--------- [Music] Hey, let me [Music]
[Music] Welcome to the City of Miami Beach
Commission Chambers. We're glad to have you with us today. If you require ADA assistance or accommodations, please notify the city clerk or any staff member and we will be happy to assist you. As a courtesy to everyone present,
please silence all cell phones and electronic devices at this time. Lobbyist, your file is properly loaded. When the floor opens for public comment, please step up to the podium. Speak clearly into the microphone and begin by stating your name and address for the on
your screen with two options. Select the unmute button to begin speaking. After you finish speaking, mute your microphone and click. A voice operator will prompt you to unmute your microphone by pressing star 6. Once unmuted, you may begin speaking.
After you finish sharing your comments, be sure to press star 9 to lower your hand and star six to mute yourself. We kindly ask everyone to conduct themselves in a respectful and professional manner throughout today's meeting. Thank you for your cooperation
and thank you for participating in your local government here in the city of Miami Beach. [Music]
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
Cra [Music] feel the feel. [Music] Hey,
hey, hey. [Music] [Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] Up. [Music] Hey. Hey. [Music]
[Music] [Music] Hey, hey, hey.
[Music] [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music] I don't [Music]
[Music]
Make it [Music] like that. [Music]
Are you [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music]
Hello. [Music] [Music] Hey.
[Music] I'm dead. [Music]
[Music] [Music]
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. [Music] Please stand by. We are going on air in
5 4 3 2 1. >> Well, good morning everyone and welcome to the October 21st, 2025 meeting of the Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board. I'm excited to um start this meeting
with uh an introduction to a new board liaison, Michael Belalouch. And so, Michael, would you like to introduce yourself and uh take it away? Sure. Thanks, John. So, um here to replace um Debbie Tacket in terms of this role. I've been with the planning department
for 23 years now and actually started um back in 2003 to 2013 as a primary staff member to the historic preservation of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate virtually in today's meeting, the public may dial 1888-475-4499
and enter the webinar ID which is 817-48347488 pound or log in to the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 817-48347488. If you're wishing to speak on an item, uh, please click the raise hand icon. Shall prior to appearing, disclose in
writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating. If you're an architect, attorney, or employee representing an applicant or an objector, you must register as a lobbyist. >> A superior result in terms of urban planning and benefiting the streetscape.
And so, uh, we would ask that that condition, uh, not be included included in the order. Uh, I'll turn it over to Enrique Norton. We'd ask for a little additional time, Mr. Chair, and obviously the uh opportunity to uh respond and rebut any comment. Thank
you. >> Good morning. Good morning. >> Morning. Nice to see you. >> Great seeing you again. I'm I'm really happy to be back here, you know, after many years. Well, I was here last Thursday, but I wasn't with my colleagues. So I'm really happy to be
with all of you again and to be able to present this project this morning. Well, Nissan already mentioned many of the of the issues, so I don't want to be repetitive about it, but nevertheless,
what I would like to to emphasize is perhaps why this project to me at least it's so important. one, there's three issues basically. One is obviously the site which Nissan
already referred to. I've known this site for many many years. I I've worked before we did the the parking garage that you all aware for that you're all aware that we did for Mr. Seas. we had worked on a on
another previous project that unfortunately because of the I would say the economic circumstances of the time couldn't go through. But I've been sort of knowing and working on this area for I would say
over 15 or 18 years. So I'm very honored that Mr. Seas would ask me again to revise to review and revise what we have done before and now to propose this new sort of condition. The second one is
because I do love very much the content. Um we and how much time would you like to have? I can't >> I'll do it as fast as possible. >> What's that? Would you like four minutes? >> Oh, five minutes. >> Oh, I didn't know I needed to. >> No, no, just just give me a number and we'll we'll do it.
>> Okay, let's do six minutes. >> Six minutes. Got hard bargain. Okay. Six. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, J. Okay. The second is the content. Like I really love the program because here I am now working not for
the tourists of the of the city, not for the very very wealthy of the city, but for the people that really activate this city, which are the workers of the city that we are providing to them new housing and and new opportunities right
near their where they work. And the the the third one is obviously working with Paul Seas which is such a pillar of this community and obviously he needs no introduction. This is a fantastic team working with former mayor Kazine working
with Mr. Seas. It's just I couldn't feel in a better company. I feel really humbled by all of this. I should say that the project really this project really is about two very important things. One is about understanding a
part of the history of Miami Beach, which is the modern period of Miami Beach and which is what a lot of this central core of Miami Beach was built off and reinterpreting and bringing that modernity into a very contemporary
manner. We are committed to to create a cuttingedge building, a modern cutting edge building or contemporary modern cutting edge building that will also be absolutely sustainable both in a environmental manner but also in a
social manner which is very important. Sustainability goes way beyond only our environment. And the second one is I would say that this building is about understanding the parameters and the texture of the city.
It's about reinforcing its public spaces and it reinforcing its original grid. And that's what this building is about. It's not about big gymnastics. It's not about big jumps around in and out. It's really
about make a very elegant and sophisticated simple building. Simplicity is a very difficult issue to achieve in architecture as you all as you all know and that's what we're thriving for. We
have taken into consideration already the recommendations of the staff. I read personally a week ago your recommendations and I could we have already well Niss already
referred to the to the issue of the alley. The alley is absolutely necessary. I'm going to go very fast because you've already seen all these all these things. We have revised, reviewed and revised the facades which
was a absolutely right comment and we have added the bristle les already to the southern facade and maintained the lesser conditions of briso les in the northern facade as there as the staff
has recommended. Sometimes it's hard to see those in the in the renderings, but I we've included a section here that shows that introduction regarding there was an issue about the ramp
and the ramp we have there's two issues. One, we need to raise the the project because of the new flooding codes of the city. So that requires a ramp for ADA. So we've had to accommodate the ramp where we believe
makes the least noise or makes the the least harm to the continuity of the of the city and I think those were basically the most important issues. So those have been
incorporated already and and just to finish this I still have two minutes but I'll I'll finish early. John I I really think and I believe that the the main reason I'm here is as I said before, this is not the first time I
present in front of you. We have had the the great privilege to build already several buildings in Miami Beach and in the area. You have been as a commission generous enough to give us the opportunity to do so. And I strongly
believe believe that we've never let you down. So I'm here really again to ask you as we say in Spanish for de confa for another vote of trust. This is going to be a very beautiful building. I have
the support of my clients and it's something that I'm very sure that we will all be very proud of. Thank you very much. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I'd just like to add a couple of things. >> Sure. >> Uh, number one, the addition of the
brief sole that Enrique is talking about are not in your package, but are displayed on the boards here, and this is a modification we're milling willing, of course, to accommodate based on the staff's comments. The second thing I would like to point out, I think you have already received, there have been
endorsements of this project by both the Lincoln Road and the Washington Avenue business improvement districts, both of which view this as critical to the uh prosperity and stability of those neighborhoods. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you. Does that uh conclude the presentation? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. So, are there um any questions for the applicant? Uh let's we'll go right. Randy, you we'll
put down the line. >> Um on the rendering, >> trying to find a page. >> Can you speak into the Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. >> On the rendering, the perspective rendering page A401, which is the front of the building
facing the corner of Washington. It appears there's the reflections in the windows indicate a lot more railings than I'm seeing on the building elevation wise. Is the rendering just incorrect? >> You're saying the rendering that we are
showing you now or the rendering that's in the back? >> When you go up the building, it appears there are railings on the top and bottom of every floor. >> Yeah. Yeah. We have new renderings. The the thing is that in that rendering that we had sent before, it's very re
difficult to read those railings because they're very thin and in the context of the of the whole building, they don't read very well. So, we try to enhance them in the new renderings that are here on the board. >> And and you have that exact rendering right here in the new version.
>> Oh, I can't see you from here. I'm sorry, >> John. Okay. >> I can't I'm I'm sorry, Randy. Can I >> go ahead? Are they I can't see it. Is are they vertical pickets or horizontal? Uh >> they're horizontal. They're all
horizontal pieces of >> aluminum >> of all horizontal and they're they become the rindings, but then they go down. >> Please speak into the microphone. >> So, >> yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Um you got to speak
into the mic. Is there a is there a holding a held mic up there too? I don't see. >> No. Okay. >> Yeah, we have a section here. If you can Can I bring it up closer? >> That that explains it. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you are showing it correctly that there is a railing on the
top of the balcony as well. I >> That's what I was It's in the picture, but I couldn't see it in the Okay, I know. >> So, there's a railing across every balcony on the bottom for the normal height required, but then there's also a railing across every top of >> That's correct. >> Okay, that's that's correct. Thank you. Um, also on the roof it shows a section
of the top of the roof as having a glass railing around the top >> and the picture shows just glass railing with a deck. Yet your renderings all show landscaping on the entire edge of the roof. Is that truly going to be landscaped around the outside edge? >> It will be landscape >> on the outside edge of the deck.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is that have a glass railing in front of it? >> It's possibly possibly it will be a glass railing. >> Okay. So we can see the the landscape. >> Thank you. >> Uh yeah, can you maybe you can put the
mic on the podium and then we can just have that um in case we need to refer to any of these u these drawings. Um Ray Ray um just for the record so it's on the record. How many housing units are there going to be? And what is your uh
uh you say they're affordable or attainable? Um, I was involved with the, um, Cowins Park workforce housing that was built, the city's first project, and a workforce price of a studio is 23.85.
Now, that's hardly workforce pricing, and I would hate to see you build a building like this that is really unattainable for people to live in. So, I'd like further clarification. This is uh going to planned on being a 210 unit
rental building. It will be market rate. Uh but there will be certain the proposed zoning which will uh allow this will also have a uh there will have to be a covenant that prohibits any short-term rentals or vacation rentals
on the property. But it will be market rate. I would point out I think there has been one market rate residential building built in this city in the last 10 15 years probably. >> Well, you may as well consider the
workforce housing building they built in Marie. Okay. >> Is that it? Right. >> Yep. You're finished. Okay. Perfect. Ask them. >> Okay. All right.
Yeah. uh I would have liked to have seen some effort to uh pay some homage or respect to the whole houses structure. I don't think of it as insignificant. Uh I also manage a uh for the last 33
years uh a wholeouser building that I often compare the two or look at the two as siblings. They share a lot of the same characteristics. uh the port holes uh staff refers to uh the horizontal fluting uh on the
original plans to my property. It was referred to as comb stucco the articulation of the par parapit in terms of uh the undulation of little nuances. Uh to me this building's uh important
and I would like to see uh some effort uh to save uh the facade and a little extra if if if that would be possible. >> If I may, Mr. Chair, respond. >> Um yeah, for sure. Yeah. Was that a
question? There was kind of a statement question. >> If there was a question there, then >> yeah, no question. >> Okay, fair enough. In this city sometimes the statements are questions. >> I understand very very often. That's why >> I just wanted to get through um through
our our this questions to this part and then we'll have you know disclosures public hearing. >> Um Elizabeth >> no I just want to ask if those elevations they reflect the new Bristol or not because I can't see them here. I saw in the section but not on this two drawings.
>> What was it? Sorry. Can you repeat it? If >> maybe somebody can hold this closer to us, the rendering that shows the new with the new Bristole. >> Yeah, I can't see the new the proposed new Bristol in this box. >> With your new with your mic turned on. Yeah. Let's see if we
>> But that doesn't show the piece that goes below. >> Sure. There. Show that below. Yeah, there you go. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Sorry. It's just like the way the rendering is done. It's a little misleading. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. [Music] And we will still obviously you know
study closer and make sure that the brisolet is really working to protect the facade. >> Okay. Uh that's it. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, Lindsay.
No, no questions. Um, and my only my only question was can you can you just talk a little bit more um about the about the al about the two alleys the the alley on Washington and the alley
off of six and the loading entrance on 16th and how they how you think they'd be used. They are those would be the internal service alleys which would service things such as garbage and other freight loading for this building as well as the timeout market building the
garage right >> uh which of course is always a preferred condition to have that internalized in an alley rather than have another access from a street particularly pedestrian streets like Washington or Dretzel. So there would be
>> Zara >> what? >> Zara the Zara store as well. >> Sure. >> Which of course is now has been developed into a flagship Zara store. >> Sure. Yeah. And uh so the they both have a gate on them. Correct. The the one in Washington would be gated. >> Correct.
>> Would the Washington be would have would it have vehicle access or would it simply be >> one Washington? But I know there's 16, but the plan I thought the plan shows >> that's Washington, right? >> No, it's on it's on. It shows that a
space between the new building and the existing building to the north to the north of the >> That's pedestrian only access. >> Right. Yeah. >> Right. >> Not vehicular. >> Okay. So it's that's what I was wondering how so is it pedestrian for just those who are using accessing the loading area?
>> That's correct. Yes. >> Got it. Okay. Perfect. >> Thank you. That was all my questions. So, um, thank you very much. Now, we'll go to, um, board disclosures. Does anybody have any any disclosures to
make on this project? No. No. No. And no. And so, we'll open it to public hearing. >> At this point, there's nobody online with their hand raised. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this application? Good morning. I'm Julie Isacson. I'm a
member of MDPL's advocacy committee and I'm offering our position on this proposed project. MDPL position of 1600 Washington Avenue. While we appreciate the need for the market rate housing on Miami Beach, we
oppose the proposed demolition of the contributing Henry Hoouser Streamline Modern Building and the design of the proposed apartment building. In 2018, city preservation staff described this building as having a 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 deteriorate. to justify its demolition. We believe the proposed building is incompatible with the architectural character of the surrounding historic
district. The design lacks articulation, proportion, and contextual sensitivity. The design lacks uh excuse me the minimal setback sack at the ground level combined with the height could lead to a claustrophobic streetscape not
appropriate for a dense walkable neighborhood. The expansive glass facads particularly the extremely wide elevation along 16th Street lack any meaning any meaningful articulation or design features that
would break up the massing. The building reads as a generic modern construction that could be located anywhere rather than a thoughtfully designed structure that represents its location in the heart of Miami Beach's historic
downtown. In contrast, the 2018 approved design incorporated curved elements, eyebrows, and articulated retail that was more compatible with the neighborhood's art deco and myo character. We're also
concerned about the proposed height increase from I'm sorry, I had to laugh. This is always an issue. We are also concerned about the proposed height increase from the byite 100 ft to 150 ft which is
contingent on pending legislation. If the board is inclined to consider approval of the design with additional height and F beyond what is currently permitted, we strongly urge that significant public benefits be required,
including a profer restricting short-term rentals and increased proportion of two-bedroom units to accommodate families rather than the predominantly studio and one-bedroom configuration proposed. and most importantly a design that demonstrates
architectural merit and compatibility with the historic district. The applicant has characterized this project as intentionally modest in design to reduce cost. We believe that if our community is to grant additional developmental rights, we should expect
architecture of substance that will be valued by future generations, not merely the most generic form possible. Thank you. Annabelle. >> Good morning, chair. Good morning, members. Annabelle Yobies, executive
director of the Lincoln Road Bid. I'm here on behalf of the Lincoln Road Bid to say how supportive we are of this project. We think it's critical to the growth and future of the district, not just Lincoln Road, but Washington and the surrounding areas. We need more
year-round residents. We need young professionals. moving into our district that can really service the businesses, the restaurants, the cafes. There's a ton of young professionals who would love to live on a beach in a nice apartment. They work in Mount Sinai, they work in law offices, and this would
be one of those really nice areas for them to move into. Um, I also do want to mention the alleyway. Um, as you know, if you don't know, Drexel is under construction right now. It's being renovated. it will become pedestrianized
going from the alleyway um where the timeout market is going north. So that whole area is really being elevated. We're excited with Zara being a flagship store. We're excited the 400 block is also going to be renovated. So this will really be aligned with what's happening
in the area. So I just wanted to say that we're extremely supportive of what is going on here with the residential. Thank you. >> Thank you. I guess that concludes the um public comment. >> No, no one's online. >> No one's online. >> No one's online. All right. So, we'll uh
close the public comment. Uh would you like to speak to any of the >> Yes, sir. Just some brief brief uh responses and commentary. Number one, with respect to the buildings that will be demolished, in particular the HoHouser building, the
plan that was approved uh a number of years ago contemplated demolishing most of that building anyway. It was going to move the facade or the front portion, attempt to move it and then put it place
it where the alley is. It was not in a condition back then. It was not feasible back then to do that and it is not feasible today to uh uh to uh to move it today either. So
uh that's not really and we certainly don't want to block the alley which is a necessary service uh for service with with respect to the building itself as well and I know you know Mr. Novvec does own a Hoouser building and Hoouser was one of the great architects, but you
also had the good fortune of that being a corner building where it is highly visible. >> Mine's not. >> Yours is not. Well, it's highly it's a highly visible one on Collins Avenue. >> That's uh a firm McKay and Gibbs. Uh one of them, I believe it was Gibbs, worked for
Hoouser uh in the 30s. >> Well, it's a corner building. This building does not is buried in the block. In fact, when we presented this to MDPL, one of their uh committee members said it's a building that is uh un unnoticeable. And so, but the bigger picture here is
this is a very important project for this community. Uh and the entirety of the block represents one of the greatest preservation efforts in this town with Mr. Seas having bought restored the facades, restored the lobby of the 420
building. This under the city's comprehensive plan is an essential element. We need the additional height. And by the way, I would say compared to other asks in the city in recent years, this is a very the legislative side where we're asking for the height and the F increase is very modest. We're
asking for a 0.5 increase in F which is less than 20% increase in what the current F allows. We're asking for an increase of height of only 50 ft. So, and the reason why these are being asked
for is these are the bare minimums that are required in order to be able to deliver a viable product. The product that was approved before lesser fewer units 160 ft and was not feasible construction would not have achieved the
goal of the city the vision for Washington Avenue and Lincoln Road of creating housing to be supportive of that area. Uh we have agreed as as you've seen uh as presented by Enrique Norton to make the changes to create the
breeze sole for the for the facade. The only other thing we would ask is that is that we of course not have to close the alley which is critical for service. So you know we thank you for your for for uh hearing our presentation and hope you
support this most critical project for the future of this uh downtown of Miami Beach. Thank you. >> Can can I just ask you mentioned the alley. I was just going to ask again whether the alley you envision cuz
you've got an arrow going out out only on 16th. Now right now you can go in and out on 16th >> is that >> both ways. Okay. It's just on the drawing it's it's shown like it's a loop but then you'd go out on Drexel and Drexel's pedestrian. So I just didn't know >> right because it services all the other
uses. >> And the alley on the north side is labeled courtyard. So I didn't know whether that's like a courtyard for people or courtyard for like service and you mentioned it service. It's got stairs going up I think in that too. So anyway okay
>> excuse me excuse me Mr. Chair just to clarify too so the access from Drexel will remain right there. There is a service access from Drexel in the um plans correct >> where it is where it is today. Yes and always has been. >> So there will be access from Drexel you will and Washington and sorry 16
proposing. >> Got it. >> Okay thank you. Thank you. >> All right, with that, um, we have a board member comment. So, Rey, would you like to make a board member comment? >> Yes. Um, when you say it's only 50 feet
taller, that's onethird. You can't just look at it as 50 feet. Um, and if you want to receive my vote on this for a height increase, you have to add affordability units or you will not get my vote. Plain and simple. Yeah. >> And I think um just to give the board
some general advice on that subject um the board's review of this application um is subject to the certificate of appropriateness criteria in the code. Um the applicant has discussed other
aspects of this project. The code amendments that the applicant has filed a private application for. um additional profers relating to short-term rentals. The we've discussed the issue of affordability, but ultimately your decision must be made based on the
appropriateness criteria. >> And Nick, can while we've got you up there, can I ask you a question about the number of votes that we need? Is it do we need four votes for a standard or five because we have a contributing building that's being demolished >> because you have demolition. >> Exactly.
