Yeah. Heat. I'm just Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into
the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. >> Okay. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the last planning board meeting of the
year, December 9 meeting. Um it's pretty quick agenda, so it shouldn't be too long. Uh I want to start with a hopefully a motion from one of my panel members to approve the November 4 meeting minutes. >> Motion to approve. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> I. >> Okay. Anyone opposed? Okay. Uh, go Canes. And I'll turn it over to uh our city personal personal privilege. >> 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 and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate virtually in today's meeting, the public may dial 1-877-853-5257, and enter the webinar ID, which is
861-4342 6327 pound, or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID, which is 861-43426327. If you're appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, you need to register as a
lobbyist with the city clerk's office. If you haven't registered yet, you should register before you speak to the board. You don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party, or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in
this public meeting, or if you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk
their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating. If you're an architect, attorney, or employee representing an applicant or an objector, you must register as a lobbyist. These rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. Lastly,
I'd like to swear in any members of the public or staff who will be testifying today, please raise your right hands. Do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth? All truth, nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Nick. Okay, we're going to start with requests for continuences and withdrawals. The first is planning board
file 240731 and companion uh plan planning board file 2550737, Lincoln Road West residential use incentives. >> Um yes, Mr. Chair, uh both of these applications uh the sponsor is actually requesting that they be continued to the
February 3rd meeting. February >> has no objection >> to the February meeting. Correct. >> All right. Is there anyone in chambers to speak on this motion? Anybody on Zoom? >> Okay. Any questions or someone want to move it? >> Motion to approve.
>> I'll second to continue. >> Okay. So, motion to continue for shield. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> All opposed. Okay. Is that for do you need a separate vote or can we do both of them together >> for the continuence? They can both be one. Okay. >> All right. So, they're both moved to
February. Okay. And then planning board file 25 0739 and 0738 Lincoln Road East residential use incentives. I'm assuming the same request. Okay. Anybody on this
item speak? Anyone on Zoom? >> No. >> No. Okay. >> And there's also, Mr. Mr. Chair, a companion item to this one which is planning board 25738. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I want to move it. Motion to continue. >> Second it. >> Okay. Melissa seconded. All in favor?
>> Anyone opposed? Okay. So, they're all going to February, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Previously continued applications planning board file 270779 14 1545 Collins Avenue modification of the Royal Palm CUP.
>> Okay. Okay, Mr. Chair. Um, this is an application that has been filed requesting modifications to a previously issued conditional use permit uh to operate an aggregate of uses as a neighborhood impact establishment. Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval for the
reconfiguration of the previously approved venues, the introduction of ambient level outdoor entertainment, and a secondf flooror rooftop alcoholic beverage establishment that's located within 200 ft of a property containing a residential unit. Um, the original CUP
for this property was granted um in September of 2011. Um it had been it has been modified over the years um with the last modification occurring in uh 2019. The existing modified cup again this is
the 2019 version um contains three different venues. A destination restaurant, a lobby bar and a three meal restaurant. Um the current proposal for the destination restaurant is to decrease the occupancy in this location
um by 164 people um and remove the existing dance floor. So this is the um venue that's fronting onto Collins Avenue um in the historic portion of the property. Um I think it Bibblo was there. I'm not sure if it's still the
tenant, but um that's where that destination is. um the lobby bar. The proposal currently is to increase the occupancy by 52 people. This is primarily due to a 2024 approval by the city's historic preservation board for
the reconfiguration of this area which actually expands the the seating uh capacity for this lobby bar area. They are also proposing within the lobby bar um to introduce the outdoor entertainment as an ambient level outdoor entertainment. So those are the
two changes for that lobby bar portion. Um in the three meal restaurant there are no changes to the operations or entertainment. They are proposing a minimal increase of six people. Um again that's very dimminimous and staff has no uh objection to that. There are two
other areas um that are the subject of this current request. the current pool deck um which is currently permitted to have ambient level entertainment between the hours of 11:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. um Sunday through Thursday and 11:30
a.m. to 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. The pool deck, which is at the ground level, is only for hotel guests. So, this area for that they're allowed to have limited entertainment is not open to the public. This would just be for uh
weddings or uh something someone if a guest at the hotel was having some type of event there um they would be permitted to have uh entertainment. The other area which is which is in addition to the previously issued cup is
the second level flexible space and roof terrace. the roof terrace, which is the outdoor portion of the second level, was originally approved as a pool deck. Um, they are now converting, they're removing the pool from that. Um, that's part of the 2024 HPB approval and
converting it to a roof terrace. They would now like to use this area connected to the inside uh flexible space as a hotel only function space. Again, this would be not open to the public, just for hotel guests and and
sponsored events by the hotel. Not open to the public >> within the same hours of operation of the 411. >> Um, correct. So, well, the the same hour the hours of operation are not proposed to change. So, in the second level roof
terrace, they would close by 11 Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday through Saturday. Now, the ambient level outdoor entertainment throughout the property is a maximum of 10 p.m. before it would cease. So, the
space could function until 11 or 12:00 a.m. respectively, but the outdoor entertainment portion, which again is being requested for ambient level entertainment only, um would cease at 1000 p.m. uh both at the the um lower
level lobby bar as well as that second level terrace. Um so that is probably the most you know significant change in terms of um what the difference between the 2019 modified
cup and what the request is now is this introduction of ambient level outdoor entertainment. Um both of these areas I just want to reiterate are not open to the public >> and the 2 a.m. hours of operation >> for the for the pool bar
>> for the pool bar is existing. Okay. Yeah. Um there's no changes proposed for the um for the deliveries, loading or sanitation. This was a um and I see Mr.
Stler is here. Um this was a topic of much discussion at at previous planning board meetings in terms of the delivery access because they do this is a shared access um with their neighbor uh their residential building to the neighbor. So they are not proposing any changes to
those conditions. Um I will note if you look at the redline version of the order staff is recommending we are proposing a lot of cleanup um because since this again this cup originally started in 2011 and has been
modified over time. It's very confusing. Um there are conditions that were added by the historic preservation board that the planning board adopted which is very unusual. Um, so we are recommending a kind of a cleanup to streamline everything to make it easier to enforce. >> Yeah,
>> Mr. Chair, >> my name is Henry Stoer. I have filed for continuence. >> May that be heard? >> May my motion for continuence be heard now >> to to continue the pro the item >> to continue the item. Go ahead >> for four weeks. >> Go ahead.
>> To the January 6th meeting. >> Go ahead. Make your motion. >> My name is Henry Stler. I have lived at 1500 Ocean Drive continuously for 21 years as my sole residence. I served as a member of this planning
board for six years from 2008 to 2014. Two of my neighbors, Albert Leage and Philip and Iana Minland, have filed flat outright oppositions to the proposed amendments to the 2019 modified
conditional use permit. I have not joined them in that effort. Instead, I have tried to negotiate with the hotel on specific changes to their proposals. I thought that the hotel and I had a
clear understanding that we would meet on the subject of talking about specific changes. The hotel representative staff that the hotel was requesting the continuence granted to this day for
further consultation with its neighbors. That in fact has not happened. The hotel has engaged in a pattern of delay, foot dragging, and nonresponsiveness as detailed in the request for
continuence that I have filed with you. My view is that the hotel's conduct in this matter is unconscionable, a complete breach of trust, fair dealing, and decency with an immediate neighbor.
Now, when it's me requesting the four-week continuence and not the hotel, as was the case last time, the hotel wants to rush the case through on the merits through this holiday season today. Actually, the two delays by the
hotel in my effort to meet with them and to discuss changes with them as described in my request for continuence each lasted two weeks, adding up to the very period of four weeks that I am asking you today to continue this case
too. During my six years as a planning board member, >> it was unthinkable that we would ever deny a firsttime request by an immediately adjacent property owner.
My view for continuence, my view then and now is that it is an abuse of discretion to allow this to move forward today. Now it's up to you. May I have four weeks, please during the holiday season
to have my first and only continuence to try again to bring the hotel to the table for discussion. You may be hearing that this delay of 4 weeks would be highly prejuditial to the hotel. It is not in the least. If people have come
flying in here today because they expect to testify from other cities, it is notwithstanding the fact that they've been on notice since last Wednesday that I was seeking a continuence. The construction at the hotel continues
a pace. It is not affected by this and this massive outdoor venue for outdoor entertainment where a whole swimming pool used to be is rapidly approaching completion. I request a continuence until the January 6th meeting. But
>> Henry, I want to make sure I understand. You're not saying they've done anything procedurally deficient that would require a You're just saying you want more time to negotiate. I just want to understand your position. one. >> So, what what's the difference between that and you coming here not continuing and voicing your opposition to certain
items that we can as a board rule on like we always do? >> Because >> because they're all here and and if they haven't done anything procedurally deficient, then I don't know why you wouldn't just come >> because I am I am not seeking to oppose it in general. I am seeking to have the
audience the meeting the short sleeve discussion of their specific conditions as we have done before in this property to talk through them. They have denied that opportunity to me and so yes with
limited preparation. I can speak in opposition today. I haven't prepared for that because I assumed all along that based upon representations made to me that in fact we would have a discussion to have a face-to-face meeting. Instead, what happened was last Wednesday,
council for the hotel told me after I'd hunted him down by telephone that, well, maybe we would have a call in the next day or two. Well, that's not the good faith that I expected from the hotel and not the good faith that the hotel represented to us when it met with our
entire association. >> But are you here on behalf of your association or individual? >> I am not. >> Okay. >> Like the two other people I've mentioned, I speak for myself as an individual. >> Okay. Let them respond. Good. >> As you might guess, for forgive me,
Carter McDall, Bill here representing the applicant. Um and I have a team of people here with me uh to answer any questions. Our view of that is not the same. Um there have been good faith exchanges, email exchanges, telephone
calls. Yes, it is true. The first the first round of discussions. Henry asked us several times to give him a word copy of the draft amended order so that he could mark up the order. We did ultimately provide that to him and he
came back with I think about 45 suggested changes in in the order. Um this was the week before Thanksgiving. He in his outline of dates. He forgets to tell you that this was the week before Thanksgiving. I obviously
couldn't respond to Henry's suggestions without talking to my client given the nature and the extent of the changes. So it did take us with the hunt with Thanksgiving intervening. It took us two weeks to get back to him. We were also
and there's some interesting procedural things that have happened. Nothing that's wrong, but we had expected we asked for the continuence. We have had conversations. We've made significant changes in response to both Mr. Leage's
comments and Henry's comments that we did not accept all of them. I can tell you because many of them are administratively really burdensome. Um but we none of them are I mean other than he did ask
that we limit the time to 9:00 p.m. most of them were technical changes. I don't know if he will agree with that conversation but or that characterization. Um so as soon as I was able to get my clients together to talk, we put together a response. I mailed it
to him and I gave Henry a complete copy of our markup of the proposed order on December 7th I believe was the date yesterday. >> This is not correct. >> At any rate, we have there has been an
exchange. We have also Royston our GM has been meeting has talked with the board and members of the board during that period of time. It's not like we turned our back on it. We just got a response that candidly we and we said we can't accept those changes. We have
changed. You asked for specification of what ambient only and other things. >> Let me interrupt you one second. Do do you believe that further meetings would would be feudal and you'd rather just get to the merits? I I want >> Yes. Is the short answer >> because normally sometimes the applicant will be benefited by meeting again with
the neighborhood >> at this stage. Yeah. >> For several reasons. I believe that we should have this hearing if there are issues that are open at the end of the hearing. You know, you all always have the authority uh to continue a matter, but I think it would be helpful for you
to understand what we've, you know, what is being proposed and what's not being proposed. >> Um, and you'll make your own judgment at that point. Um, I think we can find our way through this process. Um, I don't think it requires an additional hearing.
It is important to us and we've and Henry has already said that's not excuse. We are working on this renovation and on getting these venues back in place in anticipation of the World Cup which is happening in May and June, >> right? >> And we really are.
>> All right. Is there anyone else in chambers wants to speak on this motion? >> If I may just say >> Give me one second. Is anybody on Zoom? >> Okay. U >> because you know I'm gonna be honest. I I don't ever remember a a >> one resident seeking a continuence
before the president for that. Um especially if there's been no procedural deficiency and if they believe it's feudal then you know my inclination is to let it go forward and let you tell us in this hearing what you oppose and then we like we always do will listen to you
we'll listen to them anyone else on the public has something to say and make a decision. Um, further discussion has not would not be feudal. I have a history of dealing with Carter and with the hotel. We have been able to work through these
things in the past face to face openly. There has never been a problem in coming to an agreement. The final hearing in 2019 was uncontested and it has all worked very well in the past. this time
and it's I think it's important to note that the markup involved was a previous edition. We didn't have the staff proposal until the usual time. The staff was very timely in putting it out and that's what I would like to discuss with
them. Uh the fact that they are pushing to get this done for World Cup is just the sort of thing that strikes fear into my heart. World Cup is a very big deal. World Cup will lead to some boisterous
parties. >> We can have all the controls in the world that we want to have in a conditional use permit. The fact of the matter is that if it's Uruguay out there on that deck, you can be sure it's going
to be a loud party. And if it's not going to wind up until 10:00 or over a weekend even later, well, there's going to be a problem. Now, how much do we want to lay on code compliance to respond to the inevitable complaints?
