the kids, but also the community, right? So that they can when the school's not in use, for example, they can see light and air and and the open area beyond and and 468 02:15:22.639 --> 02:15:39.280 trees beyond that. Um, so, uh, we really, I mean, we do have these louvers. I guess if there's an assembly where we don't want prying eyes on the kids, we could turn the louvers and have security that way. Um, I mean, but so, 469 02:15:39.280 --> 02:15:54.000 uh, it it will serve that purpose. >> Okay. So, it's like an operable type of thing. >> Yeah. I mean the separate and apart from all of the very fine things that everyone here is discussing concerning the facade and its 470 02:15:54.000 --> 02:16:11.920 replication etc. Yeah. Thi this device that we're talking about is a functional we we have to secure Yeah. >> um the the playground from just being open. >> Right. >> Right. >> I Madam Chair I agree with what Mr. 471 02:16:11.920 --> 02:16:28.480 Hollinger said. as part of the historic integrity to keep the openness into the property. There could be some unsavory characters that would want to look in thinking about causing harm to the children. >> Yeah, >> we'll address it if we have to in the future, but I think in balance it's more important to keep the sense of openness in the view corridor to the recreational 472 02:16:28.480 --> 02:16:44.639 area. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> And on the comment of louvers closing, to me that would just look like a boarded up retail store. So, I would be opposed to that as well. So, you know, I don't even I think the louvers are also inconsistent with the building. I I think a a grid of openings would be 473 02:16:44.639 --> 02:17:00.399 better than that, but that's just sort of a per the louvers just seem totally alien to the building's character as opposed to something that's more gridlike, but that's just an opinion. And >> if you want to suggest that as something to explore as staff, we can always do that. 474 02:17:00.399 --> 02:17:15.120 >> Maybe there could be like a privacy scrim behind it or something, >> right? >> I I feel like that's going to be a need. Yeah. Do we have any further board commentary? >> I mean, I would just add commentary that 475 02:17:15.120 --> 02:17:30.639 um you know, I I appreciate the options and I think you know, if it's possible to retain the facade, I would be in favor of that. If it's not possible in this case, I'd be in favor of reconstructing it um to the Ray Brereslin standard that you can't tell 476 02:17:30.639 --> 02:17:47.439 the difference. Uh and then, you know, I do like I do like the the the breeze block design. Um but in that case it would be noticeable that it's different and generally I agree with with staff I that we don't want to just reconstruct 477 02:17:47.439 --> 02:18:02.399 things but you know if we could rebuild this maintain that where it is on the sidewalk I think that's preferable. Um and I I I visited the uh the Cardier the um the Louis Vuitton Foundation building 478 02:18:02.399 --> 02:18:19.040 in Paris and you go you go to it and you walk through a facade. It's a glass facade on the street and you walk through thinking you're going into the building, but you end up in a garden. It's like a very cool architectural uh move and then and then the building is set behind that. Um so I think this 479 02:18:19.040 --> 02:18:37.599 could be like a really interesting thing even as a kind of standalone facade that that honors the you know the existing building. So I I would be in favor of uh you know whatever the board decides here. Does anyone else have board commentary? 480 02:18:37.599 --> 02:18:53.280 >> A question. Uh assuming uh either retention or rep replication, how do you intend to treat the uh window openings? 481 02:18:53.280 --> 02:19:10.399 Did is that the louver vent you were referring to? And is that something staff >> would uh >> Hello, I'm I'm Ryan Alderman, the architect of record. Um, are we referring to the first or second the breed block design? >> Uh, either a replication or the 482 02:19:10.399 --> 02:19:26.160 retention of the initial facade. >> The idea was to keep it as open as possible to allow for air flow. So, the upper windows were to be left open. Uh the circle at the top is actually a painted circle, but we opted to open it 483 02:19:26.160 --> 02:19:42.880 completely to allow more air flow to come through. Uh personally, I think this is a playground. It's um the more air and light that it gets through this uh street facade, the better. >> Okay. So So that's the second level. How would you treat the first level? level 484 02:19:42.880 --> 02:19:59.760 was uh for security purposes. It would have to be some sort of a a fence or the louvers, not necessarily louvers, but horizontal slats. Um the neighboring property has round post, picketed posts as their fence. The the design without 485 02:19:59.760 --> 02:20:16.720 any structure, we were carrying that across the the facade of this building. But for this, since there's the horizontal characteristic of the building, the horizontal lines, we just opted to to do horizontal slats. >> Staff Michael, do you have any comment 486 02:20:16.720 --> 02:20:34.399 on >> where where are we now in terms of the um the path we're going? >> Reconstru if if it were either retention or reconstruction, how would you treat the uh fenestration, the windows? >> I think you wouldn't you wouldn't put windows there, right? Um, 487 02:20:34.399 --> 02:20:49.760 >> well, they they want air. They want light, >> right? Yeah. You