>> At all. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Excuse me. So, >> yep. No, just a question for Nathan Elizabeth just to clarify mine. You're looking for height variance. >> No, no, we're not seeking a height variance. We're seeking the only thing that's before this board today is the
approval of the design and the demolition of the one building. The the height increase and the F increase are legislative matters which are being considered by the will be considered by the city commission. >> Okay. >> Elizabeth, you had to follow up with
Nick, did you? >> Oh, no. So maybe I should ask. >> Okay. Well, we'll we'll get around to everybody. Did you have anything? Can you if we go through the >> Yeah. >> Would you like to go next >> since you have your mic on and you seem ready to go? >> Sure. Nissan, you me mentioned.5
F increase, but that is slated to take place uh along the entire Washington Air Venue corridor uh south to 15th Street. Correct. Uh well actually the proposed Washington overlay contemplates a a
higher increase in F for the rest of Washington Avenue up to 4.0. This would actually be less significantly less than is proposed even in the Washington overlay >> and and the height uh would be 15
stories regardless of the uh >> our our height would be >> uh go going south as well. No, I think uh I I'm I don't know off the top of my head what the height proposed is. >> I think it's um 75 to 100 ft. It's not it's not the only the only block that's
that can get that can go to the 150 ft is this block which is part of the um the central core district, >> right? But the F they're seeking is significant is for the overlay significantly higher. We're seeking the minimum. You know, this is I hope this doesn't become sort of no good deos
unpunished. We're not, we could do live local. The Washington Avenue overlay provides for significantly higher F. We're just trying to do the minimum necessary to be able to create a market rate rental building and and that and that's the context I would hope that
everyone could appreciate. >> That's correct. Just to clarify that this block, this area would have the least amount of F increase further further down on Washington Avenue. Proposal would raise it from 1.5 to four. You're right. >> 1.5 to two to four. So the the rest of Washington Avenue and the CD2 would have
a much more dramatic increase in proposed fair doubling effectively. >> So is this CD2 or CD3? >> This is CD3. >> And would that increase be voted on by the by the by the commission only or would it have to go to a public referendum?
>> That's um only the city commission. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh back to the wholeouser structure. Uh I I I I would still like to see some effort uh to retain the uh
what is it the uh south elevation and auh and a portion of the east elevation uh just beyond the eyebrow over there if that's uh possible. Uh it's certainly doable uh that
building is not an imminent threat or that portion of the building is not an imminent threat to the public. >> Well, right. >> Uh and uh that's something that >> I understand feasibly be done. >> I understand and appreciate, but our engineers saying actually that wouldn't
be feasible to be done. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Novak. >> Good morning. Uh, >> it's uh the building is in bad shape. Uh, and from uh from a testing point of view where we tested for the compressive
uh strength of concrete and we were getting numbers about 1,500 PSI. >> Asham, you can change columns, you can change tie beams. I'm not asking for very much and that's done regularly. >> Yeah. I I Okay. Uh if we going to change
columns, change tie beams, change walls, of course, a small portion of the structure. >> Um I understand. Uh I would I would leave that to the architects of the of the project. It's it's not my place to
to say what you know what should we do. >> But from from an assessment point of view of the existing conditions of the building, the building is in bad shape. Okay. >> All right. Um, did you have more? >> Not at this.
>> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. Um, on A302, on sheet A302, the building height is really 170 ft. It's not 150, >> right? Correct. >> I I think I don't have it in front of
me, but that's probably measuring it from uh NGVD. >> No. Yeah. GVD and she can pull it up. >> Can we pull up the um drawing? >> The height you're talking about which page
>> sheet uh drawing sheet A-302 that would be the view from Washington Avenue. I think >> give us one moment. >> I think it's actually Drexel, but it's on the >> Which one you looking? I think it's Drexel, but but it's still the same.
>> It's a section >> through 16 going up. >> Correct. Correct. >> That one >> A302 building is 150 ft. What? What is the question is exactly? >> Well, A302. Can we pull up A302 on the
>> roof of this structure is 170 ft, not 150. >> Let's just look at the drawing together. Make sure we get we're reading it correctly. Then that's measured from the sidewalk. >> The rooftop is at 159 NGVD >> and then obviously 9 GVD is ground level
of the building. So that would be 150, right? >> And you start measuring height from at base flood elevation >> at base flood elevation plus one >> plus one. Right. So >> it's 100 it's 150 ft. The building is
150 ft. what what you're talking about is is the elevator overrides >> the uh >> can can we look at the drawing together? Can we can we just look it up the drawing together? >> Uh it's not that it's not that one. It's this >> a-302.
>> I don't know if you have that in this um >> we don't have we have the presentation. >> It's not in the it's not in the in the presentation. >> We don't have the the package. We have the presentation. >> And of course you're allowed projections. >> There you go. There you go. That's the one. So around the eighth floor, it
shows the 150 ft. >> It's represented on the drawing, I guess, is my point. >> So what you're showing is the rooftop at 159 ft NGBD, which basically >> I'm looking at a drawing that says
rooftop 169T 8 in NGBD. >> Yeah, that's the top. >> Essentially, that's the equivalent of 17 stories. right here if we have a height maximum height in the area of 100 ft. >> So just just to clarify, we measure the height from the base elevation here plus
one to the top of the roof deck. That's the 150. The code also allows up to 25 ft beyond that for um parapit walls, elevator enclosures, stairwells, things like that. So that does not count against the over. >> I should currently allow 120 ft.
>> You're gentlemen. Yes. >> We currently allow 12 ft >> it concurrently the code provides for allows for 100 ft. >> Okay. >> And u right >> and so this would be 150 ft and as height is measured is from base flood elevation and then you have the
allowable projections above. >> Yeah. >> Can you help us Jose? Can you just help us read the elevation? >> Let let me explain. If you're looking at this drawing here there are two dimensions. Number one is 150 ft. You see the dimension line from base flood
elevation plus one to the top of the roof. That's 150. What you're seeing 161 or 159 is NGVD, right? >> That's not the height of the building.
That is the measurement that is above uh sea level. So you're you're 150 ft as per the code. >> So if we add up there are two sets of numbers. There's a And this is just so the public can understand them up. >> No. No. But if you've got two sets of
numbers, you got the floor, you've got the 14T 8 in, then 9 ft 8, 9 ft 8, 9 f' 9 ft 8 going all the way up. If you add those up on that side, you'd be at >> 150 ft. That is correct. That is correct. >> So then you just add mid to that the 9
ft. That's the the 9 ft. That's the um base floor plus one. And there is another 10 foot eight that's from the roof that control the top of the boat. >> Correct. That's correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> No, it's good. It's good.
>> We all need lessons in these with the NGVD and NAVD. >> I'm not sure that we need lessons in that. My point is if I'm standing at the street level, I'm looking at a 17story building, not 150 foot sto 150 foot building. That's number one. Number two,
what is the um 0.5 F increase translate into in terms of square footage on the building? >> I'm not sure exa exactly. It's 0.5 is probably the the property size. >> What was the question?
>> 30,000 >> is a lot size. >> Okay. So it would be about 30,000 square feet additional. >> 30,000 square feet. And what's the footprint of the building? >> 16 I think the the land is about 16,000
square feet. >> So essentially that's there are some setbacks. >> That's essentially two floors. Two and a half two floors. I mean I I would repeat that u this project isn't feasible without being able to attain this and it is as
as Mr. Baluchia has pointed out is much less than the Washington Avenue overlay proposes in terms of increased F. Uh it's really the minimum necessary. Uh and then this comes with the co the
zoning when it's adopted if it's adopted will come with the covenant to have no short-term rentals. You can't have a hotel there. It has to be residential. So there's so many important benefits. >> Excuse me. Could you please elaborate on why do you say this is the minimum
necessary? I mean we have a lot of people listening to this conversation. So I think it's good to clarify that. Well, that's an important point. Uh, and this has been analyzed very, uh, closely by Ambassador Seahas and his team >> and they have to achieve uh, a certain
number of units at a certain cost in order to make the development of this housing feasible. Uh, prior proposals which looked at uh, shorter buildings and fewer units uh, uh, did not work. And so, um, if I
may, uh, you know, some people are coming forward to this city and proposing these live, this could do be a live local project. And so, what Ambassador Seahas is trying to come in with is really the minimum necessary in order to be able to make a viable
residential project. Commissioner Fernandez, of course, has has proposed his live better, which is how can we change the city code to facilitate more residential housing, rental housing without it being what live local would
allow. This is in many respects is the poster child for that. If this if this project can't be approved and happen, then I don't think there's an alternative between what we have today and live local. And so I
>> thank you uh for allowing us to present this. There've been a lot of valid questions and I wanted to tell you why this from the heart that this is why I would look for a compromise because I have to still names. Part: 2
isn't sufficient enough or more or dense enough. We also felt that the um that the the railing design with a with a open horizontals could be further developed with something more opaque or something that was less transparent by continuing sort of the design language of the garage as something more
perforated or something more solid which would help articulate the um the facades as well as we suggested perhaps looking at you know some slight changes in plane or even like I would suggest even breaking up some of the balconies that are on horizontal. So I do think right now that um I think they recognize that
they can make some modifications with a brielay as as Mr. Norton mentioned to um increase the density of those to be more effective. But I do think in combination with that more has to happen with the with the design of those railings as well as maybe perhaps some further articulation to break up that um
continuity of the entire facade being the same design repeated at every level. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Lindsay, did Oh, I'm sorry. Mitch, you're next. >> Sure. I I I'd like to see further
detail. I don't see it clearly what what what are what appears on the renderings uh that you provided today. Um, looking at page A501, neighborhood buildings material reference. Uh, it has a lot of nearby
buildings. It has a building down on Venetian Way. wondering the height or the proposed height of the new hotel uh going across the street maybe staff. Uh I >> think it's 300 ft. >> Okay. So 30 stories and this is a couple
of blocks away. I got to say I I can be amendable to your height. Uh I'd like to see a little more public benefit. I'd like to see a little more uh u sensitivity towards the whole houser
structure. Um and in terms of public benefit and uh the ambassador may recall uh 20 years ago uh I believe Lucia was standing where you are today Nissan uh we were discussing
the airplane wing structure on Lincoln Road. the uh now uh demolished Lapidos Lapidus kiosk which uh stood there and at that time uh your client was a
amenable to uh recreating that stuff uh and I know the city had a grandiose plan which likely is not going to happen uh for uh decades. So I I certainly uh uh think that could
be a public benefit uh if if if we want to continue that this conversation. >> If I may legally just respond to that u that's the public public benefit is really a discussion not a discussion properly before this board. It's really
one for the as the zoning is changed uh to accommodate the additional height and F if something would be required in connection with that. Although I would tell you the main public benefit is fulfilling the goals of the city's comprehensive plan which is to create
a a market rate rental housing in the city. Uh but that is not a discussion for this board really. That's a discussion for the city commission and planning board. Okay. >> And by the way, I do remember I seem to remember Ambassador Seahas was not a big
fan of the roach. >> It was still there. They were talking about removing it then. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Lindsay. >> I just had a question. Um, what have we
were talking a lot about market rate. I'm just curious. What are the sizes of these units? Studio versus I think it's studio one two. Did we say that or I missed it if we did >> approximately >> what >> 550 for the studio 720 for the one
bedroom and >> so 550 for the studios 720 for the onebedroom and 1,00 for the two bedrooms. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Um go ahead say a couple of things. Uh,
Ambassador, thank you for your service to our country and I certainly appreciate your impassion speech about how you care about this city. I think I speak for every board member here that we all care about this city and that's why we serve. That's why we give our time. I've lived here for many years and
this is a historic preservation board. I think that the design is nice. It's beautiful design. Perhaps it doesn't belong at this site particular site because to have 160 150 160 170 foot
rectangular wall along 16 street I don't think uh is in context with what the area is what it should be. uh I'm not sure um I'll leave my this discussion for
another time but at this particular time based on this design and the configuration I cannot support this project. Thank you. Okay. Um, I'll jump in because I um wait till the end um to
usually give give my comments and uh I um I respectfully I I think that this this height given the this particular location, the uniqueness of Lincoln Road, also the the building across Washington Avenue from this building uh
gives this the context that it needs to have to be in a higher uh higher um building context. So I I'm not so concerned about about that. I I I have been kind of uh biting my time to figure out how to memorialize HoHouser, which
is our which is our our our project and Albert and is is beautifully memorialized in the rest of the building at 420 Lincoln Road. And um so I a couple of options that I was thinking was perhaps pulling out some of the some
of the details that are specific co-houser details and finding another finding another home for them. Maybe on the side on the west side of the theater wall that used to have a huge mural on it but now has has nothing. And maybe it could be a couple of pieces there that
have a kind of um a note about Hoouser, about his legacy, about the building. It wouldn't be moving the building or the part of but it would be kind of understanding why why these buildings are important and that is because of the relationship that they have to their
details of the period. So there was there was um one thought about that and that they could potentially have you know a life there that would be along the Drexal Avenue side. We we had talked a while ago when I was on the
board they we were initially talking about moving this about having those details expressed. It would be just a few feet of them. um but of the details themselves of the HoHouser because there are some really beautiful moments there um that would be preserved kind of as
sculptural but also as as kind of um educational uh educational pieces that help somebody who's walking along Drexel who's seeing the New World Symphony in front of them who's walking down to Espanola way walking by timeout to understand that this p this you know
this uh moment in time at one point as you point out in the had a had more of a context of the his of the art deco district before um um Albert Andis's uh project went up. So that that was one thing. Um
and then the uh the other I was I was going to I was really I was I was really fine with everything else. I just want to make sure that I understand the ramp is on the Washington Avenue side. So you come up on Washington Avenue and then you're up and around the entire building
are steps. They're kind of like steps that go up to get us to the to the finished floor height that we need to be at to be at Crown of Road. So, um I just wanted to make sure that everybody realize that. And then you come up and you go back down on the Washington on the Washington Avenue side if you're if
you're using the ramp um for any reason. And um yeah, and I I think in addition to some of the um you know, maybe some of the architectural fragments could be incorporated. The um uh it would be it
would be nice if in the lobby I know there's a there's a wall when you walk in on the left side of the lobby there was some plaque that would also kind of point to the fact that the Hooser building was on the site. remember the the point of this board is a historic preservation board as you know and that's what we kind of that's what we're
kind of uh most focused on but um I would kind of like to see those two things happen and uh and th those were kind of my comments otherwise I'm I'm I'm okay with the with the with the project I think it's going to be a
really interesting uh an important addition I I know the staff that I work with cannot can have no place to find rentals in Miami Beach. So, this will be an important opportunity. Did you have you have your No, I had That's okay. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I had one comment. Um, we
have like the alley on 16th Street and I think there is we need to have a better treatment of that space because there is a large stretch between the entrance of the garage until you hit hit the first retail space on the building. I'm
talking about if you look at this elevation here. So you have the whole space from here to here. That's pretty much dead from a pedestrian standpoint. >> So So on the uh for for the public uh on this on this rendering right in front of
us, you you're referring to the garage entrance on the left, >> right? Cuz then you add >> that's existing and then the loading entrance to just to the right of it. >> Correct. So it's a big stretch of the block. That's maybe like onethird of the block, maybe more. That's pretty much
dead from a pedestrian standpoint. And I think if you're trying to encourage pedestrian life and street life, this is a deterrent to that. So I don't know. I would I would suggest maybe you can take a look and treat that space in a way that's more inviting to pedestrian
circulation. >> Uh yes, as I as I mentioned and understand your comment, the um it's a very large block. It has great service needs between the 420 building, the Zara store, the apartment building, the
timeout market space. Um, and and and this 16th Street of course >> uh is less important as was mentioned. Drexel is being redone to become a pedestrianoriented prominade. Washington, of course, very important
pedestrian street. uh you know I'm not sure what can be done but it's something I guess we can study a little further to see if there are ways of treating >> yeah because in the floor plan it shows a oneway exit on into 16th Street if I'm
not mistaken so in reality this space doesn't need to be that wide >> it's actually two ways though >> so then the plan needs to be rectified because the plan shows one shows diagonal parking and one way alley um driveway way. So yeah, so I'm sure there
is enough talent in your team to come up with another alternative for that. >> Mr. Chair, >> yeah, you just I was going to just on that point, I was going to mention that the plan also shows a green space um there. And I think your rendering shows
a tree >> like there. So the it just the tree. Yeah, that one. Um, is that so that would that's also drawn as the one way >> out is the rendering.
>> Oh, maybe they maybe the camera can pick it up. Okay. >> Yeah, the plans do show it as a one way out. >> And the renderings also show it in the same way. They don't The renderings show a tree there. That's not That's uh >> Let me Yeah. Hi. Yeah.
>> Well, say miss again. Uh, can I can we go to the slide the uh site plan so that I can show you how the whole >> Sure. >> city block works? >> Sure. >> Let me see if I can get there. >> There you go. >> Okay. So, here you go. So,
>> one go one back. The drawing that we're all talking about is one back. >> That's a That's a blowout. But let me let me just take you back for the entire block. So here you see the entire block. So what happens is on the north or on the top of the drawing you see Drexel
here. So Drexel is being redone right now. So it become pedestrian from the alley to the north become pedestrian. The um uh the right of way. >> Can you use the cursor? Can you use the cursor and and uh uh no it's well not
the pointer the cursor on a do you have >> of the laptop? Yeah, the cursor on the laptop we can Yeah, there now we can see it. So now show us exactly where Drexel is. >> This is Drexel right here. >> Okay, so Drexel today is being reconstructed
and it it will end up the vehicular circulation will end up at this roundabout and this is the entrance to our alley. So trucks are going to be able to come in here. The city is already working on this. This has been approved. It's done. So, we're going to
have an entry where we can have deliveries, trash pickup for Sarah and the rest of the buildings. As we come out, we go south. You turn here, you go south. Now, you have parking in here for trucks, for loading and unloading. You
have an area for trash pickup. And you have a oneway narrow exit. If you look at it, it's only I believe it's 10 or 12 feet. That's all it is. So, we're not we don't have a a two-way big opening. There's a
small entrance. So, now if we go to the next drawing, let me just show you. So, here is Oh, now the text doesn't let us see it. >> I don't know how we could uh I can show you. >> Look at the other screen. Just look at the other screen that doesn't have the
writing on. Yeah. >> Okay. See it on the right. So, you can see there that >> Can you use the cursor? Can you use the cursor again just so we can all follow you? >> Here you go. >> So, the exit is just a very narrow
oneway out through to 16th Street. Uh then you have a big landscape area here which has just one column sort of supporting the building tied into the parking garage. uh just a a very
sculptural twostory or threetory space uh that you're seeing there. Um and you're not seeing into the alley because you have a gate right there. If we can I can blow this up, but there's a gate here that would roll back behind the
landscape area. So, this is a very welltreated corner. And then you see here how the steps they turn 90 degrees and sort of end the uh the plaza the elevated plaza that we have in front of
the building. So that that corner enri has given a lot of thought to to think that it's sort of on the rendering doesn't do it justice. the rendering. >> I appreciate Joseette. But if you look at your rendering, there is a very wide
space that has a somewhat utilitarian metal gate in there. That's what I can see. And that's it. It looks like a dad sidewalk. And then you have the little vertical circulation for the garage. And then you have another maybe 24 ft of entrance exit exit to the garage.
>> The rendering is not doing justice to what you're physically seeing. The drawing is >> forunately when we look at drawings that's what we are >> the rendering doesn't do justice to the corner because if you see the corner is all very well thought out and you know
it works with the uh the uh the amenities of the building everything that that it has to happen in that alley. >> Great. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. >> Yes. May I these comments have been very helpful and constructive and I might
suggest or request that maybe we do continue this till December. We can deal with some of these for instance the u how that uh alleyway is treated show more graphically uh how it is screened uh better pedestrian environment uh some
element of a paying homage to the hoouser architecture as you suggest as as Mr. Novvec suggests um you've seen the uh the change to the facade with the addition of the brief sole. Perhaps we can uh come back to you
and satisfy the concerns that have been raised by a couple of the board members. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Just add a note to that. Please make sure that the renderings are reflective of the landscape plans because right now they they're just not compatible. >> Correct. Correct. Yeah.
>> But we would want we want it to be in December. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, um I don't know if we No, Lindsay, did you want to say something? You were Okay, I'll make >> I was going to make the motion to continue that. >> Thank you. I was going to ask for one, but yes,
>> I'll second this motion. >> Uh this is a So, for a motion to continue >> continue to a date certain December 16th >> to date certain December 16th. Right. Exactly. So, um I think we should do a Can we call the role? I think if we can do all in favor. Does any is anybody
opposed to the continuous request? >> Nope. >> I don't know. >> Can I I didn't hear a response still to the staff's issue of the articulating the facade to be not just a gigantic box. To me, that's what it looks like
with railings. And I didn't hear a response to that. I hear that it was sort of responded with the Bristol that there's going to be some homage to the historic, but I still think there should be some addressing the staff concern about the articulation. >> I think they heard that >> the continuation and I I didn't hear
that as the >> going to be working on. >> Yes. Yeah, that's all. >> Okay. I think it's been heard. >> Okay. >> So, we'll see you back December 16th. >> Thank you. Right before Christmas.
