[Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music]
[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 please stand by we are going on
air in 5 4 3 2 1 okay good morning and welcome as uh Yak loves it I say welcome to the March 4th planning board meeting um first I want to welcome our newest member Keith marks
his H first meeting and he's a great guy and I think he's going to be a great addition to the planning board and we're all looking forward to working with you so looking forward to it thank you uh there's one change on the agenda which is we are moving the um porous surface
requirements for parking to a continuent other than that it's all the same same so with that can I get a motion to approve the after action report for last meeting motion to approve second I'll second it okay all in favor anyone opposed okay can I ask can I ask a quick
question about that when when we continue one of the items uh is there a vote taken you know because I remember there being a question about like the Vendome uh is it vendom uh about whether we should just close it out or continue
it and I think there was a vote taken that was continued to the April meeting no I know but on the minutes I didn't see that there was like the vote reflected oh sorry we'll correct that we'll correct that sorry thanks you mean as oppos because I saw that it said it was moved you're
saying okay can we add that please yes okay great um with that I will turn it over to Nick City attorney attorney good morning Mr chairman and members of the board today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a hybrid format with the board physically present
in the commission Chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicant staff members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually in today's meeting the public may dial 1877
853 5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 86143 42 6327 pound or log in the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which is
86143 42 6327 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial star9 if they're participating by phone if you're appearing on behalf of a business Corporation or another person you need to register as a lobbyist with city clerk's office if you haven't registered
yet you should register before you speak to the board you don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific technical or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting or if you're appearing as a
representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item expert Witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose and writing to the city clerk their name address and the principal 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 these rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage defeat modification or continuance and lastly I'd like to swear
in uh any members of the public or staff will be testifying today please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you all right thanks Nick the first item is a request for continuance planning board
file 24656 1235 Washington Avenue nightclub Mr uh start with actually Mr Lin do you want to um speak on the application yes thanks Michael U Michael Lin T South l k Boulevard here represen the applicant we are working on
compliance with some of the staff conditions it's taking us longer than what we'd like we would like to have a continuance until the April hearing that address was probably the first nightclub I parted at it was Club Z like 20 years ago still still huh 20
years um what what is so it's it's going to be a new it's still going to be a nightclub right it's just um but a new name because we looked it up and there's a current name there for that club but the name might stay the same but they're impling a different operating plan hoping to attract a different type of
entertainment there so but you know Michael has put in some rigorous staff conditions and instead of just saying no we're trying to figure out is there a way to comply got it okay um we sure take public comment um yeah anyone here to speak on that anyone on Zoom there's
nobody on Zoom okay close the public hearing any questions or someone want to move it you reing a motion to continue it to the April 8th meeting so I moved second okay John moved it second all in favor anyone opposed okay great thank you very much y I'm sure we'll see you
again today of course all right next one planning Bo file 24734 increasing and enhancing porest service requirements for parking lots that's what I just discussed that was moved to a continuance we need a so this is one where um we are still um taking into consideration the comments from the
planning board and the public in January and we haven't been able to finalize the um recommendation yet and report for the um pb2 24734 so we are asking the board to continue this to the April 8th meeting okay anyone here to speak on this anyone
on Zoom no okay someone want to move it motion to continue okay second second it okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay it's moved so moved all right on to progress reports first one is
planning board file 22553 455 Lincoln Road okay so this is um this staff report begins on page 17 of the board packages and this is PB 22- z553 for 455 Lincoln Road um this is an application
that initially was approved by the planning board for an ni on November 22nd of 2022 and their BTR for the operation including entertainment was issued um on October 28th of 2024 um the cop requires that the applicant appear
before the board for a progress report within 90 days of the issuance of the VTR now as part of any sort of standard progress report um we advise the board of any citations or complaints issued by the Code Compliance Department regarding the operation of the venue as it noted on page um 17 18 there were a couple
oper there are a couple violations issued regarding the operation one was on 1117 of 24 this on the notes indicate that while conducting a foot patrol in the area an individual was observed playing instruments and a woman was observed performing by dancing restaurant manager was been informed
that the perment is needed to conduct Street performance activity and he understood the restaurant came into compliance immediately by ceasing all activity um there are some other violations regarding um sanitation and um and U window coverings but the um uh
operational violation was also on on 12124 where there was a P condition violation as well for um performers and costumes observing entering the establishment with a silk backdrop in front and um the restaurant um was noted
as having a BTR for indoor entertainment but nothing on the exterior and the entertainment outside um would require a special event permit which they did not have and the um restaurant came into compliance once they were notified we also noted there was a no noise complaint on
222 um 2025 no we are recommending that the board hear from the applicant and consider whether or not um they want to consider setting a revocation hearing assuming that a revocation or modification hearing could be set due to the notice requirements would be um May
6th of 2025 that turn it over to the um the appit Michael I have I have a question so it says the BTR allows them to have entertainment inside right right you're saying it was a violation that just see performers walking in oh no not walking
had they had a perform Outside The Establishment too oh they're performing outside outside right okay good morning Michael ganopoulos 200 South biscan Boulevard I join today with Michael Lin and my colleague Nick
Rodriguez uh we represent the applicant Andres G Dez um the executive manager uh the executive chef and the owner are on the way they're stuck in traffic uh if you'd like I can give you a quick walk through of the actual uh venue itself or
we could just jump right to uh some of these violations whatever you want okay so I'll give you a quick rundown so the restaurant is located on 455 Lincoln Road uh and Drexel Avenue um Andes is a
unique Colombian restaurant uh it's a world class Steakhouse and they provide live entertainment and occasional performances by staff um they've received several approvals throughout the years in 2020 they received their first cup for a
neighborhood impact establishment uh which subsequently expired in 2021 they received HPB approval uh for a variance uh for the rooftop awning and to operate an outdoor bar and then in 2022 they went back to get a new conditional use
permit uh for the prior one that had expired um there BTR was issued on October 28 2024 and on the screen you could see some of the conditions uh laid out by the 2022 cup um they're a relatively new
restaurant they've been open for close to four months now uh so the owner and the restaurant and the general manager is is learning and educating themselves on the conditions of the cup um most of which were as staff mentioned immediately complied with uh some of
which were um immediately complied with as well but there were some hiccups along the way I think staff mentioned the first cup which was uh first cup uh violation uh took place on November 17th and this one was uh there were
performers dancing outside the restaurant and the general manager mistakenly believed that that was allowed as part of their cup uh when they were alerted that they weren't they halted the performances then they hired a uh permit expeditor to work with the
Lincoln um Lincoln business improvement district to amend the Lincoln Road culture activation permit to allow them then to have performers outside dance with between two and 10 minute intervals
twice a day and what's the status of that so that's active and it goes for was it was uh active from uh no September of last year to October of 2025 it's approved yes it's
approved y um I believe the second violation that was mentioned was a sanitary violation uh this was just a bad timing they received a big crate with a table and the crate was too big to move inside so they dismantled the
crate took the table inside between that time is when they received the violation uh the general manager actively educated all the employees to completely dismantle and properly throw away um any garbage and waste um and then that violation was subsequently complied
with a few days later um this is another active uh proactive investigation uh here they had as part of the Lincoln Road uh culture activation permit they were allowed to display Cows as a furniture for one of
the events um they put a table a coffee table and a bench against their building under the awning uh an investor investigator told them they they were not allowed to do that so they promptly removed the furniture brought it inside and that was complied
with um the last violation uh sorry the the violation regarding the silk backdrop they had a permit uh they were doing a special event inside and they had a they hired an event planner who put a silk backdrop
outside for guests to walk through again this was a proactive uh investigation there was foot patrol they alerted them that the silk backdrop required a special permit so they promptly removed that brought the silk backdrop inside and that was immediately
complied uh the there was another instance where they had um their their windows were vandalized so they covered the windows they were keyed and keyed and graffitied so they uh they meaning
the general manager hired a company to put you know pretty logos and they covered the windows entirely they found out they were not allowed to do that so they just removed those logos and the windows are currently vandalized but they have no issue with it so long as the city is okay with
it uh the very last complaint that Mr blo mentioned of a foot patrol for a separate complaint um they heard music coming from uh 455 there was a birthday they were singing Happy Birthday on top of the rooftop the inspector notified of
the the general manager of the noise ordinance the general manager halted the song the music04 direct condo uh 1604 drexo I'm not sure sorry that was the origin of the complaint yes exactly do
you know Michael uh let me look it up the inspector was there for a separate complaint at 1604 Drexel and overheard Happy Birthday song So how many how many how many
managers do you have currently there's one full-time manager and he works uh weekly every day and then there's an executive chef and about a hundred different employees so have you sat down with them all or have they sat down with
them all and given them all yes correct the general manager is aware of all the conditions in the cup and has been actively educating the staff so that none of these things happen and as we mentioned and as staff mentioned a majority of these items were immediately complied with um so they are you know
showing a good faith effort to continue uh they haven't violated any any real noise ordinances they haven't been given any any violations um contradicting the conditions in the cup so they're actively working on it and would respectfully uh request this yeah are
you finished yeah is there anyone on Zoom no there's not anyone in here to speak on this I'm close public you know I'm just going to give you my comments um first of all I've been to the one in Columbia and it's an amazing operation in my gut is they can do a lot of that in Columbia that they're they technically can't do here I think all
the violations are pretty minor um I think it's a great addition to Lincoln Road I I I've been there many times and I and they've been unbelievable the staff obviously these are technical things that have to be worked through um my obviously I'm going to let the rest of my board members comment but I think
we just continue this for a couple months and see you know see if they can get Rec it sounds like everything was pretty minor that can be rectified um so that's just my thoughts but I'll start with Keith or whoever yeah I I agree uh Lincoln is a very difficult area to
manage for sure uh and these are all minor complaints in my opinion so I think see if they learn you know yeah I agree too I mean we could just you know give it a few months see what happens but I have a question for Steph you mentioned that well both of you uh you
know you had the entertainment or the dancing outside and then you went to the Lincoln Road bid and and got approval from them for that but our order says there's no outdoor entertainment allowed wouldn't that have to come back to us for for no because that would be this would be on this would be on public
property so that's different um there there's a separate space okay there's a there's a separate space it's sort of open air on the Roof oh so that's that's SE that's separate that that's that's separate I think what we're talking about is on the on the Lincoln Road ground floor level on the public sidewalk that's something that would be
part of the special event perid versus the C yeah thank you I think the issue was that there were outside on Lincoln Road a performer dancing right but now you're allowed to do that according you perit for that twice a day two to 10 minute I'm assuming not very late at night no no okay okay any other comments
or can we just move this I just I'm just to clarify that the 164 Drexel is an apartment building and I'll block away but but what the attorney said was that the noise complaint was at was about something at 16004 correct as opposed to somebody from 16004 complaining about
uh that the Lincoln Road establ correct it was unrelated to our applicant's property so I'll make a motion to continue it for two months to the May to the May 6th meeting to the May I'll second yeah just like I said they all seem minor just make sure that they uh
educate them on you know all the requirements the up so that you know because again it's a great addition and Lincoln Road needs places like that and we wanted to survive and do well so and I'm sure there probably a hundred proactive investigations that came up with nothing you know so well majority
of these are the is exactly this we only hear about the ones where they flagged something but I'm sure there were other investigations where there you know all right so Jonathan moved it can I get a second second okay all in favor I anyone oppos okay so we'll see you on this one
in May okay great thank you may 6 what's that the meeting is on May 6 oh yeah sorry okay all right next progress report is uh planning board file 24077 Le hardine buire and this staff report begins on page um
31 of the board packages I think everybody in the board except for um Keith marks was here in January when this application was last heard by the board and on January 7th the board approved a modification to include the operation of the third floor the first two floors were initially approved for
the operation of a restaurant on um on May 23rd of 2023 on January 28th the BTR was issued for the first and second floors um they had not had um received the permit or finalized the construction for the third floor of the restaurant but they were able to open the first and
second floors based upon the cup and the BTR was issued on February 28th now on February 13th um the planning department sent a cure letter to the applicant and this was response to a code citation that was issued for having an outdoor entertainment in the form of a live band
in the exterior Courtyard um The Cure letter advised the applicant to appear before the board for a progress report which is scheduled for um for today I was noted in our um staff report it's very clear Michael sorry to interrupt you again so was the viol I can't
remember do they have entertainment no because um I'll continue entertainment is prohibited south of History okay so they had know so okay yeah so um entertainment is prohibited so it was two things a special event without a permit and entertainment and they can't so they can't get a special event permit and they can't have entertainment even
with a special event permit okay so it's probably their first week of opening and they're trying to right so this know this was a FL violation yeah um in this regard especially because entertainment is prohibited south of History um the there's there's no ambiguity here there
was a live ban but we do believe we are strongly recommending that the board um does set a revocation modification hearing for May 6 not to say the board has to modify it at that time but we do believe based upon what happened here in January that in abundance of caution the board should set a revocation modification hearing monitor the
property for the next two months what would you modify if the CP prohibited what they did well the board the board could take away the operation of the third floor you know they could they could modify the hours of operation I mean I do think that there should be something there should be some consequences for having the the flagrum
violation but for the board to make the decision in May but we do think in order to open that keep that open the board should um set a revocation modification hearing for May 6 because we do have to advertise that in accordance with the 30 D requirements so that's our recommendation at this point is another
option to just continue the status the could the board could continue the project report as well okay got it go ahead good morning Nicholas Rodriguez here on behalf of the applicant and owner 81 Washington LLC um as Michael mentioned we there's not really a
defensible position here that we didn't know um this was you know this is a Henry ho Houser building that the applicant spent over $30 million restoring and renovating um after about 3 years in the permitting and Licensing process the owner got carried away at
the Grand Opening um this was just for the grand opening this isn't how they intend to operate the restaurant it's not consistent with their operation it's not consistent with their cup um so they did just uh it was supposed to just be a simple you know couple of songs by this
person who is a singer who is a friend of the owner it turned into more than that um and unfortunately has led to this violation the owner has paid the fine um they would be considered a repeat violator if it were to happen again and of course um we have consequences before this board as well
so we're not opposing uh continuing this progress report and you guys continuing to monitor uh we're not uh planning to have any more events or entertainment at the restaurant uh to the extent that there are other noise complaints that have been made um they have none of them
have ripened into violations and despite that the owners are still making changes at the property uh with respect to their outdoor speaker layout to make sure that whatever complaints are coming in whether they're well founded or not that they're being good neighbors uh so they really are kind of working through the
initial phases of opening and their cup um that's separate and apart from the event that happened at their grand opening that was a violation there is no uh you know kind of dancing around that uh but going forward I think that this operator is respectful of the city's laws they are intending to operate this
as a restaurant um and as Mr Elias you pointed out I think they they just got a little carried away on their very first evening of operations and I will'll point out there were several Neighbors From The Cosmopolitan that were personally invited to the Grand Opening they were there uh many neighbors were there enjoying it um and it did cease at
11: p.m. so after 11:00 p.m. it stopped um that's the only time they're ever going to have this happen Okay so anyone in Chambers speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised all right close the public hearing all right I'm going to start again I must be in a good mood but um no
no no listen I know how much money they put into it I actually went over there to see it it's beautiful it's a great addition I think it's a little early to have a revocation hearing my recommendation would be a two months um and assuming it's a one-off you know I know I know Keith lives South the 5ifth
and and we do need to adhere to the rules there no no it it it obviously it was a mistake I I I get it if it was opening night even though it's wrong it happens um but you know in light of the investment made there I I would hate to
have a rication hearing at this stage since they've only been open a month but I think it the me are you the owner this is the general manager okay can you step up one sec and again they're going to have their own opinions but um yeah it's just you you can't blatantly disregard a cup
like that but I want you to succeed I know how much money and effort has been put into that um so you got to make sure that that you understand the cup let educate and educate the staff on that okay because we want you to do well okay all right that's my comments any we'll
start with Keith go well goes without saying that that uh you you went in front of the neighborhood board and in case they don't understand um no music and what ambient outside means
perhaps they could talk to catch uh I still think that the speakers and this is just my personal opinion they could do better uh when I was there on the 14th uh at night I thought it was a little loud um you know I thought personally I thought it was loud for the
people that we sitting there but that's up to the general manager but um ambient is is in the ear of the beholder and I don't think that when I was there uh I was hearing um the lower end of ambient
casual nice French music that would put you in a mood to eat and so I would just be careful about that appreciate that Keith and uh so you know we have deactivated I think two or three speakers in the in the front area that we we were noticing it was maybe
getting a little loud so speakers have been deactivated um in response to you know this is the normalization period they've been open about a month I would suggest if the board is going to continue the application if we get to that point that we include a condition that staff go out there and we set the the level of music so we we can confirm