you want something that's that's um that's not gl that's not glazing, I think, or it's not something that you're going to have to um um I don't know. It's it's be an odd situation. Maybe you do like um some 488 02:20:49.760 --> 02:21:05.840 sort of grid pattern, a mesh. Exactly. It's more open. >> Can they put the elevation back up above of option four, which is what you're referring to, either retention or replication? I thought I saw horizontal louvers on the doors and windows that all look the same. That's that's what you show. 489 02:21:05.840 --> 02:21:21.359 That's what I was >> kind of opposing to that I it seemed >> sort of an arbitrary selection of the facade treatment as opposed to >> how does it relate to the building, the style of character, the architecture. >> Well, it mimics the bands at the upper level but just at a smaller scale in 490 02:21:21.359 --> 02:21:36.960 order to prevent people from the >> Can we uh upstairs? Can we please? There we go. Thank you. >> Just So that was the intent. Yeah. To mimic the horizontal banding. >> Yeah, I guess. Okay. >> If you do it at that scale, 491 02:21:36.960 --> 02:21:52.319 >> there's no security. >> Sort of looks like javascy windows on the whole thing. >> Has this really dated look to it? >> With with that. Do you think there's going to be any problem with the kids trying to climb those louvers and you know damaging them >> playground? 492 02:21:52.319 --> 02:22:08.880 >> So Mr. Hollingworth like would be up your suggestions if you want more grid what Nick was saying that's okay. >> It just seems like I'm looking at jealousy windows on doors and windows on the whole first floor and then I hear they could tilt so they block up completely which I find even worse than 493 02:22:08.880 --> 02:22:24.960 this. >> To me it maybe it should just be a grid of metal that allows you to see through and the air goes through it. If you have to create some type of screen for security behind it, but not to close up the street facade. I don't know the answer because the image kind of just 494 02:22:24.960 --> 02:22:41.520 kind of >> blows me away is itself. >> A metal grid that has some depth to it. So it's not just a a chain link. It just >> Yeah. A grid that's got depth. Exactly. So on an angle, you actually can't see through it, but when you look straight through, so it's a box grid >> of some sort, which gives you more 495 02:22:41.520 --> 02:22:58.479 privacy. And you know, >> Yes. >> Do you mind putting up the rendering? actually did a version of that and it looked u not very I mean it's those openings just pop even more. It's >> well you'll have some more time to improve it now. >> Would you mind putting up the rendering of the breeze block as well? 496 02:22:58.479 --> 02:23:16.720 >> Number three. >> Yes. >> Perhaps one next. Uh >> this one has or another one? >> You had one more. >> I'm sorry. >> That's a building that's been bombed. Is that that we now have built that bomb 497 02:23:16.720 --> 02:23:33.120 building block? >> I feel depressed when I see that. I don't know what >> a borderline between Mexico and United States trying to everybody out. >> All right, we will reconstruct. >> This would be the breeze block uh rendering. Yes, >> sir. 498 02:23:33.120 --> 02:23:54.640 >> It's too small. If it was bigger, but understood. We're happy to reconstruct. Do we have any further commentary? And if not, do we have a motion? >> I don't recall if we did board disclosures. Just so we're clear, were 499 02:23:54.640 --> 02:24:11.920 there any disclosures? >> You did ask. >> We did. Okay. I >> All right. So, commentary or motion? >> Uh, I'll make a motion. Uh, I expect it to fail, but uh, here it goes. To retain 500 02:24:11.920 --> 02:24:28.240 the existing facade and demolish the remainder of the uh, structure. >> Could I offer a friendly amendment if it can't be retained? Are you okay with reconstruction? >> I I don't buy the argument. All it takes 501 02:24:28.240 --> 02:24:45.840 is a little effort. Of course, it could be retained. a one or twostory building. Uh buildings, one or twostory buildings are the easiest buildings to shore up and stabilize. >> And what if it fails? 502 02:24:45.840 --> 02:25:02.000 What what happens? >> Well, there's always the oops factor that that could be deliberate. That's another issue in itself. Uh you know, should the board uh in this case require a performance bond? uh you know I 503 02:25:02.000 --> 02:25:19.120 uh I I believe in good faith and good will uh but that that's you know maybe call me a purist but uh as staff alluded to earlier when you reconstruct you create a false narrative we are the historic preservation board the building 504 02:25:19.120 --> 02:25:38.319 exists and uh I think it's an opportunity for us to play our role uh as expected I'll second the motion. >> Call a roll call. >> There was a friendly amendment. Is that 505 02:25:38.319 --> 02:25:54.160 accepted? >> What was the friendly amendment? >> It cannot be maintained. Could be reconstructed. >> I wouldn't I wouldn't include that. It's kind of hard for staff then to um take the brunt of that. >> Let them come back. 506 02:25:54.160 --> 02:26:11.359 So, this will be to um rec to leave the facade as it is, right? I guess you would modify the um the window openings as we've suggested um retaining the structure as it is, but modifying it with the with um the grade with the depth for both the first and second 507 02:26:11.359 --> 02:26:26.960 floor facade with those that opening. Is that correct for the openings, >> Mitch? Is that what you Okay. Yeah, sure. >> So, um Mr. Mr. Hollingworth. Uh, no. Miss Kamago. 