Maybe that will be a Christmas present. >> You're a present. Okay, moving right along to the next application which is um HPPB 24-0616 formerly known as HPB 74. 424 or 1620
Drexel Avenue. This is an application requesting modifications to a previously issued certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new two-story commercial building with an active roof deck. Specifically, this the applicant is requesting approval for a new roof roof deck design inclusive of canopy
structures and outdoor bar counter including a variance from the required hours in operation for the outdoor bar counter and to modify the condition to the final order. The applicant seeks approval for modifications to this previously approved two-story commercial building with a rooftop deck located at
Lincoln Road and Drexel Avenue. Proposed changes include adding a canopy structure under bar counter and revised operational conditions. Staff would note that there's another application um that's been reviewed. I think it's been approved by the planning board um last
week for a um a neighborhood impact neighborhood impact establishment based upon the size of the the venue. So that's why the applicant is requesting modification of the hours of operation as part of this um application. Staff supports the overall design. Um and the
applicant's also requesting a waiver of on-site loading requirements which staff supports given the the site's urban condry which would result in closing the outdoor bar counter at 8:00 p.m. However, based upon the specific locations of this structure, the rooftop deck is actually about 140 ft from the
nearest residential building to the south. because that were supportive of the applicant's requested variance to extend the hours until um 2 am. As I mentioned there um previously, they're also subject to the um to the conditions of the condition use permit granted by
the planning board um last week. So, we are recommending approval of the application including um approval of the variance for the operating of the outdoor bar counter. That I'll turn it over to the applicant for the presentation. >> Thank you very much, Michael. Good morning, Historic Preservation Board. My
name is Paul Savage with law offices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I'm here uh on iteming uh in front of Debbie uh the other day and so now I'm having my first historic preservation board working with Michael. They they they really worked hard to
overlap one another so we had a seamless experience. So, thank you so much, Michael, for working with us. Um so, we're here uh this morning on a on a beautiful proposed restaurant on an important corner. Again, it's uh the uh southwest corner of Drexel. Um I'm
sorry, of Lincoln Road in Drexel. Um and if you could please pull up our uh presentation and I'll go ahead and um introduce our team. Uh this we've got a a whole crew here today. um who on the line and available for any questions is
our sound engineering consultant who prepared a report for the planning board and for this application and his name is Andy Swarllo from Criterion Acoustics. Um I'm here together with my colleague Rob Alvarez and uh my shareholder
partner Michael Larkin is also here with us and from Noble 33 who is the premier uh restaurant operator affiliated with this application. I have Dean Sakinakis uh who is their COO, chief operating
officer and has opened several of their locations and is going to tell us about their very special interiors and culinary offerings. Um so yeah, as as Mike Michael was telling us, we have a favorable staff recommendation. This is
a culmination of a lot of work with two sets of staff with planning board and historic preservation board. Um and uh I'll go ahead and uh jump right in if we can uh just to get our feet on the ground here for the neighborhood. Again, we're at Lincoln Road and Drexel. Um uh
what is very unique to the site and um and I want to go ahead and adopt all of the bulletpoint analysis uh set forth in the staff recommendation. Uh this site is unusual in that the church is sort of an L-shaped wrapping around the site. So
that we have the uh the principal uh sanctuary fronting that has been historically resto that is historic and has been restored um fronting Lincoln Road and then the uh there are offices uh classrooms and another chapel that wraps around to the south. And as
Michael mentioned, this unusual configuration serves as an insulator uh to the residential to the south. Uh if we can just go ahead and uh keep going. Um this is a photo um of the existing site in and I I know Michael said this,
but I want to reemphasize it. We're not here on a new application this morning. This uh was already approved and we are modifying a prior uh commercial building already approved here. We're just making some changes to the proposed use. Um,
but that that's the uh condition that we have. And by the way, uh we have been in close contact with the city's capital improvements department in terms of integrating their work on the sidewalk. As we heard, they're closing down Drexel. And so we're uh you know, they
they're working with us to make sure that the elevations are seamless and the like. Uh so this is going to be an exciting and beautiful area when this is all um redone. And so these you know this new project together with the city's capital improvement there is
going to really complement one another. If you can go to the next slide please. Um this is a uh beautiful rendering that we have um showing this uh new restaurant uh destination dining. Um the name of the restaurant is Medusa Mediterranean.
uh will be a Mediterranean modern Mediterranean um flavor or you know cuisine if you will and uh you can see these uh beautiful bronze and champagne tones that will activate Lincoln Road
with uh you know we don't have barely any um any sort of coverings or tinting on the glazing that was very important we worked together with the Lincoln Road Business Improvement District to make sure uh that was uh sufficient. The
entrance is the entrance is on Drexel. Uh the host station is at that corner with a spiral staircase and a striking and beautiful wine storage uh uh structure that goes up uh there.
Uh this is the uh the historic community uh Miami Beach Community Church that you know so well has been restored thanks to this board some I think approximately 5 years ago. Um, and you could see the proposed um, new restaurant nestled in
there in this notch of the church property right on the corner. Uh, if you can go to the next slide, please. Um, again, we we have a a very exciting um, Noble 33 operator. They have uh,
sumptuous, you know, interiors and locations in New York City, in West Hollywood, in London, which I'll show you. uh they are uh pride themselves on being a culinary destination and not a nightclub, anything like that. Again, uh
the city staff, the the m the uh business improvement district, everyone's very sensitive about that issue. And I can assure you that this team has spared no expense in in in their designs and in their uh focus on the food and the restaurant itself. Um
some of the uh some of the other locations I'll go through quickly. Um uh they are known for having celebrity clientele. They I just read a review of the opening in Kansas City uh called 1587 Prime which is a combination of the
football jersey uh numbers of Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce. And I made a bet with Michael that I would not say the words Taylor Swift, but I guess I just lost the bet. So maybe she will come and visit this new location. Um so
they uh that's that's a beautiful high-end restaurant that they've opened there as well as in New York City. I'll quickly go through those. Um this is a um a location um in West Hollywood uh that we have featured in the
presentation because we found some analogy with it to this situation where they are very close to residential um as well as being under the jurisdiction my understanding is some very tough local boards out there and they have um op
operated this successfully and in harmony with the neighbors without any uh complaints or or uh you know uh any any any drama whatsoever. They've they've been very good neighbors. The neighborhood has been very um very happy
to have them there. If we can go through the next slides, this is uh just um a photo of the Medusa Mediterranean in the meatacking district in New York City. As you can see, it's a gorgeous um beautiful place um to dine and to
gather. And um they are very very proud that they were named as Yelp's number one best restaurant in New York City for 2024. So they have a lot of um great reviews and press. Um these are some of their offerings. Um you know,
beautifully presented um very very high-end um offerings and clientele. Um, this is another site. You can see, um, the gorgeous ceiling treatment there. Um, and the lighting, uh, the interior landscaping, all of that is is
just fantastic. Um, now we also have a local location here, Sparrow Italia Winwood in the um, in the city of Miami Winwood neighborhood. Go to the next slide, please. Um uh and I this is my favorite uh color scheme here is the one in London Sparrow Italia
Italia in um the Mayfair in London. Also a gorgeous high-end um destination. Now at this time I'd like to ask um Dean uh Sakanas. I've been practicing that. Dean, if you could um come up and give
us a little um rundown of Noble 33, your other openings, locations. >> Certainly. Thank you. >> Good morning everyone. As mentioned, my name is Dean Sakinas and I serve as a chief operating officer for Noble 33. Our group creates hospitalitydriven restaurants that bring together
exceptional ingredients, thoughtful design, and genuine human connections. Our portfolio, as mentioned, includes Tokadera, our modern Mexican flagship with locations in Scottsdale, Las Vegas, Houston, and soon to be in Miami. Spare italia as mentioned here in
Mayfair as well as uh excuse me here in Windwood creates a lively Italian dining experience right steering away from the club theme where I don't know if anyone is familiar with the concept but um we pride ourselves on the overall experience.
Next we have as mentioned right Kasamadera uh it's our nod to Mexican coastal cuisine uh with locations in Toronto not just in West Hollywood. And as mentioned, 158. >> Excuse me. How much time do you need? >> 6 minutes. >> Okay, we'll give you five. Yeah, you got
to keep this going a little faster. 5 minutes. >> All right, we'll we'll pick it we'll pick it right up. >> Thank you. Through the chair >> to cut right into it, right, with Medusa extending the same vision uh as we celebrate the flavors and lifestyle of the Mediterranean. >> Our first location, as mentioned, brought um tremendous accolades to us,
right? And what we want to do here in continuing building the brand is creating that exciting experience for Miami. What we do with our concepts is we create restaurants that local locals love and travelers seek out. What we want to continue to create is a truly
exciting part of the revitalization of Lincoln Road and bring more vibrant culinary landscape to the city where locals love to visit. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you so much, Dean. Okay, Rob, we've had our marching orders
from the chair. We're going to go ahead and click through here. Um, I did want to give a very very quick um reminder to the board that we've got a lot of really exciting new things um happening. Um there's um the uh Infinity assemblage uh that's been put together. Uh we just got
approved the superhuman museum, but the planning board which is a modern art museum with both uh mainline traditional artwork hanging on walls together with also very modern um interactivity and modern attraction themes. Um I appeared
before this board on the nice guy which is as you know mid-century modern um Italian themed restaurant. They're in permitting and building right now. Exciting. Go ahead Rob and we'll go ahead and pull through here. Oro Mila is very similar to this um application. Um
the Padell courts were just approved by the city on top of their um parking deck. Rob, go ahead. And uh we come around the horn here to Medusa Mediterranean this application. Andre's Carne Rez um award-winning Jamage is putting a restaurant, open air
restaurant at the top. And of course the 1600 that we just went through which apparent you know has some work to do but eventually I think they'll pull it together and that'll be a beautiful new uh new new facility and interaction and as I mentioned the city has closed that
part of Drexel. Um go ahead Rob I'll go through the um the uh the application as Michael um as Michael summarized. We're modifying a prior condition. Uh we we because of the Drexel uh we need a waiver to permit on street loading as
well as the variance to permit operation of the uh of the of the uh rooftop until two which we went through at length at planning board. The staff uh gives a professional I mean a uh a uh positive recommendation on the application with
conditions that we accept. Go ahead Rob and we'll uh this is it. Go ahead Rob. We'll go through here. Now this is the first floor site plan. Um you'll see that the uh principal entrance is on Drexel. Um Debbie Tacket and the other team made sure that we had double vestibule doors and we're subject to
testing that there's no escape of noise through there. Um the back of the house is uh there really 50% or more is the back of the house there. Uh everything is fronting Lincoln Road. Um again the host station
on that iconic corner is going to be beautiful. Go ahead. Um Rob, we'll go to the next one. second floor site plan. Again, back of the house to the south. Um, and the restaurant. Go to the uh the top floor. Rob, please. So, here also again, we've we've pulled out and highlighted the back of the house
because it's masonry of and walls and everything else that's going to insulate to the south where we have the residential. Um, go ahead, Rob. We'll go through again. This is a rendering of the southern elevation masonry closed off. We will everything will be focused
uh interior to the front. Go ahead, Rob. Um, we'll just click through here. There's other similarly situated applications. Carne DZ ma um the Albon uh also to 2 a.m. is permitted. Go ahead, Rob. And um this is the back to
West Hollywood. Uh we're we're very close to residential there with no complaints. Um I'm going to um there's the uh the spacing that Michael mentioned. Uh 128 ft to the property line. It's like more like 140 that Michael said to the actual structure. Um
so we have this insulating properties very unusual to the site a special condition. Um so we don't think uh there'll be any any noise issue. Planning board has conditions that are very tight on us and also subject to monitoring. Uh go ahead Rob. Um we'll go
through um um these are the other the other locations. They don't have the similar buffering that we do. We think that we're in good shape here. Go ahead Rob. And um this is our we have a sound study in the file. Um our sound engineer was tasked with um to to do a study that
said everyone is watching the World Cup on the roof at the same time and they all say goal as loud as they can and he measured that that it would not that would not exceed the ambient decibb in the neighborhood um based on the study that's in the file in his testimony. Um
he's also available on Zoom if you have questions. I I'll go ahead and just go go through here um with my time expiring. >> Okay. Okay. Another minute. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You get your six. Okay. All right. I hope hope you're appreciating the new pace here. And um >> I am I am I'm worried if I hadn't given you that.
>> Yeah. Right. Yeah. Very good. Um so so we do have an extensive sound study as well as the the engineers on on Zoom and available. But a as I point out here, really the punch line of it all is that there's no sound um that will be audible
within 100 ft. Um and certainly not above there's a baseline of activity. You know, it's not it's not zero, but we will not exceed that baseline with the restrictions that planning board put on us. Um go ahead, Rob. And we'll um uh we do have our architects here. We have our
design team here if you have any questions, but I just will quickly show the renderings of the top. I want to sh uh remind the board that this rendering here, we were a little concerned that the board may think it's seethrough to the to the south, but that's really just
a reflection of a mirror. There's multiple walls, bathrooms, kitchens, masonry, etc. So, I didn't want you to think that. Please go to the next uh slide. Um this is again looking south. Uh this is really uh the the the brief
for them was a walled garden, you know. Um, so this is amply landscaped with vegetative buffering for visual um, you know, from the pedestrian perspective. Okay. Um, and these beautiful booths. I mean, I'm definitely looking forward to
being there. Uh, with a with a pergola structure there on the roof. Um, and if you can go to the next slide, we have some of the vegetation. You can see the buffering there. Uh, we're going to have palms principally. Um, next slide. Um, oh, the Lincoln Road bid is here. They
love the project. Uh, they think it's fits right in. It's compatible, beautiful, and will complement the other restaurants, uh, along Lincoln Road. Um, and that I'm coming around the bend here. Um, another beautiful one, another beautiful rendering. Uh, we're all here
if you have any questions and we respectfully request your favorable action on the application together with staff's conditions as proposed. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much for uh getting through that in uh record time. >> Okay. >> Um and even getting extra time. Somehow
our timekeeper was didn't give you the extra minute. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. >> It's okay. It's okay. Um I count on you, Nick. You know, uh but anyway, so are there any questions for the applicant? Uh let me go down the line. No. No. Pascal, I'm assuming that's no. And
Mitch, go for >> when will construction recommence? Well, the Yeah. So, we are under permitted construction now. Um, now this is going to change the the uh this is going to change uh the the permitting
process a little bit. I don't uh Mr. Novc, I I don't think I can answer. Um but I they time is money. Um and so we are amending as soon as we get these approvals, we're going to be amending the permits. Um, and we were even this
morning talking with capital improvements about h how the new road is going to is going to interact with our curb. So, we're actively working. >> Okay. How is the new road going to allow you to actually get in there to build your building?
Doesn't look like there's going to be an access for you either on Lincoln or on Drexel. I >> That's going to be very interesting. >> All right, Elizabeth. >> No. So, Um could you please go over how is your loading plan because you were
asking for the waiver of the off streetet parking. So what are you proposing instead because I think um the presentation didn't show that clearly. >> Okay. Uh so um because of the uh position of u the restaurant together
with the new um with the new um configuration on Drexle. So the um the actual text of the order that you're voting on that Michael put together, it says that the the required two off- streetet loading spaces shall be waved and provided in the commercial freight
drum freight zones along Drexel Avenue, six 16th Street or Pennsylvania Avenue in a manner to be reviewed and approved by the parking department and staff consistent with a certificate of appropriateness andor directions from this board. So, we have a couple of on
on-site existing city loading areas. Um, it's not depicted uh yet today. So, >> do you mind pulling up the plan because I know this instruction is becoming pedestrian, one part has been blocked, but I think you are on Absolutely. If you could just show us, I would appreciate.
>> Yeah, sure. We go to the first floor site plan. I hope it goes off the site sufficiently. It looks like it does um it well it does depict Drexal um but it does not go sufficiently off the site.
Let's go to here. We'll go we'll go to this aerial um here Elizabeth to address your concerns. Um so uh there >> please use a cursor to explain your points. >> Okay, perfect. >> Great. So Rob, if you can point over to
Pennsylvania, um is one of the um one of the potential loading zones to come through. Um it could be along Drexel. Uh I believe there is um a loading zone to the south
of the closed area on Drexel, which is probably I think that's going to be my my answer. Even though Pennsylvania is contemplated by the order um as well as 16th Street, um I think that there's there are loading uh zones on Drexel to
the south and prior to the closure area of the city. Yeah. >> Can you show us the back of the house and where is the access to the back of the house entrance where all the >> I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry. Good morning. Adrian Dowski with Kimley Horn. I'm the traffic engineer on the project offices at two Alahhamra Plaza and Coral Gables. Um there's currently an existing loading zone on 16th Street east of Drexel. So that could be used. Also um Drexel when
it's um being reworked with the city's um project, there would be a culdeac provided there. So the trucks will be able to turn around within that culdeac and then pull into uh a loading zone. that would be uh assigned on Drexal Avenue. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Any other any other questions for the applicant, Lindsay? No. No. Okay. Um so now do we have a board any disclosures? No disclosures. No disclosures. Uh let's open it public uh
public hearing. >> Is there anybody um in chambers here to speak on this application? There's nobody presently online with their hand raised. >> Yes, I am. >> Good morning, chair, members. All I can say is when can we get this done? We are
so excited that this whole east side of Lincoln Road is going to be elevated. between the capital improvement project, what's happening with the SAS residential, what's happening on the 400 block. This is just another added elevation to the revitalization of
Lincoln Road. So, the sooner we can get this going, the better. Um, and we're extremely supportive of this. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Good afternoon. Are we still whatever? Hello again. >> Welcome back.
>> Thank you again. I'm still Julie Isacson and I'm still here speaking on behalf of the Miami Design Preservation League Advocacy Committee. 1620 Drexel Avenue MDPL position. We
support the project subject to staff recommendations. We appreciate that this development will bring activation and investment to Lincoln Road. However, we have specific concerns regarding the proposed rooftop canopy structure. We
strongly urge that the rooftop canopy be designed and screened to ensure it's not visible from the street level across the street. The board previously approved a re rooftop canopy structure that is very visible and overpowers the contributing structure. Additionally, we encourage
the applicant to ensue ensure that the building design allows for adaptability and potential future conversion to alternative uses should the restaurant concept not succeed. Given the substantial 20,000 square footprint, the
building should be design uh the building should be designed with flexibility to accommodate multiple tenants or alternative commercial uses without requiring significant structural modifications. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much with that. Um we are closing. We have still nobody online. So closing the public comment. Uh, is there any anything additional that the applicant would like to mention? Rebutt.