what that volume would be I agree they are using a limiter as required by their cup they're using the decimal six is it 70 or 65 uh do you know what the meter set up we can bring that back in the project report to make sure the level like to see the
measure thanks Keith thank you any other comment yeah I doo think um you know we should we could wait it's a new operation we should wait um I have a feeling the city's going to go out there and tell them where they need to set the the volume I think there are also a lot of people in that neighbor that are obviously from the other you know calls
that were made that are going to be keeping an eye on the place so they go a few months and and not have any violations it's it's going to show you're you're you are trying so I'm I'm in favor of just continuing it for two months um I I might want to do it a
little bit more than two months I one of my concerns I guess is as the summer months come uh traffic slows down a bit and you know we see restaurants and nightclubs pushing the limits a little bit more um you know to bring in
clientele and bring in customers and so I guess that's a concern of mine I'm I'd say maybe 90 days bring you guys back instead of 60 days obviously if there is a violation you'll be back sooner than that um but I'm in favor of uh and I
think it's a good idea to to make sure we're calibrating the decimal deciel uh level you know one thing I guess it's it sort of at odds to me that they have ambient music and then when Code Compliance goes they're determining
whether the music is quote unquote excessively loud right and so it's not it's not excessively loud it's is it above normal conversation well so then then code needs to be educated on that because in these reports from that are included in your staff reports are it
says you know it would one of them says it was not um it was not uh unreasonably loud or it was not loud nor excessive but one of them said the music was not not excessively loud I I agree I think um we should have meeting with planning
staff and Code Compliance onsite to establish what that level is right okay but but other than that you know I've been there it's a great establishment I hope you guys succeed I think it's an excellent addition to the neighborhood and and um looking forward to years of
success there thank you I mean I I agree with uh Jonathan I would probably schedule uh or I would you know continue this you were saying what 90 days so I don't know yeah I think that that makes most sense see how you all operate I would just say you
know the one thing is it seems like whenever code gets there they're unable to actually make contact with anyone so maybe just having something set in place where if code does come out there's a way to kind of get a hold of some a little bit quicker and more efficiently okay I think those notes are for the the complainant is refusing to cooperate
with code but our managers have have been in contact with code every time that they've been there great Cooperative um I think to Jonathan's point I think there there's even one of these notes where they say they go to the vantage point of the complaint at the Residential Building exp store and they can't hear any music um that's the
standard in our cup it's you cannot impact the Residential Building next door and we're complying with it so I got a question do we know if the complaints that there's four complaints where where the uh complaintant was not willing to meet is it all from the same person or same building I won't know
without um asking Code Compliance I could have them come when we we have this continued I'll have Code Compliance come back and they can respond to any direct questions regarding those complaints as well as any future complaints all right I'm just curious generally complaintants have to disclose now right yes they have to disclose
their okay yeah um I'm on board with uh with my colleagues here I think that there's no need to be coming back too soon um I think you guys have uh there's a little bit of a learning curve and we maybe push the limits here but uh I'm sure you guys want to watch this succeed and you don't want any modifications on
your cup so I pretty certain that you guys will be following the rules Elizabeth I'd just like to say that it's supposed to be conversational um and obviously that's not but again I'd agree with all of you
um I'd like to know does code have um noise meters no that's not the standard but is there some way that we can set a standard that because for instance you know there are so many other places the the issue with the meter is that if you're out there and loud car drives by
that will affect the meter too so so the meter doesn't doesn't distinguish where the the sound is coming from and that's what a a person can distinguish where is the sound coming from and is it above conversational level conversational conversational okay thanks all right so
I want to move it to June Jonathan so moved second okay all in favor I oppos all right good luck we'll see you in a few months thank you all very much all right okay previously continued app
planning board file 24719 1315 Collins Avenue so keeping along with the lines of entertainment um this this application which begins on the staff reports begin on page 47 of the board packages this is PB
24719 for 1350 Collins Avenue so this application is only before you not for an NAE but for a cup for um outdoor entertainment this application initially was um before you on January 7th and was continued at the request of the applicant to the February meeting and on
February 4th the application was also continued to to to today's meeting in order for the applicant to perform additional um sound tests and I'll go over those um results that um planning staff also participated in as part of our um our report and recommendation so the applicant is proposing outdoor
entertainment as part of a new restaurant on this Historic Site this would as proposed consist of either a DJ or live music and the hours and days proposed are Fridays from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturdays from noon to 4:00
p.m. and from 7:00 p.m. to 11: p.m. and Sundays from 11:30 a.m. um to 6: p.m. now as noted in our staff report this property is relatively narrow only 50 feet wide in close proximity to other um residential and hotel projects um most
notably the um the closely the most um closely affected properties are the um the Shepley Hotel on the south side and commodore um hotel which is in the process of being converted to um believe apartments in the future on the North side now staff did go out there as part
of the sound test and participated in that and found that at an ambient level um the sound was not readily apparent in the in the adjacent um hotel rooms and playing it at ambient background music which is what the level of of the code allows without requiring a cup the
applicant is here before you because they're asking to have um entertainment above ambient level now once as part of the sound test the sound was turned up to above ambient level you could clearly hear that music um within the hotel rooms of the adjacent buildings even with the um air
conditioning going in the case of the of the Shepley um hotel to the to the South So based upon um the site conditions and staff's experience with the sound study U we're recommending that at this time the only um um Provisions that the that
the planning board approved as part of the cup is um possibly having a DJ with ambient level music only on Saturdays and Sundays between 12: and 400 p.m. at other times they could have ambient background music no DJ but they'd be
limited to having a DJ 12: to 4 Saturdays and Sundays at an ambient background level not to interfere with normal conversation um that's our recommendation I'll turn it over to um The Advocate Mr delente for his presentation thank you Michael good morning Bob delente on behalf of the
applicant Law Offices at 1200 brickl Avenue um with me today is ownership represented by Mustafa uru as well as um uh Jal dib who's also a restaurant operator who you may well know um he also operates Marcado pescaria paper
fish and bar Seco um also with us is Brooks Acoustics uh Bennett Brooks and Dennis schaten we've been working with them extensively because as Michael mentioned we do understand the constraints of this site um we have um uh hotels on both sides and we have a
narrow lot and we were very careful from the beginning to try to accommodate all of these issues that Michael has outlined so we have had extensive meetings um with staff and extensive meetings with the neighbors we actually conducted first a zoom meeting where we sent out an invitation to everyone who
was receiving um the notice of this application and then we also follow that up with another on-site meeting the next day you know as you are well aware those are not necessarily well attended so for the zoom meeting we had one person attend actually from Texas um and we heard no complaints from him he's he's
an alland um you know lives on I guess on Ocean Drive but uh he seemed okay with the application and we we received no other objections from him um so obviously we had the most connections and the most contact with the Shepley hotel and um he is here today also um so
we've met with his staff several times and again with him just now sorry that's why I was running in um and we also met with a commodore which is just next door and we met most recently with the Commodore last week and that meeting actually went well and they expressed no objections to our proposed original
hours so um what we have now I originally thought we were going to be able to um agree to what the staff recommendation was um but then I just learned now that the operational plan is a little bit different um Michael's recommendation would have been okay had we been planning on doing brunch for the
first five months but we are not so um our request would be to forget the brunch and allow us to do ambient level only with a DJ but ambient level only uh for dinners on Fridays from 700 p.m. to 11: p.m. just to direct us to the
provision you're talking about uh the our operational hours in the cup that that that Michael that you would have been okay with but you're not since you're not doing brunch oh right no Michael had uh recommended um DJ ambient level only on Saturdays and
Sunday from 12:00 to 4: oh right so we don't that's on page that's on page 57 of the board packages yeah I see it under condition um d d right yeah so um but what you're saying is you're modifying what the original request was which was 2 a.m. right so you guys are
now asking for 11 that was our original original request and that was subsequently modified actually prior to February to be only until 11: p.m. because you know we've been continuing this dialogue as we've been going along and listening to the issues so then we reduced them and then we reduce them
again and then now we're back to now we're only at Fridays and Saturdays from 7: to 11: pm and the proposal would be to allow us to do that for now and then this would be subject to further testing of course because we you know our sound Engineers here um we just spoke with our
neighbor and we said we are obvious obviously willing to further adjust and further adjust we already have further there's a courtyard that you'll see in the plans that is the main source of concern for him because it that where it's open to his building and uh we already have Solutions on how to further
limit the sound that's coming from those speakers while keeping it a little bit louder on the interior part of the courtyard where he's not exposed so we are we'd have to come back in 90 days for a progress report anyway so we would request that you allow us to operate with those Limited hours and then see
how we are at the 90 days and then I'm hopeful that at that point we could add more because the brunch will be coming then and if it's not good then it is what it it is then we deal with it that way but that would be and his hotel is the closest direct neighbor he is the Chaple Hotel yes so we have two we have
the Shepley and the Commodore on either side the Commodore was okay with our plan um he has different concerns and that's fair and we're here to try to address his concerns um so that would be our request so um you know uh so Bennett
is here he can explain to you um how we did our testing um and what further measures can be taken obviously before we're operational and before we get our certificate of use Michael would come back out for that sound calibration to make sure the city's okay with whatever this board orders and we'd also have
Code Compliance probably present also so that everyone's on the same page so there's not different like a moving gold poost for us it's easier for everybody I have a couple of questions yes um so if you had no intention of being a bar um why are you asking for a
DJ and also uh you've already had one violation and you haven't even opened that four speakers mounted on the outside of the building that are facing Collins and I have a I mean I've got an issue with that yeah and um I apologize on behalf
of the client for that that was a premature installation obviously there was no it's not approved yet there was nobody monitoring who's installing the speakers yeah so and as far as the the sound violation my understanding was it was from one of the workers with a radio it wasn't through our system it's not
the sound violation I have a problem with it's the problem is the speakers being mounted on the outside of the building facing Collins I think it's I um I think what we recommended they install speakers that were lower to the ground along Collins and not something that was on the building I don't think we should have anything on Collins at
all understood and that's certainly something that you know if that's the board's order then we can accommodate that but the idea with the outside speakers was never to be above ambient level anyway that's the plan cuz you know we're not sharing the party with Collins Avenue um you may have seen in
the package that this is a another addition a good addition We Believe to Collins Avenue this is going to be a very high-end restaurant there are six Suites that are part of this $1,000 a night um I believe you saw the photos I don't know if you can bring them up it
was part of our but the sweets are not my issue the sweets are we're not here for for beds you know heads and beds were here for noise no absolutely but the suets are sort of part and parcel of that because we don't want to you know these are our guests that are going to be paying $1,000 a night they are not
going to want to be disturbed either so the idea is that this is an elevated sort of property and the the restaurant is part of that so and I do have let me um ask um uh Jam to come up and address um your question because as long as he's
here he can address that hello hi everyone uh look this is a you are who I'm sorry Jam de right what's your role co-founder of be owner of this property with Nash group and uh
look we're part of every Board of Lincoln Road Ocean Drive spanola way and we're against the noise we're against the Hawking we're against the 241 everybody know us we're restaurant ter we're not bar nightclub people now the the the restaurant world is been
changing constantly so now you want to have a nice dinner and maybe some kind of entertainment we have as as Bob said six suits of $1,000 a night super chef from Napoli super kitchen you guys should go and visit it's going to be like an
incredible ad to Miami Beach it was like abandoned we invest a lot of money and we don't have plans to have like loud music because we're going to affect ourselves it's going to be super ambient music in a maybe it's going to be the most romantic place in Miami nothing
about party nothing first violation about party we shut it down and I would not call it DJ I would call music programmer so the idea was to have very light we have the playlist it's very chill very nice and then maybe maybe the
violin was a bad idea we're not going to affect him if we affect any hotel we just remove it immediately we don't want to we're not here to lose time no we we invest a lot of money we're trying just to make as best as we can but that's it we're not planning to make noise like
this we hate the noise of cins Avenue we hate the noise of Ocean Drive we we just hate if we can remove the speakers everywhere it would be the most amazing uh like news but like across the street we have a place that maybe the noise it's going to be three times more than
us no so we we're not about the noise we're about the experience so that's what we're trying to do I add a little bit more uh Miami is getting every time more like competed from all over the planet places everywhere it's not easy
now it's not anymore just about the full about the service it's atmosphere it's a lot of things so we're just trying no I hope you comprehend but that's it the DJ is he going to be outside or inside look we have a a like a inside Paro and it's
going to be like in the interior but outside and we have all the technology available to work with our neighbor as we work with we want 20 restaurants in Miami Beach and we're known because we work for with with our neighbors we can
maybe it was a little bit loud maybe we can put it lower lower lower they can have my personal contact as uh in News Cafe News Cafe we have a office on top of us and we work with them I know you're in the mxc but in other areas
we've been encouraging uh noise limiters so that there is no way it could go above 65 or 70 whatever we decide fine do you have that in the proposal now yeah we we we have that we have that and we have a sound limiter and and and that
that that that the noise controller the noise uh in Spanish the cimro we can put it next to his property because when you think of DJ maybe that's the wrong term I mean it it's an oxymoron to say DJ and
ambient because you're thinking bass and bass is the most travels the farthest in fact I know living next to Nikki's Beach that you could be next to it and you're not here ing the treble but if you walk
200 yards away you're hearing the base going boom boom boom boom so I just you got to have the the whole Spectrum immediately we can fix it from our phone from wherever we are look we're not planning to make money and have a fight
with the N we don't want that I know remove speakers and we remove the music programmer and we focus on the on the food no we're just try but we're not going to have like we don't have time to to have a fight with and he's a hotelier
he deserve we're going to let him speak but to Kei point so I've always thought it was weird that you could have a stereo without a DJ but yet if you put a DJ there with the exact same volume you can I find that ridiculous but to his point I think the perception is that
when you have a DJ he gets out of control and the Bas starts coming so I agree with his his recommendation I don't I don't care if you have a DJ to me it's about the noise that it's making um but anyway let's let's go on with the hearing and and are you are you all finished with your present just just to
add to that um there is a locked system the only people who can change the settings are going to be the manager and the sound engineer so that there's protection that way and whatever level it is I'll just um say that when we initi when we did these tests last Thursday um our sound engineer Bennett
based that on a prior project where you know I know that the code doesn't go by numbers right but the numbers that we used for this test were numbers that worked for a project in Ocean Drive and when we were there with Michael then we learned that those numbers for another project that was more recently approved had been lowered and so those are not
the numbers we used but we can use those numbers right so we're there's absolute flexibility here like you said we also don't understand if the noise level is the noise level DJ or not but you know unfortunately under the the way the code is once there's a DJ it makes it something a little bit different right so right so let's hear his I want to
hear from him and then and after we hear his concerns and maybe your sound guy can canect y okay thank you you want to speak thanks and and I'm sorry Mr chairman I'd like to first ask the board if anyone has any disclosures to make regarding this application so Keith um whenever
there's an application like this if you met with or or communicated no one I can just say this whole book talk to no one okay um Scott okay any other any disclosures to make by anybody nope okay
okay go ahead thank you just introduce yourself with your address and go yes uh my name is Juan pabloo so I'm the owner of the shapley hotel uh the neighbor to the south of the restaurant
applicant uh I I did send uh a letter a couple of days ago uh where I do think I express my my concerns with the with the uh sound level of the project and we're very happy
to have uh the property next to us being redeveloped and and I understand entrepreneurship and I'm I'm glad that something is going to be done uh we've seen five or six Concepts uh next door
throughout this last 20 years and it's glad that uh that something is coming there uh we did the tests last week and and again we run a hotel uh when you are in your hotel room you have the
expectation of silence and that's natural and uh we as Hotel years we want to be the ones that control the experience of our guests we don't want the experience of our guests being controlled from outside the hotel the same way that they wouldn't want the
experience of their client to be controlled from the hotel and I think that's a basic role uh we sometimes get stuck with the concept of the ambience Ambience plus Ambience but not so Ambience for us it's very clear if I can
listen to your music from within the room that's not good to us and that's not good because uh we live in a time where our guest will have an immediate impact by expressing I can see the
review already expressing make sure that you're not assigned to the rooms are facing the the South the North part and this is an immediate thing I I I also own the lesle hotel at
Ocean Drive I've been dealing with music and uh restaurant operators for more than 20 years one thing is what goes onto the books one thing is what happens on a day-by-day basis the limits that we put to the systems are very easily
override and and somehow when somebody operating believes that volume makes a better uh impression to their clients nobody will hesitate to do so I can call C compliance it's too late by the time I
have five reviews on a weekend expressing that it's too loud we're done we don't have a second choice once that's out there and it's an Expedia Travelocity Trip Advisor and booking.com everybody
agreeing with the same problem we're done it takes you 20 years to build something and it takes you five reviews in a row to destroy so that's exactly why right so afraid of that we all in agreement and our rule is simple right if we can
listen to the music inside the room we're not good for that and that's what we tried we did the tests we did four different scenarios and what happened and only the ambient music scenario was
very barely listened to from within the room every other scenario where it was a violinist and this is a restaurant that is closed no people chatting and no music on top of that so that's the best case scenario it was still very audible
within the room with the doors with the high impact glass windows closed if we can keep the noise to the ambience level that is not audible from the hotel's uh place I don't even think that we have the right to say something
about it because if it's not audible from the hotel what can I say so the specs of how that gets written into a into a norm it's a little bit more tricky but but the expectation that we