508 02:26:26.960 --> 02:26:42.319 >> So, just to be clear, we are voting to retain the existing, >> right? We need you on mic. You need the microphone. >> We are voting to retain the existing fac. >> Correct. >> Uh, no. >> Mr. Meyer. >> Yes. 509 02:26:42.319 --> 02:27:00.160 >> Miss Levelvel. >> No. >> Mr. Jelpie. No. Mr. Novik. >> Yes. >> The motion fails. >> You never ask me. >> Yeah, you didn't ask Ray. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Brlin. >> No. 510 02:27:00.160 --> 02:27:15.280 >> Sorry. >> I make a second motion. >> Uh to move the project forward with the reconstruction of the front facade. I'd like to second that with an amendment that we have a view by the 511 02:27:15.280 --> 02:27:32.160 staff of the treatment of the ground floor openings, doors and windows and hopefully respond to some of the comments made by the board. >> What do you mean of you? Um, >> well, they would have to bring it back to show you alternatives for the 512 02:27:32.160 --> 02:27:48.160 openings >> as opposed to the louvers. >> Oh, yes. >> On option four, >> right? So, I think we're we're saying right now we're not we're not approving the louvers as part of the reconstruction and it sounds like we're going to go the direction here is the the the grid the grid pattern for the um the openings, right? 513 02:27:48.160 --> 02:28:04.000 >> I think we should leave it a little flexible for school. >> Yeah. >> Okay. If if I may, I I think if I I'll restate the motion and and the second with the friendly amendment is that approving the fourth option, the reconstruction with 514 02:28:04.000 --> 02:28:20.720 the treatment of the existing openings to not be the horizontal slats, movers, however you're referring to them, and that that will be addressed with staff. Does that >> That's right. That's That's And yes. >> Yeah. I mean, there are many buildings 515 02:28:20.720 --> 02:28:37.520 of this period that actually had rod iron on >> on the front and you can just put the rod iron on and it doesn't have any windows >> and and that serves the same same purpose. >> Stops. >> My only fear is that has a 1960s look of over security that try to get rid of. 516 02:28:37.520 --> 02:28:53.520 >> We don't allow security bars on windows any longer. But but we do we do have a a motion and I believe a second on the table. So I think >> who was the second of the motion? >> Ready. Okay. So I'll do a roll call then. Mr. Hollingworth. >> Yes. >> Mr. Brereslin. 517 02:28:53.520 --> 02:29:07.520 >> Yes. >> Mr. Meyer. >> Yes. >> Um Mr. Jelpie. >> Yes. >> Miss Kamargo. >> Yes. >> Miss Levelvel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Novik. 518 02:29:07.520 --> 02:29:25.680 >> No. The motion passes. >> Madam Chair, may I ask for just a bit of housekeeping. Uh the V I want to make sure that the >> V Let's take a second. Let's take a second. Um a second motion on the variance, >> right? We're we're um Yeah, because this 519 02:29:25.680 --> 02:29:41.040 is this is a reconstruction. >> Yes. >> In place. >> In place, right? >> Varian there there's a small discrepancy between the front of the building and the and the sidewalk. We'd like to go ahead and bring it to the sidewalk. So, we would like to ask for a vote on the 520 02:29:41.040 --> 02:29:59.120 variance to continue the dominant setback along the street. >> So, we need a motion on the variance. >> Mr. Brlin, a second. >> Second. >> Second, Mr. J. >> How far back are you moving it? How far 521 02:29:59.120 --> 02:30:15.600 forward are you moving it now? Because we talked about it leaving it at the same place, didn't originally. >> Right. So, It's approximately 24 in uh from the front of the sidewalk. >> Okay. >> So, do you want to leave it at that 522 02:30:15.600 --> 02:30:31.520 location? >> Wants to move it to the property. >> Yeah. Excuse me. So, those 24 in nowadays, what are they? They they are landscaped now. >> Remember that. >> There's a little sidewalk. There may be a planter there or something. There's a little that it's just the sidewalk. It's 523 02:30:31.520 --> 02:30:50.720 unimproved. >> Yeah. So the motion um Mr. President is to allow them to um move the move the reconstruction reconstruct the facade to the front to the front property line. >> Yes. >> Second by Mr. Jelpie. All in favor? 524 02:30:50.720 --> 02:31:09.520 >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion opposed. Motion passes six to one. >> Thank you for the three and a half hearings. We appreciate you very much. Thank you so much. Yeah. 525 02:31:09.520 --> 02:31:27.920 >> Congratulations. >> So, the last application should be relatively easy compared to the ones we just had. Um, much easier. >> Why Why did Why did you have to put that in the air? >> We should have put them first. I know. So, this last item is HPB26-0687 526 02:31:27.920 --> 02:31:43.600 for 716 to 720 Lincoln Road. The subject building is a one-story contributing commercial structure constructed in 1936 and designed by Victor Nellenbogen. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition of the central and western storefront bays and the construction of 527 02:31:43.600 --> 02:32:00.160 a new storefront system. The work includes removal of existing knee walls and and a non-structural interior partition, the introduction of a uniform 3-foot recess storefront across both bays, an installation of a flush glass storefront system with a 16inch CMU knee wall. The existing traza flooring um 528 02:32:00.160 --> 02:32:17.120 pattern at thresholds is to be retained and all historic upper facade features including horizontal banding and chevron motifs will be retained. No work is proposed within the eastern bay um which is not part of this application. staff recommends approval subject to including a future requirement that the eastern 529 02:32:17.120 --> 02:32:31.680 bay as if a tenant changes or they come back um to the city with a um a permit for interior buildout that they match the storefront that the board is approving as part of this application. With that the um I'll open up to any 530 02:32:31.680 --> 02:32:55.200 questions um from the board to staff. Any questions for staff? >> Okay, Mr. Lin, >> uh, can we pull the presentation? >> Great. Thank you. So, good morning, Madam Chair, board member staff. Michael Larkin 2 South King Boulevard here represent the applicant with me today. 531 02:32:55.200 --> 02:33:11.120 Scott Sherman from to Roso Equities, Jason Shine from Lion Development, Jose Gomez is our architect, Steven Abdikoff as our store preservation consultant, and my colleague Rob Alvarez. We're here today request certificate appropriateness or demolition design with regard to modernizing the storefronts. These particular 532 02:33:11.120 --> 02:33:27.760 storefronts of central and western bays have stood empty since 2014. They are in need of some help. What we are proposing will modernize the storefront, enhance the functionality while maintaining the historic integrity of the building. With regard to our team, as I said, we have 533 02:33:27.760 --> 02:33:43.600 Jose Gomez who's thoughtfully designed the proposed facade updates. Stephen Abdikov has done a really interesting storefront analysis that I hope you all had a chance to see it focused upon the storefronts on Lincoln Road and their evolution. And of course, we not would be here today without our ownership team 534 02:33:43.600 --> 02:34:00.000 of Terroso Equities and Lion Development who are spending literally millions of dollars acquiring different buildings throughout Lincoln Road and improving them. Next slide. The property is situated in the heart of Lincoln Road on the south side in between Meridian Avenue and Uklid. Next 535 02:34:00.000 --> 02:34:14.880 slide. The property has CD3 zoning. The CD3 zoning is unique in the city in that it applies to the most intense commercial corridors of Lincoln Road, Arthur Godfrey, and 71st Street. Next slide. 536 02:34:14.880 --> 02:34:31.520 We are in the local historic district of Flamingo Park. Victor Nelenbogen was the architect here. He was also the architect of the Sterling building. He made the transformation of the Sterling from a med revival building to an art deco building. He did the Alamac apartments owned by Mel Schleser. He also did the Seavoy Hotel owned by Eric 537 02:34:31.520 --> 02:34:47.680 Hadar. Next slide. This is our request that we're submitting for your consideration today. Next slide. This is a picture of the existing building. Note that the eastern bay is fully occupied and leased out. We accept 538 02:34:47.680 --> 02:35:04.000 staff's condition with regard to the ultimate uh reconfiguration of the eastern bay to match what we are proposing for the central and western bay. Next slide. Another picture of the existing structure. Next slide. This is the Terzo flooring which we will preserve. Next 539 02:35:04.000 --> 02:35:19.600 slide. This is a picture of the interior of the property. Next slide. So you at the very beginning in the 20s into the early 30s all Lincoln Road had one architectural style. Dominant style was med revival. But flash forward to 540 02:35:19.600 --> 02:35:35.680 today to 2026 and you'll see that Lincoln Road from Alton to the it's Carlton the Decopl has a multiplicity of different architectural styles. What's exciting about Lincoln Road now is that it's coming back and that you all are the stewards. You're the guardians of at 541 02:35:35.680 --> 02:35:52.640 least 90% of Lincoln Road. Um what you have in the defunct movie theater is an immersive art museum coming back in the former Banana Republic space. is one of the most famous chefs in the world is going to come there and occupy the entirety of that building for a premier flagship restaurant there. Nike store is 542 02:35:52.640 --> 02:36:10.160 booming. Apple store is booming. Next month you're going to consider an assemblage purchased by Michael Commer few months ago. He's christened it at Noli. He'll be before you looking at seven buildings that he intends to you know re-energize which have been vacant for I don't know how many years. Then 543 02:36:10.160 --> 02:36:25.760 you have this property. Then you have a sole building next to the church is going to be a restaurant use. So Lincoln Road is on the upswing. There are some areas that need some extra help. That's why we're here today to get your assistance to modernize these storefronts so they can be appeal 544 02:36:25.760 --> 02:36:43.040 appealing to retailers nowadays and be leased. Um having said like to turn over to Steve Adikov. He's going to walk through the results of his storefront analysis. And then Jose Gomez. >> Thank you uh Michael. Uh good morning everyone. Uh Steve Abdikov, principal of 545 02:36:43.040 --> 02:36:59.439 Heritage Architectural Associates, 4300 Biscane Boulevard. We had the pleasure to do a review of the storefront and analysis of those on Lincoln Road as well as this building. As a general rule, storefronts are reviewed separately u from the upper part of the 546 02:36:59.439 --> 02:37:15.920 buildings as they've