>> I'm just Yeah. Other restaurants you've visited, other other things you'd like to places you'd like to eat. It's just before lunch. You have many many You clearly have many options in mind. >> If you have anything to add, please. >> Uh, thank you so much. So the details of
that uh structure uh is in the uh order to be worked out in accordance with staff. So um they will have a watchful eye just to respond to that concern. We are we are concerned and staff is concerned it's in the order. >> Thank you. And and Michael, you're okay
with that. Obviously staff is okay with being able to kind of >> make sure that everything's tucked into the frame and not Yeah. >> Right. We want to make sure they have actual living landscaping because we've seen some other projects that have fake plants up there. So, we advise them make sure they have real plants for
screening. And we have also um discussed with them previously that had more structures, you know, facing Lincoln Road. They were more obtrusive. They've removed those. So, they have been working to to accommodate that. >> Perfect. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, with that, um, now we're at the final
stage of either board member comment or a board member proposal of, um, a motion or whatever. Anybody want to start? >> If no, >> I'm going to suggest we should have two motions on this. One for the certificate of appropriateness and one for the
variance. >> One for the variance. Yes. >> Mhm. >> Okay. If no one has any comment, I'll make uh those motions. >> Okay. You Why don't you start? We should we usually start with the certificate of appropriateness, right? >> Correct. >> Y
>> okay. Uh motion for the uh certificate of appropriateness is my motion >> as per staff recommendation >> as per staff's uh conditions. >> I second that. >> Second it. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> I Okay. And now a motion uh to approve the uh variance. Is there a second? I second that. >> All in favor? >> I >> I
>> Any opposed? Passes 70. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll go faster next time. >> You're welcome. I look forward to seeing you at one of these places. >> Want to go any faster. >> I know, but just >> all those Oh, yeah. All those
restaurants. So, moving right along to the next application is HPB25-0667, 121st Street. An application has been filed requesting modifications to a previously issued certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition, renovation and restoration
of the hotel building, the total demolition of an accessory cabana structure, the construction of ground level and rooftop additions, one or more waiverss and a variance to relocate signage to a non- street facing facade. Specifically, the applicants requesting to expand the scope of the previously
approved demolition. Since 2021, the historic preservation board has approved multiple applications for this for the renovation redevelopment of the subject hotel property. The initial approval on June 15, 2021 authorized partial demolition, restoration, and new ground
level and rooftop additions. Subsequent approvals expanded the scope on November 20 on November 12th of 2024 to include full de full demolition and reconstruction of the portico due to structural issues. and on May 13th of this year to allow additional demolition
of the south and west facades and all four plates as part of the ongoing restoration project. The subject property is a 1950 postwar modern hotel designed by Albert Annis. Now, following discovery of major structural deficiencies, specifically as noted in
the applicant's request or application, the absence of piles, weak concrete, and unsafe slab conditions, engineers determined that safety safely retaining the full height of the north facade was infeasible. The building official concurred with that assessment and
recommended the demolition of the top three floors to reduce wind loading and prevent collapse while preserving the lower four floors of the north facade for restoration. The project will still constru still reconstruct the building consistent with the 2021 approval while maintaining the
historically significant north facade design. Given the safety risks, prolonged vacancy, and the project's benefit to the surrounding historic district, staff supports the expanded scope of demolition. STEP also recommends extending the previously
granted waiver under section 2.12.8 8 of the city code allowing the existing non-conforming floor area height setbacks and parking credits to remain as the structure meets the multiple preservation criteria reflected in the architectural significance and and
contribution to mine beach historic character. So we are recommending approval um based upon the structural deficiencies noted in the applicant's request and also want to add that the applicant has has done their best to try to u proceed with um um measure
demolition. they didn't come to the board, you know, asking for this demolition all at once. It was only after repeated um investigations that they were sort of forced um upon this route. So, we are supportive of the applicant's intent to still restore the building and reconstruct it as approved
back in 2021. I'll turn it over to Mr. McDow for his presentation. >> Excuse me. Uh uh folks, I need to recuse myself from this item. I've spoken with the city attorney, Michael, and the chair. uh is because we have litigation
which uh has been uh was amicably resolved. So I'm going to step out. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> For the record, my name is Carter McDow, Bills and Sunberg, 1450 Bickl Avenue. I have Nick Notto, my colleague, here with
me. We have our structural engineer Yousef and um our uh architect of recordto here also. Um the code requires you know from past having been here multiple times now. Um
there was litigation as you just heard the litigants involved with Satai and the condominium association and one of the major owners and Mr. Novik was also one of the the plaintiffs in that litigation. I'm required by code to describe that because we did amically
resolve it and that's why he's not participating. Um so with that I I would say that this is both a complicated and a and simple uh application. I think um as you heard as we continue to implement
the previous approvals um and as you've read I think we the building began to have very significant violations and actually move. So our structural engineer shut the job down uh because we were very concerned that there could be
a collapse. Um and of course we were at that point at the beginning of hurricane season with a very weak building. Um we have been all lucky that we haven't had a hurricane. Let us keep keep that
record going. Um but the the engineers stopped the job. We did additional testing. The this building every time we look at it gets worse than we thought it was. Um and so his conclusion was we really couldn't safely maintain the full
sevenstory height of the front facade which we had committed to you that we would try to do. Um he has recommended and the bu most importantly the building official has already approved his recommendation and concurred in his recommendation that we really need to
take that front facade down to save the bottom four levels of the original structure which we are in the process of doing. We have been in if you've been by the site we have been implementing his order um since it was issued in July.
Um, we did, as the code asks us to do, we did file an after the-act CFA request. Um, but particularly with hurricane season upon us, we really needed to reduce the weight in the windage of that facade lest we should
get a storm or have other issues. And of course, there's almost zero setback with this building along a public rideway. Um, which enhances the need for safety. Um, and so we the building official approved that that uh demolition and
we're here effectively to conform the CFA to what the building official's ruling is and to move forward. As Michael correctly said, you will see the original project that you have approved. We are not changing it. It's just in
effect means and methods responding to the terrible structural condition of this building. Um, and we hope to not see you again until we until we get this building built. Uh, we're here to answer any questions you may have, but in the
interest of time, we're going to be here to answer questions and stop. >> Great. Thank you very much. Uh, board members, are there any questions for the applicant at this point? >> No. Uh, no. Right. >> Just to clarify, you're basically demolishing and rebuilding the sink. the
we will preserve the bottom four floors as of the front facade. The builder board has already approved the removal of the rest of the structure. It was just the north facade that we were to keep. It's been determined we really can't safely keep that sevenstory facade. So
there we will preserve the bottom four floor. >> Seeing no more uh no questions. Are there any um board disclosures? Any disclosures? No. Okay. No. No. No. Okay. Uh, can we open it to public hearing? >> There's nobody online with their
handwriting a PhD in fine arts from the Tokyo University of the Arts. And his practice includes welding, milling, and la work, creating kinetic sculptures by combining scrap materials such as metal and bicycles. He has completed over 20 large scale public art sculptures.
And now we move into the proposed location for the sculpture. This work would be fabricated in Japan and installed on site in the park's northern end central juncture with a projected installation date of April 2026. This location has been shared with both
capital improvement projects and our parks departments. The other half of the artist collective involves structural engineer Jut Sakita. As such, the artist has submitted engineering drawings that took into consideration safety requirements, foundation design, structural
considerations, and design wind speed. Overall, this steel framework will receive a full hot dip galvanizing to protect the exterior as well as the interior of all hollow sections. This layer can suppress red rust formation for up to 20 years. The structure is
trusted for its high safety and durability, meeting standards similar to those required again for public playground equipment. The structure has considered drivetrain and mechanical safety of the piece as well as access and structural safety. Additionally, the stero is designed with a narrow width to
discourage ascension with carrying large objects. >> And if I may add, we gave feedback to the artists uh to add um some type of um >> locking system at the beginning of the stairs and also at the top of the landing like a door with a lock as well
for evening uh when the park closes to avoid any you know unwanted guests uh after park hours. Uh this item was also presented to the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association on August 4th. It received a unanimous approval. They were very excited. Uh you have to keep
in mind that the park is is different from all the parks that we have. It's very it's utilitarian. Uh it's got swimming, tennis, uh it's very active and I feel that this work really represents uh the the vibrancy of the park. Um, and again, uh, due to our art
and public places ordinance, uh, this item, if approved today, will go to city commission again for approval and is slated to open, uh, sometime beginning in the spring again of 2026. >> And this concludes our presentation. >> Great. Thank you very much. Are there
any questions? Randy, >> is does this um subject to the same fall zone requirements as a playground? And how is that being handled? because you're going they're right they're up in the air which I assume you have to meet the standard fall zone requirements for the surface underneath the structure and
playground. >> It would be enclosed is what I mentioned. We gave feedback to the artists. So what you're seeing at this rendering, it'll have a mesh enclosure through the the whole way down through the stairs as well. >> But the stairs are accessible open. The stairs are open. >> The stairs will also uh we gave them
feedback to cover that as well. >> When you say cover, do you >> I'm not sure. It's different than a playground that has stairs that you have to provide a fall zone around the stairs. >> You're talking about the surface of the ground, right? >> Yeah. You have to have a rubberized surface so that if a child falls, they
don't fall on ground or >> concrete and it looks like you're placing it in the grass area in the center of the circle. >> That's correct. It's on the side of the the circle. >> Okay. >> Here. Oops. >> But it's not requiring any fall zones around it. This is the first time that we're
hearing of that, but we do take your feedback and we can add that. >> Okay. Okay. That's normally done either with a synthetic turf or rubberized surface, but you have a depth required by law to keep that zone around the structure. >> We can add that. >> Okay. Just on that point, can you go
back to You have great images of two other pieces that he did. Um, yeah, those two. So, I guess the one on the left, to your point, Randy, does not have a fall zone on it. Um, but it's kind of roped off. the one on the right uh might that I don't know what that
surface is, but it might. But I think you're talking about the one on the the right being completely enclosed when you go up. That's kind of what you're >> you you suggested it was a mesh and I'm ask you you you suggested it was a mesh and I'm asking you what type of material
that >> it would be the same if please um PJ if you could please keep the presentation up during the discussion. Thank you. So if you see the the landing part where the bicycle is and I can't zoom in >> well >> but there is a like a >> there's vertical pickets on there
although not depicted on the image on the screen but in the plants >> uh going up the stairway uh from the ground uh there's a there's a one landing and then you need to go traverse another >> uh looks like a ship's ladder uh the
rises and treads uh they're open. I I could imagine uh the fire department giving you enorm an enormous headache. >> If I may, I mentioned that we gave direction to the artist to enclose this similar to the landing area to go all
the way down to ensure that what nothing uh occurs like what you're mentioning. >> Yeah. I I I'd still like to understand what material that is. Is it going to is it going to appear invisible from far away or >> Yes. Okay.
All right. Um, >> we had the same thoughts. >> Okay. And, uh, you know, the co corrosive environment we live in, I could imagine this being a maintenance nightmare.
>> Uh, they the the parts um are made out of regular bicycle parts. Uh, as you know, these artists are Japanese, which is also an island, and they are used to being in that type of climate of salt air. Um, so we've addressed all these things and I think you have something else to add.
>> Sure. U maintenance was an important consideration and something we stated, um, from the initial call to artists. Um, so this would just require regular bicycle parts for repair. So it would wouldn't require any specialized sort of care. So, we are, you know, thinking about how to include this as a part of our annual um well, 10-year maintenance
plan for significant restoration. >> Yeah. And what I'm especially concerned with is uh closing it off to to to those in the evening who might otherwise want to use this. I don't want
to see a gate around it with padlocks or a chain link fence. >> No, it wouldn't be that. What we suggested to the artists was to if you see the landing area to do a door that you can close and lock and then also do like a gate type thing at the at the
beginning of the stairs so that parks employees can lock it. We need to secure the safety. >> Yeah. >> After park closure. >> All right. >> People can still walk through it. >> They can walk through but Ray on the mic
if you have a mic. Oh, sorry. John, >> I'm just saying that's a walkway, >> you know, and it's open 24 hours. I mean, >> correct. You just can't go into the grass areas of the park, but you can you can cut through. Um, so that's sitting
right there. And so I understand their concern is the people go, "Oh, look, let's just climb up that. It's right by the walkway." Um, so I can understand why there is a concern about that. >> Sure. and it would be closed just like any other of the facilities in the park.
>> Do you have a service agreement in place? A service agreement to maintain it because it's not >> as part of the art and nice to meet you, Mr. Mayor. Um, as part of art and public places, we have maintenance. So, we do annual maintenance for all our works. We
actually prepare them um and do our regular maintenance for art week. And then we also have a 10-year master plan for all of the works in art and public places. So they all go through a major conservation every 10 years. We don't do >> um that that is what would be the
service plan. >> This is a mechanical installation. So it's it's uh going to need more than typical stationary >> um sculpture. And that's why they're recommending that you provide, you know, that you enter
into a service agreement with a mechanical company that will service this. And so I'm just asking is it's not shown in your overall cost of 150,000. Right. >> That that cost is to produce the work, not to maintain it. We have our own art and public places funding for that.
>> Another cost added to this beyond >> as with all of our works because we have to due to the climate of the salt air, we have to maintain all the works. Do you have any idea what this service agreement is going to be? >> No, but as uh my colleague Oscar mentioned, it's made with regular
bicycle parts. So, it's something that is easily accessible. We don't have to make any new orders to produce any type of um materials that are not easy to find. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you.
>> My question has been answered. >> Oh, Elizabeth's question has been answered. Lindsay has no questions and I don't have any questions. I'm very impressed by this uh project and interested in how it will um play out. I just can't wait to see it move. So uh
but with that um we close the the um the applicant questions. Any disclosures? No. No disclosures. Now we open it to public hearing. >> There's nobody online with their hand raised. >> Okay. And there's nobody in the audience
who has indicated that they're wishing to >> move along. Is the app adapted for nightclub use? Staff supports the overall proposal, recommends refinements to Tom Court was built in 1915, I believe, or 1925, but still it's the
oldest building in our neighborhood. And this looks to me like two stacked shipping containers next to it. Um it it doesn't to me um pay at all any attention to the fact that it's next to the most historic building in the
neighborhood. It I just as I said to me it looks like just two shipping containers stacked on top of each other and I really don't like the exterior the way it's currently designed. Now I noticed inside you you're going to have a like a a brick oven pizza or whatever.
What are the hours of operation going to be? >> We're not looking to change the hours. The current hours are from 8:00 to 5:00. >> Are from what? >> 8 to 5. >> 8 8:00. It starts >> 8:00 p.m. Okay. >> I didn't I thought you were later than that cuz I was going to say, you know,
like be nice to be able to go in and get some pizza. There's none in our neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Um just um would you like to comment on the on your on the staff opinion of the um of its location next to the historic building?
>> Well, it's a it's a pretty modest structure right now. There's really no no um not much architectural detail. We wouldn't want to have it have it um create like a false sense of architecture or create something that would be um mislead someone to think that this was an historical um element. So, we were okay with going for a more
modern direction and so it doesn't compete with the um historic building next door. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you, Michael. All right. Um with that, we will go to disclosures. Any disclosures? No. No. No. Okay, then
uh we will open it to public public hearing. >> Um there's nobody online with their hand raised. Anybody in the audience speak on something? >> Nobody in the audience? >> No. Okay. There's there's one person now with their hand raised. Um Ron Bloomberg.
>> Hi Ron. Do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth? The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> I am trying to Am I on mute right now or can every We can hear you. Do Do you so swear? >> Uh yes I do. I'm sorry I missed the uh I
missed the swear in again. Would you mind repeating it? >> Thank you. You have 3 minutes. >> Um, yes. I um I am the owner of the Palm Court building. My apologies for not being able to be at the hearing today.
Um, I was uh unable to get some of the material um until very recently uh and having studied it. I wanted to say that uh I'm I'm generally in favor of the uh of the facade improvement that they're doing and the restaurant improvement,
but I did want to bring to the board's attention uh a very important I think a very important and particular fact um that a material uh element of the occupancy load of this property is
predicated upon an exterior pair of fire rated doors that lead directly onto to my property uh immediately to the east of this
and there is no current agreement or access agreement, lease agreement, license agreement or anything in place. And the set of plans that has that have been submitted show an occupancy load that is uh that is entirely predicated upon this access
point out of the space. Um it was just something that I noticed because with the application and with the planning department's approval suggesting that certain items were satisfied including life safety issues. I fail to
understand how they can be satisfied if the access that this occying upon is significantly uh um reliant on the access through my property where there is no agreement in place at this
present time and nor has there been one in at least a decade. There is a pair of doors there and the doors lead onto my property. Um, but we have not pulled a permit yet to block that access and that's in the
process right now. So, I I just wanted that to be uh brought um to to the board's uh attention as they're getting ready to approve something with a particular occupancy load uh and references in the set of plans that have been submitted which are not entirely
accurate. And if you look at your your SPD plan as juxtaposed to the survey of the property, you'll see that the bold-faced words on the
survey says adjacent building are intentionally omitted from the SPD plan. And it also looks as if Liberty Avenue is immediately adjacent to the property where it is not. I I don't know if it's within the
purview of this board to comment on that or to perhaps give the staff or the planning department some direction as to the accuracy of this. But I wanted to go on record uh having made that comment as
a materially uh affected adjacent property owner. >> Thank you. I'll let >> you try to clarify for the members of the board. I see there's a whole board there. >> Can we respond? So for my I'll let the applicant respond because I had no understanding based upon the plan
submitted that there's any egress through a neighboring property. So, I'd like the applicant to bring up the the floor plan and and let us know if he is aware of what the um caller is um noting. >> Sure. I' I've never um I've never heard from Mr. Bloomberg before. I I wish he
had reached out to me before today's hearing. So, this doesn't um you know, obviously it's been the time of this board. Um some of the things he's saying is is accurate, some of it is inaccurate. One, Liberty Avenue, no, is not 10t away from the property. That's just how it's shown on the survey. and
it's designated with the little squiggly line here that it's further down. Um, this property, not unlike uh Mr. Rosenberg's property and and perhaps some of the others, does use an alleyway as part of its egress, but not like what Mr. Rosenberg said is it's
>> Bloomberg >> Bloomberg, thank you. Um, what he said is this application is not predicated on using that exit. That's simply an exit that has existed in the life safety plans of this building before we've gotten involved. Um, it's not even dependent on
that exit. The uh minimum width of egress is provided entirely through the front. So, if if Mr. Bloomberg's position is that that's not allowed, I mean, absolutely we'll we'll close that off and have the applicant egress through the front because that's totally allowed. Um, but something I I wanted to
clarify is this isn't even under the purview of this board. that is under the purview of PV and the fire department to review those plans. Um if it's a condition of this board historically that we close that I think we're having >> so I also like to note that this there
is an application that's pending before the planning board. So the planning board is going to also review the operation of this because they're modifying this the site plan. So so any sort of operational conditions should be under the purview of the of the planning board. But I think now um we can state I
believe that the the um the egress ingress and egress should be contemplated based upon um coming in and out only within the property itself not through neighboring properties. >> Absolutely. >> So and the applicants agreeing upon that agreeing to that.
>> Yeah. I I was not aware that there was not a cross access agreement. So that obviously needs to be remedied before it goes to any board. And also just to add to that, so this as was mentioned, this has been operation for for decades and based upon their existing um PTR, I
believe the occupancy is around 550 people. So it is a a relatively high occupancy load. >> It says 399 on the plant on A00. >> That's that's what they're showing now, but the the current approval is for 550. So with 399 as the proposed occupancy is
that do they still do they have the uh appropriate number of egress? Uh >> we that's something that the this board doesn't review that's up to the the fire department. >> Right. So should we um predicate any approval from this board? >> No I I would not that's that's not that
that's been raised to our attention because this application is pending before planning board. I believe it's something that should be addressed at the planning board level. Okay. >> Even if the even are we So, can you review for us? Um, go ahead. Unless
>> Well, I mean, so if the egress is not appropriate at the front and if the side egress doesn't exist, then that changes the front facade and that changes what we're approving. So, I think that's the question that John's asking. >> I was going there. It also changes the interior layout. And I was going to ask if we are approving the interior layout or if we're just approving Exactly.
We're just approving that facade and if there does need to be another another door on that facade to then we will be >> they may have to come >> to we'll be >> they may have to come back if they have to expand openings along the facade. >> Okay.
>> We don't >> but it looks like there's sufficient space at the front of the building and along the the um yeah >> the west side. So >> it Yeah. >> Okay. West side has a whole >> uh mic please.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Just the west side is an entire wall, >> right? >> That goes to Valero gas station. >> Yes. >> So, um excuse me. When you did your life safety plan for
the building department permit application, you the two doors, the two openings that go to 23rd Street, that was enough to evacuate your customers. You met the the requirements, >> correct? There's enough width along 23rd
uh to satisfy that number. >> All right. So, um, we are closing public comment and sliding right into board member comment. Any any comments on the from the board?
>> No. No. >> Yes. >> Comment about the exterior. That's all. >> Thank you, Ray. Yes. Yes. Um, so can would uh anybody uh propose a motion to approve? No. Yes. No.
>> I'll make that motion. I'll make that motion as per staff's conditions. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All in favor?