>> I have ideas for controlling this. I can't do this on the fly. This requires goodfaith conversation where Carter and Graden and I sit down in a room, go through it point by point. I will give
them hard copy, specific text. We can do yes, no, maybe compromise, but it can be worked up. But we need to have that meeting and we need to have four weeks over the holiday season. There's no
urgency here to get this done. That's all that I am asking. I will not be back on January 6th requesting a second continuence no matter what. >> Do you have your list of of things? You know,
>> I have an incomplete preparation because I had believed that number one, we had had the meeting right up through Wednesday of last week. I still expected the meeting. Then at the 11th hour in
the 59th minute I get an email saying >> no I I know that >> okay this is the reason I do not have a complete list because I was >> is the issue is the I don't mean to interrupt you but is the issue the the the noise and the the entertainment or
is there are there other issues because those are some things that perhaps we could selectively continue the discussion on a few of the things that if we can't reach resol resolution cuz my my inclination and obviously I defer to Mr. Chair, but but I'm I think you
know they're here to present today. They're prepared. Let's hear what they have to say and then I want I'm very curious to hear what your proposals are or your your concerns because we we all on here want to make sure we address your concerns, but that doesn't
necessarily require a continuence of the entire application. You get what I'm saying? >> I understand. And if bifurcation makes sense, that's fine. I don't want anybody to be inconvenienced. If the people here wish to testify today and then we can have our conversation in the next four
weeks and then present the case for a final decision 4 weeks from now, that's fine. We're not going to compromise, but we're not going to guarantee that. What what I think Jonathan's saying, what I believe is let the application proceed cuz like I said, if they had done a procedurally problem, then if they
warranted a continuence, I would do it. But and if we feel we need to continue it after hearing all the evidence, then we can. If not, we can listen to your concerns and anyone else's concerns and then make a decision on the CUP. Um, >> and there's a possibility for you too, Henry, that this actually moves the
process more forward, right? So, we're going to bring up in discussion some of your concerns and we're going to, you know, help navigate that today. And again, if we can't reach an agreement, but I think you have us today helping out to sort out the issue. Uh, you know, we can go through a continuence for the next four weeks and be at the exact same
place if they refuse to negotiate or talk about any of the stuff that you're bringing up. So, you you have a team here working with you guys to sort of sort out what we need to uh look into. So, >> all right. Any Keith, any questions or comments or Scott? What my only question
is do we have any feedback from your board >> one way or the other? >> Mr. Marks, our board is completely consumed with a common problem that we have with the hotel. Namely, the fact that a massive proposal is being made
for the property that adjoins us and adjoins them with which we share a driveway and that is the Bankraftoft Hotel and the >> Right. But Henry's the proper notice was given to everybody. Every anyone can come and and speak today.
>> No, he's answer the question. >> They're not here. >> The short answer is no. They have other more critical pursuits right now through Russell Galvin's proposal. >> Respectfully, I'd like our GM to address. >> Hold on. I don't know if we need it.
Hold on. Scott, any >> No, I was just going to say that, you know, Henry, it may benefit you if we did hear this today >> because um like it was said, if if we can't come to a conclusion here and and
and vote yay or nay, you may hear you'll hear back from the board on certain issues that you know, the contentious issues and you may get a sense of how we um how we feel about that. It may help you if it's continued after we hear it.
When you speak with the applicant, you can tell the applicant, well, you heard how the board is feels about this one particular issue or another one. May give you a little bit of a better position to negotiate with them if you at least hear from the board today and hear how we feel about a lot of these um
issues. If we don't come to a vote on it, >> thank you, Scott. That's very, very constructive. And as long as the option exists for some form of revisiting on January 6th on some issues,
>> that's Henry, that's not how it works. Either we're going to make a decision today or we are as a board going to feel we can't and we need to continue it. It's not going to be we're not going to proceed conditioned on a guarantee that it'll be revisit. >> I see no guarantee. Obviously, it's up it's up to you all. >> Yeah. All right. If I'm hearing I I
think we're going to deny them. I mean, I I don't want to speak for everybody. It sounds like we're going to die. We're going to let the application go forward and then we're going to welcome you to speak with anybody else and then if we can't come to a decision then we'll continue it. But we're going to proceed with it. >> Uh may I please have a vote of the board
on the motion to continue? >> What's that? Yeah, we're going to do that. >> A board vote of the board. >> We're going to vote on the motion to continue. >> Okay. I need someone to make a motion to either grant the continuence or deny the continuence. >> I'll make a motion to deny the continuence. Hey, is there a second?
>> I'll second that. Okay. Um, we could do a roll call, please. >> Um, Mr. Cement. >> Yes. Yes. >> Mr. Frerieden. >> Yes. >> Miss Leone? >> Yes. >> Mr. Marks?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Needleman? >> Yes. >> Miss Bey? >> Yes. >> Mr. Elias? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead and pro proceed with the actual application. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, thank
you board. Um, I want to start by saying that while this has been characterized as a complicated and big application because potentially of two venues that are seeking entertainment, if you don't approve the outdoor
entertainment, we can have the same music at ambient levels on those facilities anyway. The only thing that entertainment allows us to do is to have a DJ play the music at the same volume.
Or in most cases, one of the things that I personally think is really important is let's say you want to have a wedding or a barbit bot mitzvah at this new deck. It's not a new deck. The deck has been there. It's going to the pool is going away.
You could have a a a you know string quartet play the wedding march. You can't do that without getting approval for entertainment even in a hotel >> special event permit. >> Yeah. But there are 12 of those a year
limited to two days and they are >> it's a very involved process to get them. It's not appropriate for an event. Those are done typically for multi-day issues and and large gatherings. You want to have a I mean my daughter's
wedding, we had a extreme quartet at her wedding. We could not have done that at this venue without approval of entertainment. But if you deny the entertainment, we can still play the same music at the same level in the same location.
>> You just can't have a person involved in producing the music. It's that technical. when you get right down to it. And so we have we needed to come to this board because of the modifications of the numbers of the venues which are going down with the exception of two
which are offset by the larger reduction. Um by the way I see a timer going that's at 8 minutes already. I would ask that we not lose that. Uh anyway um so that's
big picture. That's what we're talking about. So, let's let's talk about the property and the application and the venues. Um, and so I think you all know this, but this is a a overview. The green outlined is our property. You'll
note we have two historic buildings and two new towers that were added to this property as part of a response to an RFP that the city put out for convention center hotels back in the n 90s. They were built in the early 2000s. Henry's
building, the 1500 ocean steps, is the the larger building to the south of us. Um, and the property he was just referring to is where they are seeking a potentially live local large project is
um to the west of the 1500 ocean steps. there is a driveway that we all share through a very complicated set set of uh and we do share that and it's going to be an issue both for them and for us when that construction happens. We have to work through that but the operational
conditions for that shared driveway are not changing in in anything you're doing today. Um again some some further views of the relationship of the of the properties. So on the right side um you see our
seawward tower behind the historic royal palm you see in in seawward of that tower the second floor pool deck which we are which we're discussing that pool is going away the ground level pool is the main hotel pool and that stays we
also have a three-story wing of the building that goes almost all the way to the seawward end that is between those venues and 1500 ocean steps. It's depending on what particular number it's somewhere between 43 and 46 feet tall.
So the and that I'll come back to that. On the left side you see a view and you see a little red box. Excuse me. Oops, I just changed. Um that little red box is actually close to where the um lobby bar will be.
That's now going to be both inside and outside. The current bar is only inside. Um, it's actually further west toward Collins Avenue than that particular location. Um, this is and and here I think I can show
you. This is the lobby bar area that we're talking about. This is the entrance to the Royal Palm. You come in. This is the corer over to the elevator bank for the tower that sits basically from here over. And that's the
location of the lobby bar on the far western edge between the two buildings with a building on three sides of that venue. The pool deck is not shown here. I'm going to uh but it the pool deck is
located over top of this which is the restaurant that you the three meal restaurant. It's up on the second level. Oops, wrong way. These are contact photos. I'm not going to spend a lot of time, but they are there if you need to come back and look at them. You do see
the the um No, that's not the pool deck pool. That's the ground level pool. Um here you see the venue the up the second floor venue that is
and Henry's writeups have said they're on the south side of the property. They're not. They're in the middle of the property or on the northern edge of our property. There is a three-story building between 1500 ocean steps and anything we're talking about. Um,
this is a view a rendered view of the Revise lobby with a little cafe on the left, the check-in check-in uh desk and and actually part of the cafe there. This is the new check-in desk which is a little further back in, but you see the
quality of the space. This is the lobby bar rendering from the inside looking across the lobby bar. the on either side of the bar there are nano doors which we can open but you can also see the wall of the building beyond the bar. So it's
an enclosed space. It's not fully enclosed. Um we we can't do that from an F standpoint. Um but it is not open. You know it is open air but it's surrounded on three sides. Um,
this is a view looking down the arcade at the lobby bar location. It's down at the very end of that uh where you see the little uh awning. We would love to have that be a closed awning. We can't because of F issues. It's got to be 50%
open to the sky. Um, but it will have a a some baffling effect on it. I'm going to point out that there's kind of a diagonal there to the left of the lobby bar area. That is some stairs that lead up to uh the the lenai and right behind
those stairs is an elevator bank for that. That is actually almost 60 ft high, which we'll show you. Um again, between ocean between ocean steps, between Henry's apartment and the lobby bar, this is the three meal restaurant
on the ground level. This is the main pool. And you see up above that where the umbrellas are. That is the current second level pool. That's the deck we're talking about in terms of asking for entertainment. And I'll show
you why. This is a rendering of that deck. One of the uh one of the ironies of many of the oceanfront hotels is you can't see the ocean because we have the public walk between us. We have a lot of landscaping. So when you're at our pool,
our hotel pool, you can't see the ocean. This space being up at the second level will provide. Imagine having a wedding in that venue overlooking the ocean. You know, it's it's it's a lovely space. This is looking from essentially the
public walkway back across the main hotel pool. And again, you see the umbrellas on that deck, but this is at the very seawward side of the property. So, one of the things that's happened since we asked for the continuence is
the city is evolving how it's controlling the numbers of people in these venues. The fire department has now taken a position that their occupancy calculations are going to be purely mathematical. You take the space, you divide the square footage by a
number for each of the patrons, and that becomes the occupancy. Historically, the city has talked about seats and occupancy, but they are moving to and this order will make occupancy the controlling factor because you can't change the size
of the space without permits. And so, but you can change seat layouts. You can put more people or less people in a space based on furniture layout. The city is moving toward a more, if you will, predictable limitation on
occupancy. Because of that change, we've had to change our numbers to reflect occupancy of the spaces. As you see, our ultimate reduction is 105 over what was there today. It does increase the occupancy of the pool of the proposed uh
lobby bar. It does increase the seats in the restaurant a little bit, but that is the change we were asked to do that. We started, we tried to file that, but they said we really needed to present it to you at this hearing since we'd already been advertised with a set of plans. So, we're presenting that to you. I can go
through it in detail if you'd like, but it's pretty technical when you when all is said and done. Um, this is the prior filing. Um, I'm going to skip over that. This is again the new filing showing the upstairs venues, how we calculated that, and how we got to cut to the occupancy.