have is very clear we do not want to control the exper we want to control the experience of Our Guest ourselves we don't want this to be controlled so you just want to make sure no one in a hotel room hears anything bottom line it has to be for the hotel room unfortunately this face is an outdoor patio there used to
be a swimming pool there it was the swimming pool of a house and now there's no more swimming pool and and it's a beautiful area and and it's a very very we have a 5 foot setback and yeah it's just to clarify on your comments
now um so you're saying just as is right now you can barely or sometimes hear some noise in the room so this is without a restaurant so forget the music on you're you're saying that even with the restaurant you're at risk to hearing noise which you know I'm just just just to review what we're doing today um um I
think the main conversation is going to be around the entertainment right and so we don't you know likely this is going to be a restaurant next to you so I'm just raising that um you may be exposed to noise in these rooms based on what you're saying either way we we will be
exposed no matter what to the normal uh conversational level of a restaurant that is almost there uh so that's uh inevitable uh usually music enhances that uh amount of of of noise the only
tools that we had so far is just playing the music and testing from within uh Michael came with his tester we did four different scenarios and so we we grab that information which is what we have so far so ask is basically to make sure
that you're not against the concept of having the the Y music and entainment you just want to make sure that we're respecting the um I I again I I want to make sure that there's no influence of the music inside my room
as per what Michael uh tested when the ambiance music was on there's no people there's no crowd it's only the music it was not audible from inside the room every other scenario was okay so you
would just to clarify that we're understanding you you would be comfortable with ambiant music as long as it's monitored and excuse me one second what were the other uh when they other than ambient what were the other they raised the level above ambient right and then it was plainly audible on the inside even
with the air conditioning running all right so the bottom light it's got to be ambient exactly that that's that's what my Pap was recommending anything and then there was a mix of Ambience uh and there was a intendedly like a I music violinist I
don't know how that starts working out with a a combination of it was no not Ambience anymore uh so it's it's a very tricky but I don't think there's another way than just test it testing what's allowed or no of course I'm afraid that
whatever you test makes sense on paper and what happens on a day-by-day basis six months from now and and I run a restaurant a block from there you mean that they won't adhere to the to the ambient is that you're saying well it's it's yes it's it's unfortunately this is
very sensitive for the hotel because we have very small reaction capacity when things happen so you might go above that level we call you you correct it we're already on on on Dark Water it's not
like we can tell the guest come back next week and you'll figure out that now we're going to be doing better and that's why it's so sensitive for us thank you for coming in here um is there anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand is there anybody else in Chambers speak on
this all right so we'll close the public hearing um do you want to have your no obviously you know sir you heard what he had to say so um yeah and we've been having this dialogue and yes and Dennis would um would like to talk to you I'm sorry Bennett would U just a couple of
things you know so ambient does not mean it's going to be silent next door especially with this you know with this confined site so it can be ambient on our and it could still be heard so that's the and like everyone said you know we can have ambient music right it's the DJ that's the issue and and I
think Bennett will explain to you how the sound system it can be locked and I'll let him go through that um yeah and and one of the questions I have to me if you have music where it doesn't disrupt conversation at your table I don't know how they hear it in a hotel room next door so that doesn't make sense to me so
I'd love to hear that yes of course because isn't the definition of ambient in the code that you can't hear it disruptive uh Nick that the definition of ambient is that at a volume level that does not interfere with normal conversation at that venue right right
okay so I don't know how a hotel room would hear that next door but go ahead good morning good morning uh for the record I'm Bennett Brooks of Brooks Acoustics pompo Beach Florida and uh we were uh fortunate and delighted to work
on this project it's a beautiful project I'm sure you've seen the renderings and the pictures and maybe you've been there to visit um uh Michael balouch was very kind to come and help us uh in the commissioning process just not to interrupt you but for the board this is
what was left on the desk so if you go ahead so there's yeah um I you probably seen all the renderings at any rate um the discussion is centering around what's going to be audible uh in the neighboring properties and that's very correct that's very right and that's our
goal is to make sure that we're a good neighbor um this project as you as you've been told is very high-end it has to uh you know meet uh uh the expectations of its own clientele and that's probably even more strict than I
would think uh the neighbors but um that being said yes everything uh that has been installed called is under control and when I I say that I mean it's uh it's hardwired and it's softwar driven it's
password protected the uh all of the equipment is locked in um cases and and racks as you know we've done here in Miami Beach for a long time now everything that's basically the idea most of the conditions right but when
you say it's locked it was it locked when they did the testing at a level where you could not hear it in the hotel next door yeah and for yes for the ambient as you heard that's uh couldn't really hear it in in the rooms even shutting down you can lock you can lock
the volume so that's it everything's locked I mean it's uh it's run it's run from a tablet uh for the from the phone everything DJ can't alter that DJ can't touch it so the there's a Max we had you know the source which would be the DJ is
up to you know they can put on the Max and the driving of the uh speakers through the amplifiers and all the electronics that's that's locked that can't be touched and um you know to your point um it doesn't really matter we
won't you know call them a music programmer because you can set the you can set the program up uh to play the songs all night H without anybody there but basically the uh music programmers there to you know be personable with the
with the guests so that that's the that's the only difference with that person being there um but uh to go into the detail of it you know all physically everything is locked there's racks of amplifiers they are all software controlled and then the program material
is all software controlled so uh the settings for each and every loudspeaker that's installed there is software controlled and set and locked and only management has that so no entertainers can mess with it and uh if
they try I'm sure that will be their last uh visit but um so you know you can rest assured that whatever it's set at will be the maximum under all the conditions that you that you require so that that's what we want to do and so
that's why we had the commissioning exercise uh last week to go through and set it up uh based on the ambient being you know conversational level and uh so yes there there going to be conversations that's physical that's
people uh as far as the electronics that's set to enhance that and make that a good experience that's not there to compete with the people uh so uh I you know I can go into the details yes I was just get into that
thank you Michael don't the the cup you're comfortable is is is codified to be consistent with the testing you you observed yourself correct okay I correct yes so so Michael was there and uh we're
planning further requirements based on uh Michael had a great suggestion because there's some speakers in the there's an open Courtyard area and then there are two uh long buildings that basically Shield the neighbors from what's going on and that's where there's
dining in there and uh there's a small bar in there just to service it and um so so the open courtyard where the swimming pool was that's visible from the the second floor of the neighbors and that's what you're looking over so
there were there's a um a set of speakers out there that uh can be individually controlled so it doesn't have to be like a you know a group of you know this block this block this block each one is individually controlled and we're in now in the
process where we're working to Le lower the deciel level of that of the courtyard individually once that's locked that'll be part of the complete scene that uh that they run so the ambient scene will be locked with the
courtyard reduced and that should make it even less audible what happens when you have the outdoor speakers at at the locked level but indoors you have it above ambient level and the doors are all open and the sound travels outside
from indoors and then that combines with the outdoor ambient level well that's that's a good question well every the whole system the whole set is locked to meet that property line requirement well but I'm saying have you tested because
because what you're you wrote in the operational plan not you but they wrote in the operational plan that on certain occasions the music is proposed to be above ambient levels in the restaurant but the sound system will be designed to prevent disturbing neighbors and so I
think Jonathan I think since that time they revised the proposal they're no longer proposing to have above ambient level that that that would address that concern right that that's exactly right at this at this uh uh uh meeting we're we're planning to stick with the the the
recommendations I think the staff recommendations as they were uh just agreed different you're asking for different hours they're asking for um 7 to 11:00 p.m. versus our recommendation which was 12:00 to 4 right so the hours
hours are a bit different but uh the system itself physically electronically everything will be locked down and and we're in the process of reducing the courtyard itself that area so that it's it's going to be less than it was when
last week uh so that will make it even more conducive I think to for the satisfaction what do you mean the the courtyards is getting smaller no no no the loudspeakers coming down okay got it reduced because that's that's where the hotel Windows look on to right so for
for example that at no time would it be above you know background conversation level but within the courtyard it would be even lower than that that's the idea you have 39 speakers 39 and I think part part of the thing to is having more speakers that have the
volume smaller is better than having a fewer larger speakers that have to volum the point the point is still the same you have six sub whoopers you have 39 speakers six lights a DJ booth this is a bar I'm sorry this is a bar this is not
a high-end Hotel restaurant this is this is even if you're Renning $1,000 a night you've got 39 speakers four facing Collins um six subwoofers um you've got a DJ booth you've got all kinds of main racks and
everything else I I used to date guys in bands a long time ago so I kind of know how it works um so may I ask if this is a very small hotel um what what what why so many speakers
and lights and and all that I'm just trying to you know understand that that's a great question why would we have agreed to 12 to 4 um on Saturdays and Sundays and no entertainment um on Fridays nor after 4 on Saturdays and Sundays and now we're
coming back with this I'm I'm just I'm trying to understand well the the physical layout that you pointed out it's a good question um the more smaller speakers you have the more even the coverage and the less each speaker puts
out so basically you set it up so that uh so that the clients the customers will you know get an even coverage you know in the old days with the bands all the speakers were up front and by the stage or wherever they were so so that
they had to you know it wasn't that long ago well I mean they didn't really do surround sound and uh you know maybe some of the bigger venues do but um you know if they wanted to reach the back they had to make it quite loud in the front so this kind of system avoids that
issue because it's even all over the place with a lot of small speakers now you see a lot of speakers you say well okay that's just basically to keep it lower believe it or not it's it's uh may be counterintuitive but uh but what happens is you're not cranking up one
speaker because you have a dead spot over there uh and you could reduce the number of speakers you have because you still have those four that are facing Collins Avenue and I did notice that you had something I don't know where it is right now but um you had something about
them projecting onto Collins I'm just trying to that's sure uh we'll remove the speakers on colins well I think they were just removed I mean we're putting them back building and what about inside because I mean look I'm trying to understand this
gentleman's one is it you know our concern is the neighbors and and like he was saying if you have a hotel and and I understand you're Renning on Collins
Avenue but if I don't want to I don't that ruins his his experience for his customers at at you know you're getting something at the expense of him and the other people around I I'm just trying to yeah and to put to her point I mean
it's not that complicated to me I mean but he's right that if there's one bad experience and they write a review and then so the bottom line is we'd love to give you what you want but you just got to commit that he's not going to hear it I don't think it's complicated right I
agree with you and to your question about the number of speakers I mean my understanding has always has been exactly what Bennett is saying is that the distributive sound system which is what we have which is more speakers is actually more conducive to be able how many I I I'm I'm going to just
say I'm going to disagree but I would like to know how large those speakers are that are inside yeah that's that's a 39 of those is pretty heavy it's like a little bookshelf speaker and the idea is to you know to make it it's a it's a
distributed system and the dist about that size it's pretty loud but I think I think I mean I understand your your concerns elizeth but I think we're not the sound experts and I think at the end of the day what we want is the outcome we're all agreeing on the outcome that we need to have and how we get there is not for us to figure out
but it's but it is about their cup and that is noise no it's a good question it's a fair question absolutely and uh you know the idea is that technology is available to us to the other thing is because we're not worried about the um
architecture uh affecting the sound we can just control it with each little speaker if we want to drop it down here we can do that so you know we don't need to you know if you only have three speakers or four or five whatever the
number then you have to you know work with the architecture because basically you'll have some people will hear it in the the front of the restaurant and they won't hear it in the back this way uh it's even coverage and it's controllable it's all software controllable uh we we
were walking around with a with a pad and controlling it from there like is this okay is this okay and uh that's the way it's done there was no restaurant there there was no restaurant there were no Hotel guests there were no patrons talking you know there was well
that's correct that's that's true but um you know the music is at conversational level so I would think inside the restaurant at and at the at the property line you're going to hear about the same
level as you would whether it's full or not because uh the people will be there at conversational level yes you get you get people talking someone's going to laugh someone's G to you know do something like that but normal conversation is is that's what the
systems designed for to enhance that make it a great experience they want people to to be there and not you know it's not a party party Kei Kei go yeah you you had me until I heard six subwoofers when I and that gets back to
the my first question DJs DJs go at what is it I'm not an expert but 30 to 100 megahertz it's very low and it travels and it can rattle windows at an ambient level because we've experienced this
before so why sub why subers that that you when there is no reason if you're going to have fine dining and music to have a subwo that was created by DJs it was created by discos and no one
needs uh sound below 20,000 megahertz why are you doing it at a subwoofer level well because the little speakers that are distributed to keep the sound level down would without the subs to fill in that that uh lower frequency
range need anything Bel 20 my radio my is not standard ambient music between 20,000 and megahertz up and aren't subwoofers down in the range where Windows rattle Well yeah if you play
them loud enough now I mean if you want the uh you know I'm the guy that moved Ultra the first time they brought it back that's a bad so I I'm I'm pretty familiar with the the concept but the idea here is that
um uh you know the little speakers will sound tiny if they don't have that support so they're they're spread around that's why there's six of them because they're not all in the same spot like they're on stage projecting out they're you know kind of sprinkled around you
think think of it as uh I don't know a little bit of I'm just trying to come up with an analogy a little bit of uh spice or herbs you don't put it all in the middle of the dish you kind of spread it around so the flavor goes uh around and those are all every every electronic
thing in that building is limited so if uh there's ever any issue with subwoofers loudspeakers however many they are um uh other than physically removing them they can be turned to zero
at any time uh so that's you know that's the issue is is it going to be controlled properly because there's an absolute control over everything so but subwoofers at a low meaher level do
travel differently than the normal s and they do rattle well we don't want to hear that next door either they do pick up the bouncing off and echoing magnification of walls true that's why there's that's why a bunch of them and
they're strategically located and they're all controlled because we don't want our neighbor to hear that okay we don't want them to hear it they'll have to come to the restaurant if they want to hear it okay um I hope that answered that
question and and any others that you might have just remember control control control that's the that's the that's the whole idea so that we can be a good neighbor any other anything else I'm going to jump in um you know I
don't we see so many different different applications here and and and I think the same way on on all of them it's I don't really care what happens inside a property but when when what happens inside affects outside then it becomes an issue um you know as far as I'm
concerned you can have whole um concerts in there if he can't hear it I don't think he don't think he would care and I don't think we would care um but you know on Collins Avenue where you look at you know the building all the buildings are close together five foot
setbacks and I think it's it's next to impossible to to do what you're proposing and not affect the neighbors um I you know there's you talk about um locking the sound system only
some people have control I've said this before here we hear that from every applicant but all it takes is someone to turn a dial and the volume goes up whether it's a manager the DJ or whoever that's all it takes you know we do sound studies and and and and it all looks
good or sometimes looks good but you know those can all be you know you can flush them down the toilet because all it takes is somebody to turn the volume up and and there are problems well you're you're right you're absolutely right I'm the technology guy uh and we can set it up so that it'll work
absolutely fine but the word is control it's uh it's part of management and you had some earlier uh uh hearings this morning where there were some issues and and that's the thing ultimately you are in control and then you dictate the
terms and then we to a certain exent you're right and and and that's my concern this is kind of more directed toward the board um I've been up here about a year and there have been a lot of um cases like this and it just seems like it takes the board uh quite a long
time to to act when there's a violation um maybe the bo maybe it's changed you know in the last year maybe we're getting better at that but um you know to his point um you know a couple of um issues where somebody complains and then
his business is is in in bad condition the problem the issue is to not let it happen initially um even with even saying that um you know and I don't know if we can do this um you said the owner said that you know hey if if we can't make it work we'll
get rid of the speakers we'll we'll we will get rid of the entertainment I mean the only thing I would propose that I I may go along with and staff tell me if we can do this could could they get a sort of a um probationary approval where
let's say it goes for two or three months and after that time the it becomes null and void but they would have to come back before and if there are no violations um we can sort of approve it
um um how we normally would I think we we could do um is like we have done before have have a scheduled progress report yeah but I'm I'm no I don't we've done that before and then it comes back to us and we set it for a revocation hearing and they're good for a few months maybe a violation maybe not and
then it's going to we're going to we're going to um um uh dismiss it and then a few months go by and and may you know there could be another violation this is just what we see all the time so through the chair of um this actually kind of
what we proposed at the beginning was to allow us to operate with our proposed hours and with the reduced sound levels subject to staff's approval with the testing prior and then at our what would be the 90day progress we would keep this application open and continue it until
the point is once we give it it's it's it's hard for us to revoke it I'm let me clarify what say what cuz what I'm thinking in my mind is open up your restaurant have people there have your design you know however you're going to
be having it because that will change the way that the sound travels and the amount of having 50 to 100 people in the restaurant will change the way the sound travels and once you're there once you have it open once everything's in the way the tables are where they're supposed to be the chairs are where
they're supposed to be then come back to us and prove to us that it won't be heard from the hotel rooms because the problem is is the the way that the whole system is set up it it's to the detriment of I've said this before on the on the panel
it's to the detriment of the neighbors the residents the hotel guests next door because you can you know you can a the ne it's a it's 11 o'clock at night the neighbors are with their kids at home and they don't want to have to go open the door for a code compliance person