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> The motion passes six to one. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I would suggest we take the next application then maybe take a lunch break because the next one should be
pretty short. This is for um 231st Street HPB25-0661. An application has been filed requesting a certificate appropriateness for the after the-act installation of an artistic mural. The 1936 art deco
building designed by Henry Hohouser. A lot of Houser buildings on the agenda today. Um was originally a two-story apartment structure later expanded in the 1990s with rooftop and three-story additions. Over the years, historic preservation board approved multiple renovations including new canopies and
outdoor seating along Washington Avenue. The applicant is now seeking an after the fact certificate appropriateness to retain an artistic graphic applied to the circular stair tower that was installed without prior approval. The graphic will be modified to remove commercial references. Staff finds that
the artwork located on a later edition and well set back from the street does not detract from the building's original design and is compatible with the existing outdoor dining environment. Therefore, staff there's no objection to the approving the mod the approved modified graphic. I turn it over to the
applicant for the presentation. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board and staff. Nicholas Rodriguez, 200 South Bisgame Boulevard from the law firm Burke Calell Fernandez Larkin and Tapenz. Uh, as Michael mentioned, we are uh, and if we could please call up the presentation. Thank you, BJ. Uh if we
could, we are requesting an after the- fact certificate of appropriateness for the really artistic graphics, but what they are is vinyl stickers that were added to the inside of these three windows on the central uh stair tower of the contributing Henry Hill Houseer
building. Um what happened here is after a very long renovation process, uh they just didn't know they needed a separate certificate of appropriateness for the actual artistic graphic. They had one for the the renovation, just they didn't know they needed a separate one. Uh so just to give you some context, this
property is located at the corner of First Street and Washington Avenue, a very prominent location, and they just completed at the beginning of this year a multi-million dollar renovation and restoration of the building and opened as Lrereie. Um, and as I mentioned, uh,
during that process, which took very long and tens of millions of dollars, the building was in much worse shape than what they initially believed when they purchased it in 2020. Um, you know, they came to finishing touches and decorating the building and they added these three uh really vinyl stickers um
that are, you know, do qualify as artistic graphics to kind of complement the the new outdoor dining terrace. Um, so just really quickly on on the historic background here, this was originally an apartment building uh developed by Henry Hohouser uh in some
in 1993. It was fused with a one-story commercial building on Washington Avenue and that central feature uh kind of a rotunda feature was added to the building. Uh in 2008, it went through kind of a light restoration. Uh it was the middle
of the financial crisis, so they didn't address a lot of the mechanical, structural, electrical stuff. it was really more cosmetic. Um, so the building functioned well between 2008 and 2020. Uh, but it was vacant at the time that our client purchased the property. Uh, and it was in really in
dire need of of some significant repairs. So from 2021 uh through 2024 until the beginning of 2025, they did a complete comprehensive renovation and restoration of the entire building. All all systems, structural, electrical,
mechanical. Uh and you can see the vertical stair uh the three windows in the lower left hand image there. Um and they really just thought that adding an artistic graphic there was a compliment um to their interior and exterior design uh and didn't mean to you know
circumvent any process that they were uh you know supposed to go through. So here's a close-up of the graphic again and you can see them in more detail. Uh, as Michael mentioned, staff has determined that the letter B and the word busherie has a commercial connotation to it. So, we have to remove
that portion of it. We've already done that. So, we have the stickers ready to go and install as soon as we obtain this approval. Um, that's all we're really requesting today is an after the fact approval of this uh to complement the the huge renovation and really saving of
this building that happened earlier this year. Thank you very much. Thank you very much uh for the presentation. Any questions from board members? >> No. Yes. Lindsay, >> can we can you show again what it looks like without the if you will commercial
sign? Thank you. >> Okay. Any um assuming there's no more questions, are there any board disclosures on this item? No. No. No. No. Okay. And uh is there anybody any member of the public who'd like to speak to this item?
>> Actually, I think Ron Bloomberg, do you still have your hand raised from the last application? >> Yeah, he he lowered his hand. So, no other public comment. >> Okay. So, um there is no more public comment. Did you want to add anything?
>> No, just uh we're here to happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Great. All right. Thank you. Uh, so can I have either comment or a um a motion from the board? >> If there's no comment, I'll make a
motion to approve the after the fact certificate of appropriateness. >> Thank you. A second. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Mitch is seconding it. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion passes 70. Thank you. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you all very much. An easy one for once. >> Yeah. >> I think lunch is here. Would you like to take a 20 minute lunch break?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. 20 uh 15 20 minutes. Okay. Okay. Michael, we're Debbie would have only given us 10 five at most. So, you're giving us >> I'm more generous with the lunch break. So, >> you are really generous. Okay. >> It's your first day. I know you won't
feel like this in a few months. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in
5 4 3 2 1. Welcome back. We have um one application left on our agenda today. This is for um 336 Meridian Avenue, HPB25-0663. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the
total demolition of one structure, the substantial demolition of one structure, the construction of a single family home, and a variance from the minimum required setbacks. The applicant proposes an adaptive reuse and redevelopment of an historically significant property originally
constructed in 1936 and designed by noted Miami Beach architect B. Kingston Hall. The project calls for the demolition of a non-historic rear structure, originally added in 1948 by Al Clingbell and the preservation of the primary facade in the north and south
exterior walls of the contributing two-story structure fronting the street. The architect has proposed an innovative design strategy that preserves the character-defining street facing elements while introducing a new elevated residence behind and within retained walls. The historic walls will
serve as an exterior garden enclosure surrounding a central open area courtyard maintaining the original spatial organization of the site. The new construction features a modern architectural vocabulary with varied materials, layered planes, articulation consistent with surrounding neighborhood
scale while achieving compliance with updated flood elevation requirements. Staff finds the proposal to be contextually sensitive and architecturally cohesive. Staff's principal concern pertains to the projected glass glass block balcony on the upper level which extends 10 pe 10
ft beyond the preserved facade and features a mirrored underside. As currently designed, this balcony may appear visually obtrusive from the street. Um, staff recommends the balcony height be reduced by approximately four feet and using a lightly reflective or
matte material on its underside to soften its visual impact. The applicant is also requesting a variance to reduce the rear setback from the minimum required 14 ft to 4 feet. Um the variance is necessary to preserve the historic facade and courtyard while
accommodating flood compliant redevelopment. Due to the facade's deep front setback and the spatial requirements of the courtyard, the remaining developable area is constrained. Staff also notes the proposed home would remain approximately 1,500 square feet smaller
than the maximum allowed floor area for the for the property and that the majority of the properties along Marine Court feature similar reduced setbacks. These factors along with the site's unique topographic and flood related challenges constitute special conditions that staff believes warrant the granting
of variance. However, staff does believe that the um minimum setback should be increased to 5 ft, which is more consistent with other variances that have been approved with similar conditions um facing an alley. With that, we are recommending that the application be approved, including the
rear setback with a modification to a 5-ft rear setback and are recommending approval in accordance with the um draft conditions approval as noted in our staff report. I'll turn it over to the applicant for the presentation. Good afternoon. Matt Amster with the law
firm at Burkhoward El Fernandez Larkin and Tapenus. Offices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard in Miami. Here today representing Kindred Fruit Properties LLC. Uh the applicant and owner of the subject property. Um the effective
owners are actually here, Todd and Tiffany Angel. Uh as well as we have our team, uh Renee Gonzalez, Kevin Regalado, Manuela Forno. Um, we had a handout passed out to you. This is uh us
addressing uh staff's concern about the balcony wall height. We'll go over this more. That should look familiar because I know we uh have been working with staff for quite a while and put that in the packets that should have uh been delivered to you. Uh but we wanted to make sure you just had a copy in front
of you today. Um Renee and his team have worked very closely with Todd and Tiffany on this single family home. Uh we are in a multif family area, but they are choosing to just have one unit, one single family home uh in this area. Uh
great care was taken to evaluate the existing structures. There is a two-story contributing uh structure at the front uh and a one-story non-classified and very much non-escript uh structure at the rear. Importantly,
there's also this historic courtyard between the two buildings, and you'll hear more about that. Uh notably, both structures are significantly below today's flood elevation requirements and therefore extremely subject uh and at risk uh if any habitable areas were
there. um in a flooding event. While the option was there to seek and had been considered to seek full demolition, we felt that preserving and creating something innovative and resilient was the appropriate approach and we've
definitely worked closely with staff Debbie before she moved on to planning board and Michael since and we appreciate all of that and that as I mentioned uh has led to a uh an agreement. We are uh staff has suggested a lowering of the balcony. That's
actually uh something we are already considering. It's in the handout before you, but we agree to staff's uh reduction of that wall height to 4T. We also agree with staff for the rear setback to um increase it to the 5-ft
setback. And um with that, I just want to make sure that with staff's report uh and all of the other documents that have been submitted, those uh in Florida case law do con constitute substantial competent
evidence as do all the other documents we've submitted, including our structural report. And um staff, I'm sure, can vouch that the provisions of uh procedural due process have been met to notice this application. Uh and also with today's public hearing, all that
will be met. Uh and the essential requirements of law that are applicable here are you evaluating and staff's evaluation of the certificate of appropriateness criteria for demolition and design and variance uh both under hardship and practical difficulty. With
that, I'm going to turn it over to Renee. We do have a uh presentation if that could be called up here. Okay. >> Thank you, Matt. Um, I want to thank the staff first, uh, Debbie and then Michael for working us with us very closely. I
think that, um, I continue to be reminded how, uh, great we have it here in Miami Beach and I I have served on the board and um, know have met some of you in the process and I respect
tremendously what you do and am grateful for being here. I am also grateful to have incredible clients and and incredible projects that vary tremendously. And this is by no means um
a a an exception in the sense that it's an addition well it's not an addition. It's a new home to I think of it almost as an addition because I think the historic structure is so significant and
requires uh such a delicate act of intervention that that I think it's important to think of it and and speak of it in relation to that really. So I'll take you uh fairly quickly although you've um
had a short day. I don't want to make it any longer than it needs to be, but I'll I'll take you quickly through the presentation. And as Matt said, although we agree with the staff report, I do want to point out uh why we made the
decisions we did in consideration uh so that the board can understand uh and consider uh the project fully. So, as you know, this sits in the south of Fifth District on on Meridian Avenue.
Meridian Avenue, as you can see from this 3D, is made up of uh primarily multi- uh family units. And as Matt mentioned, this site in particular allows for 16
units. instead again uh the city's fortunate I think and and I'm fortunate to have a client that wants to build a single family house which is quite unique. This is uh the existing structure and you will see how we've addressed the the
historic structure and in particular I think the the keyhole here has become something of uh a generator really for and an and inspiration for the project.
Uh as as was mentioned the the existing building is well below uh base flood elevation and you can see here where our new first floor will be is at the 18 ft height. The very top line you see on
this drawing we can be NGVD is the blue line. Uh that's the the minimum required uh elevation for the new structure to be at. And so as a response to uh sea level
rise, as a response to where BFE needs to be, uh we decided to take the approach that we were going to have this historic facade uh become essentially a a wall to a
garden and and step the project back considerably and away from it. So to give it uh a way to breathe and and float above it uh and not touch it. Uh some of the items that you see on this
list are essentially let's say benefits that that we have. I mentioned already that this is a single family home that's being proposed versus something that could require as many as 24 parking spaces.
Um we are using the historic structure as a generator uh for the project. We are elevating the new project as a way to respond to the reality of of our
environmental um world. And uh something that I'll speak of uh especially when I show you some of the drawings that have to do uh with the variance is this issue of the garden courtyard which I think is
extremely important as well. Here you see the original um proposal uh which essentially is a glass block volume that floats over the existing historic
structure and uh it is further um felt it's it's it's further made to feel like it's floating by having the underside of that uh volume
to be reflective. This uh which we are uh labeling as a revised design is a design that is 3'6 in lower than what was originally proposed. Staff is asking that it be 4
foot. I'll just simply uh say that the reason it was 3'6 is because there's an alignment between the top of the facade and the the floor of the roof terrace. In other words, a railing is 3'6 and we
were bringing it down by the height of the railing. But if if board feels that uh so we we we would like to keep it at 3'6. It's 6 in. So obviously not uh not
significant. Uh so we we we accept uh staff's recommendation, but that's the reason why we had a 3'6 lower. And and that's one of the things I wanted to point out. And I just want to add that these drawing, these are renderings are not showing all of the existing uh
trees. The this area of Meridian is has very many large trees and lots of foliage. There's a picture, I think, a few pages later that shows you. There we go. So, while we're trying to emphasize the change in the balcony wall and the
the architecture itself, um there's a a lot of existing foliage that um will screen and and buffer this new addition. Right. You can see how the ground level the ground level. >> This is an actual photograph. >> Yeah. The ground level preserved building will remain the focal point. Go
ahead. >> Is that sometime? >> So, how much time would you like to have? >> Oh, so sorry. Oh my gosh. Um, I'll I'll speed up. I don't know. Give me whatever you can give me. >> Uh, 5 minutes and 5 minutes is plenty. Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. I
didn't realize. Uh, okay. So, um, this is the the entry point uh going through the portal. You see that the main stair of the house has uh the artist James Terrell like quality that uh really is
inspired by the portal. This is this magical courtyard that you walk through if if um if you're coming inside the home. Uh and once again the idea is to really uh step back the home from the existing
facade from the historic facade. Uh here you see an elevation, the existing photograph uh side elevation. You start to see here a proposed structure and where the
building area is. And I'll show you in a moment how far back we're stepping it back. But this is the courtyard. And I think uh speaking I know there are some uh owners here uh that will likely speak that live immediately to the north. and
we haven't had the opportunity um I think we reached out but we haven't had the opportunity to speak to them directly but I think it's important that they realize the effort we've made uh to to address uh the landscape that exists and maintain that kind of landscape
through uh through a courtyard uh that we that that is also the reason why we're requesting the variance. So, I'll go through these uh fairly quickly. These are the floor plans. Essentially, the ground level is is um a really
beautiful garden. Uh here you see the qualities of that garden. And then as you go up, you have uh living spaces, uh guest bedrooms. Uh essentially the the the home towards the street is a
series of uh bedrooms and uh towards the back side of the house is more of the living spaces. Uh this is the top floor which essentially becomes the main living floor for my clients and the roof terrace. The material that we've uh
decided to use uh for the volume that floats over the historic home is glass block. I think that is um uh an interesting choice for me because I I I like to work with materials that
feel like they're a part of the place. And uh I have lived here in Miami Beach now for over 30 years, I think. And somehow I associate glass block very much to to Deco. These are all examples of buildings here and and
internationally that use glass block and uh and I think it's it's I I would hope that uh the result is using the glass block in a very special way. The material on the underside of uh this element which is in the drawing here in
yellow is meant to be a reflective surface. Now, staff has suggested that it be somewhat muted, that it be like an etched mirror, and we're in agreement with that. The sample that we have is the mirrored, and we're happy to share
that with you, but we are fine uh in whatever the board uh requests that we do. The variance drawings uh are really important here. And and this is a drawing that shows uh how many of the existing buildings are encroaching on
the setback including the building directly to the north. Uh and how many of them how many of them nearly 50% have uh an encroachment similar or or the same as we are requesting.
Um here you see a plan drawing and the hardship on why we we are requesting this. you know, we're we're being sensitive, I believe, in pushing the building back away from the historic structure. And as a result, uh we we need that extra space towards the back.
Uh here you see it in section as well. You can see that uh we're essentially going back 23t 5 in with the first three levels of the project. Uh and we're only requesting 10T back. Again, we're fine with
Michael's uh uh recommendation that it be 9 ft instead of 10. I think we've got 22 22. >> We can have >> we can have maybe three more minutes. We appreciate >> So, when when this comes up, can you
just add three three minutes? >> So, thank you. And I just want before Renee continues, you know, we are aware, I know I believe all of you did receive uh letters from the neighbors in the building to the north and uh the vast majority of them are concerned about uh
impacts to their views uh at that the requested variance at the at the rear at the alley uh will provide. I I want to make it clear that unfortunately there's no right to a view across private properties uh well established in
Florida case law. uh no uh air and light also allowed and that uh is something that you know while that is the law. However, you know this entire project has not been uh internally focused uh
Renee and Todd and Tiffany have been aware of are very aware of what's around us and that has already been worked into the design. Go ahead Renee. Yeah, I think I think that look the the bottom line is >> Can you turn the mic on? It doesn't seem to be on. Maybe. Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh, sorry. I think that the bottom line is that we want to be sensitive to the neighbors, right? And I and I think that the approach we took from the beginning, although they I don't know to what degree they're aware that we've done this, is we are really wanting to
maintain the courtyard quality that exists currently. And you see this drawing here. I think it's also consistent with the city's code requirement for homes that you not have a structure that goes from the front set back all the way to the back without
stepping back. I wish I had a pointer. So, but you understand where >> you can use the um the cursor on the >> Sorry, I didn't realize that. Yeah, there you go. So, so like basically, you know, according to the code for this site, we could build a masses and
instead we've decided to maintain the courtyard not only for our clients entertainment but also you can see uh here uh where the main balconies of this building next door is which coincide
precisely where we have positioned the courtyard. Uh, also as I was saying, I think that a the city's uh single family home code which requires that you know you step back an elevation after a
certain number of feet is written for a reason and I and I thought back at that when we were developing this although it did not necessarily apply to this site. Uh here you see uh the existing courtyard. Uh we call it the historic
courtyard and you see the new courtyard. you see that they're almost identical in size actually were slightly smaller than than the historic uh and and uh precedents or or uh courtyards that exist throughout uh I
guess we cut short but we have a number in your package. You have a number of pages that show a courtyards and and we all know how valuable and and wonderful it makes these experiences. So, um I think that's all that I have for you.
I'd be happy to to take any any questions. Uh we just to quickly conclude, uh you know, I can hopefully you can see that this is a purposely bold and a great example of thinking outside of the box in order to preserve
the front historic structure, keep it the focal point, make it sure that it shines uh and only provide a single family home on this property. We're maintaining the historic street presence of that building, the historic courtyard between the two existing buildings, and
matching the context uh of the alley with our setback. We agree with all of staff's conditions, like we said, including the uh additional reduction of the balcony wall if you you so choose, uh the additional foot uh for the rear setback, the less reflective material
under uh the new building, and we're here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, with that we'll have board questions for the applicant. Uh, Randy, would you like to start?
>> Yeah, thank you. Um, two, uh, what one question is that, um, the view into the keyhole to the courtyard is very transparent, very inviting. I assume though you're going to have to have some security. How is that work? Because I don't see anything on the inside or the
outside that says gates. Change the whole effect. We will have a fence uh >> fence >> at the at the sidewalk. Uh there will be a fence. >> Uh let me show you. Well, it's it's actually here. Uh
here you see it. Sorry. Here we go. Where's the >> It's on your rendering. It's on this rendering. >> Yeah. And it's here as well. Uh you can see where I have the cursor now. >> So there will be a fence. But yes, it is fairly transparent and I think the idea
>> but even the even the rendering shows I don't see a gate. >> No, the the rendering may have uh sort of taken the liberty of not having the gate positioned in the closed uh position so that you could see the historic keyhole, but you can see it here in the floor plan. As a matter of
fact, it's labeled. >> Yeah. >> So, they swing gates or sliding gates. It's sliding gates at the sidewalk here. I get I my feeling is that the street level the street is very important in Miami Beach
for anything residential and to me the addition says I don't want to be the street out there. I'm going to put a wall up in front of my bedrooms. I I don't understand >> I don't understand blocking off the street from the house even though it's a new addition. >> It seems to be totally contrary to what
good urban design would say about an urban area. you want to see. I mean, you can still provide all the privacy you want to, but you built you even call it a wall. I would call it a 10-ft handrailing, but it's it's a wall. >> It's a it's a trans it the wall would be
made out of glass block. So, it's it has uh and I think it's it's clear in the renderings. >> Glass block is no different than a wall. I mean, >> well, it's it's translucent. We can also use a clear glass block in that instance.
But you know, obviously I thought you were going to say the opposite to be honest. I thought you were going to say, why do you have so much transparency in? Because I think >> it's not transparent at all. It's you've you've you're facing a street, but you're not facing a street. It could have been facing the alley and you would have got the same effect.
>> Are we speaking about the the wall on the sidewalk? The the the >> wall on the build on >> the fence. Let's call it the fence. >> Yeah. No, the the wall on the new addition that you call a wall in front of the bedrooms way over the building. >> Okay. >> One that you're saying they said the
staff, which I don't agree, should lower 3 ft. To me, it should be lower 10 ft. I I don't understand. >> Well, that mass even in proportion when you look at the building, it's as big as the mass of the historic structure is completely overwhelming the building to a point. And it doesn't matter if it's
glass or not. is just scale-wise that facade is almost as big as the historic structure and there's nothing on that facade. >> Okay, Randy, let me just let me just step in here because this is the time for questions. Okay, >> so I I I you made a point. Um but maybe if you can either frame it as a question
or >> I'm finished my question. >> Okay, you finished your questions. Okay, >> it's a wall. Thank you. >> Thank you. because I'm hoping for this is for clarification and then we'll have public comment and then you'll have a chance and you'll have a chance to respond to the questions or whatever
whatever you feel. So Rey, would you like to go next? Any questions? >> No, I just have my comments, not questions. >> Okay. All right. >> Please, please. V1
that balcony that projection that you're showing on the balcony that extends into the 5-ft front setback. Correct. >> No, that's within our setback. That's that's within the setback.
>> So, it doesn't show the horizontal balcony on that V1 >> here. Let's let's go. >> There's an inclined uh portion of the structure. I think you missed it. >> If you look,
>> so here you see where the front setback line is, uh, which is is here. This is the 5ft setback line. So we're within that setback, >> but you're so it it's not consistent with the rendering then. >> It is.
>> It is not. I would suggest to you it is not because you have an inclined portion of the structure. If I look at the rendering See this >> on the mic? Wait, there's a mic. Mic. Mic. >> Yeah. Can you turn it on for >> that line right there?