evolved. They tend to evolve more over time. you know technology uh you know the as things and styles evolve the storefronts are are changed to accommodate the desirable marketing conditions for the store owners. Uh in fact the secretary of the 547 02:37:15.920 --> 02:37:31.760 interior standards for the treatment of historic properties notes that storefronts are typically altered more than any other building feature to reflect the latest architectural styles and appear up to date to attract the customers. So 716 720 Lincoln Road is is 548 02:37:31.760 --> 02:37:48.720 em emblematic of that. It's evolved over time. Uh I think that in my opinion here what we're proposing uh the improvements will appearance will improve the appearance of the building and enhance its functionality. According to the book guiding design on Main Street, large storefront display windows blur the 549 02:37:48.720 --> 02:38:05.280 distinction between the public sidewalk and the private shop space, making a more inviting space for customers to wander in. So, Lincoln Road, we we've seen this evolution of uh storefronts. U have some examples here that we had an opportunity 550 02:38:05.280 --> 02:38:23.120 to review. We've got 9 918 932 Lincoln Road. You can see the image on the left and u the image on the right shows the inclusion of additional storefront and glazing um to evolve that building. Uh next, 551 02:38:23.120 --> 02:38:38.800 607 611 Lincoln Road. On the left we had a an arched pointed arched um element for the storefront there a rectto linear storefront on the right you can see the image on the right hand side the storefront has been changed out to be more rectalinear uh referencing the 552 02:38:38.800 --> 02:38:55.439 storefront on the right of the building. Uh and finally we're going to show 605 Lincoln Road. You can see the image on the left hand side. The eastern facade on the lower right hand corner there was a solid facade with punched individual openings. The image on the right depicts the modifications that occurred to the 553 02:38:55.439 --> 02:39:11.600 storefront where there's increased glazing and an additional entrance on the corner. So in this instance, the storefront really unifies the facade. The revisions were undertaken here. Here we have uh our property 716 720. You can see the microfish plane image on the 554 02:39:11.600 --> 02:39:26.240 left which shows the tripartite division of bays with a recessed entrances which had the ornamental torato which Michael referenced there. And on the right we see this the uh facade image of the horizontal banded elements and the 555 02:39:26.240 --> 02:39:44.479 chevron uh peers and upper facade. However, when we undertook this research, we uncovered some photographs that showed that in fact the the building wasn't constructed as it was depicted on the microfish documents. This is actually from 1936 when the building was opened. You can 556 02:39:44.479 --> 02:40:01.439 see structural glazing system was utilized in what was shown in the documents. We've got horizontal banding, black glazing, and vertically vertical peers that have ziggurat tops on them. But that didn't last long. 25 years later, the facade was changed again. 557 02:40:01.439 --> 02:40:17.040 There was a permit to change to transform that black darker color facade into one that had porcelain and aluminum air. We can see that occurred in 1961. So, the previous facade only existed 25 years. Uh, additionally, during this era, the Eastern Bay storefront was 558 02:40:17.040 --> 02:40:33.600 renovated. It was a continuous horizontal band slightly recessed from the upper facade with the flooring. The tortas are replaced. The evolution of the building continued in 1971. The horizontal banding is no longer evident and the vertical peers aren't there. 559 02:40:33.600 --> 02:40:49.359 So by 2003 or 2005, we see that the design of the original u intent was uh incorporated and constructed. So another significant modification to the life of this building. the build the entrance on the left was boarded over. Um but we can 560 02:40:49.359 --> 02:41:05.439 see that the original design intent was put together here. So here we are today. Um we can look at that. You can see the the bays that are marked. Um once again as I noted the standards have different uh guidelines for the to allow the 561 02:41:05.439 --> 02:41:20.960 flexibility and the evolution of the storefront. I think the in this design is being proposed the historic tripartite uh design motif of that storefront is being retained. Um there is no impact to the upper facade and the 562 02:41:20.960 --> 02:41:35.760 original as Michael noted the terasa will be restored. So in my opinion because the building has changed so significantly and drastically over the course of time there's no adverse effect in my opinion upon the character of the building and therefore we would recommend approval of the design. I'm 563 02:41:35.760 --> 02:41:59.359 going to turn it over now to Jose Gomez. Hello members of the board again. Uh Jose Gomez, Balance of Gomez architect. Uh much simpler project. Uh actually uh we're we're not intending to uh demolish 564 02:41:59.359 --> 02:42:15.200 uh the facade here. Uh what we're doing is is very simple. is the central and western facade. We're aligning it with the uh eastern facade. Uh setting it back 3 ft uh which is what's required in 565 02:42:15.200 --> 02:42:32.240 order to have our uh uh doors swinging out. Uh we're not allowed to swing the doors out into Lincoln Road. We're locating the doors exactly where they used to