and but they make the phone call by by the time the Code Compliance person gets over there it's already the music is down and you know it's just and then there's no real violation so then you never really come back and it's a cycle and so what I think the better way to handle it is to do the due diligence
ahead of time set everything up as it is um you know going to be and then if you can make it work and and your neighbors see you show your neighbors that it will work without them hearing anything then I think it's fine but I mean as you know
in light of the the complaints the concerns of Neighbors in light of what I think is sort of the appetite of the Miami Beach Community not to have more outdoor entertainment um I to me I don't I don't have the appetite to allow
outdoor entertainment without first being given 100% assurances that it that noise won't travel and so um that's how I feel I mean I however you want to do it if you want to continue this for I
don't know what your so let me ask a question um I was out there it looks like the place is almost ready to open up when do you guys anticipate um starting operations okay so so I would suggest what jonath is suggesting is that you start operation now um without having um
a DJ having what the code allows which is ambient background level music and then um after you started operation or during during the operation we will go out through and do the sound testing again during the the the dining see how that how that works and then continue this application for one or two months
so that by the time you come back to the planning board you have you have started operation in accordance with with not having the cup just what the code allows and see if that allows you to operate in a respectable manner doesn't doesn't impact the neighbors and then if the board wants to then on top of that add
the DJ with that same level of ambient level then the board would add that um part as the CP we would agree to that with the no to four hours well no this would be right so right now what the board would be doing is just considering continuing the application for one or
two months that would allow them to start operation they can operate in that interim no they would be operating under they'd be operating with ambient background mus what the code allows they would not be operating with the cup they don't need to because they're under 200 occupies they don't need you got it got it got it we only need it for the DJ
right so would you like to do that for so I would ask would it continous Beed for one month or two month what would you guys two months two months that would give them because we may not open for three or four weeks so it would be well if they open in three or four weeks then they' only be operating a month before they come back could we say two months after they open I agree well we
have we have to set a date certain today to keep the application three months month Scott just saying wait until two months after they open instead of today three months we can say let's say three months we want to get a date certain so we don't be the June meeting Michael yeah because
right now I don't think I don't think it's all right we be continued to the June 10th meeting in the meantime what we would do is of course monitor find out when they open open I think after that after the um placees open we would do sound testing again on site with the
um restaurant operation and come back to the board in June with the outcome of that sound testing as well as any sort of complaints or um updates on the operation and can we also put the all of the Neighbors in the surrounding building are going to
I just want to make sure that we're not well they they are notified and we will put this in on the we will you're sitting here so you you make sure you attend that are closed no I understand that but apparently he's the most vulnerable so I'm going to make a
motion we will we will include our notice I think by the time we will have our noticing on the on the County website so we will think the building North is uh is is not a hotel so it's a yeah condominium you're the most V rental and I don't think anybody's
paying real attention to the process that's the truth so I I will are you comfortable with what they're proposing right now I am uh I I don't have the right to stop them from opening and and complaining by I guess standard law well just so you understand they don't need a
cup to open and operate at amb music so that's what they're going to do we will test how it how it goes and and and and yes I I I do think that it's very important to understand that when they speak about control control h it is like that but it's not controlled by me it's
not controlled by compliance officer it's controlled by yourself I just want to make sure because we're going to we got to move on I want to make sure that you're aware that they're going to do sound testing that you're he's going to be given notice Michael correct yes yes as well the neighbors to the north I I
guess we will repeat a similar process to what we did this and you'll come back for the next one I'm going to move to continue to the June J 10th was it meeting okay all in favor anyone opposed okay see you then thank you for your
time thank you very much all right okay uh next previously continued items planning board file 24073 1250 West Avenue Alton Beach Bayfront overlap district and this staff report begins on
page um 75 of the board packages so this is an application including pb2 24703 and pb2 24698 for um 1250 West Avenue to create the Alton Beach Bayfront overlay
District both comprehensive plan amendments and um and development Land Development regulation modifications now the planning board last reviewed this application on October 29th of last year since this application includes an f f increase
there's a six-step process that this these applications would have to go through the first first step is a first review by the planning board the second step is a public Workshop that public Workshop was held on December 19th of last year the third step is a transmittal meeting of the planning
board that's where we are today after today's meeting there would be a first reading public hearing at the city commission followed by another community outreach meeting and followed by a a final um um City commission meeting which would be the sixth step in the process now this application today was
last continued by the planning board on February February 4th um to a date certain of today after today's meeting it would go to the city commission for first reading now we did note in our um uh link to the video which is on YouTube now of the community Workshop that was
held on December 19th we did provide you a summary of that community meeting as part of the board packages now I'm just going to go through some of what the um applicant is proposing um the the 1250 West Avenue site is located in the rm3 um multif Family high-intensity zoning
district and these amendments would allow a ultr luxury development including approximately 180 restaurant seats located 1250 West West Avenue The Proposal in includes an increase in F from the current zoned maximum 2.75 up
to 6.0 as well as a building height increase from 150 ft to 360 ft I believe the applicant um in his latest latest proposal is going to show a modification lowering the height down to um 330 ft now starting on page 7 on the board
packages we did include a um um the what's supposed to be modified including um what was proposed initially and what's proposed currently so the board can see the difference between the initial proposal and what the applicant is currently proposing now now based
upon the pliss we did note some some observations based upon the current maximum f for the site just taking the um the applicants proposal the entire maximum F of 2.75 is contained within the first 13 floors
of The applicant's Proposal this would include an overall building he up to 158 ft ngbd and include 52 Apartments and0 restaurant seats um now the increased F does provide for additional um 73 units and 210 ft of Building height and
additional 272,000 of additional square feet the average unit size proposed is approximately 3, um 250 sare ft now as noted in our report we do believe that um while the latest proposal has been scaled back it still does far exceed the
maximum F established in the comprehensive plan for the R3 district and we do believe it still is out of scale with the existing buildings in the media area including structures that are non-conforming now we did note starting on page um 81 of the board packages since the Waverly project has been used
as comparison we did note some um differences between the um what the applicant's proposal and what um is compared to the um the 1330 West Avenue site which is the the Waverly um um project so we do believe that while we
think that there um it may be appropriate to offer some bonuses based upon what the applicant's proposing we do think that those modifications are slightly excessive um in summary we are recommending that with the bonuses that the maximum f um is limited to no more than two above what's currently zoned
resulting in a maximum F of no more than 4.75 we recommending the building height um bonus does not exceed more than 100 ft resulting in a maximum height of no more than 300 ft while recommending no modifications to the the current setback requirements and based upon the height
this would result in basically doubling the what's what's shown for the setback requirements for the for the tower um now we we do now since this is a transmittal meeting by the planning board um we all recommend that the planning board transmit this both the
comprehensive plan and the Al Al the amendments to the city Commission with negative recommendations however with the idea that um the thresholds not exceed what staff has recommended I'll turn it over to the applicant for their proposal great thank you Mr chairman
board M staff Michael Larin tour southe K Boulevard here represen the applicant with it is Michael Stern Nicholas Rodriguez my colleague and our architect record Kobe KP um since we last appeared before you all we doing a lot of tremendous Outreach to this neighborhood we've met with wava
and they are very kind and let us almost an hour discussion with them we appreciated that we've also met with a newer group on West Avenue called soie West Alliance and almost most importantly we've continued a dialogue with our immediate neighbors who would be impacted the most 1228 West to our
South and monad terce to our North while these associations have not adopted a official position on it we feel that we've made good progress and we're going to continue to work very hard with them to earn their support today we're here to share the latest proposal for 1250 West Avenue with you it has changed
substantially since the last time you all considered it back in November and we're here to respectfully request your favorable recommendation with regard to our proposed overlay uh next slide and next slide so the property of the subject of the overlay 1250 West
Avenue we have highlighted the bikini hosel site here to the right um because as you all know a key part of our public benefit package is the permanent elimination of bikini hostile use at that property that has plagued this neighborhood for years we know the bikini hosel site has been the news uh
recently since the city of Miami began sending unhoused individuals who live there last November and we want to kind of dispel some rumors and be abundantly clear that since then and now we've had no operational control over the Hostile property that is solely within the
province of the owners but the conversion beini hostile into a homeless shelter is the latest manifestation of this nuisance that has plagued this neighborhood for a long long long time and as long as that use is there it will continue to be a problem for the neighborhood this is why
Michael is so Earnest in his approach to try to eliminate that use that being said we feel our proposal has a lot of Merit outside of our generous public benefit package proposed by Michael so our presentation today focuses primarily on the merits of our legislation next
slide as you can see the overlay only covers 12 F West Avenue we are no longer including the bikini hustle site within our overlay zoning district and now they turn over to Michael Stern he'll take this part of the presentation thank you Michael good morning Mr chairman board um appreciate
you taking the time to hear our application um so on this slide we see the existing condition of the property where we're proposing the overlay um to give you some history this building uh is in very poor condition it's obsolete
physically it was originally built as a healthc care facility which is why it's one of the few buildings with no balconies um this is a building where the condo board is sort of on a financial cliff where the potential assessments um are going to outweigh the
value of the units um common along the coast but this is a prime example of that in the current condition there are 238 existing units we'll get to it on a on a slide in a little bit but we are proposing to reduce that density um and currently under the zoning shortterm
rentals are permitted um so we have two options in how we approach developing this site um one is of course an as of right development under the current zoning uh and the second approach is why we're here the proposed Redevelopment um for a modification of zoning and I'll go
through both of those with you um so this is an as of right condition um anybody who's seen our presentation before will see that we added an area chart because one of the uh complaints we heard from some of the opponents was
perhaps there was more F in the as of right um such that this would maybe be a deceptive slide um so we added a table demonstrating that this is actually a perfectly compliant as of right Condition it's also the most likely um condition because the building would
have to be u-shaped like monad Terrace is to maximize water views to have it make any economic sense at all if we did a squatter shorter building which we could theoretically do we'd end up with half the units with no water views and it would just make no economic sense so this is a very real realistic as of
right condition and what you'll notice about this um as of right development um it's under the as of right zoning we can do up to 286 units so it would be a denser development um short-term rentals would be per permitted um the setbacks
are actually other than the two side setbacks that we're talking about the Waterfront setback and the street setback which are actually the most impactful are significantly less than what we are proposing and we'll go through some slides to show that and just from an architectural expression
point of view the current zoning leads to to Shorter squatter buildings that are very difficult to um to make pretty attractive Etc just from an urban planning standpoint also monolithic Skyline where everything is at the exact
same height mid-rise buildings um without any variety at all is is not great at urban planning either in our opinion let's go to the next slide um so this shows you the Genesis of kind of where we started to where we are today um we originally proposed a tower that
was 420 ft which clearly would have set a new height precedent for this Corridor we've significantly lowered it to 330 ft which is significantly below the parit of the Waverly so it's similar in height to the Waverly but actually a bit lower
and um I can tell you that it's not an arbitrary number this is the height at which um we kind of Hit the economic Bona where the where it just doesn't make sense sense to build the building to overcome construction costs and provide the public benefits package that we're proposing um to build this
building um this building we feel is now very contextual it's very respectful in in terms of its height and I understand that there will be I'm sure after we leave um a lot of complaints about how this is going to turn the neighborhood
into Bickle or Sunny Isles or um something like that I'm building buildings in brickl um they three and four times the height of this this is basically a relatively low Tower just above a mid-rise building um we also heard some complaints historically that
maybe our um renderings or massing diagrams weren't to scale um we triple checked them they have been to scale they are to scale you could see that they're uh it's significantly shorter than the Waverly and if there are any questions on that Kobe carpus here and
we'll be happy uh to do that we think that not only are we not destroying the character of this neighborhood like um I'm sure we'll hear a little bit later today we're enhancing it with a a much higher quality building that greets the street uh better and is less impactful to the neighbors um next slide so this
is what we are you want because I want to lose up Michael what explain why how does a Waverly have so much more height than every other building on that street well that was approved before the down zoning so um back when that was built I or approved in the late '90s um the there was a higher height and higher F
that was allowed Citywide and after since since the down zoning basically the the the heights were limited even in this in this location was limited to 150 ft but Citywide heights were reduced to um to no more than 200 feet all right sorry go
ahead mik yeah that's okay um so and actually I'm just going to touch on one more thing that uh before we get into our proposed Redevelopment that we've heard I developed a property next door called monad Terrace which I think now is is a a pretty universally admired building um in the city we had plenty of
opposition even back then um from some of the same folks who are now advocating for us to build monad Terrace again essentially many of those folks showed up at drb to complain that that building at that height was problematic um which of course we disagree with but people
have asked why can't you just build mon terrorist again you did it before do it again land costs are double what they were and construction costs are double or two and a half times what they were when we did monad terce it's just not economically viable to build a building like that under the current zoning in the current realities of the
construction cost climate so moving on to our proposed Redevelopment what we are proposing is between 100 and 125 units we would limit our density and we think that density is the real impact how many cars how many trips how much impact to the sewer system and the
infrastructure and we're proposing essentially a third of the allowable density which we think is the real impact uh to the neighborhood we would prohibit short-term rentals the units would be larger in size they'd be large enough that they could never be short-term rentals anyways and most
importantly we're proposing a very compact Tower footprint that will have the least impact on the neighbors and will minimize the shadow um compared to a blockier a stockier as of right building and we also have the opportunity to create something that's
truly an icon and a landmark building that the the neighborhood can be proud of rather than another hoam mid-rise building um so let's look at those real world impacts um so this is a a slide showing the pedestal setback with the AZ of right to the left and what we are
proposing to the right the dark gray is the 50 foot section which is the maximum allowable height of the pedestal so we are proposing a much more compact pedestal at the 50-ft level with a much bigger Waterfront setback and a much bigger Street setback that sort of
Cascades from the street rather than putting a big ugly part parking Podium um right at the street which is kind of the older condition the Waverly was built that way with a big uh parking pedestal greeting the street we don't think that's the nicest way to plan buildings if we go to the next set the
next slide this shows the tower setback Mr chairman can we have about 10 more minutes thank you sir 10 yeah go eight kidding go ahead okay I'll try to be be a lot of public comments so go ahead um so this is a slide showing what
we think is the most impactful thing which is on the left the as ofite Tower would have a wall that is 318 ft long on each neighbor basically creating a wall-to-wall shadow condition for 1228 and monad Terrace um that is about the
worst Shadow condition you can have and that's what the zoning calls for as of right we are proposing a very shallow Tower footprint only about a 100 ft deep um and I a comment was made um earlier that in our propos proposal all of the
as of right floor area is only going up to 13 floors that's true and the reason is because we are shrinking our Tower footprint to make it less impactful to our neighbors so there's less F on each floor as it goes up because we think shrinking the tower footprint and making it less blocky and more elegant and
narrow is actually the best condition for the neighbors and the best urban planning model um as well um so that's what's going on there so if you look at the waterfront setback on the as of right um it's 53 ft and we're proposing
to set the tower back from the water 140 ft and the street setback is 50 ft in the as of right condition on the tower and we are proposing almost 200 feet away from the street and that's where the real Shadow impact happens at the water and at the street and we're also
dealing with it on our two neighbors by shrinking our Tower footprint and making it less impactful opening up the corners for the Waterfront views and we actually strategically placed the tower right where monad Terrace's elevator and stair core is so we're not impacting views if we go to the next slide I have a couple
of slides sorry Michael before you move on just a question about the impact um have we done a study to as of right how many units are actually blocked versus if we're doing the proposed because there's a difference of who's being affected on depending on the width and height we I we haven't done that study
uh but we can and we can provide that I haven't counted the units that that have impacted views but I can tell you that um about half the units at Mona Terrace would have views impacted act in the as of right condition and I don't know how many at at 1228 but I assume similar about half maybe a third because the
building is deeper um but we we can follow up and get you that so this is a slide just demonstrating real world impact on the left that's the as of right condition just showing the the enormity of an as of right wall condition wall to- wall that will always
be in Shadow to some level and on the right that cascading uh pedestal that steps up to a shallower tower which we think is much more attractive in the way it greets the street um we also in the as of right condition um couldn't afford
to do uh a buried parking pedestal like we did at monad Terrace just the realities of what construction costs are today and with the proposed Tower we would be burying all the parking and doing a very Lush landscaped front similar to what we did at monat Terrace um so that the building would greet the
street in the correct way if we go to the next slide this is from a a dline at monad Terrace so the as of right condition facing West Avenue is on the left and the cascading pedestal is on the right and this is much more
respectful and empathetic to the view carders at monad Terrace that exist today will preserve most of the views for monad Terrace both on the water side and on the street side and then this is a a project overview just showing uh the building in
context and in scale I think we're going to hear maybe some contentions that this is somehow fundamentally changing the context or character of the neighborhood um it is shorter than a building that is two buildings down um it creates a
variety of skyline that I think is is interesting and diverse and it will be a very very iconic architectural building that will complement the quality of monad Terrace great thank you Michael so this is a context slide that show show the