>> Just Yeah, just the mic. Right. Nice. So, >> that line right there. >> There you go. >> This right. So, so this this line right here is where the front facade sits and this is within our setback, but it is
five foot further. So, it extends to that five foot front setback which is not shown on this >> section. It should be I'm I'm not sure which section you're looking at, but it should be shown on the section. >> Just Can you tell them the number the
number of the section? What section? So, we can all see that one that you had up. >> It's the one you had up with the yellow. I mean I guess to try to answer the question in the in the simplest manner that that uh front facade is within the
front setback. >> Can you put the drawing back up? The sectional drawing? Yeah, that one. That's the one you're talking about. >> Yeah, >> it's not there. >> So that element is right here. >> It's it's it's right within the yellow section here.
>> That element is right here. >> Yes, that's absolutely correct. It's not shown on this render on this. >> Oh, I understand what you're saying. I'm sorry. Yes, you're correct that it's not clearly drawn. >> So, so it's beyond the existing structure.
>> It's it's beyond the existing structure. >> It's beyond the existing structure to the tune of 10 and 10 almost 10 and 1/2 ft. >> Uh five What is it? 5T 5T. 5T >> I'm sorry. >> Uh no, it's 10 feet. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're absolutely correct. 10
feet. Yes. 10 feet here. You see it 10 foot five inches. >> Correct. Right. >> Okay. Just want to >> It's 10 foot five inches in front of the historic facade and within the setback >> but it but I I'll also uh mention that
it's not enclosed area. It's just the balcony >> with a huge black. >> So just to be clear, you have this large essentially wall 5T extending beyond. Right.
>> Okay. And then the other issue that I have is the 4ft setback. I realize that you were saying that there are a number of other buildings. Why do you need that 10? Why do you need to encroach into that setback? >> Well, I think this drawing shows it
clearest because we're pushing back so far from the front. We're pushing back essentially uh 25 feet 5 in for most of the front of our new structure. And as a
result and because we also want to maintain the courtyard as a result uh we are requesting that we put be able to push back in the back which is consistent with what the neighbors have as well.
I'm done with my question. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mitch, would you like to have questions? >> Yeah. The uh fenestration of the primary facade on the uh existing structure. Did you say you're going to be putting glass
block in those uh openings? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. I I my preference is something uh to replicate what was there originally, whether it be casement or something
else. I think uh bringing too much uh of your design uh into the public uh realm over there. You know, I think one of the things that I I understand and I I'll just simply say that I think as uh as an architect that loves this city, I think
I also recognize um its strengths and its weaknesses. And I think there were a lot of buildings that were built um in a manner that was quite simple and and using uh windows that were quite inexpensive and and ordinary. And so I
think we were trying to step step up the quality and the sort of finish of those openings. >> You could still do that with glazing. Um just I I guess >> here here you see the the existing condition.
They're essentially awning windows like you know inexpensive >> money. Well that's uh likely not the original condition >> similar. Right. >> Okay. Okay, >> that's it. That's it. All right, Elizabeth, do you have any questions?
>> My question, I think it's more for >> one of you. I'm not sure which one would be able to answer. So, Rene mentioned that a lot of the properties adjacent have similar encroaches and my I was wondering if those encroaches they are
compared with current buildings on regulations or they like or when the at the time they were built that's what was allowed. Well, typically for older buildings, the setbacks, the required setbacks are much reduced. Um, so that's that's part of the reason why you see the reduced setbacks along the alley.
Um, and that's why when especially the historic preservation board has analyzed variances in the past for this area as well as other areas of the city, they don't just look at okay, what is the required um setback? What is the character of the of the of the neighborhood? What does that show is um what's established for that
neighborhood? And is that a reason for granting the variance? If this was brand new because if this was not in this in the historic district and was um you know someplace else in the city, you're you're likely not going to see support from staff or the design view board in supporting um rare setback variances
such as this. We do look at in terms of what is the established character of the of the alley in this case and it what they're proposing would not be inconsistent with what's what what's been established for that for that setback. >> Yes. And I think Rene also mentioned that
instead of the 10 you have suggested nine and the one where's the magic number >> because in so typically even in commercial let's say in the in in cases where the code does allow reduced setbacks in commercial districts that setback is usually 5T. So we figure even
in the most extreme cases there's no instance where a less than 5 foot is allowed for the rear setback. So we felt that having a 5ft setback was more consistent with other areas of the city as well as for other variances that have been approved for rear setbacks. I can't think of a rear setback variance that's
been approved at less than 5 ft. So that's why I recommended that. Also the additional setback because eventually over time we know that the streets and alleyways will will be elevated at some point they will lose access to this garage. It may be 50 years or 75 years,
but the further the further recept the further set back you have from the alley for the garage allows more adaptability to slope up to that to that level. So it does give a little bit more time. >> Thank you, Lindsay. So you were when we were talking earlier
about the um the front facade of the balcony, you mentioned it was I think in context of that you were saying that it's consistent with elsewhere in the neighborhood. Um is that what you said? Did I hear that correctly?
>> Um I don't recall exactly uh in relation to you mean to the front >> consistent? Oh I mean in in in the materiality you mean? >> Yes. Yes. I'm not sure. You just >> I probably said it. Yes. In in relation to to you the use of glass block.
>> Okay. Um and then um has any consideration so I mean so I happen to live on Midian and not in this block although I'm very familiar with it. Um has any consideration been given to the impact um on the um foliage that that
exists there considering I mean because in that drawing that we were looking at earlier with the yellow that we were all discussing. I don't know what page it is. Um, and you you have freely said that it's not representing the trees. The trees aren't represented on that drawing or on many of these, but I mean those trees do extend and I mean
typically I mean the buildings that are further down the street like it extends up and over balconies and rooftops and etc. So what's the consideration with having kind of a wall there and the impact on I mean these these beautiful California trees that we have lining um
Meridian Avenue? I am concerned about that and so I want to talk I want to I want to understand what you guys have looked into regarding that and what kind of um considerations you've made for that. >> Sure. >> I think the the intention is to stay
well within the setback of of the building. In other words, within our buildable area, uh I assume if if there is a street tree, which is I think what you're referring to, that has a branch that is coming into the buildable area,
then it may need to be uh cut back. But I think that generally speaking, our approach in general is to love and keep uh the vegetation that's there. As a matter of fact, the cape there's a beautiful cape tree on the site that we
want to maintain and any mature uh trees. There's uh also some trees here which you see uh help the situation with the neighbor towards the north. These uh palm trees and and we would maintain
those as as long as we're able to uh and that should all be reflected in your landscape plan. I I guess the simple answer is we we want to be sensitive and and maintain uh all of the mature existing vegetation
that is there. Okay. Seeing no more, Rey, you're your mic is on. Are you asking a question? No. Are you okay? All right. Uh seeing no more questions, uh are there any um board disclosures? Anybody? No. Anything else?
>> Just I like all of you received a letter from neighbor and also a phone call. >> Yep. Okay. Anybody else? Nope. All right. All right. With that, I think we'll um open
it to the um public hearing. So since nobody nobody has their hand raised online so we can just proceed to um to in chambers comment. >> Perfect. Okay.
>> Hello >> dear members of the historic preservation. >> Can can you start by introducing yourself and your address please? >> My name is Jennifer Kaiser. I was born here in Miami Beach and I am the president of the board of 344 Meridian Avenue Condominium Association. We are
the neighbors. Um in here today are five other representatives, five other unit owners or representatives. All of us have the balconies that face south, which is where they're proposing to build this. Um I'm going to need 10
minutes. Is that okay? and I'll make it I can probably go faster than 10 minutes but I prepared it's this is in two sections. This is to address two portions of their uh request. >> I just need to know um because you is everybody going to everybody going to
speak or are you speaking in front for five of you all five of you? >> Um there might be some people who want to add something >> then you if it's not then I we can't give you each 10 minutes. So, >> no, not we're not each going to need 10 minutes. >> Each each would be given 10 minutes
because it's that's the only fair way to that's the way we have to do it. If >> Oh, I understand. >> Okay. They want me to speak for them. I >> I was asking if they can seed time. If they concede their time to >> we can give you a 10-minute block. >> I don't know.
>> I mean, I might not even need the whole 10 minutes. I can go through it. >> Why don't we give you I think >> Mr. Chairman, you I think you can use your discretion. to grant Miss Kaiser the um additional time. She's going to be repres
of of other residents in the building. If others want to add after you know we can take those questions. >> So we don't have to do it where everybody gets the I mean I just know I don't think so. Okay. Perfect. Then we will start with you and uh you can have your 10 minutes. >> Thank you very much. I prepared this to try try to streamline it and um I
appreciate all of you for reading all of our letters and the phone call. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to express our concerns here. So, um, in in the actual public hearing notice, um, it says the application has been filed requesting a
certificate of appropriateness for the total demolition of one structure. I'm assuming that's the back house. um the substantial demolition of one structure and I'm assuming that's the historic Dexter multif family building
that sits at the front of the property, the construction of a single family home. I'm assuming that that would replace the total demolition of the back house and then a variance from the minimum required setback. So there's no real mention in here of the replacement
of the substantial demolition to the actual Dexter, the historic Dexter building itself. Um yet the request for the certificate of appropriateness is for all four of these items. So that was very confusing to us. Um the notice
itself was confusing. But moving past the confusion now we know that this meeting is to discuss granting the permission to destroy the majority of the historic art deco multif family building the Dexter and for the permission to reduce the minimum setback specific to the construction of the
single family structure that would replace the back house. But it's already been demonstrated to this honorable historic preservation board by multiple letters that we would experience hardship that the request variance to minimize the rear setback to is to
accommodate for a twocar garage, a kitchen, and a wine bar. And that is inappropriate. It's inappropriate for three reasons. Um, not granting the variance would not deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. It would um but it would work unnecessary and un oh it would not work undue um unnecessary and undue hardship. the applicant would
not experience unnecessary hardship if the variance is not granted. The second reason um not not granting the variance does not deny um reasonable use of the land the
building or structure um the structure they they don't need a variance to build the house is what I'm saying it's not a requirement they have not expressed hardship um but this variance if the variance is requested it is not in harmony with the general
intent and purpose of these land development regulations s and such a variance will be injurious and detrimental to public welfare and that has also been expressed in the letters. Now let's talk about the request to significantly demolish the multif family
front structure the art deco historic building the Dexter don't demolish the Dexter uh I I can appreciate like the creativity that went into their project. Um it's very creative. I am I really
appreciate it. But this we're talking about a historic building. Um there is cultural and economic value of preservation of art deco buildings in Miami Beach. As you all very well know, the city's art deco buildings are not
only historically significant, they signify they significantly contribute to the character, identity, and the tourist economy of Miami Beach. Demolition of the Dexter would result in irretrievable loss of heritage. The Dexter should be
restored, not significantly demolished. Just because the Dexter is in a flood risk area does not make it appropriate to knock down the majority of the historic building, especially to replace it with a modern building that towers so
far over the um the height of the original structure. Appropriate height is a feature of the character of art deco buildings. Flood code does not override local
preservation. While building codes and flood resilience standards are important, they do not automatically permit the demolition of historically significant buildings without review. There must still be compliance with you and the city's preservation ordinance.
What is their proof of hardship? I didn't gather any hardship from their letter of intent. Um, the flood code is clashing with the need for art art deco historic preservation.
Um, in their letter of intent, they claim that 336 Meridian is in the RPS2 residential subdist. According to the survey, the lot is 50 ft wide. According to Municode for RPS2 properties, it states the maximum
building height for a 50 foot or less wide lot is 45 ft tall. Yet, their plan shows they want to build a 47t tall building with a carpet. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly, but it's like an extra 3T of protection on the
roof, which would bring it to 50 ft. And then an elevator at 57 ft. A similar elevator was proposed in 2012 for the construction of 350 Meridian and it was not approved by the historic preservation board at the time. They
said you can get up to the uh rooftop with stairs. So, let's get back to don't destroy the Dexter. Don't significantly uh demolish the Dexter. As we did more research, we discovered the term facadism and how
it's been used to preserve many art deco hotels. This concept has worked for a few of the art deco um hotels, but I haven't seen this concept personally and I haven't really had enough time to research it, but um I haven't seen it on like a multif family structure
protecting a building like this. Um I know the Betsy, the South Seas, uh the Shore Club, they all use this. it was all approved. Um, the proposed building plan may be a first of its kind. Um,
it's super unique, but I don't feel that it's right or appropriate for this address for 336 Meridian. The pro the proposed plan combines the preservation of the facade wall with a modern structure over it.
um a brand new huge modern structure sitting right on top of the pres of the preserved facade wall that will detract from the classic art deco look. And I think I heard some of you say that as well in your comments. Um that it just
defeats the purpose of art deco historic preservation. Um before I conclude, I just want to mention that I' I heard a lot from um the architect just now about the courtyard and how they've been sensitive and you know they're concerned about the
courtyard, but there was no mention of the um there's a structure that showed in the renderings that tops the courtyard. So it almost seems like it's an enclosed courtyard. So, I don't understand how enclosing the courtyard
is going to is being sensitive to us if we can't see it because we're looking at their kitchen. Um, so in conclusion, I strongly oppose the issuance of any certificate of appropriateness to two of the four
propositions. Instead, what I feel would be appropriate is to restore the Dexter. Um the front of the art deco multif family structure 336 meridian. Bring it to its
full beauty. Restore it. Truly preserving this historic art deco building. Demolish the back house. Take it down. Build a new beautiful modern house in the back but that's right sized that doesn't need a variance. And um
respect and love thy neighbor. I mean, there are 12 of us that are uh being affected. So, and I did have a PowerPoint to put I I put together a PowerPoint, but I don't know if I I don't even know how to use it. But basically, it was showing you guys
images of the property lines, how you can see how close we are already to the 350 building. When that 350 building on our north side was designed, it was designed with they have their windows facing out. It closed off. It closed us
off from that side. If this building is allowed to be constructed to our south side, we are literally trapped. Our our building wasn't designed for like for this. It wasn't designed to have something that close. There should be some kind of consideration with height,
distance from the side. if they are. Oh, the um flood requirements are incompatible with height restrictions today. I'm finding this over and over. Even when I I I listened I was here all day. These flood
requirements are totally incompatible. And I'm I'm seeing people kind of use the well because the new flood code says we have to start at 12 feet. That means our building can be 70 feet in the air. And that's what's happening. It's like, oh no, is the building 40T or is it 50
feet? Yeah. Oh, well, it's 40 feet if you don't count the 12t elevation that. So, and that's it's very confusing and it's very tricky. Um, so that's all I have to say. We're open to hear um your proposal next or whatever.
Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Anybody else? Public hearing. keep it really short. Uh I'm Dave Dunes. I'm also an owner at 344. Uh I think just with everything we've talked about, um more than anything, I just hope that
uh they understand that we we welcome them as neighbors and we're excited for what they'll build. I'm sure will be beautiful. I hope they can somewhat go back to the drawing board and maybe talk to us. this delicate intervention as as Renee said is kind of really imposing on all of us and um it really affects our
quality of life and just wondering about this this height thing the 18 ft that they're saying they're going above and beyond to really mitigate flood stuff. Can we bring that down? I mean come back down. That height is is really affecting us. But uh I hope that we can talk to them and that you guys will grant us the
chance to investigate this further since we just heard about it. Thank you all. >> Thank you. Thank you for coming up. Anybody else? >> Good afternoon. Um, I appreciate that the facade of the Dexter is going to stay the way it is. I would argue that
when these tour groups come by that have for years, whether on a Segway or being led in a golf cart, they're not going to see a floating structure over it. Impressive it is, but it'll be looming over it more so. you're detracted looking at that building from the plans
that I see looking up at it from the street and I don't think that's consistent with preservation of a historic building such as the Dexter. It completely changes the facade literally and the structure is proposed structure is impressive. I appreciate the the
attempt to keep the courtyard that's lovely and I would see that out on my actual balcony. However, I realize there's no laws that keep someone from building and blocking off of you. you've had since 1974, some of the members of the building. But there is a human
factor that all the wealth that's accured through having property was based on that view. We will lose that view completely, which will also in turn devalue our homes. Thank you. >> Thank you. And uh anybody else want to
Okay, you want to you can go afterwards. Good afternoon. Julie Isacson representing the Miami Design Preservation League Advocacy Committee. 336 Meridian Avenue MDPL position. We
oppose the proposed project for multiple reasons. First, the application does not demonstrate sufficient justification for the near complete demolition of a contributing structure within the Ocean Beach Historic District. Retaining only
three facade walls does not constitute meaningful historic preservation and fails to preserve the architectural integrity that the structure contributes to the neighborhood. The proposed new construction is incompatible with the scale, massing,
and architectural character of the surrounding historic district. The oversized design, particularly the projecting glass block, overpowers the historic facade. The overall design lacks contextual sensitivity to the
predominantly art deco and Mediterranean revival character of Meridian Avenue and the interior portion of the south of Fifth neighborhood. We oppose the requested variance to reduce the rear setback from 14 ft to
4T. The applicant has not demonstrated a legitimate hardship. Claims of base flood elevation challenges do not justify reduced setbacks. We believe this proposal represents overdevelopment of the site and sets a concerning
precedent for demolishing contributing structures while claiming preservation through facade retention alone. We encourage the applicant to reconsider the design with a more contextually appropriate architectural approach that
generally integrates and respects the historic structure, reduces the overall mass and scale, and eliminates the projecting elements that overpower the streetscape. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um, anybody else?
One second. Okay. Hello. Uh, Tatiana Trovic representing apartment 3B at 344 Meridian Avenue. Um, I'm piggybacking off what everybody else pretty much said. This is an art deco building. It is I love Meridian Avenue.
People go there, they love seeing the trees. They love seeing the old buildings. We don't need another modern glass brick building. Build it in Bickl in downtown Edgewater. But I think it's heartbreaking to see this looming
balcony over the beautiful art deco building, restore the building, build this small little house in the back. I just think it's an absolute eyesore. And they said they're going to try to preserve the trees in the front. We all know what that means. The trees are going down. They're going to be cut
because this huge gigantic balcony is going to be in the way of those trees. So, please rethink approving anything. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, unless we have somebody online, do we? No, >> there's nobody online with their hand raised.
>> Okay, then we will close uh public comments. >> Before you do that, chair, I want I want Todd and Tiffany to be able to say a few words. >> Of course. >> Well, hello. Good afternoon, and thank you board members and team. Uh I'll
introduce the better half first, my wife, Tiffany Engel. I'm uh Dr. Todd Engel. Um, I think I'll come from a little different stance and perspective today. First of all, thank you all for your comments. Um, I think the best thing that was said today was love and
respect that neighbor. Um, we, uh, currently reside in Charlotte, North Carolina. We have a home here, uh, condo on Ocean and Third. And I just mentioned this because um I'm a dental surgeon and uh I've been uh the owner and founder of
a dental uh implant institute for 25 years teaching all over the world. The reason I mention that is because we are fortunately two years away from my retirement and able to choose anywhere in the world that we want to live. And this is where our heart is. We walk
every day. We love Miami Beach. We support Miami Beach. We infiltrate money into restaurants, parking lots, coffee shops. When we come here, we Uber home and we don't leave our home. We spend our entire time south of Fifth. We
support the community. We don't know anybody here to be honest with you. Um, we walk, as I mentioned, about 20,000 steps a day. I did mine already today. I walked down Jefferson Meridian all the
way back and forth this morning to 52nd Street from Third Street. My favorite street is Meridian. My My favorite street is Meridian because of the trees. I will do everything in my power to save every
leaf on every branch. Um I I I tell you that it this I'm a public speaker. I'm not shaking cuz I'm nervous. I'm shaking cuz it's emotional. Um, I've waited my whole life to find a
place to be with my family that I love and I love it here. So, while I'm very sensitive to the comments and I thank you. Um, we want to join Miami. We don't want to change Miami. We love the Dexter. Unfortunately, in the condition
that it's in and the fact that there are four one-bedroom apartments, it's we can't live in this. and uh and I understand the comments. Um I would say that when we started looking around and trying to put a team together to not
only create something conducive and new for Miami, but we wanted to keep it what it was. We don't we didn't want to change anything. The reason we came to Miami is because we love we love what Miami is. We really do. Um,
being originally from California, I understand the weather and we love the weather, but we love it here more now. Uh, the reason I mention that is because it was really, really important to me that I start with someone not not only cultural culturally rooted, but from an
extreme talent level to provide us what we need. And we began with Renee. Um, so I'll leave it at that. I thank everybody. I really do. uh in one way or another, we are your neighbors and we wish everybody in here the best and we're really looking forward to being
residents of Miami Beach and we thank you all. >> Thank you very much. Uh we're Yeah, we're going to uh close public comment and now you have a chance for rebuttal. >> Okay, >> if you'd like to take it. >> Yes, thank you very much. Uh a few points regarding the height. We're fully
compliant on height. The height in the district is 40 feet from base foot elevation plus freeboard. We are utilizing for resiliency which is the resiliency code. It encourages understories. We have an understory and measuring height from BF plus the 5 ft
of freeboard plus 40 ft is to our top of roof. We are fully compliant and the there is an elevator bulkhead 10 ft above that. The code allows for that as a allowable height exception. So we are 100% compliant in that regard. Our side
setbacks also fully compliant. Uh that is what this not just for our property but for the building that was built north of uh the neighbors. They are complying with their side setbacks. That is the nature of this district and that is also I think the historic uh setbacks
for older buildings as well. And this neighborhood is the context of this neighborhood is a number of uh multifloor multifamily buildings. So we are similarly sized. Um what we are actually doing is uh preserving the
Dexter. It may not be preserved as a fully enclosed building, but today and tomorrow it's not a publicly accessible building. What does the public get to view? The facade from the street uh along the sidewalk and across the way.