We're still 100 100 people less than is currently permitted under the existing CDP 105 technically. That's again this is blowups of the vent of the three meal restaurant and the uh new lobby bar in its configuration and the numbers in
that chart reflect that. Again globally it there is a an increase in the lobby bar because it's one-sided today inside only. it will be two-sided in the future so that we can utilize and enjoy this climate that we all live here for. Um,
yes, in the summer it's likely to be closed most of the time. In the winter, it will certainly be open during the hours of operation that we have specified. And we have said that will that the outdoor entertainment on those venues will stop at 1000 p.m. The noise
ordinance really regulates at 11:00 p.m. We voluntarily said 10 p.m. Lots of detail. So this shows, and I'm going to go through these quickly. This shows the change. The maximum occurren load before was 774. Based on occupancy, and we've said the
seat count can't exceed the occupancy, it would be 660. Uh, and you'll note that we you see played at a volume that does not it's ambient level played at a volume not to interfere with normal conversation permitted until 10 p.m. at
which point, this is for a bar. the doors would be closed and only the interior part of the lobby bar would be allowed to continue with music. Um, this is for the upper deck. Same same issue. Again, not open to the
public. It has to be a hotel function. If it's a wedding or a corporate meeting, etc. You you know, they they and their guests will be there, but it's not intended to be and won't be a commercial venue. And candidly, it won't be used all the time. It's only going to
be used when someone books the space. Um, uh, so the this is language again from and I didn't say this to begin with. We're fine with staff recommended order. We
there's some language we would have preferred to change. We presented staff, they rejected it. So, we're fine with the staff recommendation. We will follow the staff recommendation with one exception. Um, and this is the exception.
The the traffic review group came back with a requirement that says we have to have a minimum of 10 valet runners maintained at AM peak peak and pm peak for at least 6 months and then we can ask to change it. Um it's not clear to
me whether that means we have to come back here or whether we would change it administratively. There have been several recent cups that you have approved with different language that is a little more flexible. That number 10 is also based upon the
fact that the city will not allow us to take into consideration the full ride share usage in hotels on the beach. I I don't know about you, but I don't drive into South Beach these days. I take an Uber or a lift because I don't want to have to deal with my car and I also
don't want to pay $40 to valet it for, you know, two hours. Um, and I think many most people do that. The evidence shows that upward of 60 plus% of people who go to these hotels in particularly in the South Beach area utilize ride
sharing services. But in our review, we were limited to 20%. Not 60%. The overall review of mixed use was 25%. And I may be reversing those numbers. And Adrian is here and can answer the
technicalities of it. What we would like to suggest is the alternate language below. And the red language is our language taken from other orders which is that and the or the condition says if
we need more we have to provide more. If we need less we can provide less provided that the sufficient provided to ensure the valet queue will be contained on site and does not obstruct the public right away which is really the
substantive issue. You don't want valet to to affect the public right away. We agree that that's absolutely necessary. We and we believe that this language is better language and more accurate language. And what I've just put up is a
October 24 order from >> Sorry, just one quick question on that. So, right now with the language that you suggested, if there were to be queuing on the street, that could, I guess, prompt a violation that would then call your applicant back. >> Yes.
>> Is that consistent with your understanding? >> We're fine with that. >> And that condition is is not in there right now. Correct. >> No, the the the condition is that is in there today and is the top condition B. >> No, I I understand, but I'm saying based on that, there is no mention of any
queuing. Yeah, I think we can streng I was that's one of my comments that I think we can strengthen that a little bit. >> We're in public comments. >> We're fine. We absolutely 100% agree that we shouldn't affect the public right away. We can actually stack 12 cars between the street and our run
entrance. We have no problem with that. We have on-site parking for the valley anyway. Um, so we we believe this is better language and you have utilized that exact language subject to the numbers being slightly different for the Andas and for 1100 Fifth Street within
the last several months. Um, it seems to us that that's better language. It's more flexible and it reflects reality which is don't screw up the the roadway. >> Um, with that I think we're going to stop. I have our whole team here to answer your technical questions. Um I
don't want to take more time. Um but I do want to say one Henry has characterized these as large venues. They are not. the lobby bar. I think the total occupancy and somebody's going to tell me the exact number and that's both
inside and outside is I think 120 more or less >> I think there's a chart in here, right? >> Is is the number but that's both phases and the outside phases out at 10 p.m. which for South Beach is earlier than
normal. Um and so and the pool deck is an intermittent use. It it's not going to be and it's at ambient. The the critical issues it's ambient. They did have some technical comments I
just want to address for a minute. They said, "Well, how do we know it's going to be set that way?" The answer is because we have to we have to put the systems in. We have to test the systems. We have to do that with the city. the city has to sign off that we're in compliance with the order before we can
get a BTR to operate this place. Okay. So, obviously we can't do it in advance because you have to build the stuff and test it in place. That the the order absolutely requires that they are the system is to be locked with only the general manager having access to it. I
can assure you and think about what we're doing. We're elevating this property overall. We expect room rates in a normal time frame to be 500 plus per per room. Um, we don't want to disturb our own guests. They're right
over top of what we're talking about. They're much closer to it than than the building to the south. I would also note just context. >> I can wrap it up here. >> The 1500 ocean steps and this property are part of the MXC district. It's not a
residential district. It's the MXC district. This property was built in response to a city RFP for a convention center hotel. With that, we're here to answer questions. >> Okay. All right. We're going to open up to public first and then we'll anyone in chambers other than Henry to speak on
this. >> And Mr. Chairman, before we hear from the public, do any board members have any exparte communications to disclose on this application? >> No. >> Yeah, I did have a conversation with the applicant, phone conversation, >> and for for the Well, go ahead. I got a
couple emails from the applicant. >> We we emailed the board asking and offering to meet with them. >> Correct. >> We talked to two board members. >> We talked to respond >> the same. >> Anybody else? >> No, but I would like to say that I do know two residents that live in the
building that they had some concerns. >> Okay. All right. Again, anybody other than Henry to speak in chambers? Let you go last, Henry. Anyone on Zoom? >> Um, yes, Mr. Chair. We have iPhone. >> We have iPhone.
>> Uh, the iPhone is named Irene. Uh, thank you. >> Good morning. Could you please say your name for the record and then I'll swear you in? >> Sure. It's Irene Bigger. Irene building. >> Yes, I do swear to tell the truth. Yes. I um I have to uh go to a meeting at
10:00. Otherwise, I would be there with Henry. Um I appreciate his presence. I know that he represents a lot of concerned residents at our building. Um mainly noise and I was there and I witnessed the question that I also asked
about the sound. Um of course you know ambient sometimes I I know it's probably about 60 70 dB but you know it could be subjective in a sense of what's too loud. Um, I just want to bring up the past history of issues that we've had
throughout South Beach with code. Um, if something does happen, um, I know I'm being very vague. I I just wanted to make a general point that I myself thought that we would be able to go over, um, with the sound engineer, uh,
how they would handle the this the the noise uh, the dispersion of it, etc. Um but I I will leave that to Henry um to discuss with you. And then just one more point um I had specifically asked um because I'm on the northeast corner um
if festivals such as or parties such as Urge um you know would continue and I was told flat out no. I do understand that we are in South Beach. That's why I live here. I love the accessibility. I love the vibe. But there are times where
that vibe or or that um you don't have to party and have the base uh shake a building. Okay, that to me is tacky. And I I believe based on our meeting that the people that are are renovating, they
are not tacky. They have class. They know what they're doing. I'd like to depend on that, but we know how that could be taken advantage of. So, I just wanted to make those points and thank Henry for being there. I do want it to succeed. I do want to say and I
understand that there needs to be amenities and options and um you know, everything to make a business succeed, but I also want to make it a point that you don't need to be loud and obnoxious to succeed. Okay. Thank you so much for your time.
>> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Um yes. Our next speaker is Michael Resnik. >> Good morning, Michael. Do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth. Old truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. You have 3 minutes.
>> So, um Yep. So, I am a resident of uh 1500 as well. I am on the north uh west side of the building um adjacent to where the lobby bar would be. Um I I just like to say um you know, they they say that music will be ambient level,
but the the biggest issue I have again is noise. If you go into a restaurant, you're the earlier people there, you know, you can have a nice conversation with someone at your table, not a lot of people there, the music, if they're playing is the ambient level. Once the
restaurant gets busy, the music that they're playing hasn't increase, but there's more people there. And sometimes you can't hear the person across from you. That's sort of my concern here. I mean, the lobby bar is going to be sort of in a corner. Um, currently the sound
um reverberates between the two buildings. Um, when they have um a few events like a wedding or something, they have tables set up in the breezeway. Um, it can get quite loud in the balconies. Um, I work happen to work outside in the balcony. Um,
remote work. Um, so I'm I'm concerned that the lobby bar, although the music is ambient, it's going to be quite loud. Our building um is not a soundproof building. don't have insulated windows. Um, we all have balconies where we enjoy
the the South Beach, you know, weather. Um, I feel that we're going to be greatly impacted um by the increased
um venues that are out. So, thank you. >> Okay, Mike, we lost you. I hope you're finished. Anybody else? >> No. >> Okay, Henry Carter. Thank you. No.
>> Well, we paid John the big money. >> Mr. Chair, members of the board, I am not fully or properly prepared to argue the case on the merits today because I had a good faith belief that before now I would have met with hotel
representatives or this case would be continued. But subject to that qualification, here I go. There is no way in the world to read what is proposed here other than as a wholesale
massive expansion not only of outdoor areas of operation but outdoor hours of entertainment depending upon the venue. Outdoor entertainment would be permitted in one
venue until 1000 p.m. every night and in the other venue until 11:00 p.m. or midnight depending upon the night of the week. I don't understand all this talk about 10 p.m. when there's a clear provision in page four um of the
proposed order of paragraph 6 C Roman numeral 6 in that particular venue. Outdoor entertainment shall be permitted from 11:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 11:30 a.m.
until 12:00 a.m. midnight Friday and Saturday. So, never mind 1000 p.m. everywhere. That just isn't the case. The hotel would create two whole new venues for outdoor operation and outdoor entertainment. The breezeway and the
former second floor pool deck. I have given you pictures of first the view from our particular terrace and the same is true of Mr. Page and uh Mr. Resnik
and Mr. Minland and Mrs. Bigger uh whom you've heard from. Uh the big slab on the right side is where the swimming pool used to be. >> That doesn't look like a small venue to me. That's a pretty good size chunk of
concrete for outdoor entertainment. Secondly, just to bring the matter home, the second picture is a tighter photograph designed to show what the view is from the terrace of any of the
people I have named, five of them so far. And you will see our terrace set up with a table and a chairs. And you can see that huge concrete slab which is going to be the brand new venue for one
of the two places for expanded outdoor entertainment. Mr. Leage's filed opposition stated that all outdoor entertainment should end at 9:00 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Minland's filed opposition opposed all outdoor
entertainment. Period. There are multiple safeguards that could have been discussed to make any deadline workable and enforceable, but forcing this hearing on the merit precludes a discussion of those safeguards. However,
simply as one example of a missed safeguard. May I have a couple of more minutes, chair? Thank you. The language quote ambient level played at a volume that does not interfere with normal
conversation. That may be timehonored boilerplate, but it sure is not common sense honored. What on earth does that mean? >> Nick, I'm smiling at you. I know this has been boiler plate for a long time
and it's time for a fresh look and this is a good place to have it. Normal conversation where suppose one could say that at a distance of 150 ft from the sound source you have finally reached
the point at which the sound quote does not interfere with normal conversation unquote. Does that make sense? I'd suggested 10 ft. some limitation, some qualification must be inserted there for it to make any sense. Otherwise, we're
talking about sound that is so loud it bellows all the way across the street, the other side of Collins Avenue. The mayor and commission have shown a particular sensitivity to intrusive sound in situations exactly like this
one. Just slightly more than two years ago, the city code's definition of a neighborhood impact establishment was expanded to include open air alcoholic beverage establishments within 200 ft of
a property which contains a residential unit. My wife and I have crudely with our kitchen tape measured the distance between the Royal Palm south wall and our building's north wall. We found a
separation distance of 39 ft 7 in. The new ordinance seeks to protect residents extends out to 500% of that number. I want to respond to a couple of
Carter's comments, please. Carter identifies benign usages, weddings, permits, etc. Without limiting language, it could be a lot more. Super Bowl parties,
next year's World Cup parties. Again, a little face-to-face negotiation could put some limitation as to what can take place. Is the manager on duty supposed to go out and have a little visit with
the 275 lb tailback and say it's time for you all to quit now because it's 1000 p.m. I think that's a little much to expect. Now we have code compliance. Now we have residents down in the driveway and we have exactly the kind of
situation which should be avoided. Carter also talks about these being unfairly characterized as large venues. The size of the venue makes no difference. People can make all kinds of intrusive noise and sound and loud
conversation just by being at the very next table in a restaurant. Carter has said 1000 p.m. is early in South Beach. Again, I remind you we're talking about 11 and 12:00 p.m. in one venue on certain nights of the week.