different buildings along the Bayfront and West Avenue it's important to note that with a reduction in our height to 330 ft we are in context of the existing built environment of West Avenue we're shorter than the Waverly we're shorter than the Floridian and we're shorter
than the center Tower at the Pingo complex next slide this is a summary of our legislation note that we're just proposing residential accessory uses no outdoor restaurant seating our floor area has been reduced from 7.75 down to
5.75 our height from 420 to 330 ft we're modifying the side interior setbacks we're including some allowable setback encroachments and we're asking for administrative approval of our mechanical parking next slide as Michael discussed earlier we're asking a density reduction to 75 units
per acre this a 50% reduction what is permitted right now we're going to profer voluntary Covenant prohibiting short-term rentals we're working with the city Administration on the development agreement the two main prongs of that public benefit would be the acquisition of the bikini hosel property the demolition of those
buildings and the conveyance of the land to the city let the city choose what to do in consultation with the residents of West Avenue the second component of the public benefit package is actually finishing the Baywalk the Baywalk could be as phenomenal as the beachwalk I think there are three missing links
behind South Bay Club behind 1228 West immediately charged South and behind 1450 Lincoln Road we're going to absorb all the hard and soft cost in in connection with these missing links next slide these are the reasons to recommend to transmit and recommend approval we
have reduced impacts to the views from on Terrace and Bay View Terrace reduced impact to West Avenue street Frontage and biscane Bay reduced density that in turn reduces traffic and infrastructure burdens we're consistent with the as built height along the west Avenue Corridor we are going to eliminate the
short-term rental opportunity eliminates the severe economic hardship unfolding for 1250 West Avenue Unit winers Michael got into it a little bit but it's hard to imagine what they're going through trying to assemble the necessary funds to you know REM remedy their building
which they can't be there are substantial economic benefits created for the city and neighborhood an opportunity to create architectural landmark and finally bikini hos will be extinguished the Baywalk will finally be completed that's all we have Mr chairman we're happy that answer any questions
and we're done I have a question yes do you have the bikini under contract I'm happy to take that one um we don't have a final agreement yet with bikini we expect to have it done before land use which isch March 11th we expect
to have it done before then or else we can't go forward in March 11 right and our our application is of course predicated on extinguishing that use and um we understand that we have to deliver that and we will Michael people live in this condo right now they do okay and so you have
some type of tcid agreement that if you get approval then no they B but don't you own the like we own I'll I'm happy to address that we own uh many units in the building today and we are under contract for over 98% of theing un get you
control the board okay cor right do you have any other buildings that are under contract in the area or just this one just this one um isn't Michael maybe you can answer this one isn't the Baywalk already funded
the Baywalk was funded but it was under 2018 construction dollars so if you listen to the director of CIP now that's about 60% funded there's a 40% Gap and how much is that I don't know the actual dollars it's Millions but it's I think
it hovered around four to five million yeah it's between four and five million okay all right I'm gon to open the public my biggest SC on the project is your architect but other than that it's um I love you Kobe um let's start with in Chambers anybody in the chambers
to speak on this item maam actually let her go and then you'll come next thank you sorry I didn't see you over there good morning everybody my name is Jackie laland uh 1228 Bay um our president is here Michael and we're here
because president of the association president of the association sorry and you are just a resident or you're on the no I'm on the board and I'm chair of this development committee that we put together what's your build I'm sorry is is there a name of your building or is it 1228 that's just B ter sorry about
that that's okay thank no I just don't I'm not familiar so we're here because we want to give you our position on on what's happening today and we want to tell you that we are cautiously optimistic that in fact these two deals
get done we think it's critical that the bikini be tied to this project we have just received the information just started negotiations and we just want to let this board know the Commissioners know and everybody know that the mitigations
that we have the the hell we're about to go through for the next three years we want to make sure that there's good faith on part of the development I'm going to stop you one second her point about that it's got to be contingent on the bikini hous so is there any impediment to that happening
no see you can you can represent with no doubt that that if this deal gets done the bikini hustle will be part of it yeah so the deal is predicated on us extinguishing that use we understand that all right because I agree with her and I wanted to make sure that's the
case okay I think everybody in the whole city of Miami Beach agrees with us but you rais a good point is that a guarantee but go ahead may may I just ask one more question about this what about contracts that are already in place with the Bikini Hostel
how will those go away with other entities so I'm I'm happy to address it uh we don't have any um obviously Direct Control or involvement in that but part of our deal with the bikini hosel is that they need to deliver the property to us vacant we
have Clauses in the agreement that it's delivered vacant a that whatever process they need to go through to vacate it will be done uh humanely and properly and in coordination with the city of Miami Beach we have Provisions in there that the city of Miami Beach is kept
informed of what that plan is to humanely vacate the property but to be unequivocal they owe us vacancy when we close on that property and we expect that to happen in roughly 120 days and that's our expectation okay thank you thanks sorry go ahead but you bring up
points and I want to get clarification no I think that's that's exactly what we want to do and and we just want to let you folks know well we have just begun discussion with these people while we are cautiously optimistic you know we need we need this to be proper for the
neighborhood for our buildings and and frankly for the city so we're hoping that everything's going to work out smoothly um so are you supportive of the proposed at this moment in time we haven't fully developed our position yet because we're still in conversation you
I I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to go through three years of hell and we've got a lot of expenses associated with this particular project so we're in conversation and we will get something definitively as an opinion to you I'd say within the next two weeks
right and just so you and on I'm sure you do know this our board is simply making a recommendation and it sounds to me from what Michael described there's a lot of work that's going to be done between now and the first hearing by commission right regardless of what we recommend yeah things may change and I say um the the city commission is going
to provide input and ultimately it is up to the um decision of the city commission right okay right goad and we understand that but we want to encourage this board all boards the Commissioners to make sure that all of these elements are dealt with right but my question to you is so today um and I know we're
going to hear from other people but we have to decide whether do we recommend to the commission to pass this the way they're proposing or not and so at this point knowing you have a lot of work to do are you in favor of us passing this with a favorable recommendation we do not have a solid opinion on that at this
time but I can tell you the reduction I mean it's looking much more attractive let's just you know be common sense folks we want to see the property developed we want it to be right for everybody and you know conditioned on a number of things if those things happen
you know I think it's like the sun shining I think it would be a good thing okay and Jackie Jackie what are the things that you're still looking for as a community that you're still at hoping to well one of the most important things for the residents of of West Avenue is we don't have parking extra parking
anywhere it's a common and persistent dilemma within the neighborhood so at first I believe they were going to build a parking garage and we still are very much in favor of that proposition and I think it's critical for the neighborhood so I think the city really needs to consider that as part of this deal um
you know everybody wants the property developed it is an isore uh the bikini I don't want to waste your time talking about the consistent problems there we don't that needs in terms of the the actual structure itself is there are there yeah we're we're happy with the
reduction um we're very concerned about the mitigations with respect to our building obviously that's why we're here today um so I think a lot of progress has been made we're cautiously optimistic I'll give you a definitive answer in about two weeks sound good and
Michael so what was the difference now it seems like you're just deeding the property to the city as before you were going to be build the parking garage and then lease it I guess to the the city good morning Jackie good morning Michael um yes the public benefits package has been
restructured um what it is now is that we will acquire the Bikini Hostel demolish it grade it sought it landscape it fence it and then convey it to the city I felt that uh our prior approach was too prescriptive I think we were telling the city commission what to do
with it or telling the neighbors what to do with it and that did not sit well with some so I think it's better for we convey it and Jackie just mentioned an excellent future use the city commission will not do anything without the consultation of the residents in this Corridor so that's where we're at
Jonathan so I guess I just have a question how long generally it takes for a city to decide what to do with the the land and and you know and then to decide to build a parking garage there for the benefit of the residents I mean is that
something that can be done in a couple of years or is that something that takes 10 years I I just don't know because I mean 10 years from now is to me not really I mean that kind of guts a lot of the benefit especially as all the West
Avenue construction you on the roads occurs I mean we're going to lose hundred and something parking spaces and I can't speak to the timing I have no idea we have projects that you know have taken years or decades I'm sure I'm sure the desire is to move quickly on this I agree with you Jonathan I don't think
that we should um I think we need to decide what we're going to do do with it before I mean we don't want we have properties all over the city that nobody knows what to do with and I don't think we want that well I think we were just very I'm so sorry uh we were very happy
with what was proposed with the bikini Hotel like to let the neighbors decide right okay I think but what either either way whether the people of the U neighborhood of West Avenue are opposed or for this park and the main thing that everyone's agreeing on is getting rid of this Bikini Hostel so I think the
benefit they're trying to bring is eliminating bikini hostile and then the second part is not for us to necessarily um plan out today anything else from you no thank you for your time question Jackie sorry one question I guess based on the association's preliminary review
would you all prefer let's say the applicant were to purchase it and just build an as of right development what would the association's preference be as it relates to that the as of right development or we would not prefer the as of right I we do agree theoretically obviously with the reduction in density
the number of units the stress on the neighborhood the parking all of that kind of stuff it's proven I think uh Monet Terrace is obviously an excellent example of you know how a neighborhood could change and become a better better building better Hood better everything
you know so definitely the density we would not prefer that it would directly impact us I think in a negative way so we do have a tower it's just just a different orientation right so we have a smaller Tower so Tower gets turned grows
a little taller not so bad thank you right thank you m'am sorry thank you Amy Leos resident of West Avenue and a member of the West Avenue neighborhood association wava which has been successfully advocating for West Avenue since
2012 so I think what was clear with the exchange we just heard is that there is a lot to be decided here still so to make a recommendation at this point I believe is a bit premature but that said we appreciate um Mr larkens and Mr
Stern's time he has or they have met with um several neighborhood associations they have done a Citywide um Zoom call and there was a lot gleaned from that um also I would like to just State up front that we know that Mr
Stern can build a beautiful building and evidence of that is right next door monad Terrace is a gorgeous building we assume it must have been profitable for the Builder and as well a good investment for those who bought into it
so with that said we would like as moneter is this development at 1250 to be built as of right at 150 ft so that's where we start out and that's not just wb's position
that's the position of residents of West Avenue and that's based on our um January 6th meeting whereby an overflow crowd of 102 people voted on this matter it was a straw vote but out of 102
people 98 were opposed to this development as proposed two were for it and two were non-committal so if that is our starting ground I would like to continue that it's not just West Avenue and wava that does not uh support this project as
proposed but the planning department so Tom Mooney's planning department which I'm sure you have in your materials came out with an initial assessment of this proposal granted it was before some of the downsizing nevertheless there were some very interesting uh statements in
that report so I would just like to read a few it states here that out of 13 criteria the planning board found that seven were not consistent with the neighborhood that two were partially
consistent another two were consistent and two were not applicable so what this would state is that the overwhelming consensus of the planning department is that this development is not good for West Avenue either and just in words let
me read a few statements it states that the proposed development is out of scale with the immediate neighborhood and that it creates an isolated overlay District that bearss no relationship or consistency with the surrounding context
and that the benefits to the neighborhood are not commensurate with the impacts to the neighborhood that it could adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood and it could seriously reduce light and air to
adjacent areas further more they believe that the economics do not work for the neighborhood either in that they could adversely affect property values and be a deterrent to Improvement or
development of adjacent properties none of that sounds positive for West Avenue let me ask something I I'm a little puzzled by that only because of the the significant decrease in density this is the point is that not something you would be fa you know in favor of I
think that's an excellent point so I would ask that the planning department reassess this project with the downsizing that has been proposed I think that um in in order for all of you to come up with a good assessment to come down with a recommendation on this
would require that the planning department chime in once again because this has been changed dramatically from the original proposal I just again go back to this is premature to make an assessment on this project now so Ju Just to pause for a moment so the review
criteria has not been updated based on the reduction this is based on the original well we still have we still believe that that um although they made some modifications it's not significant enough for us to modify our um CR our our recommendation and in the closing
statement of that recommendation use the word hostile and not as in bikini hostile but as in that this proposal would be hostile to the neighborhood okay um let me just finish with this but that was based on the prior plan right but but still even we
don't believe that they that they've down downsized enough enough okay all right yes and lastly I'd just like to finish with this that uh I know it's not unusual in this case and um Mr Stern did um sort of uh prage some of what would
be said today but um Bikini Hostel is something that nobody wants other than the owners perhaps um but we're losing sight of the point here which is this development it shouldn't be conflated with um or not wanting beini hos in our
neighborhood so let's please concentrate on what we're talking about here which is height and far um and lastly this idea of incentives um completing Public Works projects um buying properties that
are undesirable Etc um it creates a perverse incentive for developers to use in order to have granted what they're looking for which is all this excess foreign height so I wish that a city as rich as wealthy as ours would start to
um look at this a little bit more uh strategically and start to fund these projects themselves with our tax dollars instead of depending on developers to do it for them and lastly there was an article in the Miami Herald this weekend which was an investigation into the new
condo laws that were passed that are so adversely affecting so many associations I think including the 1250 I think they've fallen into this budet whereby um the the costs are so onerous to repair and replace all these
components in their building that perhaps were not kept up nevertheless it's created again a perverse incentive um to U developers to come in and say we're going to be your night and shining armor we're going to buy you out of this
predicament you're in and it really is unfair that people uh will lose their homes because of this so let's not um incentivize this type of behavior okay thank you anyone else in chamers speak on this can I make a comment um what you
said I just want to bring up that that I object in in strong terms I understand what the developer is doing with the bikini but this is a problem for the city and if we're going to set a president where we there's a problem
across the street that Sol by money of a developer asking for extra height when does this stop we saw this on on uh five Park you know he he gave basically the people of wava uh had Stockholm Syndrome
from watching this building deteriorate for 10 years and then he said oh I'm going to get extra hey but I'm going to tear it down and I'm going to build you a park and that's why parks are so sensitive so have a park a 3 Acre park
across from a Publix where there's nothing but homeless people and kids playing in a park when does this stop when does the city as she says take responsibility for if bikini holds hostile is a problem
because Miami day dumped homeless people on there this the city should take care of it we should not say to a developer oh you will get a one-time special we're going to go against what as is and you're going to solve our
problem and give you extra height uh in the in the case of uh five Park the problem solved was that the developer didn't want to tear down the building and it should have been condemned so by holding it hostage he has a 550 fot
building that's not right and if we start this unintended consequences I just think it's wrong now that's for the commission to decide but that's my personal opinion on the support got it well taken is there anyone on Zoom we have at least 10 callers on Zoom to
start so um start with the first one um Fus one or FAS one you there hello yes can you hear me yeah can you just tell us were you uh were you sworn in yet I don't think they have to be sworn in on these legislative
matters oh they okay never mind go ahead yes Ferris Aon 1330 West Avenue I'm speaking today to urge you to accept staff recommendations of a negative transmitter for the applicant's item um you we're kind of
getting worn down here by the repetitive filings and continuances um and the head fake decreases in density you know they start at 430 and then it's 360 now it's 330 the point is all of that is above what the law
allows um all of us also are now on notice that the lobbyist appearing on behalf of the developer was exposed just weeks ago on the de of our honorable City commission essentially seeking to buy and corrupt the neighborhood association that of
bile and now after the wava association unanimously rejected this developer monstrosity the same Bad actors are being or referencing a new neighborhood association for the same streight esteemed board members we the people of
Miami Beach are at a Crossroads either remain resident friendly home for all or be sold out to the highest bidder attempting to negotiate with these Bad actors is like attempting to make a deal with the devil we will not win you will not win Miami Beach will
lose I urge you to reject any more special treatment for these Mega developers under the guise of minuscule public benefits um and I don't understand again why this person is still allowed to appear before the city commission um the developer
referenced not being able to build another Mona terce because of the cost of land um while I highly doubt that um maybe he can show us how much he's paying the uh the the owners of 1250 but you know the the remedy for him is to get a better price from them if he can't
build as of right um and you know as so far as the Bikini Hostel again developer groups have been linked paying for the the unhoused people that are living there so that also is a very as everybody said
before a very perverse kind of reasoning uh thank you very much thank you our next caller is Gail Durham everyone um my name is Gail dorham I live in the West Avenue neighborhood and I recently enjoyed the
uh recently rejoined the board of the West Avenue neighborhood association because I believe it's the best association in Miami Beach I just want to address um maybe it felt like incorrect information given by the developer five years ago wava met with
moned Terrace developer and we supported 100% the moned Terrace project no one went to the design review board and objected to anything he proposed second of all since 2013 hotels are prohibited in this zone so this property cannot be
a hotel it can't be short-term rental it can't be a sweet Hotel uh it can't be an apartment Hotel can't be a bed and breakfast it's all prohibited um I just wanted to reference also well the Bikini Hostel there are 13 other small low-end
cheap hotels on West Avenue that would make more money renting to the homeless trust rather than to tourists um so you know the developer is not willing to buy up all 13 of these hotels so it doesn't really solve any problem and second of all the biggest problem with the Bikini
Bar used to be that it was open till 5:00 a.m. however courageous Commissioners have reduced the hours to midnight so now that the bar can only be served alcohol till midnight you know the problems with that have been very much reduced um there doesn't seem seem