And that is what we are preserving in place. It is significantly lower uh from a flood uh plane perspective. And that's extremely concerning when you go to try to preserve and allow it to be habitable. It would be at extreme risk.
But we are preserving that and then being resilient with the rest of our development. As I mentioned before, what that does, that is a main part of our hardship is that we are preserving the Dexter in place and we are pulling our building back. So the Dexter itself is
not at the front setback line. It is already further back and pushing the majority of our building further back and respecting the historic courtyard in the middle are the reasons why we are seeking the variance at the rear setback. Historic preservation is a well-known and established uh hardship
for um seeking a associated variance that also is creating our practical difficulty as well as that's through the flood plane issues. Uh allowing that building to remain and be preserved from the for the public at the front. uh it
means we are pushing away towards the back and at the same time that we have shown and our all of our plans indicate you know this is the historic context for rear setbacks in this neighborhood. Um, we agree to the 5 ft that staff uh
has suggested. No issue with that. And as I did mention, there is a wellestablished I'm I know that these people have been here uh for years and seen, you know, views across this private property, but there is no right
to view across private property. I will say that again, this is a single family home. This is not going to be a multif family residence uh building which could have up to 16 units at 950 square feet each and have all the parking and likely
seek balconies that would face the neighbors. We are have no balconies facing the neighbors and we are leaving about 1500 or more square feet undevelopable. You see that courtyard in the middle where the majority of that is open right at the position where there
are balconies uh in the south central side of the building to the north which is the only portion of the south wall of their building that has balconies is right where we are placing our courtyard to maintain that historic uh if we did all we fully built out had full F that
would be a big box that whole area would be filled in and they would be staring I don't know if it's a blank wall but you add a wall of some kind. Um, so we feel that this is the more sensible approach. Um, I know that there were probably more
be more questions that I'll leave uh for you to ask uh certainly about the balcony. I'm sure Renee can can fill you in more, but I think that's it for rebuttal. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, and I I would like to ask uh staff just to step in here because I think uh we've been
hearing a lot and since you're our professional um adviserss on this, you in your staff report you talk about um the further the scale and massing of the proposed home with the proposed courtyard is more consistent with and contextually sensitive to the
established neighborhood scale as compared to more recently constructed buildings such as 350 Meridian or the adjacent building at 344 constructed in 1974. Can you elaborate on maybe on the conversations that you had and if you can put this into context with the
guidance that was actually voted into um like buoyant city guidance that was voted in by the city commission several years ago um so that we can kind of understand your point of view on the discussion. >> Sure. So so looking back at the um reference to the the neighbor character
um that refers to the courtyard. So, if you look at the building to the north and the building to the north of that, um, they don't really have a courtyard. So, you have you have the buildings built out from setback to setback. Um, that's inconsistent with the historic um, character of the neighborhood. They did have a front building and a rear
building with a more a courtyard in the center. As Mr. Rams stated, if they were to, yeah, they could they could remove they could push the whole building inward, eliminate that courtyard, eliminate the variance request, but is that going to be beneficial to anybody? And is that does that also then it
doesn't follow along with the with the sort of um courtyard development over time of of these properties in terms of the resiliency code. You know R didn't mention it. He's one of the the he he probably had one of the first properties or designed one of the first properties
with an understory before the before the city even had understory regulations on on Prairie Avenue. And so he's very very familiar with designing um resilient buildings. And so in terms of the um in terms his building does respond to the requirement to you know elevate
buildings and look at you know the future for 50 100 years. This is a building that's that's it's a lot of thought put into it. It's going to last for hopefully 100 years. So you want to be resilient and he's designed it you know as such. And when when I looked at this and Debbie looked at this building
it is a little bit little bit um different in terms of the design concept. And we I think Rene didn't focus more on why is the balcony along the front that consistent, you know, plane. And that's more so to not overwhelm the historic architecture. So
this becomes a backdrop. He has the mirror the the underside with a slight reflection so that the landscaping behind that will be reflective above that. And he didn't want to have just a typical Yeah, he could have they could have designed a rooftop edition on top of the existing texture. And that's just
something that's that's more typical standard. it's not it's not it's nothing innovative. So we believe that his philosophy here which is to really keep that um preserved architecture and not overwhelm it by adding addition having an addition that's separate and detached
and I think that's the reason why he's he has this you know elevated balcony. do think that we talked about that as as well that if if the board is uncomfortable with that approach there is an alternative he could you know reduce the size of that to a typical railing if there's concerns with
branches over over imp impacting that balcony I think they could take a look at that and further analyze are there b are there branches that would you know interfere with that balcony they could reduce it I do think that this is a very academic exercise we're looking at we're looking at these elevations in puress
without the landscaping we're probably never going to see that condition. So, I do think that um although a lot of this has a good argument academically in terms of the the design perspective, when you look at adding the trees, would it be that bad if they reduce the balcony to a typical
balcony height? And you can see the the windows behind it, it doesn't it may impact his integrity of his his design, but I think that's sort of a minor um accommodation if the board members believe that that's something that should be should be addressed. I haven't heard any any comments regarding the
side elevations or the overall design. It seems like the focus is on that um the balcony in the front. So, and I do think that his solution by keeping the the building the deck to where it is, he could elevate it. Then you then you you divorce it from the street and that's going to be divorced until such time
that the street is that the street is elevated if ever. So, I think this is preserves sort of the history and the um the pattern of development. You can look at this and see, oh, I see why they left this open. this this area could flood. So, but it preserves sort of the
historic is it is like a um um like a relic or a um a ruin not but not not to that extent but you can see where it is reflective of the historic pattern of development in Miami Beach. And another thing to point to note on we didn't focus on the the glass wall on the
property line. I know that was mentioned in terms of a question. The maximum height they could do that is five feet. So the maximum height for that wall on the front is 5T and that that glass design would require approval from this board. So it's up to the board to approve the glass block for the for the
fence. Otherwise, we have to do like a standard, you know, pick a fence for the front for the front wall. >> Did Okay. Did anybody else have any questions following that or um >> I go ahead? >> Sorry, I didn't understand what you said. They said at the front wall
because it's a block glass block approved by >> Yeah, because we wouldn't typically approve a glass block at staff level for a property wall. >> I see. But if it were like a masonry concrete painted that could you didn't have to be approved by us. >> Correct. Correct.
>> Got it. >> All right. Um, >> so do we have uh comments now? Not questions. Randy, did you are you out of comments or you just uh Anybody would like to Anybody like to go Ray, please?
>> Well, it's already been discussed, but that balcony uh to me is like too overpowering on the original building. I would rather he see it just as a straight balcony, no glass block or whatever because then it steps back. Then you've got your window, then you've
got your open. I mean, it it right now it just it it just is a big in-your-face block >> and and I I can't approve it like that. >> If if I may, I don't know if this is appropriate at this time. I'm sorry. Um yeah, why don't you go back and forth cuz we need
>> I just I just would like to pull up an image that I have of let's say the naked building without in my view and I understand how you would see that that way because and it is maybe uh stark
when you first see it but I think that the the final result uh honestly and that's the intent is to be sensitive to the historic building and to to create something as Michael very Well said. That becomes backdrop and and soft, if
you will, because the glass block will essentially just reflect the light and hover over it as a soft uh rectangular element. And that's the reason why we actually haven't articulated it, but we have in in uh the could call up the
presentation, please. >> Can you help me pull this up, please? Oh, here I've got it. So, I I'd like to show you this image, which is essentially what the the building would look like without that
railing. And you can see the busyiness of what the facade would be having uh having uh sliding glass doors uh and a regular balcony and and and versus uh
what we are proposing which is something softer and and sort of just more uniform. It may not I I can completely understand where uh a lay person may not understand it, but I
think in reality when this is built, you and hopefully you will approve this and and support it and and if so, I would love to see you one day after it's built and and understand your your point of
view because I I truly believe as an architect that loves this city and that as Michael said did I think the first uh resilient house the on prairie which is uh the elevated house that was built on prairie. Uh I care about this place and
and and I I also sympathize with the neighbors because and we we we reached out to them uh to meet with them so that I could explain this to them. But I can understand and be sympathetic that they've been looking at an empty lot for many many years. But I think that the
development that we're doing is really trying to be sensitive to them, >> to the historic structure and and to Miami Beach in general. Um, so that's thanks. >> And as a reminder, >> this does not show the existing street
tree canopy. I understand, >> right? That this view will not be seen unless I'm horrible and I don't want to say it. You know there are great there are limited vantage points which is another reason why the Dexter will shine in this proposal.
>> Right. >> I there the two concerns I have. First of all that that entire balcony is in front of the historic building. It's entirely sticking out. I I'm looking at Google map right now of the street in front of the house. You look up, you're going to see it. I I don't There's a
tree in the in the boulevard. There are no trees in the front yard. They're all small bird of paradise bamboo or something. I can't tell exactly. Um, you will see that. Um, and the fact that it projects out over in front of the existing building, I'm sorry, your your
other picture is 10 times better in my opinion from a design point of view. If you change the color of the muttons not to be dark brown, I think it would be much less busy. It actually was looks like it's been exaggerated to make it look busy. If you look at the facade of the building you have on that picture, it's very generic with all those
muttons. You can hardly tell there's yet when you take the railing off, you made it dark. It's very busy. I don't disagree with that, but I I absolutely disagree that this is a better option. Transparency to a street in an urban area is important. It's not a back
alley. Um that looks like this is on the back alley of this property. So that's I can't support this. >> Okay. Um >> Ray on the on the mic, please. any uh Haskell, would you like to add any comments?
>> Well, this is the moment we're otherwise. Okay. Oh, you want to come back? Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Go for it, Mitch. Sorry. I I just thought we were going to be going through each person in order. >> So, to the rear setback, that seems to
be something contentious with your neighbors. Are you uh willing to reduce it any further beyond the five feet that staff uh recommends? Matt Renee,
>> uh I I would just like to go back to this image so that you understand uh the the the reason and how much we are uh pushing back from the front. Uh essentially the enclosed space is in
alignment with a historic uh facade. Yes, the the balcony elevation sits out but within the setback, but we're still 23' 5 in primarily. So, we would appreciate uh the we appreciate the the
staff's recommendation and uh are are fine with that, but I think if we if we reduce it much further, we will have to sort of dilute that courtyard, which is actually going to impact the neighbors in a significant way. >> Well, that that's what I was thinking.
Can you uh take two or three uh feet uh pull it? Uh >> we can. And then we would probably have to push into the courtyard two or three feet. It's it's a real balancing act here. And you can be certain that I've studied this very carefully and that I'm
trying to strike a balance between uh all of it in in in our view and and especially when you look at this drawing and you understand the number of uh properties including our neighbor to the north that is encroaching on the
setback. And if you look at the alley, can we pull those images please? Uh if you look at at the alley uh photographs, you'll see the nature of the alley. There's nothing special there. But what is special is is the courtyard. And what will be special >> tree, right? Huge tree.
>> Wait, >> that's staying that K-pop tree. And and what will be special, I think what will be special is the effect of the courtyard on the on the neighbors. >> Let's no cross talk. We're we can't have any talk off the record, off the So
yeah. I'll justain I'll explain these two uh drawings which we did uh in relation to uh the courtyard issue and the setback and the the the relationship to the neighbor. So this is
where the courtyard sits and it was designed to be precisely where their balcony is. I mean, we've really attempted to be sensitive with this project, including, as has already been said, that it's 8,000 ft² versus 10,000 ft², that it's a single family home. So,
this swath here, and yes, there is a bridge that goes across and connects the two elements, but it's a bridge. And yet, this this whole area here, which sits in front of the balconies, you can see this is their the elevation. We took the trouble of of drawing the elevation
of their building. This is where their balcony occurs and that's precisely where the courtyard occurs. And here you see it in plan. >> So for clarification purposes, would they be able to see the interior of the courtyard or will they be looking? >> Depends on what level. If they're at
this level, yes, they'll look right into it. Well, depends on, you know, honestly, I think it would be in both the neighbors favor and and my client's favor for this to get densely planted. So I think they will see a jungle or they'll see vegetation which is the
intention. >> Okay. And when you said that level you're referring to 20 ft up or >> these these are the this is all parking on the building next door. >> Yeah. >> This is the first uh habitable level next door. This is the second habitable level and this is the third habitable
level. >> And and this is the nature of the alley. So the question is, you know, do we want to encroach on the alley and yes, respect the 5T that seems to be more standard than the 4T or and and yet we
we're going to be in a similar condition to everyone else on the alley or do we want to lose uh sort of a courtyard for for the nature of the project and also for the neighbors? I I I didn't find a a
northern elevation for uh Do you have one available? >> Yeah, we should. >> Uh >> can you pull it up? >> We'll pull that up for you. >> Thank you. >> It's It's in your package as well. It should be >> If you could give me the page, uh it
would be appreciated. >> Thanks. Um, it should be >> with the elevations. >> It's a thick package. >> A1. >> Okay, >> here it is. >> Great. So, so
>> so this is this is the area we're talking about. >> Got it. Got it. So >> yeah, you can see it on the screen with the palm trees. >> Gotcha. >> So on this elevation where the two people are walking on the left is
>> is that the sidewalk or is that the that's on the property, right? That's the sidewalk property. Uh, no. That's on the property. I'm sorry. >> On the property. Okay. So, the the Yeah. >> Yeah. The Yeah. >> Now you lost me. >> That's That's You're absolutely correct, John. It's It's uh misleading in the
sense that it tends to look like it's the sidewalk that's inside the property because >> Yes, >> the balcony is within the buildable area of the site. >> Got it. >> Remember, the Dexter wall is 15 ft 5 in
from the property line, >> right? Um, >> would you like to you have a question? >> Oh, were you finished? >> I Mitch, are you >> sure? I mean, >> sure. >> Okay, you can come. We can come back to
you. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, thank you, Rene, so much. I really appreciate the design and the care you all took trying to figure out the best way to use the existing structure. at the same time uh satisfy
your client's desire of being Miami Beach and appreciate your comments as well. Uh I personally have two problems with the design. One, I tend to agree that the balcony going beyond the front existing front elevation of the
building, it's a little bit overwhelming. I don't have a problem with the height if it were set back flush with the existing elevation. I understand that you have the right to do that by code, but I think I feel like it's overwhelming and taking over the
structure and I understand that your intent of having the underside reflective and the glass block all that will help or minimize the effect but I still feel it won't take it away. it's not going to make it disappear and I
find it overwhelming in the circumstances and given the existing situation and my other that I'm struggling with is the encroachment on the rear setback. I understand the alley is the alley but at the same time the
alley fulfills a purpose and as Michael mentioned in the future if they raise the alley having the additional wis helps for it and I think four feet on each side it I personally believe it's not enough and it's also it's an issue
of privacy too and I don't know what's on the other side and I think that's one of the reasons why the city has increased the requirements that require setbacks to create more space and allow for more privacy for the residents and you know that historically South Beach
was always a very dense area for different reasons. So I think that is one way that the city has found to minimize that. So those are my two areas that I'm struggling with. >> Okay. Thank you Lindsay. Well, you know, I'm just a lay person, but um at least
as far as architecture is concerned, but I have sat on this board for a couple of years. And I will echo my neighbor's comments. I will echo my neighbor's comments. I I I do struggle. I So I'm probably almost as familiar with this stretch of
meridian as anybody in this room. Um so I do struggle specifically and I raised this earlier, my concern about the trees. I I I the as staff mentioned um the balcony is overpowering um over the the existing structure. I
really appreciate the thoughtful concern given to preserving the three walls of the existing structure. Um the design is beautiful into the courtyard and whatnot. I appreciate all of that. Um but I I I don't standing here today I
can't support the project as is. um based on the imposing nature of the structure over the existing structure and I mean it's literally at the property line where that balcony comes to and um I mean I've stood on the rooftop of the building two doors down
like I know where these trees come to I know what this looks like property most of them step back actually 344 doesn't step back but the other newer properties across the street you have louver house you know it's set back the imposing nature of this over the sidewalk and over the people that are walking by I I
do think it's going to take away from the existing contributing structure and and so that's just where I am. So I know staff has asked for or suggested or recommended approval with conditions. Uh my perspective personally, I'm going to
share this with the board and with the applicant is that you take into consideration the revision staff has recommended the stuff that we've dis the things that we've discussed here specifically changes to that front balcony. Um I I appreciate what my colleague said um regarding that the the
representation of it with the wall removed looks intentionally busy and it doesn't have to be that busy. Um take some of those things into consideration because I know it's not just as simple as okay we don't want you encroaching this much in the setback and we don't want this. You can't just say okay cool I'm going to I'm going to cut those off
and here's the new properties we're standing here. Um, what I'd like to see is kind of some thoughtful redesign of those elements um to come back before us. That's where I am right now. Um, and and go. Sorry. Right. >> Question to you. Do you think uh having
the balcony removed totally and then just have like a French balcony door as part of the bedroom? You know, like there's a lot of places that just, you know, just open up your door and you have a balcony right there and your your your bedroom is now part of that balcony. I mean, is that what you're really saying? Cuz you'd like to hear
the balcony totally taken off. Correct. >> No. Well, I don't want it to extend to the edge of the property line, which is where it is now. It's >> the feet set back. >> Sorry. My apologies. To the fence line. Yes. Is it the fence line? >> No, the
>> Well, it overhangs. It over It totally overhangs. >> Let's see. Where's the Where's What page is the yellow drawing that we keep talking about? >> This one. Renee >> Renee looking for the yellow. Let's wait. No cross yet.