Well, that may be early in South Beach, but it may not be early for people whose residential home is exactly 40 ft away. I ask that you consider at least these limitations
on what is possible. That you limit everything until 900 p.m. That you qualify the language allowing ambient conversation or allowing normal conversation so that it is identified by
its number of feet. We wish to live in peace with our neighbor. They are good people and we believe that their overall program is good for us and good for our neighborhood. But living in peace at a range of 40 ft
requires far more controls than is proposed before you today. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. >> Thank you. Anybody else in chambers speak on this? Okay, no more people on Z. We're going to close the public hearing. Keith,
>> may I No. Well, I'd like >> Well, let let Keith ask questions. >> Let me Let me first state that I understand the gentleman over there's position fully. Uh I lived at Continuum on South
Beach. We had a building that was built uh by our developer 80 ft away with exactly the same situation where we had balconies facing a second floor open area and a restaurant called Chebo. And
it took us six months um I think it was longer going back and forth with the city and with the developer and Cheibo to limit the number of special events to put DB
limits and time frames that were acceptable to us. This is not ripe for discussion in my opinion. This is not even close. There is no such thing as ambient entertainment. First of all, you
cannot control the volume of live music. A B the number one issue that I had at Chebo was even though we said you could not have speakers, you could not have amplified at any level other than the
ambient music played, they had a wedding and they brought their own little speaker. And when you have weddings, bar mitzvah, and parties, people want to have speakers. If you have a speaker, you can't have it without a microphone.
If you have a microphone, you are way above ambient. You are talking above the people that are already talking very loud. I had to call the police because that wedding was going on and the speaker after speaker after speaker and
we could not listen to our TV. So the the concept of ambient without decibb, the concept of having parties continuously without special events, we would never have allowed that. And I I
find this outrageous. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Anyone disagree? I mean, I know what he's living through. I mean, I I just like to hear from the rest of the board, but unfortunately uh because of
years of of history in the city where we've had a um operators, hotels, venues, what you know, that have outdoor entertainment and regardless of um where where these
venues are um and regardless of what the applicants may say, we're going to keep the volume under a certain level or or whatever the restrictions, there's always that point in time where the volume gets turned up. Um there's a
there's a a special event and there's a violation of the noise ordinance and you know they they say, "Oh, it'll never happen again." And and it just it seems like it's gone on and on. We when I first got on the board, there was the issue of the Good Time Hotel. >> Yeah.
>> That had numerous violations for years. Um, and it just seems like the reason Henry's here, the reason so many other residents speak up against um, um, locations or applicants that
want outdoor entertainment or any kind of outdoor music is because I think over the years the lack of enforcement that the city or just the city's lack of enforcement on these things. when something happens, you know, someone gets a slap on the wrist and it goes, it
just continues and continues and and eventually maybe if things get very bad like they were at the Good Time Hotel, something eventually or maybe this board or someone finally says, "Well, if it happens again, that's it." And the applicant realizes, "Well, okay, I I I
think they're serious this time and and I need >> In response to that, that to to me, what you're both are saying is it's a behavioral question and an enforcement question." I'm not >> hold on. There are many people that have cups that allow this where we don't have any problems. So, >> correct.
>> It's also a definitional problem. You can't have ambient entertainment with live music. That is a misnomer. You You How? Because if you allow it, how are you What's the dec? How do you say that trumpet isn't
blasting too loud or >> To your point? To your point, you can't. There are good operators and there are bad operators behavior issues and we we don't know. I assume this is going to be a good operator. I always go into something thinking there's going to be a good operator. We don't know. Even good operators sometimes
>> there's an event and maybe you know under your argument then you would never give anybody else. >> No no I'm I'm Look, I'm ambient music. >> Yes. No live music but ambient control decel music. That's what we've been doing on
>> what they're saying is and and I've always been puzzled by this. You can have a stereo without a DJ. >> Yeah. >> And play certain level of music, but if the DJ's there playing the same level of music, all of a sudden it's like >> what usually happens is you also have a
DJ with a microphone. What you have to do is make sure you don't have live music, you don't have microphones, >> right? >> But again, it's even with that you could have you don't have to have entertainment. You can have just a a a speaker system and the dial is turned
up. >> Turned up >> and that's an operational issue. >> Correct. >> All I'm saying as a board in my opinion, >> we have to balance between helping a business succeed and all I hear about is how business are failing all over Miami Beach and quality of life for the
neighbors. >> And that's the balance we have to challenge. So all I'm saying is that if if you can play a stereo at a certain level, but all of a sudden because there's a DJ there or a harpist playing at the same level, again, assuming they're operationally
adhering to the to the cup, I don't see a difference. >> I agree. I agree. The question is when you have an applicant, how how do you how do you make sure that they they abide by all the conditions? we pulled our cup and that's why I'm I'm I'm not I
mean I'm I'd like to >> basically vote on this today cuz I know how I'd feel on things. Um >> but you know that's that's just the question. It's hard and that's why we're every issue that every application that comes in front of us for entertainment we have the same debate just because of
this if this if if it was known in this city that if you violate your your cup because of noise you know one time. Okay, we can change some of the requirements. What? But the second time you lose your your your CP, I don't think anyone there's a lack of faith on
the residents. >> And that's why we're we're we're where we're at now. But to that point, let me let me just get to let me just say one thing. I know Henry, we talked about good operators and bad operators. You know, I go into all of these thinking,
you know, the operator is going to be a good operator because nobody comes in front of us to say, "Well, I'm, you know, I might violate the noise ordinance once or twice, but it'll be a one-off thing." Mainly, what you're asking for is a 900 p.m. cutoff.
Even with that, you're assuming they're going to be a good operator because >> yeah, >> you know, I if they're not, then the the music could be loud before 9 9:00 p.m. In other words, I guess the point I'm
getting at is if if you think they're going to be a good operator, then in general, whatever times they want to go to should be okay. If you think they're not going to be a good operator, they shouldn't have outdoor entertainment period.
>> I don't know what kind of an operator they will be. I assume they will be a responsible operator. I do know this. The GM cannot be on duty 24/7. Ultimately, this falls to the manager on
duty who's got to go out there and deal with a very hostile bunch of people who are having a good time and want to continue. That's why all this expansive real estate in the breezeway and on the former pool deck on the second floor
creates so many potential problems. It will be a nightmare for code, will be a nightmare for people in our building. You say potential problems, but would you are you okay with them
uh getting something and moving forward to see if those problems become real problems or or what >> I I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes, Scott, I'd be happy to sit with them and say, "Look, what reasonable controls can we place here so
that you can make some use of outdoor venues?" Everybody who comes here loves the weather and of course they want to be outside with friends and colleagues. Sure, we can give them some way of operating
this up until 900 p.m. in all venues in a way that subject to recall here or other provisions. We can see how it goes. But we've got to start with are we just talking bar mitzvah and weddings or
are we talking big out of control football and soccer games? >> There's a lot that can be worked out here in a way that will not harm them and a way that will protect the reasonable expectations of the people in
my building. doesn't make sense for us to go through the route of just special events for for the first I don't know 6 months of the operator and they can come back and then try to change that to uh the entertainment. So it builds confidence first of all gives some predictability for you guys the residents to know the events that
they're going to be having when it's a special event uh when they're going through special events perms. I know it's not ideal for the hotel in the long term, but if you're doing that on a on the first trial of 6 months basis, it allows the residents to build confidence and if they're not violating and they're doing these special events respectfully
to the neighborhood, um it builds your confidence and we know they're good operators, then then they can come back in front of this board and just >> open for discussion. Uh, sure. >> I'm just throwing it out there. I know it's not with the operator's ideal kind of a conversation that I had hoped to
have. Sure. >> Is a suitable subject. >> I'm just asking the uh city staff, is that something that it can be done where we would where they can come back six months later if they choose to do so and change it from special entertainment to uh special event to uh getting a COP for
entertainment. They could certainly request a modification. They would have to submit a new application. If I I would just like to clarify one thing which I think there may be some confusion over. The existing CUP currently allows for outdoor entertainment at the ground level. So,
the ground level pool deck and ground level restaurant, right? >> The second level is is completely new. >> I think the second level is the one that we're most concerned with. Am I am I mistaken? >> That's right. And generally Debbie the uh larger pool at grade at ground level
uh has not been a problem except during a period when prior to this management a DJ was brought in on Saturdays and Sundays and it was intolerable. And then we all got into the same cycle with the
code compliance and the special magistrate. And these things like good time hotel take months to resolve at great cost and tremendous burden. >> Mr. Stler, may I ask a question? Um, so
given that given that the first floor has is basically grandfathered in, correct? >> I'm sorry. the BA, excuse me, the first floor >> first floor is basically is grandfathered in. It's the second floor that seems to have the problem. But I would like to also point out to the
board that there is a 200 ft residential distance separation between uh buildings and entertainment. Um residential, excuse me. Um, I didn't see anything in here that shows any kind of noise
attenuation, baffling or anything like that that would prevent the noise from going out to the beach, the beachwalk um, and things like that. Is there anything that that and and also I had a question on the uh noise the sound uh
attenuation plan? Um, it says that, excuse me, um, that'll be comprised of several small to medium-sized loudspeakers, uh, and the number of large loudspeakers and subwoofers should be kept to a minimum. But, but that doesn't give me a
number. And I was going through the the plans and it's so tiny that I was having to use my little my my little um um uh >> magnifying glass. Um, I'd like to know how many speakers. Um, and what what is
to why would you not just be able to use the second I mean the ground floor since that's already grandfathered in and um h I just I mean we do have a you're already grandfathered in on the
first floor. The second floor is under current code which is 200 f feet from a residential building. So I just have those questions. And what could you do to >> help the neighbors? >> Yeah. And did you do a sound study and
where is it? >> Well, I'm just asking it's right here. >> Decimal. >> It's right here. I'm just asking. There's nothing that I don't I can't see how many speakers. >> I I understand. Um this >> and if I may, I'd like to address a number of issues because I think there
are some misconceptions. I understand the concerns and my client will tell you the first thing I said to them when we started talking about this is the second floor pool deck is going to be a discussion. >> We knew that from the beginning.
>> So we understand. So couple things and you have to it's a lengthy order. It's got a lot of words in it, but you really need to work through it because there are some very important things that staff based on other now fairly standard
language include in this order that do a lot to address the concerns. First, and I will say on the record, we will agree not to invol use subwoofers in these areas. I have no problem with that
because I've been involved in a number of them in a number of properties. The subwoofers are the problem because at that low level it's high energy and it travels >> right >> when you get above that level you can still create a a very nice ambiance and
play really good music but you don't without and it doesn't travel as much the whole so there is a condition in the order that requires that the sound system be multiple speakers small disperse speakers >> but how many how many >> you don't know that until you get in the
field >> well you do So, because we've had Cassadon uh not Cassadona um um Donatella um which provided us an exact location of where those speakers were going to be >> and I just it's so small. I mean, I'm
sorry. It's just maybe I'm blind to >> but but I can't see where those speakers are. >> I I and I appreciate that, but I think the the Well, let me continue with the other thing. Once we put this, we will not allow and the order does not allow
us to allow any external speakers. Period. It has to be in our contracts with anybody we sign for a venue. They are not they are limited solely to the house system. All of it, whether it's acoustic or not, they have to they can
only use the system that's in place. that system as installed will be tested with the city and candidly we're not adverse to having other people be part of it as long as it doesn't become a party. I mean I can't have 35 different
opinions about but we we're not adverse to working with our neighbors so that they understand in fact if they want us to and they will provide access we'll run some tests off their balconies. I can't do that unless they say yes, but we will do that if they ask and we're
willing to put that as a condition if they provide access. It can't be 200 balconies. It's got to be, you know, some rational pattern. >> I just think there needs to be some soundproofing to >> the soundproofing. The answer is when we install the
system, we then play music through it. We then adjust the system to the physical setting of where that particular sound system is. >> But soundproofing is still soundproofing. It still is a is >> in an outdoor area. I mean >> more outdoor. I'm not a soundproof
expert, but I think you know even if you put some walling and greens and all the rest the music travels the testing if we do testing and we don't meet the requirements of the study with the city's approval before we lock it down. We will install
additional acoustical panels if we need to. >> Those become a maintenance issue and I don't want to create a maintenance issue for you or for us. We don't know that they're necessary until the system is in place and operational and we can all
literally see and hear what it sounds like. Those systems >> as required by the order >> have to be adjustable so that you can adjust the volume on each individual speaker or each array >> so that you can test and you can adjust
the way that operates to the physical setting. I I know this sounds crazy, but until you get out there in the real world, put these speakers systems in and test them. We can tell you all day what it's going to mean, >> but you don't know until you
>> Well, I I think and your point is well taken. And that's been one of my issues this for a long time, especially, you know, given our experiences with the Good Time Hotel, is that once we grant the entertainment and the permission, it
puts the onus on the residents >> to have to not only file complaints, get those complaints upheld, have those complaints appealed to the magistrate, and the magistrate has to grant them for us, everybody to feel real comfortable
to modify those conditions. But then the the what I think is the better way to do it is get your get the setup, you know, have the onus on you all to prove >> yes >> that it can be done and entertainment
can be had there without unreasonably disturbing the neighbors which I think you're do you're talking about in terms of the testing but where do we you know >> the city has to approve the installation and the volume, >> right? But the way that it's the way
that it's written, the way that it's written, it's vague in terms of and it, you know, it's not your fault that it's vague, but it's, you know, if you do test on the balconies of the residents at 1500, which is a great idea, and I hope that the residents will take you up on that offer,
>> I'm sure would allow >> with lunch thrown in. >> Um, so, uh, >> and I've been at this for a long time. So, so you know then okay, so say there is music that can be heard on their balconies. Yep.