to be any commissioner sponsor for this proposal um because it doesn't look like any the Commissioners even want this um we also have um a major concern with the five other condos in our neighbor neighborhood who are being aggressively
contacted by developer condo flippers I don't know what the correct term is we just call them developer condo flippers where they buy up a whole property 1228 has been contacted 800 West stab and also three condos on Lincoln Court so you know based on what looks like it
could be spreading it would be very dangerous zoning planning to allow condo developers to give money or cash or buy out a building next door in exchange for extra height and f um please abide by
what happened at the January 6 wbin meeting where the vast majority of the residents opposed this thank you thank you g our next caller is Martin Mohler yes hello thank you very much for letting me speak today uh I was at that
wava meeting where 98 out of 102 people expressed opposition to this project uh I think that's extraordinary in this today and age that you can get that many people to agree on anything and I can tell you that the atmosphere the energy
at that meeting was extraordinary it was was something I have not seen much in Miami Beach frankly people were motivated against this project because I think by and large they repres they recognize that this is a classic case of unfortunately developer manipulation
we're still seeing today the pink brutalist blob that we all know is nothing like what that as of right project would ever look like uh I wonder if the the planning board members are aware that many South Beach citizens got text messages out of the blue ostensibly
asking of your opinions about the Bikini Hostel but actually trying to push you to respond in a way that would suggest that you favor the tower at 1250 West Avenue which was was uh very U vaguely mentioned in the text message so we're
seeing this kind of manipulation even of the populace uh to try to get people building what would be a a deceptive uh level of support for this project uh I greatly appreciated the board member who mentioned the problems resulting from five Park and that's one of our greatest
concerns is that allowing anything above an as ofri right development on this site would perpetuate the the problem down the road it's the slippery slope we're going to find more and more Developers coming and saying hey you did this for 1250 West Avenue why can't you
just give us a little bit more here and the next thing you know we have a wall of buildings around the perimeter of Miami Beach and we have withering neighborhoods withering businesses on the inside because we all know perfectly well that all of these developments will
be aimed at the absolute richest people in the world they are not going to be here on a daily or weekly basis and they will not be supporting local businesses please oppose anything above an as ofri development for 1250 West Avenue thank
you thank you our next caller is Wayne good afternoon ladies and gentlemen um I I have a few comments I'm not as eloquent as the prior speakers in in my messaging but um I I'm I I believe
in development I believe in advancement that that things get old and they have to be replaced but um there are couple of comments that that the sponsor said relative to cost uh one is that uh the
cost to buy property and buy out those condo units uh that exist today went up yes they did but also the sale price went up so without a p&l statement of what 150 or 200 ft would look like uh to
the sponsor there's really no basis to state that you know everything doubled well so the so did the price of his condo went completed so that should be a a zero sum gain uh what's more uh I am
really disturbed by the timing of that uh effort by the hosel to turn that into a homeless shelter um the timing was just you know as the discussions with the sponsor took place well the sponsor had particip ation in that I have no
idea but I can tell you that his his uh efforts to create that 320t tower now had direct result in uh the attempt by the hosle to to hold the the city
hostage um and that's not any way to deal with the city it might work in New York it doesn't work in Miami Beach is the is is what and I I used to agree with Keith marks all the time lately so much but I appreciate his his comments
on that issue on his first day in the job um so we need more middle class by limitate lowering the number of volume of middle class units in the city is not a positive thing and it's going to be a
domino effect all and it maybe our our our our the planning boards wish that all of West Avenue become you know affluent and 3,000 a square foot units um I know it will be the next building
next door will be the next unit the next opportunity for developer to create that environment but is that what we want do we want to have uh affluent people along West Avenue that come for 3 to 6 months a year or do we want residents with
smaller units more volume uh that's a question of the planning and I thank you for your time have a great day thank you thank you our next caller is Alex my name is Alexus I personally love this building I
believe is it's beautiful it's has a very nice Elegant Touch um I don't even understand why these people they're opposed to this I mean the whole area is going to be upgraded it's like somebody gives us something we get the benefit we don't have to pay anything so I really don't understand it's a little bit taller
there are many tall buildings there have been tall buildings on West Avenue so the boardwalk you guys don't even say much about the boardwalk the boardwalk would have been done 5 years ago this developer will help to expedite the one thing we don't have in life is time so we're going to wait until you approve
the boardwalk and when why hasn't happened why they're short in budget this developer is going to make a beautiful building at well as the monad and it's going to look Boardwalk is going to finish uh as as far as the hostel everybody knows is full of homeless it's not about having a license
to operate until 2:00 or 5 a.m. or anything it's full of homeless so you want to do a nice environment you want to walk to a nice city uh most likely going to build a garage I believe this is great neighbors like myself many people that I know they like it uh I
hope it gets approved that's all thank you our next caller is Steve good morning thank you for hearing me um I want to take this in a slightly different direction which is I'm trying
to imagine what If This Were a private club a bar club type of thing instead of a condominium and a couple years ago this promoter of this club had completed a different exclusive club which conforms
to all the laws regarding liquor licensing like hours amplifi music outdoor noise and all that um they finish this club it's limited membership sold out at amazingly High rates uh the neighbors are pretty happy in part because hardly anyone actually ever goes
to the club um there's hardly any traffic hardly any garbage and all that of course the neighbors never go because it's way too expensive for them um but having made a lot of money on that deal this promoter wants to develop another
club but this club he says cannot succeed without permanent exemptions from major aspects of the liquor law they need to have music all night they need exceptions to lots and lots of
different things um in order to make money they claim because liquor costs more now bartenders make more money etc etc um they are trying to grease the public Mach approval machine Machinery
uh by payments of various sorts um which they say will benefit the public and to help this happen mind you they have concocted an overlay District that they're calling let's just call it the Clevelander overlay District just just
for fun all right in this scenario would anybody entertain that argument even for a minute the answer is no they wouldn't and yet what we have here at 1250 West is essentially the same thing it is a
developer coming in and saying that what are the laws why are the laws even here why bother with the laws I'm just going to State a position and then I'm going to see the city planner report just kind
of Meet Me Halfway and I can State any position and they'll meet me halfway even if in their analysis everything is inconsistent doesn't matter for some reason they're going to meet him halfway anyway and that would not happen in a situation with a private club and a
liquor license and all that so why is it happening here I would also like to say that note that the only positives that keep coming out this came out of the um planner's report this came from the
neighbors testimony uh has to do with the impacts uh like traffic for instance and things like that um that's nice but the fact of the matter is this is super Prime real
estate it's going to be one way or another we can't work around that that means the units are going to be very large and so you're going to have fewer of them in the same amount of space it also means they're going to have tons of their own parking so that isn't an issue
um people won't be there very much so there's actually hardly any um impact on our utility systems um but the point is that's going to be the case either way whether you have this much larger denser taller Tower or you have a matter of right
development and so um that's I I think you need to Discount that argument and that's where almost all the positives of this are coming into it last but not least I would just like to say Law and Order this is something mayor minor
emphasizes over and over you ran on it and all that uh but why would this be confined to police actions and especially to Rowdy crowds of students at Spring Break um it doesn't make sense to me that
somehow when in Planning and Zoning the law is held as sort of a completely negotiable thing whereas for other laws it is regarded as something that you do not break the law or
you you have exceeded the time allowable for a public comment thank you yeah okay thank you for hearing me thanks Steve please vote no our next caller is Natalie kay good morning can you hear me okay yes thank you for uh hearing the
community's thoughts um I'm Natalie Kaufman I live in the West Avenue neighborhood as well we have been attending these meetings on this property project for what six months now um I've never seen evidence of this
developer team appro appropriately approaching this project um with consideration to the community it has been you know they had their opening Gambit of the horrendously tall Needle Tower and it's clear to me that that was
just a manipulation to come back to us and now try to sell us the quote unquote shorter Tower which is still outside of our laws um I am personally very tired of hearing the argument that they can't
make money on this um unless they go outside our laws well you're a private developer this is a capitalist country perhaps on this investment you should sell off and call it a loss if you can't get it done at a
profit that's suits you then maybe this isn't the project for you because I have a feeling that we can find a creative solution that is beautiful that conforms to our laws um someone today mentioned the Hideous blob the one that conforms
to far I have to agree with that review um we have wonderful architecture schools here in the area I bet any number of students could come up with a gorgeous build that is Affordable and Suits our
community and makes us proud that comes in perhaps not at a great economic profit but again that is the private developers risk there is risk in Investments perhaps this investment is not working out for you I invite you to
leave this investment behind thank you for hearing me thank you our next caller is uh Yuri two minutes go ahead uh good morning my name is URI seruya I'm a resident of Miami Beach uh
I was born in Miami Beach and I've been here for the past 30 years uh for me this is a very important project as someone who spends a lot of time in this neighborhood whether walking to meet friends and family
enjoying the Baywalk alongside them or just passing through literally every day I really love this area I love this neighborhood I grew up here and I want to see it Thrive uh I see the replacement of the Bikini Hostel
uh with a park or garage or whatever the neighborhood feels and needs is extremely important especially since the hostel is definitely not something the city and the residents want and the completion of the Baywalk are changes
that have a great impact on us especially in me since it's something that I really want to be finished in the city uh it will create a safer a more peaceful environment while also making the neighborhood more walkable and
welcoming for everyone and just to finish I want to say that I really like the improvements that the development team is making uh I see the shorter the height of the new
building to be very nice uh it looks uh impactful in a way that tourist residents are going to like it and I really hope the planning board would get on with this project and would agree
with it and would pass it through to the commission and to the mayor uh thank you so much for having me here today to be able to speak on this and I wanted to take to thank the team I want to to thank uh the planning board I wanted to
thank everyone in the city and I look forward to seeing Miami Beach getting even more and more beautiful safer peaceful and nice for everyone in the city thank you wonderful day thank you
our next caller is Jessica Davis Jess hello yes 2 minutes and and please don't be redundant if if it's just repeating but go ahead two minutes okay I okay my name is Jessica Davis I am an owner at 1228 West Avenue I live
on the North side I have uh owned and lived at 1228 West Avenue for over 20 years my particular unit uh which I retired to is directly
affected by the uh new development I just want to say that I really like this new proposal and the height reduction I would like to sit on my Terrace and look at my beautiful Bay View and look at a
beautiful building which I believe uh the current proposal would provide us um what I would urge the planning board to do is to please take what these neighborhood associations are saying
with a grain of salt because um I do not want to be uh have my um investment and My Views dictated to by them um at the January 6th meeting which Miss Leos
mentioned uh many of the people who were opposed to the 1250 Tower who were there do not live on West Avenue including Miss Durham who used to live on West Avenue but no longer does and it's a
little bit disingenuous that Miss Leos who lives in the Floridian one of the tallest and probably widest buildings on West Avenue is opposed to something that she's not going to be living next door to um I
really yes I understand it is about West Avenue and all of our residents but please I urge you to take the needs of the people 1228 West Avenue the residents the owners who are going to be
directly affected by this development and in my mind uh what is proposed um the tower height is is fine and again we want to be surrounded by beautiful buildings so thank you you very much for
your time and for taking all of this in consider into consideration I personally really appreciate uh you just thinking about the people at 1228 West Avenue thank you again thank you next thanks
our next um caller is Deborah yes hi how are you thank you for hearing me I just don't understand why we still talking about this like let's be POS positive let's change Miami Beach we need some like a news views we need
we need to be we need to move forward you know we need to just have a new better future for all of us we're we're Miami Beach is is a place where it's a lot of homeless it's a lot of um we need to change I just want to tell everyone
that we have to be most positive about it we need developers we need developers there bringing new things new buildings I live in the 65th uh West Avenue and I want to see nice things I don't want to see all the buildings I'm tired of it
and I need this resistance to change need to stop we need to continue and positive thank you so much for hear thank you next caller is Alice Pini hi can you hear me yes hi ah perfect hi I just wanted to say I also
live on West Avenue and I really support this development that has been proposed also with the changes that were proposed today I think it's an iconic and thoughtful design that would enhance the architectural landscape and it would contribute to a continued growth and
modernization of Miami Beach which I think is much needed and that's all I wanted to share thank you Alice thanks our next caller is Eric Marshall hi good good morning thanks again Eric Marshall thank you for any word uh members and for taking the time as
always seems to be a thank job we're on item six and two hour two and a half hours in thanks again I just a couple comments I guess with regards to uh the presentation that context View of West Avenue in 2000 talking about all the different heights of the buildings what they fail
to mention is all those buildings besides five Parks were built 2005 or sooner I moved down in 2001 West Avenue of lived here ever since and uh very frightened that if this one is approved that it's just going to go right down that row you know that that's my main
main concern once they'll use that same argument this is no coincidence that so soon after five Parks so my my main concern is that if we prove this one Mr Mooney who gave swear referred was the Encyclopedia of the Planning Commission
twice turned this down you know recommended lower height negative recommendations and everything else he went right through those list and nine of them didn't meet or wer consistent I don't want to be redundant with everybody else saying the same things as well but for sure this seems to be
something where this go through the next one and I love the planning board member who mentioned hey when do it become the developers uh prerogative or responsibility to fix up a mess of the city which the bik hosel so thanks again for taking the time really appreciate it
thanks again thanks next next caller is Liz Liz herfield how many more on the line do you see one more okay Liz can yes can you hear me yep okay great um I just wanted to say I was actually I'm 1330 West and I sat on
a prior call was really opposed to this development I'm actually pleased to see the the reduction height I think it looks much better um I think the building looks beautiful I do know that looking at the building next to us um the ad's gorgeous but it seems to have a
lot of issues so I would want to just be sure that you know this is really um carefully thought through in terms of the quality and how it's being built because it did there was some residents from monad on the last call that were really upset with a lot of things that were left incomplete um and then I think
people bring up a lot of really good points around like why are we like bending on laws and regulations just to like let a developer do something I think the biggest thing is like if the city's not going to take care of the bikini T the bikini hostel or finish the Baywalk what choices do we have left but
to compromise with a developer who's going to bring kind of new and modern um building to the the neighborhood I do believe we need it um and I think it looks much better so I at this point am in support of it when before I was not thanks so much thank you and I just want
to clarify in defense of gild durm apparently she does live on West Avenue so I want to clarify the record so she has her hand raised do you want to allow her to speak again Gail if that's simply to say where you live I I just remedied that so okay she's low her hand okay that concludes
our callers on Zoom okay all right I Clos the public but go ahead I know you showed up late go ahead uh greeting everyone uh I'd like to thank everyone for their participation and online and in person and I'd like to uh reiterate uh some thoughts of uh maybe four or
five callers back that mentioned that we need to move forward uh they mentioned the homelessness issue this is something that I am uh passionate about in terms of the public safety of our community an example uh yesterday on Washington
Avenue near pet the rusa a homeless uh gentleman was um speaking inappropriately to many of me the members of the community uh allegedly threatened um an S assault on this uh in this woman
and the gentleman of course was U intercepted by City Miami Beach PD uh they also did remove a what appeared to be a metallic uh bar or object and this was all in broad daylight so again we do
have many issues and this board is trying the best uh that they can to take all perspectives into consideration so we thank you we need to really thank the people the members of the board uh Mr Marks Mr needleman Mr freen Mr cement
Brian you of course Mr Elias Melissa good to see Elizabeth and everyone else so we thank you and again we'll do the best that we can but we do have a problem and it cannot be swept under the rod and with that I yield my time okay sir can you give me your name have I got
your name yes my name is Luigi Mary that is L UI d as in delta GI I my last name is m a r y L1 1632 Meridan Avenue thank you thanks all right so we're going to close the public hearing um
I'm just give my two cents obviously there's strong feelings on both uh sides of this my personal View and there's a good saying in law that reasonable Minds can differ um and it doesn't mean anyone's right or wrong I personally think this project is much better uh what's being proposed than what would be
as a matter of right but again that's uh just one opinion um but what I don't want to do is delay the recommendation whether it's positive or negative so with that being said I'll start with Keith yes um I'm not against development
I think manad was uh brilliant uh I just have problems based on past experience with developers in the city that if you give an overlay and you multiply the F based
on items that aren't related directly to that structure for example the Bikini Hostel which should be a commission mayor city manager issue um if you start adding in items like the
Baywalk uh I don't think developers should get credit I think public the public uh need and the public benefit are items and I'm going to just yeah by the way I wanted to say one thing T make
I agree with you and so my view has nothing to do I just want to that I think the public benefits are the ones that I'm seeing the the commission do you know incentivizing far for uh long-term
rentals incentivizing converting hotels to condos I think the the we got it backwards that we should not have economic dri drivers such as developers telling us that they need extra um
variances based on public benefits I think the public benefits should be driven by the planning board and the Commissioners that's item number one so in summary uh I do agree with the negative view uh and this may not be
popular but I do believe that it was overly generous because of giving benefit to the Baywalk and to the bikini hospital I think that if we're going to rec I personally think we should just say negative and L it to the commission
but if we're going to give uh recommendations on maximums which I disagree with it needs to be cranked down from what um the 150 height and the 475 F yeah um you know this city like like all
cities is changing um in in 40 50 years from now a lot of these buildings we see aren't going to be here for one reason or another and they're going to be replaced with something um you know the question is what and and you know that'll be a process like we're going through now the planning board uh
neighborhood meetings um commission meetings and and and and what um last month we heard another one in North Beach um that one was a very unique situation with the size of a lot it had um you know probably overwhelming