be. We're respecting the tile patterns. Uh uh not tile, I'm sorry, the 566 02:42:32.240 --> 02:42:49.040 terraso finish. Um so the idea is that you're going to have the that terraso will will remain. It's just one very simple minimalist facade with a knee wall. Talking to a staff, I think that was their preference. And historically, 567 02:42:49.040 --> 02:43:04.240 the building had that knee wall. So we're putting back the 12-in knee wall throughout. Um this is just an elevation of it. You can see on the top how we reconfiguring the the the ones the existing versus the at the bottom the 568 02:43:04.240 --> 02:43:20.800 new uh storefronts. Um this is the existing terraszo pattern and here you can see that we are keeping the terraso and putting the doors in the same locations as originally u intended to 569 02:43:20.800 --> 02:43:38.720 be. And this is a close-up rendering of the uh the two uh areas that we're intervening. And that's it. >> Thank you. >> Um we made a presentation to Link Road Bid board of directors. It was a very 570 02:43:38.720 --> 02:43:54.800 good meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, they adopted a resolution and support. We very much appreciate their support. As much as you all are stewards of Lincoln Road sitting here, they are out in the trenches every day trying to improve Lincoln Road. So, it's a great organization and we very much appreciate 571 02:43:54.800 --> 02:44:10.800 their support. Next slide. We also have the support of staff as I mentioned earlier and we accept all of staff's recommendations. So, with that, uh, I'm going to close and available for any questions and we'd like to reserve some time for rebuttal if necessary. 572 02:44:10.800 --> 02:44:25.840 Does the board have any question have any questions for the applicant? Randy, >> I'm confused about where the doors were originally, where they are now, and where you're putting them. You said you're putting them exactly where they were. 573 02:44:25.840 --> 02:44:42.880 >> Same. Well, same location when you're looking at the elevation of the >> No, I I'm talking about distance from the sidewalk. >> 3 ft. They're moving forward. They're going to be 3 ft away from the property line. So the original doors displayed the Turzo floor pattern completely. 574 02:44:42.880 --> 02:44:58.479 >> Completely. Correct. >> And now they do not. They cut through the middle of the Tazzo. >> Correct. But we're still keeping that terazzo. So >> I understand. And then you're taking the existing side wing kind of projections that are there now and moving them which is the original. I think 575 02:44:58.479 --> 02:45:15.120 >> we're moving them so that they align with the facade of >> but the original did have a jogging effect of the entire facade. >> Hadical recess >> historic. Right. Okay. Thank you. >> So, >> so in effect, what you're doing is providing two less spaces for unhoused 576 02:45:15.120 --> 02:45:30.720 people to sleep. >> It does happen. >> Mitch, did you have a question? >> Uh to Jose and the uh historic uh resource uh uh report. 577 02:45:30.720 --> 02:45:47.040 >> No, the uh uh Steve is your name, right? You referenced the black glazing. Was that a vitrolyte? >> We don't know exactly what that material was, but it was a product. It was a structural glazing like a vitrol light 578 02:45:47.040 --> 02:46:03.040 or Carrera glass. Something like that. >> It look like Sephora looks now, right? A vitro. >> Yeah. And Cameo Theater and the Aster Hotel. >> Um Jose, what color is your mullion uh 579 02:46:03.040 --> 02:46:20.720 on this? Is it anodized or >> It's gonna be anodized. >> Typically, we do anodize. >> All right. I wish we knew more about what that black glazing was. It was interesting. Have you explored recreating that? Is there We've 580 02:46:20.720 --> 02:46:37.120 discussed it a little bit. It's hard cuz it's unusual situation where the microfilm drawins show one version that the owner picked up on in 2005 and renovating the front. But if you look at what Steve found, he found that the microfilm drawings weren't followed at 581 02:46:37.120 --> 02:46:54.000 all. That instead there was a new facade. It's very interesting facade. We've given it some thought, but haven't really talked about it much. >> Another example is the uh pizza rustica on Washington, the hostel that had that fire, the Lamar hostel. 582 02:46:54.000 --> 02:47:10.479 >> Another hoouser building. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else have questions? So, I have a question and if I was I was kind of flipping through the materials, making sure I didn't miss this. Tell me about the why. Is this a tenant request? 583 02:47:10.479 --> 02:47:26.240 Is this a what's what's the impetus behind changing at the storefront and eliminating those bays? I I just want to understand more about that. >> Sure. Go ahead, Jose. >> Okay. Age before beauty. Go ahead. Go ahead, please. >> No need to fight. Whoever wants to tell 584 02:47:26.240 --> 02:47:42.240 me. First of all, they don't that, you know, they don't meet the requirements of ADA, right? So, we have to do um other things. We have to implement other means to uh to uh be able to respect the ADA. Uh the doors don't have the the space on 585 02:47:42.240 --> 02:47:59.760 either side. So, that that's usually that's where we all start. Um the rest is just cleaning up that entire building. Uh we've done this before in other buildings along Lincoln Road where uh in the old days that that facade they 586 02:47:59.760 --> 02:48:15.680 uh they don't they don't lend themselves to today's merchandising. Right. So now uh by pushing it forward and just doing a very clean minimalist facade. Now you can use the whole facade as merchandising spaces. 