>> Then what you know >> it's not just heard it's it you know it's got to be disturbing if you will. >> That's that's the question. So the answer is if if that's a problem, we have to go back and we have to adjust the system so that there isn't a
violation before the city will approve it and we can get a BTR to operate these these venues. >> Well, so and so I guess it's a question I have for the city which is what what will >> um she's busy. So let me let me I I have a I have a couple other things that I
want to ask about in terms of special events. How like what are the are they allowed >> special events permit takes 60 to 90 days to get issued? >> That's my my question. My question is how many are they allowed to have and are there are they allowed to go above
the capacity uh of you know people and also in terms of music can they go above ambient >> for a special event? So yes, that's all under the discretion of the of the special uh events, the culture department who um and the city manager.
So it's all at the discretion of the city whether or not to issue special events, but they are customarily allowed up to 12 per calendar year. They are permitted to exceed um the sound levels provided it's not a prohibited sound
level in the in the um zoning district. So if entertainment was prohibited in the zoning district, they would not be able to have entertainment as part of a special events permit. But in the case of MXE, it would be allowed. Um they are not allowed to exceed the fire department occupancy
>> um for a special event. They could exceed, for example, um the occupancy of a CUP potentially or on a building permit, but not the fire occupancy would have to be held. But if if the CUP says
no um no entertainment above ambient levels, could uh could a a special events permit could allow that? >> Potentially. However, the um you know, staff does work closely with the special
events office to advise them of any restrictions in the CUP. Um but potentially for a special events permit that could be allowed. >> Okay. And and that said that that the board could impose a stricter >> uh requirement on on the applicant that would apply to special event permits.
>> And how do you can you confirm 60 to 90 days to get a special appointment? >> I'm not exactly sure. I think it depends whether it's a high impact period or not, but I don't think it takes that long. There is a courtesy notice that is provided to residents for special event permit application, but that seems very lengthy.
>> So we're thinking what you know usually 30 days or >> I would assume it's at least 30 days. at least 30 days. >> I I just want to know how you found one time. >> Yeah. Can I I I want to continue. I have a whole I have a whole list and I want I know we want to get through this. Um so the when they come to you with their
sound study after everything's built and they come to you to get approval of their sound system, they come to they also part of that they worked with 1500. They have a you know the decibb of what can be heard at at 1500. Maybe you guys are out there
listening. What is your cut off for what's reasonable and unreasonable for them? And you know, if they were to start having a daytime pool party every single not pool party, a deck party uh every single day and have music that can
be heard on their balconies every single day. What is reasonable to you? What what will be approved? What won't be approved? Well, I mean, if the music can be heard to that extent in in a neighboring adjacent building, that would not be
reasonable at any point, whether it's once a month or or 30 days a month. >> I would also add the purpose of the sound study is is to ensure that the applicant is complying with whatever conditions the board has imposed, right? So if you set as you have on other
applications um a stricter noise uh condition um then the sound study will will need to will need to be designed to ensure that the applicant will comply. >> I'd like to see what you've done with with like the board did with um with the good with the good time
hotel for example inside the unit >> could not be plainly audible uh at the corner for >> but then it all comes back down to an operational issue. >> Yes. No. Why is that an opportunity? >> No, because that they have to adhere to what we're imposing. That's all I'm saying. >> If I may, there are some other
conditions that I think are important to understand. One is yes, the city has to physically come out and agree that the system works the way it's supposed to. Two, there's a required report back to you at set at 90 days at the moment
after issuance of the BTR. That's what's in this order right now. We have to come back for a progress report. >> Where are the speakers? Where are where's the plan that shows where the speakers are located >> on that deck? I was told in from the people who produced it that there are
three speakers proposed for that deck. Three. >> I I'd like to see that plan. >> Um >> so I have a couple other um >> but again
And I don't want to minimize the concern. I do understand it. >> Let's say we said we were going to have six speakers >> and we test it and they can clearly hear it. It's clearly audible on their balcony.
>> We either have to remove or reduce the volume on those whether it's three, six, or 12. And my experience on other properties is the more small speakers you have, the better off you are, right? Because it distributes it locally, not
not at distance. So the more speakers there are, the better off, the better the system operates to limit >> over overflow or overspill if you will. I I guess one one concern I have is if number in terms of the entertainment
you I don't think number one I don't think there's any thing in here restricting percussion and I think there I think there should be or is there I don't think >> it doesn't say it specifically but it does >> I I I mean I think here's the problem a
a drum set is not going to is technically entertainment it's not connected to a speaker. Nick, >> I would not recommend distinguishing between types of of instruments. I think um we should really stay focused on on volume levels. The the the the
>> standards that are in our noise ordinance that the board has relied on. >> Um the lowest is plainly audible. the in for example in the noise ordinance after 11 o'clock if noise is plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet there's a
there's a that is a primmaacia case of a violation of the noise ordinance. Um the the you know for example ambient ambient level is a level that does not interfere with with normal conversation. Um other than that it it would just be the
threshold in the noise ordinance prior to 11:00 which is is it you know unnecessarily or unreasonably loud. Uh but I think you know I I don't I don't know your decisions here have to be based on the conditional use criteria in the code. I would recommend
um huing more closely to the noise standards that our code compliance department is is you know is used to enforcing. >> That that's fair. So I guess I right so my you know I talked about the onuses on the residents. What I feel is the safer
way to do these things is to say to start it off with it should not be plainly audible from their units and or from wherever. Then if it can be proven that it can, you know, once it's all set up, it can be done in a way or it's
negotiated between the building, you know, the the neighboring building and them that they want to give them a few nights a week where it's plainly audible or certain time periods that it's plainly audible. That's that to me is more palatable than to starting off with
you can do entertainment plainly audible is not unreasonable and then you have to come back and modify and everything. I'd rather come back and modify it to give them more leeway once we see they're set up to to that in a way that won't disrupt the residents
because I will point out they did have several noise violations, complaints, warnings, whatever they were over the last few years. And that to me is an important thing. It it means that this is not a property that you know uh I
mean one thing is a management thing but the other thing is in terms of the location it's clearly nearby >> it's 200 >> nearby residents that it's going to disrupt it. So not just so I understand so you're you're suggesting instead of doing the ambian level that we go for plainly audible correct
>> well I think it I think it's probably both not >> right yeah >> yeah it's plainly audible and look I I mean there can be that's part of the re you know one of the issues of you know we I would love to have more discussions amongst them because there might be parts of the building that it can be
plainly audible that they don't care you know the people who live closest maybe don't won't care as much um you know certain resident and you know and so plainly audible from certain areas. Um you know I I don't know it's a very specific thing. I mean I defer to staff
what they think. Um I I have I do have a question about the lobby the open air like so is the am I correct that the you said you can't close the lobby bar because of the F issue? >> No
>> that's correct. We can't enclose that space, right? Because we are at the maximum F that allowed for the property going back to when it was built. >> But we can and are planning to put a cover over it. Noise attenuation. It won't stop all the noise. But again, I I
want to go and maybe think about separating the venues. That venue is all one. It's on the ground level. It is on the ground level. It is enclosed on three sides by structures that are no less than 40 plus feet tall. >> Well, I just want to make look, I'm not
I'm not taking too much issue with that. What I what I guess was wondering, you know, what to you're allowed to have 5 a.m. entertainment in the lobby. And so I'm not trying to take issue with that. >> Only if the doors are closed. >> If the doors are closed, I guess that that was my question. Okay.
>> Um >> but excuse me to that point, Mr. Frerieden. That breezeway's exposure to us from a standpoint of noise should not be minimized. We have had spectacular problems. It can be surrounded by 100
foot walls. That music and entertainment when it's been excessive wafts, right? Well, well, I think that's a a point we'll take in is that that should especially when it's contained in that area, shouldn't be plainly audible to the neighboring property
>> um to the to the neighbors. Um the u I do I would like to add a provision like we've done in the past where the residents be given a phone number, a direct phone number to the manager on duty at the time. >> It's in the order and >> it's in the order. Okay, great. Um
um >> and just for your benefit of your clients, I mean I want you and I think you do understand the the balance we're trying to achieve here. >> Absolutely do >> because you know you can't you know have all this at the expense of the neighbors and yet I don't want the neighbors to be
unreasonable in their opposition because I want you to succeed and that's always what we're trying to do here. the uh the >> and there's PTSD because of the good time because we had so many problems with them that it's just >> but I think if you >> it's more than the good time >> the the 90
>> I'm just using them as an example >> it's also 200 ft within it's also within 200 ft of a residential building >> right >> and I you know while you can have it on the first floor it's the second floor that we're really talking about now um I
don't understand why we don't have a a speaker plan. I don't understand why you're not willing to put up any kind of noise baffling. Um, essentially the breezeway becomes a reverb center. Uh, >> but I think they're they're going to have to they're going to have to because
they're going to end up getting noise complaints if they don't do all that. >> But why not do it ahead of time after the >> I think they do have no noise attenuation like by they're having small speakers. >> Yeah. But there's nothing there's no there's no >> there's nothing that I mean I'm looking
at this right now and you know code is code and code is 200 ft of a residential building. >> That's a telephoto lens for what it's worth. >> No, >> that's a what? >> No >> you didn't zoom in >> on your phone. >> There were two photos.
>> I don't have a phone, Carter. >> Secondly, I didn't hear what he said with an oldfashioned camera. >> Hold on. Hold on a second. So, so then the other one other thing I would want the 90day, you know, progress report to be during the peak season
um you know so we don't end up you know at some point over the summer although it is >> whether whether intentional or not you're going to get I believe the best test you could possibly ask for and Henry has referred to it
within that 90 days the World Cup will happen in Miami. >> Yeah. Look, >> if we if we are in compliance with that requirements through the World Cup, I assure you we will always be in compliance. Henry is right there. I mean, let's say one of the team's groups
comes and stays in this hotel. I can't stop them from being loud sitting on the pool deck, >> right? >> By the way, the order does not allow them to bring their own radio or any boom boxes or anything else onto the property. It specifically says that if
an individual wants wants, you know, music, they have to use headphones. I mean, there's I I suspect you've not had the time to go through, but this order has a lot of controls in it, and we're fine with that. We want that. We want to
be good citizens. We're not looking to be a problem. Yes, it is true. If you go back a few years, there were problems. But if you look at the staff report, the last noise issue was in 2023. That was for the White Party under a special events permit, and they were cited for a
violation at 700 p.m. because they violated their special events permit. It was part of the citywide white party event. And yes, it happened. And they, the operator, apologized to our hotel for allowing it to happen. It happened.
I can't say it didn't happen, but >> was that 23? You said 2023 is the last violation. >> That's correct. >> It's been closed for renovations >> for the last 6 months. >> But I >> And it's a different operator. We have a different operator on site. Royston has
I mean, we've talked about it. Royston's had numerous conversations with the board. For what it's worth, >> the board simply said, "We don't want to take a position because we don't want to create friction within our building. Otherwise, I think we would have had their support and one of the objectors,
Mr. Lra, is a is a board member. So, I understand that. Um, disappointing, but I understand it. I I want to prefer a suggestion to maybe let us all move forward. We would give up the entertainment on
that second floor level. >> Wait, I beg your pardon? >> We would give up the right to for entertainment on that second floor level. >> Well, that would solve a lot. Huh. >> That's >> and limited to the first floor. >> I would also say today, as you've
correctly said, we're allowed to have entertainment and music until 11:00 p.m., 5 days a week, until midnight, two days a week. And you don't see a history of violations here. Yes, there have been. I'm not ever going to say there
were no violations. So what you're what you're offering is ambient >> piped in music with a dB limiter and no entertainment. No one live with a drum, a harp, a piano, a singing microphone.
That's that's what I was hoping to see in there. That's what reasonable when you live that close. >> Does that include special special events or your >> Yeah, >> we certainly need to be able to have special events there, but we don't
add entertainment. >> No entertainment. >> Would you agree to no subwoofers anywhere outside? >> The breezeway is every bit as much a problem. >> I understand that. But >> we've had the experience. We know it.