neighborhood support um it had a historic building on on site a very historic building on site that was going to be rebuilt um so we look at you know every every application differently um you know this one though I I I believe
is out of scale with with the asilt environment on on West Avenue um you know it's it it does stand out and and I'm not saying it's we're going to look like Sunny ales or Brickle um you know
it's just when you look at it it just it stands out that's all I can say and I think we need to be be careful about you know going in that direction um that's not to say that you know whatever is going to be built there is is if something does get built um won't be a
little taller um but I think this one as it's as it's um designed is just is is too much um you know and and I'm I'm basing it on I mean my again I agree with Keith I mean I I would recommend a
negative um recommendation to the city but again it's based on the merits of the of the proposal it's not it's not what a developer is going to provide to the city um or or whatever public benefit I think going down that path is
really scary because basically takes our zoning code and says we don't really need it anymore we'll just let someone come in and say what they want to build and the city will put a price tag on it and and we'll go from there so we wouldn't need a zoning code um so you
know it's it's again it's on the the merits of the development now with all with all that said I'm not opposed um you know you made a good point where or someone did that you know all the buildings there in West Avenue are the same height if you wanted to go
up a little bit um you know maybe have it stand out I don't know how we'd quantify that 50 feet four or five stories something like that to make it look different I mean I'm you know we can talk about that um but this one this
as proposed I just think is is out of scale um with with what's on West Avenue now so I mean again I would recommend a negative um recommendation um I I am I think it's a
great looking project I I hope you can find a a solution you know to to quell all the neighbors concerns and and reach an agreement on it but for me you know the the zoning code is the should stay in place unless there's really
exceptional circumstances and if we are going to you know go back on the or make exceptions to the zoning code I think that we need to have you know full neighborhood buyin full neighborhood support I think that's possible uh but
we're not there yet and we've clearly heard from some of the boards that that they're still in the process of of discussing this and reaching agreements and I you know I understand the need to you know give an up or down uh
recommendation today and and not prolong this further um so I'm not personally ready to give a a favorable recommendation um I think I probably would be had you know you know more discussions and negotiations taken place
um to to find a middle ground between where staff is recommending and where you know the the developer is looking to do what looking between what staff is recommending and what the developer is looking to do so um I think there's more room to negotiate more room to create a
a project that everybody's happy with I just don't think that it's there yet and so given the time constraints and the requests from you know the the developer the applicant to um to push this forward I'm a no vote for now few questions so
Michael uh what would be the timing of the conveyance so assuming that this gets approved and and you all close on the bikini household What's the timing of conveyance to the city well I think that we would take on the responsibility of the demolition remediation if necessary
so I would say but the use would stop right away the con stop right away and then yeah maybe six to nine months six to n months understood and then all parking for this project is contained within the Subterranean garage understood okay um I mean generally I'd say there are
definitely things in the scale of this project within the context of of the neighborhood that might concern me but the way that I look at it is right now what's there is an absolute blight to the community uh and I think many of the neighbors who called in today seem to
share that sentiment additionally if you were to have a developer that were to come in uh and do a project as of right it would it might even be worse and what's there right now certainly as it relates to streetcape and kind of the views that you or maybe the light that
comes in through the side setbacks um so because of that and a lot of the things that we look at at this board I like to kind of weigh what's there right now what could they do as of right and what could we try and help and form to have an overall better uh you know
result I mean I for one would be a favorable recommendation mostly because I think that you know if we just kill it then it kind of leaves what's there now or it leaves for someone else to come in and do something as of right which is again
nothing great and probably worse um so I I want the city to have a seat at the table I'd be in favor of pushing it Forward seeing what the commission can you know help kind of craft and and shape and continue doing Outreach with the community and hopefully help inform an even better project than what we have
in front of us now um I mean because of that I I would be a favorable but obviously looking forward to hearing what everyone else has to say yeah and and I already made my comment I think um I'm happy that there's a lot more community outreach to go there's going
to be another meeting I I again like sheld just said my I just F find that the proposed um project to me is better than what would be as existing for a number of reasons one is a significant decrease in density um um uh the public
benefit although I agree with Keith that that shouldn't be go hand inand but the reality is that that's part of the deal um and I just think it's a prettier building that we could be built um but that being said um I hope that between now and the first reading for commission
that there's a lot more community outreach and that um hopefully there Can U come to an agreement I I I find a little distressing that the staff report is based upon a prior proposal not the reductions it is it is based upon the reductions but it's not it's not enough
okay I understand that but okay anyway that being said Melissa go ahead I share a similar uh position to yill and Brian here um I think overall it's a positive the project I think we're adding um um more we're adding
something that is way better than what we have right now um and I don't think any of the three case scen areias are going to be pleasing everyone if we keep it such as it's not a good idea if we keep do it as of right it's not a great project either and this has also got um
a lot of people fired up as well I'm not sure what the right um f and density should be my concern is a bit of a precedent it sets in the neighborhood I kind of we have to recognize that real estate
cost right now is up development cost is up and that's the reality we're not going to be seeing buildings being knocked down to be rebuilt in our affordable housing type buildings that's something the city needs to take up uh but as far as you know private buildings being developed um this is a new reality
we're going to be dealing with and somehow um it would have been great or would be great to have um an analysis from the city that sort of makes us understand um the minimum cost Redevelopment in certain areas and so that we have sort of a baseline of
knowing what's actually a reality for these neighborhoods and so that people can have some actual facts to versus everyone saying well you know this as a developer just trying to make tons of money it would be nice to have some real data to work with and know what's realistic and redeveloping some of these
buildings and certain neighborhoods and it would be also a way of the city to put a blueprint down so that we could review some of these f um um you know standards right now to redefine what is the reality of of redeveloping in these neighborhoods so
there's a responsible city to pick these neighbors neighborhoods out and put a blueprint so that we can base our our decisions in in a way that's more consistent across the neighborhood versus saying yes to individual cases and and and projects like this um and to
um Keith's Point um I agree that we shouldn't be looking at this based on the uh benefits that they're offering the community at least not from the planning board point of view we should be looking at this as a development project um but I wouldn't want to discourage necessarily developers to be
um looking into adding benefits to the community I think a lot of times um this it's it's it's uh responsibility developers have but it should be driven by the residents and not so much of a a way of buying um our approval at least
um and on that note um as I said um I'm consistent with Brian and Y Shield here in uh uh wanting to see this Mo this project um move forward I guess it's my turn um I had a couple of questions H have you all read
the city recomend recommendations as far as reduction and height Michael um the reduction in height and what they recommending as far as the maximum F and would you be able
to to agree to those We can't agree any further reduction height as Michael said earlier 330 is as low as we can go and our F has been reduced to 5.75 we also feel that that's pretty much as low as we can
go you're killing me um I can't agree to this I can't agree to you know I have to go with what planning does and what they say and
um I agree with with what Keith has said I agree with what a lot of said as far as getting rid of um the bikini that's kind of a no-brainer but I also think that's something that's responsibility of the city this is um um I guess it's
the anti- live local um I think that you know we have to listen to what the neighbors say and we listened to that earlier when when we
heard uh the outdoor entertainment um on Collins um I'd like you to come back with something else I don't something that's more in line with what is compatible with the neighborhood um so all right so Michael what's the vote
count that you need for well it's just um um to be in favor or against uh a majority so for all right because it sounds like the board's kind of reflective of what we heard today from the community so um why don't uh Keith your first move going you make a motion
well i' I'd like to make a U motion to support the the city staff so send it with an unfavorable recommendation correct okay is there a second on that I'm going to Second it okay uh I think Scott seconded it so let's do a roll call on this one please so this would be
for a negative recommendation um as recommended by staff um and and this commission will see the vote count right yeah yeah we'll break it down so it's not going to be steady as unit go ahead okay uh Mr freden yes Mr cement no Miss
latone no this this is the negative this is this is for the negative recommendation sorry um yes Mr I said Mr needlman yes and Mr Mr um Mr Elias no and um Miss Bey no so
that's a a 4 pass 4 great thank you very much for transmitting it we appreciate it very much and I hope that that that will reflect that more work needs to be done hopefully they can come to an agreement but you know I think that's reflective of what we heard today I think people are in favor and they again
so and and and and listen I think it's a beautiful project I really do um I think it's better than as a right but I I wish there were more people here
to support and or any we don't have there's really not a lot of information that we have I feel like we need more um s Michael was it did we do both or was that do we have to that's for both all right for seven and eight we don't need to do separate votes all right all right
I'm sorry you finished Elizabeth okay thank you guys you know it's a tough but we wish you the best all right we'll do one more and then we'll break for lunch we're under new applications planning board file 9ine number nine planning board file 05737 Lincoln Road waste residential use
incentives I guess they go hand in hand nine and 10 correct Michael nine and so actually um 9 10 11 and 12 are all sort of related we would take 9 and 10 together which is for Lincoln Road West and then 11 and 12 for Lincoln Road um East do you want to take these um we can
we can we can do um West Avenue and then take a break for lunch I mean I'm sorry do the West portion of Lincoln Road and then take a break for lunch which that's items which 9 and 10 perfect let's do that okay so this staff report begins on page um 99 of the board packages and
just to make it more understandable I'd ask the board members to take a look at the map which is which is on page let see on page 113 of the board packages because this breaks down the um
the Lincoln Road West Section to area one two and three because the Heights and F changes depending on the area that you're in with a higher height and higher F closer to 17th Street and the lower height and lower F increase closer
to the the Flamingo Park um neighborhood and so this is similar to the W Washington Avenue residential use incentives that came before the board um last year which is to provide um residential incentives to increase or provide incentives for residential
development in this case along um Lincoln Road versus Washington Avenue so I'll just go through some of the some of the um the changes now compared to um the Washington Avenue changes the Heights and F proposed here
is much less whereas on Washington venue The Proposal was to go from a 2.0 F to 4.0 in this case the proposals go to is to go from from 2.25 to three or from 2.5 to 3.5 so the the proposed F
increase is much less compared to what you saw on um Washington Avenue but it's a very similar ordinance sorry just to pause you there is that because of the Lincoln Road streetscape and this they don't want to be tell it's um because it it already has a higher allowance for ref which is above two anyway and also
based upon the commission sponsor it wasn't intended to be um a more radical increase in in F so um as as again looking at page 113 you can see the breakdown in in the in the map I'll just go through briefly what these um changes
are so for area one which is the pink area this would be for properties along 17th Street um between Lincoln Lane North from Alton Road to drexon Drexel Avenue and this would as proposed be an F increase again all these increases or
incentives are for residential development only and for projects that only have residential development above the ground ground floor we have to agree to perpetuity not have any sort of non non-r any sort of Transit uses so again for the um area one an increase in F
from 2.25 to 3.0 for lots of less than 45,000 Square ft and from 2.75 to 3.5 for Lots greater than 45,000 sare ft in terms of height it would allow Max increase in height from 80 ft up to 150
ft now area 2 which is in the the purple area in the middle this would be for um Lincoln Road North properties with a lot line on the north side of Lincoln Road between Alton Road and Drexel Avenue this would include an F increase of 2.5
to 3.0 and a maximum Building height of 50 feet to 100 ft now because this also includes properties which are on Lincoln Road in order to maintain that character would require that for additions that go above that 50 ft height require a
setback of 50 ft from Lincoln Road or a setback of and a setback of 25 ft from any adjacent side street this would also include an allowance of the hbb to wave those um additional setback requirements as they um saw appropriate now the third
area is the area in yellow which is the area on the south side of Lincoln Road and North of Lincoln Lane North which is the area that's abing the um the Flamingo Park historic district the rm2 the rm1 section this would be a lower
maximum the lower increase in F from 2.5 to 2.75 and a Max of building heat Building height increased from 50 ft um to 75 ft this would also allow um multi-story rooftop editions subject review by the
store preservation board right now the stor preservation board can only approve a single story rooftop Edition this would allow a multi-story rooftop Edition currently in the code if the um if somebody's proposing more than a roof more than a one story roof upop Edition would require demolition down to the
ground of an of a contributing structure so this this would allow the the retention of a retent more of a retention of a existing contributing structure and allow appropriate rooftop additions subject to the um historic preservation board now as a condition of
all of these um increases it would also require that or amend the parking requirements ments no parking no no off street parking will be would be required for um residential development actually would prohibit um certain off street
parking um let's see what else this also would remove the current incentives for hotel projects on Lincoln Road between Pennsylvania and lenux and remove the F incentives for hotels on Lots less than 45,000 sare ft so again
the intented the intent here is to increase F and height for residential development to allow incentives and um reduce incentives that were in place for hotel development now again this is the just the first step in the process so this is just a um the first meeting at
the planning board after this meeting we'll take take comment there'll be a public Outreach meeting it'll come back to the planning board for a final trans transmittal meeting and then move on to the city commission another Workshop meeting and then a final um um meeting
before the city Commission so at this time we're just asking the Board review the application provide any comments continue the um ordinances to the May 6 meeting now one of the thing that the board also that the land committee asked the board to consider
just like um Washington Avenue the land use committee asked the board to consider whether or not it be appropriate to include a TDR program whereas um FB transferred from a from a sending District to this receiving District in this case it's not it's not as critical because the F increases much
less compared to Washington Avenue but it is part of the um recommendation from the Landes committee okay with that um we do have um I assume you're not here on this item okay we do have commissioner Suarez in the line if you'd like to hear from him
uh sure we'll hear from David I don't know Comm Suarez or not I'm joking David hey guys can you hear me yes hey I I just want to I just want to really touch up on what Keith said at the last
item and he and he hit it on the head he said you know we should be having we should be putting forward incentives for development that we want to Envision as the city not the other way around we don't want to have a developer telling us what they Envision for rcity it's
what we envision now for Lincoln Road West there's not there's no you could you could do public records requests all day there's not a developer that came to me that said hey I want to develop Lincoln
Road I truly believe that if you want to really jump start Lincoln Road and you want to reshape the economy of Lincoln Road the perfect way to do it is with mixed use I mean how cool would it be to live above Lincoln Road to come down go
shopping and then just go back home and so this is the vision uh of what I believe some of our most struggling districts need and I think it's important to really hit on the fact that
we're incentivizing the development that we want not the other way around and so uh I think this carefully this piece of legislation carefully uh balances that okay these are not luxury
homes they are specific for uh working class people who want to get a head start in Miami Beach something similar to what I had when I moved to Miami Beach for the first time and I think it's a a great way to
incentivize more of a neighborhood on Lincoln Road so uh I just wanted to share my thoughts and and I wanted to congratulate Keith on his on his first uh day on the on the planning board and uh you guys spoke very well the last one thank you commissioner are you still
there David are you still there yeah I'm here I have a question for you um so I was on Lincoln Road yesterday just kind of tooling around wanted to kind of get a feel for this I'm a big fan of uh mixed 's developments and and I've seen quite a few of them I wanted to get your
opinion on what you thought might happen to the retail that is below some of that would you what would you do with the buildings well the retail stays the retail the retail stays and I I believe can can can touch up on this but most of the development for residential will be
set back quite a bit okay so retail stays there uh and it's it's truly a mixed use environment I mean if you go to any city in the world that's thriving it's all mixed use you have retail on the bottom and you have residential on top and you know the people that work in
retail instead of getting in their cars and driving on 41st Street or MacArthur to go home and adding to the traffic they just walk upstairs to their home so so can I make a suggestion or I don't I'm not quite sure if this is how to do that
um part of the problem on Lincoln Road and and in much of the retail spaces across the city is that they have those insets um where the storefront window is uh more is more parallel or closer to
the sidewalk and the street than the actual door and I was going to ask if those if those are things that you can uh incorporate into these incentives or new developments to have them uniform so that you don't have people sleeping in
those doorways uh so that you have the doorways lit um so that well I don't know I don't know if those door a lot of those doorways are historic so I I'm I may not that may not be allowed where
you can demolish or re reshape a doorway I believe carress cares had an issue with the doorway and um you know but I I hear what you're saying right and and by the way having a much more residential
neighborhood will really drive out the homeless of from Lincoln Road you're going to have more eyeballs on the ground you're going to have more residence to call code or police and so it's uh thank you for mentioning homeless because I think this is going to definitely address the homelessness on
Lincoln Road okay thank you and just a followup before thanks David I get to this uh second speaker to follow up on the the comment on the recessing of the um the store funds yes a lot of those entrances are historic but as well as that um the code requires that these doors swing out and they can't swing out
into the RightWay so that's why you see those recesses can can we we modify code all the time especially when it like we did this that's a building cut safety is you can't have you can't have the do the doors squeak inward if we if we extended like when Amazon go was coming onto
Lincoln Road they re retrofitted the whole Space they got HPB approval and they changed the way the doorways opened so could I mean that might be something to look at I just that's the doors the doors have to swing out they can't swing in they have to swing out that's a that's a building code requirement it's
a safety requirement otherwise otherwise if you're if you're exiting the building and there's a rush and you have to swing in you could have people trapped and can't get out but you could have them both ways can't you you it would be an issue then if you could if you could open push it out and it was on the street level
you I guess it's just that there's some that are good I think as well you know factoring having having light appropriate lighting to light those spes not having recesses under like overhanging Windows so you don't have you don't want to create you don't want to create a um a a place that um harbors
and even if it's you know I I was walking with one of the officers yesterday and he said you know to the people that that are unhoused they don't have they don't care if there's light or not they're going to knock the knock the light out and but it if you projected