587 02:48:15.680 --> 02:48:31.279 >> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. We can >> I just want to note that um this application has been sort of evolved over the over time since the initial meeting with staff. More information came to light in terms of the original storefront designs. Originally, we thought that what what was it right now 588 02:48:31.279 --> 02:48:48.319 was the original um knee wall and this was not the case. It was actually lower. So, um in this regard, if they were just putting back the storefront recess where it was, it wouldn't come before you because we found evidence that the storefront was lower. But because they're moving it still, you know, closer to closer to Lincoln Road, that 589 02:48:48.319 --> 02:49:04.000 requires, you know, view by the board. But we're supportive of it because the deep recesses and the high knee wall is something that is not typical for um you know, modern retail um merchandising. >> Yeah. And Madame Chair, um 590 02:49:04.000 --> 02:49:20.160 you know, these space I want to emphasize again have been empty since 2014. And Lincoln Road in large part is, you know, I would I don't want to say booming again, but it's coming back in a very strong way. I just we want to be a part of that. We want to make it easier to lease these spaces now. Um like the 591 02:49:20.160 --> 02:49:36.640 space of the uh on the east that bay is leased. It has a more flat storefront. That's a little bit of evidence too for you to consider. >> And one of the things so right now that that um eastern storefront does not have the troza, right? So if if the if that um it does on the drawings does have 592 02:49:36.640 --> 02:49:54.160 trzle. Okay. I assume it's still there based on what's been represented. >> You are correct. >> It's covered up. >> It's there's no teras. >> Nozzle, right? So, we're asking that if uh if that new tenant comes to that to that space, they would then restore that terzo at that time >> and we will do that. 593 02:49:54.160 --> 02:50:10.479 >> That's fine. >> I'm sorry, Jose, but the drawing shows a terazzo. >> Yeah, that's why I was >> the drawing you guys provided. If you look on page SP 100, >> that would have been from the original uh the that's not meant to be done now. 594 02:50:10.479 --> 02:50:26.560 That was part of the original design. Then as as uh Blue said >> in the futureist anymore. >> No, no, no. It doesn't exist. >> Thank you. Yeah, I I thought it existed too based on that. 595 02:50:26.560 --> 02:50:43.840 >> Can you tell me when the East Bay was redone? So the Steve will address that but you know every property has a building card that's associated with it from the day it's constructed till 1988 till they switched to more digital system and there are notations in the building 596 02:50:43.840 --> 02:50:59.840 card. I'm going to let that >> yeah the the eastern bay was revised in 1961 when the overall building changed from the darker vitrolite to the porcelain aluminum system. So that was taken care of in 1961. So it's been there for a while. 597 02:50:59.840 --> 02:51:16.399 >> Thank you. Um, you may have said what is the surface of the sidewalk in the area you've you've uh pushed back. >> It's a concrete uh concrete finish. >> It's blue in the rendering. So, I'm trying to Is it teras? 598 02:51:16.399 --> 02:51:32.000 >> No, it's not terazzo. It's a concrete finish. >> Might have been painted painted concrete. >> Oh, you're keeping the turzo in the center. >> We will keep it. >> Thank you. >> Ray, did you have another question? So really all you're doing is with the 599 02:51:32.000 --> 02:51:47.760 center bay and the west bay is matching what the east bay already is. >> Correct. >> Simply simpler. >> I one other question. So the new doors that are 3 ft set back from the property line that will go through the Torzo. 600 02:51:47.760 --> 02:52:03.760 What's the plan for cuz you're going to restore the Torzo is my understanding. What's the plan for protect protecting the tozos at the sale? I mean, you're going to have fixtures into the Terzo. What? >> Well, Terzo is typically refinished here 601 02:52:03.760 --> 02:52:21.560 throughout South Florida. The Terraso is redone and we got to have a threshold. So, we're going to have a half inch threshold, which is standard and this type of uh, you know, approved type of doors. So, we got to have a threshold over it. 602 02:52:22.560 --> 02:52:41.880 >> Any other questions? All right. Um, board disclosures. >> Huh? >> I did go and see. >> Okay. Uh, open to commentary 603 02:52:42.000 --> 02:53:05.840 me. >> Still morning. Good morning again. Mech Lustau, executive director of Miami Design Preservation League. Uh we concur with staff that the proposed changes are a compatible alteration to the existing storefronts and a sensitive adaptation that responds to the contemporary retail experience. We especially appreciate the 604 02:53:05.840 --> 02:53:21.120 use of near full glass doors which helps keep visually intact the defining characteristic of the tozo pattern at the entryways and conveys the distinction between the original layout and the proposed one. In some this is a thoughtful approach to modernizing an historic storefront on one of the city's most iconic thoroughares. 605 02:53:21.120 --> 02:53:39.279 Thank you. >> There's nobody online with their hand raised. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, Annabelle Yop, executive director for Lincoln Road. I have to say I'm so appreciative of all the positive comments about Lincoln Road coming back. And the truth is we are coming back and 606 02:53:39.279 --> 02:53:56.080 we're coming back stronger than ever. And so this enhancement to the storefront I think is warranted um to where Linger Road is going um and what tenants we need to attract. Now having these beautiful windows, having more clarity is definitely going to be an 607 02:53:56.080 --> 02:54:11.120 asset for the landlord to attract the right tenants. So we're absolutely behind this project and you know there's a lot going on. We have our capital improvement project happening um hopefully soon on Uclid oval and that itself is going to be enhanced and 608 02:54:11.120 --> 02:54:33.439 beautified and moved forward into what link road is becoming. So I thank the board for um your time and consideration and hopefully it's it's a go. Thank you. >> Any board commentary? So you know I was just I mean I was 609 02:54:33.439 --> 02:54:47.600 looking at the elevation the existing and the proposed and I understand that originally there were those new walls at least in some of the base but in looking at the new building if you're talking about upgrading the the look of the 610 02:54:47.600 --> 02:55:04.640 facade for nowadays I would personally I wouldn't put the new walls and I wouldn't put the little side lights on the central bay. they'll just make them as clean as existing one because I think it brings uniformity to the building and I don't feel like reconstructing those 611 02:55:04.640 --> 02:55:20.720 little knee walls as um reference to the past is adding much to the building itself. And if you are agree with Steve one his presentation about the the the statement that he made that the 612 02:55:20.720 --> 02:55:37.040 storefronts are the most change items in star in historic buildings. I would say so why not change it to make it the best we can at this point. >> So I do know in the past the board has had a president with even with new construction having some sort of kneewalk sort of reference what was 613 02:55:37.040 --> 02:55:54.240 typically in place for um retail storefronts on the on especially Lincoln road. So that's something that typically the board has included as a requirement for even new construction. So we felt in this case of course a high a high knee wall is something that's that's not conducive for for um retail but having a knee knee wall I think it's what 12 in 614 02:55:54.240 --> 02:56:08.960 or is it >> 16 in this >> 10 or 12 I >> think this this is higher here >> 16 >> 16 in >> but if if the board wanted to lower it we think that that's fine too 16 inches may be too high if the board wanted to lower >> can we bring the last 615 02:56:08.960 --> 02:56:24.160 >> you're thinking last last month was 10 in this is here it is I got >> yeah if you could bring the last image to the screen. >> So if you look at it, uh, our original in intent was to go all the way the glass going all the way to the ground. >> See this image here? 616 02:56:24.160 --> 02:56:38.399 >> Which one? >> It's the last page on our package. >> Oh, the package is not here. This is a presentation. So you might have >> page eight 201 there. Yeah. So if you if you look at 617 02:56:38.399 --> 02:56:54.319 the bottom image, I think like the it's kind of it's neither here nor there the way I see it because you have a little bit like onethird of the building with one language and the other two/3 with a different language. And I'm not sure 618 02:56:54.319 --> 02:57:11.279 that trying to bring the past back, it's adding value to the aesthetics of the building. >> That's my personal opinion. We do think that you know when the other retailer when the other storefront comes to um staff for renovation we will make them 619 02:57:11.279 --> 02:57:27.600 put back that new wall to match so in the end it will have the uniform look. >> Okay. So there is a plan for the other one to be redone >> when when it does when it does come when it does come in eventually it will come in. There's no there's no plan right now. We don't want to make them do it right now but when that retailer changes 620 02:57:27.600 --> 02:57:44.160 they come in for an interior buildout they would have to match the um what the board is approving today. We do think it's really important to keep those knee walls because it does sort of indicate that this is more of an historic structure versus a a new a new building, >> right? And even if the current tenant seeks some type of improvement permit, 621 02:57:44.160 --> 02:58:06.720 that'll trigger the need to change that storefront. >> Any other commentary? If not, does anyone have a motion for this item? Should I take a stab at? Al although uh I I I 622 02:58:06.720 --> 02:58:22.560 can really appreciate the 1936 images which essentially depict an entirely uh different uh upper facade. Uh but I'll make a motion to approve this as per uh 623 02:58:22.560 --> 02:58:51.880 staff's conditions. >> Okay, >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? I >> I >> I >> Any opposed? >> Motion passes 70. >> Thank you all so much for your time. >> Thanks. >> That's it. 624 02:59:10.319 --> 02:59:25.359 Is the meeting adjourned? >> Yeah, take care. >> Yeah. Yeah. By the way, >> sitting with David Dur goes to Starbucks often on 41st Street. So, I've been making 625 02:59:25.359 --> 02:59:35.000 about 9:30 and your name came up. >> Meeting adjourned. >> Meeting adjourned. >> I'll have to come