>> But that's already it's already happening. And if they do some attenuation some further attenuation that would that would >> alleviate some of those are but you you did say that you would have no subwoofers. Yes, I have no problem with us limiting subwoofers. That's not a
problem. We we're we can make the system work without them and I understand the problem. >> Uhhuh. >> The only thing I would say on the special events permit is 1500 steps as the adjoining property has to sign off on them on the application
and they did sign off on the white party application. Okay. So, they will know what we're asking for and have an opportunity. >> Wait, is that I don't understand what you were saying about Under the city's regulations, they not only get notice, but we need to
get their approval for our special events permit. They have given that approval in the past. I would ask that we be allowed to continue that. And we will agree that, and I don't mean individual unit owners, with no disrespect to Henry, it has to be the
board that takes a that has to speak for the the association, but we're okay with that. >> Okay. And my recommendation to the board if uh if if you agree is that you as a condition of your approval require the
uh the neighboring property owner to consent because I don't actually think that's a requirement of the code. No, it isn't a code. Yeah, >> that's fine. >> They ignore us all the time. >> Yeah. >> Um all right. I I kind of want to wrap this up unless Yielda would like to make a motion. Is everybody okay with that? You want to hear a motion or do you
still have more questions? I just I want I want to make sure that I' I've got everything straight before I >> uh Mr. Chair, if I could please, I've made a list of all the things that have been discussed and they all need to be resolved. I think one way or the other,
uh, agreement not to use subwoof woofers, >> running some tests on 1500 terraces, acoustical panels, possible, uh, special events. Nick uh accurately advises us that uh it is possible for the
conditional use permit to impose limitations on what the special events can have such as sound levels prescribed by law or by the conditional use permit shall not be exceeded. U we've had a suggestion about percussion and drum
sets. Nick has properly suggested that naming instruments might be a problem. Um Mr. Freriedin has suggested that uh sound should not be audible by residents. Um Miss Lone has said we need
a speaker plan. Um Carter has suggested giving up entertainment on the second floor level. There's a lot here and >> right everything you just said I think is going to be in the motion in a motion. Exactly. >> I'll second your motion.
>> Thank you. Right. >> Yeah. No, Henry, we're aware of all those things. So, and I think the motion will encompass those. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah. >> I'd like to make sure that it encompasses. I'll I'll I'll make a motion to >> to approve uh favorably move it to the
commission with your suggestions and with your >> No, it is something going to the commission. This is your >> I mean, I'm sorry. What am I talking about? >> Oh, right. >> I have no idea, but I I'll I'll approve that. I'll make a motion to approve it. Can we have a readback of what all these
add-ons are besides this? So, so no no subwoofers. >> Um, >> and no subwoofers anywhere outdoors. Correct. Correct. >> No subwoofers anywhere outdoors. >> No entertainment on floor rooftop deck. >> Yes. >> Doesn't mean we can't have music. It
means we can't we can have ambient control limited. >> Correct. Keep going. >> Um, let's see. Plainly audible from the res. >> Plainly audible for any resident. >> Plainly audible from from the residents.
The testing on the resident balconies from the neighboring property. The installation of the acoustic panels to insulate the noise. >> A speaker plan that's approved by the >> Would it be helpful if I ran through this again? >> No. No. Please. We can play.
>> Please no. We got it. >> But Carter, I want you to hear all these things. >> And also we're on the same page. I would want to put this in >> and and the inclusion of the proposed revision to subsection C based on uh the applicant's recommendation. >> I would also just add in a sentence at
the end that says um there's there shall be I mean I know it says it probably elsewhere but I just to make sure that code enforcement can enforce it. Um uh because it says to ensure the valet Q is is contained. It doesn't really say
like that valet that the valet queue must be contained. And I don't think that's going to be an issue. That's an an issue. >> Not an issue. >> And that the board signs off saying it must be contained. >> The board signs off >> on special events. >> On special events and also 1500 board >> and also what was um
>> and one thing. >> Oh. Oh. That you have someone on 24-hour notice or somebody that was >> sure that's already in the order, but we agree. >> I'm just saying. >> Mhm. Okay. All right. >> May we also provide and I did try to
include this in my summary >> that special event permits shall not authorize exceeding the sound levels of the city code or of the special event permit or >> that in the special
we're done. We have a motion and we have a second. If I may, one cl two small >> last comment. >> The sign off should be for a special event that is involving that upper deck since that's where we're removing entertainment. Um
>> what? >> I think that would be the fair that the the building sign approval of it would involve that second floor deck, not just any place on the property. >> That that's correct. I I at least that was my understanding when you first profitered that I want to make sure
>> the breezeway approval is only for the the second floor rooftop de let me suggest the breezeway we're done we're done one last question and it's a clarification and I don't mean to hold you up >> plainly audible
>> in on their building I assume and is there an hour limitation because under the noise code it doesn't apply until 11 p.m. You can >> the board can impose a a stricter requirement as part of your approval >> in terms of the time or the
>> in terms of >> if you want to use your ordinance the way it functions I think is Nick has said already if you if you want to say you know >> 10 p.m. or plainly audible. I think your noise ordinance is 11, isn't it? Not >> the noise ordinance is is 11, but the
board could be stricter uh and and extend the hours. That noise must be plainly could be no louder than plainly audible. I'm sorry, that noise cannot be plainly audible from a neighboring resour. I mean, they've already made >> concessions since it's in next door to a
neighboring building. >> All right. So, the motion is to stick to the hours. So, let's just vote. And if I'm with you, we got a second. Okay. So, we have a vote and we have a second. So, go ahead and do a roll call, please. With all those conditions and >> Okay. Um, let me call the role. Mr. Marks
>> and Deborah, you're comfortable that you have everything memorialized that we discussed. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Great. >> Okay. Mr. Marks, >> yes. Miss Leone, >> yes. >> Mr. Needleman, >> yes. >> Mr. Frerieden, >> yes. >> Mr. Cement, >> yes. >> Miss Bey, >> yes. Mr. Elias,
>> yes. and Henry, thank you for your uh participation. You obviously got some concessions here and again going forward it's an operational issue and and I they're all here listening so you know we're confident and hopeful they'll >> we don't expect to be here on
involuntary rights and good luck. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you members. >> Thank you. >> Okay. New applications planning board file 25802 7710 Holland Avenue mechanical parking.
>> Okay. Um if if we could take any um lingering conversations outside, we'll get moved on to our next application um which is H or AB250802. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. Um an application has been filed requesting a
conditional use approval. crowd for a mechanical parking issue. >> For me, >> for mechanical parking, >> sorry. >> Um, with that, I'm going to turn it over to uh Jake Cyberlane to present our recommendation. >> This is all for 7710. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, as we mentioned, the application applicant is requesting approval for mechanical parking lifts within a new five-story apartment hotel building on the site. Although there is no parking requirement for the proposed use, the applicant is providing a total of nine parking spaces, eight within four
mechanical lifts in a tandem configuration and one traditional space. Access to the parking area is from the alley and will be operated 24 hours a day by a valet attendant. Four additional temporary parking spaces are located within the parking area to more
efficiently store and retrieve cars from the lips. The applicant has provided plans to demonstrate how the parking could be provided using conventional parking spaces. However, staff finds that the use of mechanical lifts results in a higher level of compatibility with the surrounding urban environment as the
lifts do not require curb cut along Collins Avenue. Additionally, the lifts are located within an enclosure and are not visible from the right ofway or surrounding properties. The transportation and mobility department has reviewed the project and has included several recommended conditions that have been incorporated into the
attached draft cop. Finally, staff would note that the DRB is scheduled to consider the project on Thursday, December 11th. With that, staff is recommending approval of the COP. >> Matt, good morning. Matt Amster Burke Howard Fernandez Larkin and Tapeness
offices at 200 South Miscane Boulevard in Miami. here today representing 7710 Collins Avenue LLC uh which is the applicant and owner of the subject property. I have the owner here, uh, Andre and his wife, Andre Melnik, um,
and our our team, uh, which, you know, I came to be prepared. Uh, but we'll keep it brief. Uh, they're just I have to, you know, make sure that when Carter comes, I have to show our force. But in any event, uh we have a design team from
Yodazine, um Edwin Prada, and Robin, uh Anisin, as well as Kobe Karp's office. Uh and with from Kobe Karp is, uh Matthew Bquard. Um on Zoom, we have Jose Alvarez from our landscape architect. Uh
we I believe also have representatives from the Claus parking lifts on Zoom. Um Adrien Dubcowski is here from Kimley Horn. uh and my colleague uh Mitch Tozian who handed out two letters of support that we have obtained. We have a
presentation if you could call that up. Um this is a very very much smaller almost incidental type of hotel than what you just saw. Uh this has zero food and beverage operations, no
entertainment, no outdoor speakers. Um very very very small in comparison. Um, go to the next slide. Here's our context. Uh, we're in North Beach. Uh, the building fronts Collins Avenue, but there's no, uh, entrance, uh, for vehicles there. Everything is at the
rear in the alley. You can see, uh, you know, everything's small scale, narrow lot. Um, and there is a nearby park um, right within walking distance. Next slide. Here's just our existing conditions. Uh, today on the left side is uh, at the front there's a two-story
small residential building at the rear. On the right side is a small one-story residential building. Uh, next slide. Um, so we are here to just um solely for the mechanical lifts to assist with the
parking so that there's uh parking right on the property. 24/7 valet operation. All of the parking operation happens on the property. Vehicles do not have to drive around the neighborhood at all. you drop your car off inside the garage level from the the alley at the rear and
you pick it right back up at the same location. So, very efficient. Uh, and this will assure that there uh is no impact in the neighborhood. Um, Andre and his wife do plan to uh live at the apartment unit and operate this hotel to
ensure that it is um done appropriately. And with that, I'm going to uh one mention uh while I handed out two letters of support, um there was a neighbor meeting at the nearby park. Um actually uh quite well attended. So we presented the project and answered
questions. Uh I'll add a condition of approval at the at the end. But right now, just to give you a brief overview, here's Matt. >> Good morning everyone. Matthew Peard uh with Kobe Carp Architects, 571 Northwest 28th Street, Miami, Florida. Uh here, as you can see, we've got some renderings.
Uh we've got a view from the front there on the east facade along Collins uh with large projecting uh balconies and uh upgraded landscaping and uh uh sidewalk condition there for the pedestrian. The view on the right uh is the building uh
as you can see from the northeast. I just want to point out on the bottom there at the ground level, that's where we have our parking in the full uh fully enclosed area at the ground floor. Uh and also note that the uh inboard balconies there uh along the uh the side
of the building. Um no projections. Everything's projecting out to the east towards the ocean in the view. Um this is a a further closeup of the uh the north facade there. So you can see the um screening on the right and the fully
enclosed parking there at that ground level. Um here you can see the the elevations. We've called out some materials. We have a material material board there if you're interested in seeing it. We're kind of taking this drawing for DRB. So, wanted to just show you the uh the
overall facade. Um and here you can see we've highlighted where the location of the parking lifts are. We do have a fence uh area that is where the cars do maneuver um on property and I'll show you that in plan. But the location of
the parking lifts are fully enclosed within a garage space. Um this is the view of the south again reflecting the um the enclosure on the ground level. Um here we have the existing context
elevation. And you can see the um small two-story structure reflected there next to its neighboring 7700 Collins and 7728. And now this is what we're proposing just to give you an idea how this fits into the contacts and fits right into
the uh the streetscape um along the 7700 block. Here we have the ground floor. I don't know if I can use the mouse. Here we go. this area here. Whoops. That is the enclosed area of the parking. There are
four mechanical lifts there. Um, that's the Wh that's the area in question. Yeah, if you can fix that. Thank you. Sorry about that. Um, but you can see we've got the um landscaped area there along Collins Avenue. Uh, nice staircase going up.
We've got handicap accessibility along the street and we've got uh upgraded landscape from the existing condition and that fence is gone. So now you've got a real street condition and pedestrian experience there that ties into the neighboring buildings. You can see on the south side we've got our pedestrian access all the way along to
the alleyway. Um and you and as you can see on the on the west that's where our vehicular access comes in. There's a maneuverability space that allows you to uh turn the car around. valet drop off, ADA parking, and then we have our four
mechanical lifts enclosed within that garage space. Adjacent to that, we have 20 long-term bicycle storage and six short-term uh bicycle storage uh spaces along with three scooter parking spaces as well.