the light from the inside of the store down into the space as opposed to having it directly above head that might make a difference those are just some suggestions that so your whole concern with the layout of the doorways and windows is is the light yep it's just it's just because
that it was pretty bad and I'm all for this so well guys if you have any more questions I'm here yeah no we I think it's a great idea David thank you um yeah we have a Jane crup okay
Jane yes hi I just unmuting myself um I just like to elaborate more on commissioner Suarez's comments um as being a longtime resident of Miami and New York City where we have very successful mixed use in New York City especially downtown where I live for 45
years in SoHo where we all lived above the store basically and it works really well the problem is with Miami Beach incentivizing residential and mixed use is that I think Miami Beach is the only city I've ever been in that has outdoor
speakers outdoor entertainment rooftop entertainment and nobody wants to live next door to a bar especially a 5:00 a.m. bar nobody wants to hear music blaring all night this is the fundamental issue of mixed use uh incentivizing in Miami Beach you you
have to you know nobody wants I said nobody wants to live next door to a bar it's impossible to contain outdoor noise and particularly traffic which you get in New York which is probably the worst so um I think you need to you know this whole idea with the Collins Avenue I
live right near 1350 Collins having outdoor entertainment there is just the wrong message that means every other we have other outdoor spaces on Collins up to 15th street they're all going to want it and we had it illegally two years ago
all we were up all night till 3:00 a.m. with the subwoofers booming not only through the building they go through the substrate and travel the vibration travels you cannot contain the vibration it's not a deciel level it's a vibration issue which is completely measured by a
different instrument by the way so my comment is I lived in SoHo very successful the first thing we did I part of the Soho Alliance we got rid of the late night entertainment and that's when all the developers came in did all the high-end stores and today Soho generates
most of the sales tax for all of New York City highly successful mixed use so again you're the planning department you're the ones that allow the speakers that's the main problem here in Miami Beach you cannot have mixed use with outdoor
speakers thank you thank you Jane that concludes our callers on Zoom okay Keith any questions or comments no other than I think it's a it's a good idea uh I am
for this type of commission driven public benefit uh encouraging development and that and Lincoln is certainly an area if we could get Mi mixed use that would be perfect so I'm for
it yeah I mean I think it's a good ide mixed use is a good idea you see a lot of cities going in that direction um I just have a few concerns with with this um and I think we brought them up when we discussed Washington Avenue I mean personally I I think the height is a
little excessive you know you're talking about basically 15 stories on Lincoln Road um you know that's I I mean I like the idea of residents above but 15 stores may be a little too high um also we talked about
um you know keeping a a um well basically this gives the historic preservation board um the ability to wave 50% of the required setback from Lincoln Road Dove tales and to what I well it it expands on what I
said before you know 154s close up to as I mean if anything it should be set back as far as possible from Lincoln rad I think I think just to clarify um Scott the 150 ft would be for properties fronting 17th Street for
properties for properties fronting Lincoln Road the maximum height would be 100 ft okay so 10 stores I mean the set for for Lincoln Road 50 it's so it's a doubling it's the same idea that you know you wouldn't want to see um 10
floors if anything that should be set back as far as possible there shouldn't be any waiver of that we're giving a lot is what I'm getting at and if a Dev wants to take advantage of it you know he should stick to it not ask for anything more that could be one of the recommendations too because you know the
planning board could say stick with that 50 ft and make it a variance if somebody wanted to make not even not even a variance we can't we can't stop We Can't Stop I guess we we have to put a no variance provision in for that so Scott that so as a for instance the um I think
it's the Five Below on Lincoln Road that took forever and ever to get approved that's 50 ft back MH and so that just to give you an idea of how far back that is I'm not I mean I understand that these
are historic buildings but you got to remember these are these are really hard spaces to lease they're hard to get even even if you got them above it I don't I how do you really think 10 stories is is that much I mean it's I don't compared
to what's there now yes well I mean if we're going to evolve as a city then you're going to have to I look I talked about that before you know we're a lot of the buildings that are here now that are here now are not going to be here in 40 50 years we are evolving um I think we should do it little by little not so
much just double Heights these are recommendations I mean who came up with all these these this came out of um to the city commission sponsor and and the land use committee so land use is already okay so they've already revie I
mean well a lot of these have been pushed through um you know I I we did look at it unlike Washington a which had more of a consistent height we did look at modulating the height so the higher height is pushed towards 17th Street the north side of Lincoln Road is
higher the south side of Lincoln Road is only a 25t increase inight so we do try to modulate the height depending on Elizabeth I'm not saying not 10et I'm just saying if you're going to put 10 stories or 100t set it way back from Lincoln room what is the albon I was just there what is it like 10 it's
probably closer to yeah I think it's 10 so I mean I think that we there were some people at the um that I was with yesterday and and I didn't I didn't find that that was egregious and that's on the East and then EXA and then just down from that you've got the clock tower
because it's well there's separated I mean this is this is wholesale change all up and down Lincoln Road So in theory you could have this every every lot listen guys you know I I also think it's important you know so yeah I'm
still here I'm a panelist now you know look I I guys I think it's important to note especially based on the last item you guys heard is that we want to incentivize what we want okay I don't want to have a I don't want to pass this
and have a developer come to me saying hey we need an extra this we need an extra that or or how about this a developer comes to Lincoln Road has one project on Lincoln Road that they want to do and then they have this uh massive
scale thing uh of building that concept that they have and then they end up getting it at least if we pass this we can say look we're giving you the best incentive possible to develop what we envision for Mi Beach and it doesn't
give them an excuse to say oh well well this is what we need we say look this is we gave you enough room to work with this is what we want and uh and I'm okay with putting a variance uh
um Mr B I don't know what you called it but making so that there's no variances I'm fine but you know what was said earlier I think Melissa said it construction costs are up development costs are up yep what's the point of passing something that's not going to
nothing's going to happen I mean if you look at Lincoln Road or not Lincoln Road Washington Avenue for the hotel incentive we've had that for how long um you know five seven years they only Built two hotels and I'm not trying to build hotels I'm trying to build places where
people can live and if you look at 17th Street which is not on Lincoln Road it's it's like the most it's one of the most embarrassing streets in Miami Beach I mean you have like a daycare then you have the city hall then you have a bunch of garage it's just it doesn't make any
sense and I think and it's the perfect Avenue for for residential development and back to what we're saying more what I was saying before kind of having a blueprint once you have a whole neighborhood or a whole street like that and there's an expectation of where it's going then it allows us not to be dealing with individual projects where
you have like you know a a street of residents that are affected by by one individual project you have now residents who know that there's a potential for all across Lincoln Road what the transformation is going to be and so people know what to expect because this is what is really upsetting is seeing uh residents like we saw in
the last time showing up for for for this past project who bought units condo units expecting that the F would not change on the building next door and now they're they're left you know losing their View and so I just think it's important that we we we see the necessity for this on Lincoln Road that
we approve something all across these streets like Washington and and and and Lincoln Road and we give something to the residents that they now know the direction we're going and I think this is a positive one just you know David is motivated for the right reason seeing these areas transform uh we have a lot of people that are concerned about more
affordable condos these kinds of units will be more affordable condos these are not going to be the high-ends that we're seeing elsewhere but it also has a cost so we have to go with height and um an increased height and so I know it's kind of sort of strange to picture Lincoln row with 10 floor buildings um but um I
think with it with it being consistent all across um yeah and again like I like I mentioned I'm not saying I'm opposed to the height I'm just saying we are we are in we are doubling the height and I think the commissioner agrees with me
and we're laying out these are the ground rules we're saying these are the ground rules stick to them we're giving we increased our our height or F so much you know don't don't ask for a little bit more that's what I'm saying that's what I'm asking for and you're
absolutely right need to make sure that that's consistent that we don't have so that and I think the commission the the sponsor is is open to that and I mean personally I think it should be for setbacks and any anything else I mean you know well I know things come up where maybe a variance may be needed but
but I think on things like uh height and um I'm sorry height and setbacks yeah there shouldn't be um any variances allowed and also and also when you do these kinds of projects the the the bad retail goes away way because like Jane k
was saying nobody wants to live above that I mean I think it just naturally well you you're just going to try you're going to have you're going to have a built-in CLI on the road so you're going to try another point just just to bring up and this is I mean I I sat on HPB for a while and I know there
there were times when um you know applications came in front of us and they wanted to add on to a contributing building and or they were going to preserve it retain it um when you add on to buildings especially if you're going
to go 10 floors or however many you know there's no developer that's going to keep that footprint of the historic building and build on top of it it what what's going to happen is it's going to be demolished I don't except for maybe the facade I don't know about that that's
what's some of these on Lincoln Road these These are solid buildings what when you talk 10 stories or even three stories on top of these older buildings um maybe three stores can be done but it would take massive um structural um um
Shoring inside the building most likely a developer is not going to do that they're going to they're going to they're going to look to just say well we'll keep the facade if that and build so just just you know and this is going year you know thinking years into the future that you know Alabama they've got
bu Elizabeth let me just finish my my my thought you know you may end up losing a lot of those buildings on Lincoln Road I just and I'm not and is that a good thing or a bad thing I'm just saying that's that's where this may lead what this might lead to I think engineering
has come a long way and if you can Shore up buildings in South Alabama that have been exposed to God knows what then we can do it too Michael question the the the law that the governor passed was it a year or so ago
that that kind of um superseded local ordinances about ability to tear down historic properties does that include commercial or is that is that only residential I think that only applies to properties that are um in the coastal construction zone along the ocean so it wouldn't apply wouldn't apply to this
location these location all right one question is there any incentive attributed to Workforce housing or inclusion of Workforce housing as part of this that's not that's not included as part of this which it was included as part of the um Washington Avenue I think the issue there here is that the F increase is so so minimal versus
Washington Avenue we had a 2.0 F increase to play with so I think that recommendation was that5 be part of the attainable or or Workforce or attainable housing and then a certain percentage be also for transfer development rights or TDR program in this case your maximum F
increase is only between 0.5 and 0.75 I I think this is incredible and in terms of all the you know thoughts of how to kind of revitalize Lincoln Road this is what it's going to be um the only thing that I'd say is if you look at area one there's a lot of there are a lot of I
think City parking lots there there so I don't know if if the commissioner or the commission would be supportive of it but I'd love to try and you know kind of to to what commissioner Suarez was saying was let's kind of show the community what we want the city to be so a lot of the real estate projects that we've seen
here are these high-end condos so maybe introducing an additional incentive uh to try and you know include some type of Workforce housing component so if if you have kind of you know with incentives it gets up to what is it a three f for a lot greater than 45,000 ft so
maybe it gets up a little bit more if you include Workforce housing or something along those lines like are there a lot of historic buildings on on Lincoln that are yes yeah there are yes probably mostly they're mostly yeah but they're mostly you know one or
two St and histor because of age or sign architect I mean what they're both age and they're significant right okay we could we could come back with a list and show you the um you know one of the most significant um is like the Lincoln Theater on Lincoln Road that's one of the largest ones that was
a very successful adaptive reuse from the theater space to the the retail store and looks great from the outside and even the inside it has you can you can if you know you can see where the original theater space was and and and recall it in the Interiors all right so it sounds like you know there's nothing for us to do
today on this but this just to um review it like we discussed what about the second recommendation is that something we should be doing today no be that'd be for the um for the transmitt at the second at the May meeting okay all right so it sounds like we're just asking that the board um continue both these items
to the to the May meeting date okay do we need to move or yeah a mo motion to continue these items to the May I'll second that meeting okay all in favor I anyone opposed okay no all right we'll take a quick if you want to so we could do since let's just finish it Lincoln
Road East now should be a shorter discussion because it's very similar yeah so I think we can probably just do Lincoln Road East and then do the last one which will be really minor so we probably do this before um taking taking lach that's fine let's do it so the next two items are PB
25738 which is comprehensive plan amendments related to Lincoln Road East and PB 25739 um Land Development regulation amendments related to Lincoln Road Lincoln Road East now the staff report for these items begin on page 141 one of
the board packages and just like the last it we have a map to better highlight these areas and the map can be found on page let me find it here on page 153 of the board packages so this
breaks out um three different areas as well we have the area um on 17th Street north of Lincoln Lane North which is highlighted green on the map
this would be to increase the F from 2.75 as currently zoned to um 3.5 and increase the height from 80 ft to 125 ft area two which is in the the blue or
purple area in the center this is areas um on the north side of Lincoln Road from Drexel Avenue to cullins Avenue with an F currently of 2.7 5 would increase that to 3.5 and allow the maximum height from 50
ft to 125 ft and then we have Lincoln Road South now in this area there are already taller buildings on Lincoln Road South so this includes an F increase of 2.75 to 3.5 and raises the height from
50 fet to um 150 ft now we did note in this area the height of some current properties including um 420 Lincoln Road with a height of 103 ft um and 350 Lincoln Road with a height of 80 ft um
1650 James Avenue with a height of 76 ft and the clock the 407 Lincoln Road has a height of 86 ft now again this would be for to create um a residential use incentives to take advantage of those increased F that I
mentioned now also in order to take advantage of the um the F and height increase this would require that each project either have cont have one of the following either a cover a covered Transit shelter within, 1500 ft of the
development site a contribution to the South Beach Public benefit fund or they obtain the full building permit for the development within 24 months of the effective date of this ordinance um as I mentioned previously
for the Lincoln Road um West this does also include a provision that requires a 50 foot setback for properties on Lincoln Road um it does allow multi-story rooftop editions subject to the review by the store preservation
board this also does as an incentive um wave the required Mobility fees for projects that obtain a building permit by September 1st uh 20130 now just like the Lincoln Road s this Lincoln Road West this was would be
a um a six-step process today is the first step in this process we would have a public Outreach meeting between now and the plan board meeting on on May 6th and then as well as the two City commission meetings and another community outreach meeting so again
these were all reviewed in context by the Landes meeting in November because the the the Landes committee asked asked to review both the Washington Avenue incentives as well as the Lincoln Road East and West on the November meeting and these are all coming to the planning board now the Washington Avenue came
before the planning board in um in January so this time we just asking for public comment feedback and to continue this applic these applications to the May meeting do these mirror each other do these mirror one another the East and the West they're um similar they're a little bit different in terms of the
height in F because Lincoln Road East already has higher height and higher building so there's a little bit higher a little bit higher height is offered here and we don't have the um the lower rm1 District on the south side which is pertainable to which pertains to the Lincoln Road West okay so we do believe
these are con these do take in consideration the immediate context and that's a little bit higher a little higher on the East because we already that's which talk about just a little while ago on the east side of Collins as well you have the higher ocean front property so high the higher height is also pushed over here this is also the city center area which also has a higher
height allowance well that we do have nobody I think in Chambers and there's nobody online with their hand raised for public comment so I'll just leave it up to the board for um for a comment yeah I mean I think we're all supportive right make a motion to continue to the m
meeting I'll second it I think it's okay all in favor all opposed all right fantastic that's items 11 and 12 and the last item for today is
planning board 25743 historic preservation board fee waiver for single family home applications mov right along um this application is a city sponsored item and this begins on page 181 of the board
packages this initially came um from a referral by the city commission to the um land use and sustainability committee meeting um which discussed the proposal on November 25th and recommended the planning board transmit this with a fable recommendation what this does is
wave the applica application fees for for um single family homes that are in historic districts or individually designated as historic structures it just wavs the application fees they would still be responsible for the hard cost in terms of the the public notice the the mail notice the site posting and
the um and the um say the herald notice but it would wave the the base application fee which is about $3,600 for applications for single family homes that have to make an application to Historic reservation board now unlike homes outside of historic district whenever you make even some minor
changes to um homes that are designated in a historic district or individually designated it may um require a review by the store preservation board so it just lessens the burdens for properties that do um want to make improvements to the property and have to make an application to the store preservation board we noted
only I think only five applications over the last um five years so there's no no cost implication for the city in terms of these applications so we are recommending that the planning award transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation what was the motivation for this was just just to just to just
to remove impediments for um historically designated homes for making application for improvements to the property just lessen the the burden okay and what what is normal what's the normal cost 30 the normal application fees is about $3,600 I don't have a problem with
it this I'm open up for public comment I see nobody here in Chambers and nobody online I'll move it if you like made a motion me any questions or comments about it Scott no everyone in favor second we have a second on the
motion a second anyone opposed congrats on finishing your first meeting Keith welcome aboard and for making so many constructive comments good job and we do have about 20 ordinances
on the agenda for next month so be prepared for that what's that we have about we have about no 10 or 15 ordinances on the agenda for next month so we do have a long agenda I'm serious yes oh yes so um that p a point um Mr tone ask everybody if they could let let
us know if they're if they're going to have um any conflicts with the meetings for the next several months to let us know if we're going to have any issues with meeting Quorum for um for the summer summer like maybe late June July or October or September any of those
we're we're trying to plan a trip for this isn't been recorded is it good oh I'm so excited um yay everybody gets to hear um we're justac yes I would just ask anybody to give me um if they're anticipated to be absent for any meeting coming up so that
we can make sure we have a quorum for those meetings okay usual no Mee in August right correct no meetings in August and you can M up the two meting we miss two meetings right right so that our next meeting scheduled
for April 8th and so I think we can adjourn thank you everybody meeting adjourned thank you e e