>> It's right now. >> Let's just finish this. >> So the property line and then the fence is where the >> fence is at at the property line on the ground floor, right? >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So I it's the it's goes to the five foot front at back, but
I still think that that's going to be overpowering. I don't think there's I could be wrong. I don't think other than something that goes straight up, there's something that's going to overhang like that. Um, at on Meridian, as best I can recall, I don't think there is anything. It all steps back. I know even 350 steps
back. There may be walls, but like the balconies themselves kind of step back. >> I I think they're on the setback, which is sort of further out or at the same point as this. I mean it appears like uh this would set out just simply because
the existing historic facade is that >> correct but I mean it's going to extend 5T over the existing that's what I'm saying you know um so that's those are my thoughts. >> Okay Mitch the thank you the depth of
the balcony is that 10 and 1/2 ft. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It's >> what's it's 10 and 1/2 ft from the property line to the edge of the
building itself. So if you subtract for the wall >> if if you pull up the image that I have currently. >> Sorry, not from the property line from the setback. My apologies. >> Here you see >> the the the >> you see where the property line is. uh
here. >> Mhm. >> This is our our 5-ft setback. In other words, this is the buildable area. All this yellow zone is actually buildable area. And that and within that area is
where most of the buildings currently exist on this street. >> Mhm. >> Uh and Louver House included uh with the exception of the courtyard because I designed Louver House. So, Um I Mitch go did you have a
>> I'm just fascinated uh that the uh 10 and 1/2t uh can lever uh that's uh impressive. I guess steel tubes will do wonders. Uh this is good design folks. Uh quite
frankly, uh I I understand everybody's uh trepidation or concern with the uh glass wall, glass block wall on that balcony. Uh perhaps maybe, you know, lowering it a bit could be
considered. I I like that it's the same height of as the uh the uh other elevation of the building. It's it's it's a progressive design. Um, I just wish we can find a uh some sort of
middle ground where the neighbors could uh could could rest easily. So, uh I don't again I don't know if that's in the rear setback uh or uh you know lessening the uh the depth of
the uh courtyard. Uh >> well, yeah. No, I I I agree and I you know I I I know you're an amazing architect, Renee, and I would really not want to uh you know try to nickel and dime this in any way cuz I think if you
took the conversations that you heard today and back with your clients and with your staff and kind of worked on that, I'm I'm thinking you might be able to obviously get something that we haven't even conceived of yet, but would also kind of perhaps pull this board
around so you get the five votes that you'd need to to pass this. I assume it's five votes. Is that correct? >> It's five for both. >> It's what the >> varian for both, right? No. So, five. You really have to get five people on board. Um, and I was just uh, you know, the reason I asked uh, Michael about the
uh, conversations was and specifically about the guidelines that have been approved by the city was the was because the boy and city guidelines are so specific about this particular question and it's not answered like well I mean you would be able to answer it much
better but it's it's really kind of about forwarding the historic property in some way as you've done in your own way but you also kind of have this breer s kind of uh structure behind it and there and you know if you read the the histories of the Bruer building in in in
Manhattan and it's the conversations about it were really very reminiscent of kind of the conversations we had today there those conversations took place in the 70s but I do think that um you know may I was wondering if maybe we'd have a
um I what kind of what you kind of what you guys would like to do I just don't see the the board kind of coming around uh with the five votes yet. Um but I but I I'm very confident that if you had more conversation with maybe with the
neighbors and had a kind of you know like you'd be really be able to take off with this. >> I I I appreciate that. >> Second >> Oh, just wait one second. I just want >> No, sorry. I was I I was just going to I appreciate Lindsay's conversation. By no
means was I suggesting that a lay person doesn't I mean all I was saying was that maybe the drawings can be uh sort of better understood by an by an academic or an architect and that's all I was so I'm sorry I didn't not mean that
whatsoever. Um, I uh wanted to get a little bit of clarification cuz I appreciated your comments uh Lindsay and I wanted to understand and and in general from from all of you um if I is
it having the balcony period. So if the balcony existed without that facade and we sort of developed uh the facade uh in at this in other words the only visible facade would be this facade here in line
with a historic preservation but the balcony would still >> we don't have it on the screen. >> Can you put the image up please? There we go. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. So my question is I'm I'm trying to get I'm I'm hearing that this is going to be continued. I I appreciate
everybody's uh comments and and I'm trying to understand and take it in so that we can walk away and come back with something that's productive. So my question is if we uh uh have the elevation here that it will be visible
uh would it still be acceptable uh to you all if there is a balcony here that is transparent in nature? In other words, the way that the rendering that I showed you depicts, which has cables and and a grate, a metal grate, so that it's
transparent and allows light into the garden. Is that uh something that I think the board uh embraces or or not? >> So, obviously, I can speak from my perspective and only my perspective. How's that? Um I think my first
impression and obviously I understand there are trees in front of this when you represent it to us. We we don't see the trees in conjunction with the drawings. However, you know, you can see literally the trees like the the superimposition of the trees behind this, you know, they're
they're clashing. Um but my first impression of it was imposing, right? It's just this big glass wall. Um so for me either error a combination of I'm not sure um a reduction in that 10 and 1/2
ft and or a lowering of that wall you know with the materiality that you see that's again I mean you do good work. I'm I'm familiar with it. So I mean I know that you can like John was saying I I know that you can come up with something in conjunction with your client that is um more in line with what
we're looking to see. Um, but for me it's not the glass wall right there. And I I picture in my mind not quite 10 ft, not extending so far over the existing structure just because it's so imposing,
but you may come back and show us something in conjunction with stuff that um, you know, that is more representative and less of a um, harsh effect as far as I'm concerned. Um, that's that's my thought. Um, and I
I I'm getting some head nods and some head shakes down there, so I'll let them speak about what their thoughts are. >> Yeah, I it's hard to tell until you do it cuz, you know, I can imagine what it could look like. >> I personally think it would help a lot to take the facade of the house back
behind the facade of the existing structure. I think it's I don't care what plant materials in the front, you're going to look up in an exact same plane as the house. I think if you pull that back and put a more transparent balcony, even if the balcony projected in front of the historic
structure would be more acceptable. It's just that now it's not deferring to the historic structure. It's overwhelming it because it's actually in the same plane, but totally different architecture. So, it's and there's that space. But I agree, the plant material is not going to fill that. The elevation is very deceptive because you're never ever
going to see that plant material. The plant material growing in the courtyard behind the wall will never be visible from the street. it just it can't even get tall enough to be over the structure. So there will always be that structure in phase with the the historic structure. I think if it were pushed
back even remotely and then had the balcony more transparent, I think the whole thing would read better and not feel it's killing the historic structure or the historic feeling of that building. >> It's looming. It's like just looming over like Yeah, >> that's how I feel personally.
>> Appreciate that. any uh lighting under that balcony? >> Yeah, I mean of course there would be lighting in the garden and and also even to to uh reflect there there is uh 5
foot of space uh between the property line and the sidewalk. If if this is the sidewalk where the cursor is here >> if if you could see that >> this is the sidewalk. There's another 5 ft of of planting >> that would exist as well. And and the
street trees of course are uh sizable in this in this area. So they would also sit in front of the of the building. >> I I agree. You likely wouldn't even many wouldn't notice uh >> right >> the balcony >> based on the existing treecape.
So, back to the lighting that that's within the uh canal lever facing down or >> it would it would I mean we haven't worked with the lighting designer yet to get to the point where I could give you but I I can tell you that it would be our intention to have this lit
appropriately and probably uplit in a way that that allows the the feeling of this thing hovering uh to be the case at night as well. >> Yeah. And and once again, I mean, I'll make the point that in in in my view as the designer, the idea is for this
thing, and as you very well pointed out, it requires some gymnastics to get this canal lever to sit out there and it's it's it's more costly. Uh, and my client realizes that, but we we thought it was a more sensitive, you know, a more
sensitive approach because we're not doing what is more dogmatically done, which is having the new addition sit directly over >> the historic structure, >> right? And yeah, and for for the neighbors who
come, if you you know, um, the I keep referring to these guidelines. They're they're easily found online. It's called Buoyant City. And you can look at the strategies the city has approved for historic buildings. Um and it's just uh
this is this is very close to a strategy 1C it's called. Um sorry I just know these guidelines way too well. But um for um for this type of building that would be a kind of a building within a building and it's a city strategy moving
forward for the next you know 50 years presumably to be able to save the streetscape in particular um that we so cherish as part as being a central feature of the district without it's I'm just saying it's I'm not making this up
and and you may shake your head but I'm just saying that it's uh it's something that the city commissioners voted for. So if you really are are upset about this or don't want this these options, take a look at this, arm yourself with the with knowledge about this and then
talk to the elected officials uh about this if you if you feel because it it is essentially one of the guidelines that we are um that have been approved to be followed. I'm not saying this is an exact model of it, but I'm just saying this is kind of where these ideas come from.
there's a big board and we have >> board may I because again like I'm we're looking either for feedback or consensus right for sure >> and and obviously uh we have been uh waiting 3 months to to present today. So
I mean if there is any chance in in reaching consensus that would be amazing. If not I understand and and we will appreciate coming back in front of you. I I would like as much feedback from you as I can get though so that I come back if I do if we do have to come
back that I come back with a successful project. We do have a board. Can you pull it up? Uh Kevin here. Where is it? Oh, here. We do have a board that shows uh a solution that we're happy with that does
not encroach on the front and and is aligned with um maybe we can put and and is aligned this is completely aligned with the historic building. It also is softened I think by the fact that it has
a window. This obviously has no uh the the if there any balcony that would exist would exist uh within the these uh limits. In other words, behind this facade is the master bedroom and a
balcony that could be incorporated within that area. Uh but you can see it it is uh maybe uh more consistent with what you're looking for in that it's much softer, more traditional I guess if if you can say that. in in relation to
uh this project and uh and has uh sort of a window and you see in the elevation too the relationship between the window and the way this window is patterned and the windows in the historic building below. So I offer this as a way to maybe
reach consensus so that we can move forward uh in in a way that we would uh accept and and be happy with let's say uh and and and possibly in a way that is more uh uh acceptable to the board. This
does not this sits completely in line with the historic structure. It does not encroach 10 foot forward as we have been proposing up until now >> that it would be wonderful to be able to move forward uh with with this if if
it's something that is acceptable to the board. >> I'll chime in. >> I don't have a trial trans. Did you want to say anything to my house? >> Okay. >> Nothing. >> Okay. >> Randy, did you want to say anything?
>> Uh, no. >> No. >> No. >> Ray, did you want to say anything? >> What? >> We will. We will do that. Yeah, we'll do a >> I would like to say something. Go ahead.
Uh, I appreciate you coming with this proposal at the end of the day. >> Uh, but I just don't like the way you approached it, quite frankly. coming at the last minute to propose this when your renderings clearly did not show the
balcony. And I think that was for a specific reason because you knew we were going to discuss it in this manner. You sat here earlier and you said, you know, I'm the architect and you will appreciate what I do at the end of the day when a number of people
on the board told you that they didn't like this projection. that you insisted and then at the last minute you come with us. >> Well, we are building 8,500 square feet on this lot. Board members have asked
you is there any way we could just set it back a bit from the property line. He said no can't too many gymnastics. I don't you wouldn't have my vote. Randy, is your mic on because you're
going to say something? Mitch? >> No, I I will second that though. I just feel it's unfair to be spending an hour looking at something. And now, what do you think of the new version? I I I can't respond that quickly. >> Got it. Okay. Um, anybody else have any comments? Otherwise, I do think we should take a a
straw poll at this point. >> You already got two. >> Yeah, I guess I don't need a straw poll. Well, I don't know if I have the other five uh yeses, so that's why. >> Do we want to reiterate our concerns? >> Of course, you can. Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh like I said, and maybe this is more of a staff question regarding the fenistration. Are you okay? Obviously, you you indicate >> with the revised with the revised design. Yes. >> You you lost me. I >> said you said with the rev okay with the with the revised design. Oh, the fence.
No, the fence. >> Well, no. defense on the >> the fenistration the window uh here it's >> glass >> being proposed as glass block I was >> thinking uh initially something more representative of what was existing when
the building >> oh for the for the existing building yeah we don't have I don't have an objection to the board um putting back something within the existing openings that's more reflective of the original window design >> which is what you're saying right Mitch >> yeah he came back with exactly what I
wanted. Yeah. Well, today >> Can you get on the mic? On the mic, right? >> Whether it's today or or next month or the month after. I mean, he's coming back with exactly what I'd asked for. So, I would have to vote for it. >> Yeah. >> I'm not so sure I like the square window
in there, but it's it's it's right where I wanted it to be, so it's okay. >> Lindsay, did you add something? >> Well, I mean, I think all we have here is rendering. So, I mean, does this change anything else? No. And and I I by no means trying to
pull a uh anything over anyone, uh Mr. Mayor, and I'm I'm sorry that it's perceived that way. I'm just trying to move this forward. Uh it doesn't change anything whatsoever. We did this study at one point and it it it was a a
position that we thought we could and and my client has agreed to it. It's a position that we thought we could uh accept if the board felt strongly that they didn't want the the the project
protruding beyond the existing historic facade. So yes, it's the only change. Well, um I think we should do a straw poll um whether we would accept this with the building with the um
with the uh proposed amendments based on staff recommendations. We'd have two votes. One for the variance and one a straw poll for the variance and a straw poll for the um for the uh a certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. So let's
just do quick straw yes no um for the certificate of appropriateness just whether this design not the variance not the back backyard variance where you're think what what you're feeling right now >> okay right
>> yes >> okay >> so this is the back >> this is not the varian this is a certificate of appropriateness for the whole overall design >> I'd be a yes >> no No. >> You do? Okay. So, I'll be a Yes.
>> It's a straw pole. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. There you go. That's that's fine. And then we know we know we don't have enough the votes for the certificate of appropriateness. And we probably we can
do the variance, but you want to try the >> continue. >> We're going to have to continue it anyway because we don't have a >> I'd say yes for >> you say yes for the variance. Ray, yes for the variance. >> No. >> No for the variance. >> I'd say yes. Uh work with your neighbors.
>> Yes. For the variance. I do yes for the variance. No. Okay. And no. Okay. So, I I do think we're going to have to come back and have you kind of work with the neighbors and kind of,
>> you know, re represent this. I It would be great to see, I think, a a more a better understanding between you and the neighbors and also kind of a better, you know, Yes.
>> What? >> Oh, yes. Yes, of course. Of course. Of course. Um and then a um kind of, you know, maybe maybe a couple of other um renderings that would allow us to see it from the sidewalk, for example, and the way it looks because these are, you
know, just to with the trees and the with the existing sidewalk, the Brazilian beauty trees or whatever they're called. >> Yes. And I'll I'll go Lindsay. >> So, that that's actually kind of what I was going to suggest and and that's why I am where I am on this. It's not to say
that I wouldn't approve this design, but it just with one without the benefit of what I was going to suggest is views from the sidewalk. Something else to show us kind of like what that would look like with the califylums in place.
I assume that can be done. um that yeah I mean so that we can kind of see what that looks like from the perspective of those walking by you know who are as we've all discussed are there to appreciate you know not only the shaded
um the shaded area on Meridian but also the beautiful art deco um facade um you know what we're looking at here um so that's what I would like to see um and then you know those that's my feedback >> I I I I'm intrigued by your initial uh
rendering with the uh with the large uh canal lever. I'm wonder I'm wondering if they'd be amenable to a reduction in that depth. Uh and uh
you know that that that the uh glass wall at its uh proposed height. It's uh you know I don't have a problem with it. Is there a way to soften it so uh we can find
some consensus? Uh maybe I think >> I appreciate any comments that you can give me because the reason that I um have this rendering that I just presented to you is to try to understand that
>> your your uh sort of u position if if we do pull back the facade and we articulate it in a way that is more uh I guess um uh typically done >> for a lack of better Right.
>> So, you know, the the um variance issue, yes, be happy to work with the neighbors and try to find a position that they're happy with as well. Um but I think I'm a little lost on on the front in terms of
what the board would like to see. >> Here's my question. Why did you move away? You said you you'd done this exercise, the one that you just handed to us. You did it and then clearly discarded it in favor of the balcony. Well, we believe the balcony is a better sol I believe the balcony is a better
solution. >> Okay. >> Um I I we did this exercise in the event that the board would have hesitation about be being projecting beyond the historic facade. I mean, if you realize, he started off
with what he wanted. Then he showed us the balcony with just the railing around it. And and we didn't jump on that. And you mentioned maybe nothing. And so he he he had all of those things ready to to he knows what he wants. He wants to
give everybody what they want that they're going to get a yes for. So that's the reason he was prepared. And I give you a lot of credit for that. Thank you. That's that's not what I meant, right? What and I misunderstood you when you said I thought you said you had gone through this exercise, rejected it, did a different design, and then now we're
back here. So, I was trying to understand how we get back to like the rejected design, but that's not the case. That's what I was asking. >> If I may, I I think that in any design, especially when you have, you know, owners that are going to live there that are, you know, they need to see things.
We all are aware. In fact, you know, before we even got here, staff had uh brought up a concern about the balcony and the height of that wall. So, we needed to call it an exercise, but it's a very practical exercise. It's for our
team, the owners, to see what the what it would look like. And just because we're we so we have them, you know, and the idea is that sometimes you you share something because this is we don't want this this and but we're going to show it to you because we had looked at it ourselves. So I want to just take a step
back. Nothing was nothing is like oh well how about this design? How about this design? It's not it's not meant to do that. It's meant to educate both internally first and then because we have these and we felt with staff raising it and we needed to address it that we would have these available and
so that you can benefit from the exercise that we took. I don't think that no we don't want to do all of these. However, it's not as you all know completely up to us. We're trying to come to get the guidance. Randy, >> I I think
when you showed the balcony with a transparent second floor, I was actually really excited cuz it now it looked like a a house facing the street, which is what this is. Then you put the wall back up, but only it's not at the railing. It's now at the wall. I I was right back
to Oh, it's right compare absolutely flat with historic structure. I think if you pulled the transparent wall back a little bit from the historic structure, put the balcony back on, then it would look like a balcony facing the street, which is a typical residential element in Miami Beach of housing facing
streets. So, I I don't, you know, I was kind of shocked by the solid wall. Now, it's just back 10 ft. It's just a solid wall again. And it just feels like there's no recognition of the street as the front of the building. So, that's how I feel. Okay. >> To get my direction. I appreciate Mitch.
Mitch, did you want to say something? >> Sure. Uh, you know, the rendering you introduced, why not add uh a secondary window uh on the other side to line up with the uh
historic building below. Also uh on the initial rendering, why not bring the curtain wall forward uh whether at balcony uh or handrail level or the full way up? And of course
sounds like the consensus is to reduce the depth. But it's uh it's good architecture what you what what you've presented and uh I hope uh I look forward to when we when we finally have
consensus >> which would be when next month or >> well that's the the other question if we continue this which it seems like we have to um when would you like to I mean you'll need to be able to make some changes and this resubmit um >> when would you December
>> when No, but when would Um, if we were to try to make for November, when would you >> need everything by next Monday? >> By next Monday. >> Monday. >> Yeah. For November, M. Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. >> I think we can do that. And And what I would continue to appreciate as many of
you uh have already given me uh feedback on the multiple uh options we've presented. And you know, as much feedback as we can get from you, the the the better that we can come back with something that you would like.
>> Yeah. Mitch, on on to that point, the do any of my colleagues have a comment on the cable railing, handrailing system versus uh an extended curtain wall. >> Well, I think our colleague at the end here suggested this the alternative with
the what we saw as like darker balcony. We didn't like that. But the same thing reduced balcony the lower is am I am I saying that right Randy that you wanted reduce depth of the balcony um with some sort of railing uh treatment whatever
that is um that you see >> railing or glass >> should it be the same material >> some sort of railing treatment I I don't know if it is metal glass wood you know um the materiality I I mean I think I I trust the architect will make the right
decision there. I think it's really the imposing nature of that flat wall, whether that is at, you know, the far um at the uh level of the or the front facade of the existing his um contributing building or whether that is, you know, 10 ft later or 10 ft
further out is imposing. >> Um and so something that kind of >> to me softens it. Um, I think that that would be so I mean I think I'm aligned with what Randy is suggesting.
Um, and does that answer your question, Mitch? >> Excuse me. >> Does that answer your question, Mitch? >> Uh, sort of. I heard I heard a little bit of I heard a lot in that. Uh, but Randy suggested or sort of agreed they
can continue with the same uh treatment. >> Totally. >> Right. uh on your on the on the mic. >> The idea is transparency, not you know. >> Yeah. Just not it can be a railing. I don't railing doesn't really go with this building from what I've seen you
design so far. Um the courtyard is beautiful inside. I I think whatever is consistent but more transparent that if you're on the sidewalk, you're not looking up at a wall. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what about a wall with a balcony
railing uh constructed of the same? >> Depends where depends where it is. It depends where it is in relation to the other building. I like deep balconies. I think it looks richer. I hate when new houses have four or five balconies, it's just really not even usable. A 10-ft
balcony, it's fantastic. I lived in a historic house with great balconies. So, I'm not against 10 ft. I'm just against the fact it imposes so much over the historic structure. That's that's the reason. >> Yeah. Okay. I think we've uh given probably all the advice if not more that
you can uh handle. Um >> all different. >> So I I guess we'll be we'll be looking at uh continuing this to the November meeting. Is that correct? >> Yeah. As long as you give us everything by Monday. If not, then you can request for a continuence till December. um
after after next Monday. >> We'll do that. >> Okay. >> Do I have a motion to continue until November? >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> All right. Anybody in disagreement? >> And that's to November.
>> Yes. November 18th. >> And and Michael, for clarification, we can just resubmit our revised plans and revised letter of intent. We don't need all the rest of the application documents. Or do we? We need every unless the board do you need uh we need everything printed again unless the
board members want to pass you back the um application documents. >> So >> or the board members want to keep your packages for this application. >> Well the other option is to give them back to you and then you just >> but then I mean or you want us to keep
>> these trees. >> Yeah. What? >> Yeah. No, I mean I'm I'm with them on >> we have like 14 copies that we need to submit and it's the structural report the you know all the different >> I would suggest the board members keep their packages for this application >> and just submit the supplemental
documentation. >> Okay, perfect. Then we'll keep that and we'll bring it back. >> Thank you so much. >> That's fine. >> Thank you. I I think it's >> rather handed it over to >> Well, you guys got spoiled so I know there's no right