We did have to do the alternate plan to show you that this we could park on site um and and what it would look like if we did. As you can see in this case, the um the the challenge here was to get um
turnaround space and maneuverability uh all within the space while maintaining those nine parking spaces that were requesting. And we were able to do it, but we have to exit onto Collins. And really that that's where the challenge comes is exiting onto
Collins and having to deal with the FDOT and then also just how tight the site becomes. we lose all of that front setback and the ability to really enhance the uh front yard there uh and the pedestrian experience on the street.
Uh just to walk you through the buildings, these are our typical uh um unit levels. You can see the uh the inboard balconies on the north. Uh and then we do we are proposing an amenity uh rooftop. Uh we did want to
we're just providing a small swim spa and a few lounge chairs and we are buffering uh that space to the neighbors to the north with some uh landscaping as you can see in the plan in green. And we um and also to the south we're buffering with the actual uh core itself.
Uh and here we have our landscape plan. You can see it's it's quite an improvement from what's there today. And then we also have the landscape on the roof. And uh this is a detail of the parking
screen uh that's being propo proposed. The uh the louver details utilized in the location of the um the maneuverability of the cars. Um and then the as you can see the the parking lifts are fully enclosed within the garage as
indicated on the the bottom left of the screen there. And this is an interior view, just a massing that you can see of that maneuverability space within the site um with the enclosure there of the the
parking um and a detail of the lifts. I think that's the last slide, right? Yeah, we uh this was fully vetted through uh with our traffic engineer and the city's transportation department and their consultants and uh approved.
There's an operational conditions about valet operations uh being 247 having the valet operator there um already in the conditions and we agree to those. Um if you go to the the next one as far as the roof >> I'm curious with the mechanical parking are there like generators that are back
up in case electricity goes off. How how does that work? So, I believe that it becomes mechanical um in in the event that there's no power. The the lifts can uh be lowered mechanically to get the cars off. You know, they would go and
continue to operate. I do not think. Um >> I could be that's my general understanding. Do you have anything to add? >> No, I think you're correct. >> There's not a generator really. >> There there is a generator I think for the the project, but no, I think the lifts once the if the power turns off, you they're they're hydraulic,
>> right? So, I I believe I'm not the expert, but I believe that um once you remove the the car on the bottom, you can de like kind of let release the hydraulic and it'll lower the the car safely. >> So, they're not stuck. >> So, they're not stuck. Yeah. And then after that, you can't use it again until
you get power back. >> And how many units? How many units in the building? >> 15 total. It's 14 hotel and one uh apartment. So, it's formerly an apartment hotel. And again, you know, the operator is here to to manage that >> North Beach improvement. Yay.
Go ahead. >> I You were continuing. Go ahead. >> Yes. No, just as far as the rooftop, you know, we wanted to just ensure again, no food and beverage, no entertainment. In fact, this such a narrow lot, there's no room for any of that. By the way, no special event permits. That's already a condition in here, but you can't do this
where we're at anyway. Um, but just to make sure that the rooftop has, you know, minimal impact, uh, we will, uh, make sure to add a condition that isn't yet in there. Uh, but please, we profer this. The applicant agrees that the proposed roof deck shall be used solely
by residents and hotel guests and shall only operate between the hours of 7 a.m. and 1000 p.m. So again, no outdoor speakers up there either. So again those will be minimally um impactful operated by you know the owner uh as well as uh
the lush landscaping helps the uh also all the screening and the definitely enclosed parking. Um we do go to design review board on Thursday um where the whole design itself will be um vetted and uh with that where our team
is here to answer any questions. We respectfully request approval with our one added condition. Thank you. Okay. Anybody in here to speak on this other than the applicant? You? No. Okay. Anyone on Zoom? >> Um, yes. We have on Zoom Kristen Spellelain.
>> Sorry. Before we hear from the public, are there any exparte communications on this application? >> Keith, any disclosure? No. No. Okay. >> Okay. >> Hi. >> Morning. Do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth. Whole truth. Nothing but the
truth. >> Yes. >> Thank you. You have three minutes. >> Great. Hi everyone. I'm Kristen Spelain. I'm a resident of 7728 Collins A, one of the buildings that directly um is adjacent to this um property and I'm
here to strongly oppose PB250802 for mechanical parking here at 7710 Collins A. I have a few points um want to walk you through. Number one, this mechanical parking system would introduce significant noise. We're talking about metal clanking, motors,
vibration, and this is happening just feet from neighboring bedroom windows. Nothing like this exists anywhere else in our RM1 residential zone. And you even saw it earlier in the presentation. This lot is extremely narrow. It sits
between two condo buildings. A mechanical lift in this location is just simply incompatible with the quiet, lowdensity residential block that we have. Second point, traffic and congestion are already issues in the one-lane Collins Court alley which is
used by residents, service trucks, FPL and garbage collection. Adding any sort of valet operations and lift related delays would create blockages and safety concerns. Earlier, Matthew walked through some plans, and as a resident
with a small sedan that I drive, I have major concerns about the sizing and the spacing that they're talking about. In terms of the alley access and room for car maneuverability, um, it's honestly a challenge to get in and out. If I'm trying to enter my parking garage and someone else is
exiting, I just don't see how those specs they presented would be remotely feasible with a valet operation and the volume that would come with this proposal. My third point, these systems, these mechanical parking systems carry operational and safety risks. Breakdowns
are common. This owner has a history of zoning violations. A man, a malfunction could not only block the alley, but also create hazardous conditions. And as we just heard, the application provides no manufacturer details, specs, or contingency plans. We heard about a
general understanding of what might happen in a power outage, but nothing concrete. Approving this would set a negative precedent by introducing a highintensity quasi commercial system into an RM1 neighborhood designed for quiet
residential living. This proposal benefits one property owner at the expense of dozens of longestablished neighbors. I respectfully urge this board to reject PB25082 and require the applicant to follow the
same conventional parking standards as every other building in the area. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Um, yes. Our next speaker is John Hank. Hanky. >> Hi, John. Do you swear the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> I do. >> You have three minutes. >> Good morning, members, chair, and members of the board. Uh, my name is John Hickey. I'm a resident at 7700 Collins. Uh, one of the original owners here as well. I I have been a
DRB and HDC commissioner for 17 years in the state of Michigan. So, I'm intimately familiar with these types of projects. Um, to be sure, we had council for our board send a letter to the commissioners both to you and the design review board. Uh,
I believe it may have reached you yesterday, so I'm not sure it's in your packets or not, outlining a number of concerns and objections that we have, not only to the project itself, but certainly to the mechanical partner. Um, I don't know if Miss Tacket can tell me whether or not that did reach each of
the board members either. >> I I don't believe I received it, so I wouldn't have been able to transmit it. >> Okay. Um I will double check with council and make sure that gets to all of the board members. Uh the concern here is not just the mechanical parking
but the project in and of itself and some of the representations that the developer is making with respect to the proposal as a cargo. I can tell you unequivocally mechanical lifts make a lot of noise. Also I would um dispute
Mr. Bard's representation that in the event of a power loss these are hydraulic. These tend to be manually operated at that point. They don't all have fail safes on them. So, in a lot of instances, those cars are stuck. They go nowhere. Um, as Miss Bain pointed out,
there is no compatibility of this project with the neighborhood and the RM one zoning. The context elevation that's been presented is misleading. It presents Ocean Blue to the south of us and then gives nothing to the north. The
entire block from 77 to 7,800 is comprised of our two buildings and the house in between. There is nothing else. As you go further north on Collins, it continues with fivetory condominiums. The alleyway and to Harding is all
twotory buildings. So this would be the only quote hotel anywhere in this section of North Beach. There aren't there isn't another one. We've seen no traffic report with respect to the use of the alley. I went through the packages that were submitted
and they're online. Um, this would be the only means of ingress and egress for servicing of this building for whatever even without FNB. You've got maintenance workers, you've got trash workers, you've got a number of oper number of
operational concerns, none of which aan has addressed. It's a transient use of a hotel that's not consistent with RM1. Um, again, I I hope to get that letter in front of you so you can see exactly the number of other concerns we have.
The other that I do have, um, the one thing that I do want to call out is in the initial applicant's presentation, he cla the applicants plan to live in this apartment unit. I would question that. Uh the developers LLC is listed in a in
a condo at Sands Point Condo in Sunny Isles, which is currently a 3-bedroom, 3 bath, 2120 ft² unit. Uh currently on realer.com, as a rental at $10,000 per month. Uh there was a representation that he and his wife and children would
all live in the apartment unit, which as you can see from the drawings, consists of an 892 ft unit. So, I don't believe the operator truly intends to live in this and operate this apartment complex. We've got additional
concerns which will raise with the DRB on Thursday morning, but as the mechanical lift and the portion that's in front of the board, we object to it for those reasons stated and the additional ones articulated in our objection letter that was sent to Miss
Aka, which you don't have. >> Mr. Hanky, I have a question. Are what are you in Ocean Blue? What what building are you? >> No, I'm at 7700 Collins. I'm in the building >> 7700. Okay. >> Immediately adjacent on the south side to the proposed project.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> And I am a board member. I am a board member for Vill. It's Villamure is the um >> Thank you. >> complex. >> Anybody else on Zoom? No. And nobody else in here. Okay. We'll close public
hearing. you want to address Oh, I'm sorry. >> People from the public here. >> Okay. I asked earlier. Nobody stood up. So, >> good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. I'm Sandra Payne and I reside at 6700 Indian Creek. I've been a Miami
Beach uh resident for over 20 years and I also represent many businesses in North Beach that this hotel would add so much value to our city and also the park and everything that's happening in our community. So I would like to and
hydraulic system also 6080 Collins Avenue has the hydraulic system in place and it does not make sound or noise. In addition to the height restrictions, 72 Park is also a condo residential hotel
that's being built. >> You're you're at Indian You're at Eden House. >> I'm at Eden House. >> You're you're my neighbor, I guess. >> Okay. >> Um not the same building, but but um you don't have issues with the traffic or
anything like that. I mean, >> we we have serious problems. We don't we have the same system in our building in Eden House which is the retunda and we have a valet and it's just fairly easy. We just leave the cars and they go through the retunda
and there's an entrance there that leads the vehicles into the a gate that opens that does not affect the Collins traffic. >> And how's the how is the noise in your building? >> Uh great. I we do not have an issue.
>> You don't hear the You don't hear the parking? >> No, not at all. Any other questions? And I think it would be a great asset for the neighborhood as per the business owners there. They need this. You know,
the walkability and the park there. I run there three times a week and there's so many homeless. And you need we need to change that area. You know, you have these twostory hotels that are smaller, but this is a boutique luxury hotel that's going to add value in my opinion.
And I love my neighborhood, and I want to see it thrive and grow with the community. >> Me, too. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Was there anyone else here to speak? Yeah. >> Hello board members. I'm Yuanuk and um as well to tell the truth. So basically
I've been >> Can you state your name and address? Your address as well. So J basically so uh I've been member of like I've been living in this neighborhood about like
uh since 2010 and permanently is um 3 years. So um I'm I have a property at 6610 Indian Creek Drive. So basically I am um I'm here to
support the construction. So I believe this would bring the value to this neighborhood. So personally I go to the park which is uh nearby like every weekend and it's you know I notice a lot
of uh homeless people over there and not just homeless it just I don't know like drugish kind of people look like. So it's sometimes it's I feel like it's um not really um um safe there. So I think
this would just bring um the good sense of neighborhood and it's going to be growing in a in a good way. So >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um Mr. Chair, we do have an additional
person on Zoom. >> Okay. >> That just popped up. Um, Charlotte Light. >> Hi, Charlotte. Do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth? All truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. Hi. >> Thank you. You have three minutes.
>> Okay. Thank you. I sent an email to you all directly last week. And so, in efforts to not duplicate, you know, this same information, um, I live at 7728 Collins. I'm on the board. That's the building that is uh directly north of
the 7710 Collins development. And just a few points. Um I appreciate Sandra Payne coming and explaining to you that she doesn't hear any noise issues. That building to scale is completely different than ours. She lives in what is that a 16tory
96 unit building. This is much smaller. um the issues that you guys have experienced today with um the Royal Palm Hotel and residents that were, you know, complaining about noise. Um we are even
closer than them. We're 20 ft away. Um when we talk about neighborhood safety, the entirety of that block is completely residential. When you bring in an opportunity to have transient housing on
a nightly basis, that directly affects safety for our neighborhood. I don't know if you can hear, but my 2-year-old daughter is running around by my knees right now, and I'm just terrified of having a building that's going to be
built within 20 ft of my growing family. Um we weren't prepared to have any discussions today beyond the issue of mechanical parking but it seems pretty clear that you know a bunch of heavy hitters came to present and a lot of
more additional information is being shared about the proposed plans of this development. So what I would ask is to keep to the item at hand. Let's address the issues that our residents have
regarding the mechanical parking and then we can have further conversations in the next two days with DRB for the hearing on Thursday. Thank you. >> Thank you. That it. All right. Closing public hearing. Um >> Mr. Chair, if I may have just a few
words of rebuttal. >> Sure. So, just to be I I think that the application is very transparent. We're not hiding anything. This is an RM1 district and a portion of it of which the property is located. I think it's uh
70 uh2nd up to maybe not even 80th there's a small area that by code allows apartment hotels as a permitted use. So the area the entire area is not residential but the area that we are our local context allows for this use. It is
very small and minor. We are not projecting into our um our side setbacks to be respectful to our neighbors that will be both screened uh and heavily landscaped. Uh and while we could have our balconies um fully project not fully
but you know projecting noticeably into those areas which would likely then take away from the landscape buffer. Um so this is uh also a fully compliant project. We the height setbacks everything is compliant with the code. uh when we go to the design review
board, it's compliant and there is no variances whatsoever being asked. So we basically have a project just for design approval on Thursday with today just the mechanical parking lifts. This is perfect infill development. Uh there's substandard uses there today that um you
know dilapitated buildings that um while being kept up and maintained um are not the um highest and best use. But also this new building will make the environment safer. Uh there'll be uh a lobby with a person there uh regularly,
right? The valet also is there 24/7 about the valet operation. We had a full traffic study. It's in with the application documents vetted by all. There's conditions been added which we agree to. Our valet operation is 100% completely internal to the property.
Even our loading, there's a condition about loading. Loading operations. I know there's not that many for this property will have to also take place from the alley inside the property. The trucks will go in and come back out to not um be a you know a traffic uh uh
hindrance in the alley. >> Which alley is the shared alley that the the caller had referred to? She says that the alley was shared with the other building. So which alley are we talking about that is shared? >> Yeah, it's the street that's on the west side of the project.
here. >> It's a cross block from 78th to 77th. It runs the whole length of the block. >> Okay. >> It's a oneway southbound alley. >> It's one one way and and you will be accessing >> 20 20 ft wide >> from Collins Court. Okay.
um staff when when the affected neighbors get notices, do they have access to the proposed conditions in the CUP? Does that is that available publicly? >> Correct. We published that online approximately a week ago. >> The proposed CUP that's in here. >> Correct. >> All right.
I mean, there's a lot of conditions in there. I want to make sure that they're aware of what those are. But anyway, go ahead, Keith. Any questions? >> No. >> Go ahead. Just the one thing I heard which is just maybe you can address one of the comments that they had was about the noise from the mechanical system. I
mean you could see in the renderings it is fairly close to the adjoining buildings. So maybe you can address. >> Well, it's completely enclosed which is also required by code, right? There is not just screening. There is a solid wall around the area of these units. And >> there's no
>> Do they make noise? These mechanic do they >> No, there maybe older models did. Um I believe we have someone from Claus, Amanda perhaps. You will raise your hand if you ask. >> I have personal experience with this. Um the building I live in has the Clouse
system, right? So, I have I own one of these um lifts. Mine are old. Mine are from 2005. And my unit is immediately on top of our garage, which has multiple, you know, I think we have um 20 lifts.
They do. Mine personally makes noise. Like I can hear when people are are using them, but it is so muffled. It is almost I have very good hearing. Um it is almost imperceivable. So I just that's from my personal experience. It I
again live on top of these immediately on top of about 20 of these that are up and down at all times of the day and it has never disturbed my >> likely that in an enclosed space with the distance of the neighbors that it's not going to be a real issue. >> From my experience if it's my my unit is
a clouse and it's it's much older than the new ones. >> I don't have any disruption. Are you willing to put a condition saying it shouldn't it won't can't be plainly audible you know the lift itself you know can't be audible to the adjacent
properties >> sure I mean that's exactly what the enclosure is meant to do >> right so then there shouldn't be a problem and that should that should the neighbors concerns >> I don't know if there is a condition that already addresses that but we're happy to agree to >> yeah and I would just like a condition
that I brought up earlier that if there is a power outage that there clearly is a method for cars to be lowered and and >> right >> released >> either manually or or the generator. >> I don't know if that requires a generator or whether they like you said
they automatically work to to lower. >> We have someone from Klouse on the Zoom and they can speak to that. Okay. If if that's if Amanda could raise your hand. >> I hope she's still there. >> Amanda, if you're there, can you raise your hand on the Zoom call?
And since Amanda will be testifying, um >> well, we got to see if she's there. >> I don't I see Bridget. >> Yes. Yeah, that's also from Claus. Yeah. >> Okay, Bridget, >> turn your mic on. >> Bridget, do you swear the testimonial you'll get is the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but truth. >> Yes. Hi everyone. This is Amanda Rhoden, engineering manager from Claus Parking. Um, so I would like to speak on the sound of the lifts. Uh, we actually have the lifts installed at a project nearby
which is comparable to this one. It's 8421 Cresby Boulevard. We have 10 lifts installed which is a boutique apartment building. Um, the sound is inaudible and for this
project we would the sound comes from the power pack. So for this project, we would only need one power pack and um the sound is in inaudible. We actually have sound studies and um
it's it's equivalent to an AC unit. You know, the the sound of that. And also to bring the system down in a power outage, you release the um the locks on each side, which the valet attendant or
somebody on a man uh maintenance person on site, we teach them how to do that. Or as well, we offer uh 24/7 emergency calls and we're right down the street. So, we have our technicians that can come out in case of any um if if the
person on site doesn't know how to bring the car down. >> All right. But they definitely function in a power outage. >> Yes. Yes, you can bring the car down, >> right? >> Back up. >> Are these just stackers? >> Double check. >> Okay. All right. Any questions of her
while she's on the Zoom call? >> All right. Thank you so much. I have a question though for um >> so obviously this is going to be let's call it short-term hotel stay. Is there I know that just mechanical is under our purview but is there any plan to have
concierge or security in the lobby just to make sure that North Beach doesn't become what South Beach is trying to veer away from >> and have that not come back? Well, I think that just by having, you know, the an owner operator, you know,
living there, uh, >> they could move though, so I'm just curious. >> No, but the the intent of an apartment hotel is that the apartment is where the person who's managing the facility is there. Now, I don't know if there'll be 24/7 uh, you know, uh, attendee in the
lobby, but I'm sure that there'll be a security. You know, it's a hotel, so you'll need a key after hours or to call someone to be able to be let in. I'm sure there'll be security, camera system. I'm sure that they'll provide all of that to again secure their property and have it be safe for their
guests and for the neighborhood. >> I'm also curious since this kind of my neighborhood, how how large are the units? I haven't seen any of that, so I'm not familiar. >> Um, they're fairly small, but they're sweet like sweet rooms.
>> What does fairly small mean? >> 600 square f feet, I think, is the >> That's large. >> Yeah. Okay. So, thank you. >> But again, not within our purview, so we couldn't even >> No, I just I'm curious. >> No, I'm I'm asking for my question,
Nick. Is that correct? >> I mean, you couldn't require that if the applicant made a voluntary profer. I mean, I think that would be fine, but no, the only thing before you right now is mechanical parking. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions? Does someone want to make a motion? I would make a motion to approve it with the condition that it is added that uh the noise from the lift shall not be plainly audible to the neighboring buildings.
>> Okay. >> Was there anything else? >> Our rooftop uh profer conditions, >> right? >> Yeah. That you volunteer. >> Yeah, that was one voluntary profer that we've made. Yeah, >> we'd like that included. >> Deborah, you have that. Okay. All right. Do I have a second? I'll second that.
>> Okay, let's do this by group. All in favor? >> I. Anyone opposed? >> All right, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good luck with it. All right, last uh item is a companion item, planning board
file 25765 and 0766 Washington Avenue uh land development regulation amendments and comprehensive plan amendment. Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, these two um items are specific to um
the CD3 urban core residential plan. Um this is for a property located uh these were both private applications uh submitted by the property owner of 1600 Washington Avenue. Um the
the LDR amendment and the companion comprehensive plan amendment proposed to increase um the maximum intensity or FR from the existing 3.0 to 3.25. Um there's also proposed
increase in height from 100 ft to 150 ft. There are no changes to the um allowable maximum density which is 150 units per acre. Um there are several other modifications including um parking uh parking reduction and mobility fee
waiver that are part of the currently proposed um amendments. Now, because the LDR amendment deals with an F increase, we are moving through this six-step process that we
have outlined in our in our code. Um, we had step one, which was the first hearing in front of the planning board on September 9th. Um, that discussion um was then continued uh to today's meeting so that we could have time for step two,
which was our public outreach meeting. Um following the September meeting, we did schedule um the public outreach meeting for November 12th. That meeting was well attended. Um and we did have five speakers comment on the subject
applications. The primary concerns that several um of the speakers expressed were regarding the height of the building. Um there were some suggestions that they uh community members believed that the 150 ft was overwhelming to the
adjacent historic district. Um and uh several speakers were requesting that the height be reduced. Um there was also some concern expressed regarding parking issues um and not being um by by reducing the parking requirement within
the ordinance. There was a concern that residents of of a residential building would park in the neighboring residential uh parking district which is the Flamingo Park historic district uh parking district. Um there were a few
comments regarding design. Um this I would point out um is a project that requires historic preservation board review. This was reviewed by the historic preservation board and continued. Um so the board is the historic preservation board is currently
working with the with the applicant and project architect to refine the design um to make it more compatible. Um but in general um there were there were um again the meeting was well attended and the primary concern from from the
members of the public wars was specific to the height. Um and we have provided a summary in our staff report of that. Uh notwithstanding this, um staff is recommending that this ordinance move forward um with a positive recommendation from the planning board
um as well as the comprehensive plan amendment. >> N >> I'm here if you have any questions. Uh, good morning Nissan Casden and Cecilia Torres Toledo with Acreman LLP representing the applicant 420 Lincoln
Road Ambassador Paul Seahos's building uh property. Uh we made a full presentation to you as you know on your first first uh uh hearing and we have the presentation to go through again if
you have any questions or comments. Um uh just to refresh uh this is the city's urban core. Lincoln and Road and Washington Avenue is actually sort of ground zero was historic Miami Beach downtown. The city
has been trying for years to stimulate residential development along those areas for permanent residents and not condominiums but rental apartments. and uh and and this is uh in fact the
density that's allowed of 150 units an acre can't be achieved under the current zoning. So, Ambassador Seahas in in seeking to fulfill what is the uh objectives of the city's comprehensive plan particularly for this area to
provide 247 life with residents of this area has proposed uh a modest change in the underlying zoning to allow five increase in F 2.75 increase in height from 100 to 150 ft.
Now I do have this uh slide presentation to show you if you'd like the comparative heights in the area. There are a number of buildings which are as tall or taller uh include if if you could tee this up for a minute please presentation let me I don't want to take
you through it all but this begins to show you in the urban core which is the center of greatest activity where by the way there is the greatest need for residents residential so people don't have to commute to their jobs you have the Lowe's hotel of course you have the
new hotel being built at the convention center which is 180 5 ft. Uh those are pictures of course of the area as Miami Beach's historic downtown, but I'd like to skip to u
some of the comparative heights that you see there. You have the 407 building, the clock tower building, uh which is uh uh which is over 100 180 some odd feet in height. You also have right across the street from our proposed building
the uh former LNR building which is 124 ft in height and then towards the beach you have the Lowe's hotel which of course is significantly taller. This is our urban center urban core. Um and this block itself
I can show you. Let me go forward a little bit. You'll see this is a needed redevelopment of this of this block here. Uh that you have the 420 building which
is a important historic building fronting on Lincoln Road which Ambassador Seahas has invested millions of dollars in maintaining, preserving and enhancing including bringing in first class retail including a flagship store for Zara. You also have the
parking garage that Ambassador Seahas built which has a timeout market and this is the um an area that is uh really the portion of the block which needs redevelopment. And so for all those reasons, we're here to answer any questions that you may
have. Uh but we think this is exactly what is called for for this neighborhood for the city and it's a a modest ask by Ambassador Seas. Of course, the legislation would also provide there will be no short-term rentals allowed
and it must be rental housing as well. So, you won't have a hotel. You won't have short-term rentals. >> Okay. I assume no one on here to speak on this. Anyone on Zoom? >> Yes. On Zoom, we have our first speaker
is Johan Moore. >> Good morning. Do I need to be sworn in? >> Uh, no you do not since this is a legislative but >> tell but tell us the truth. Y >> as always and thank you very much. Good morning uh to the board and to staff. Um
I trust that uh Meridian Court community's white paper has uh made the rounds. Um, I don't want to go into uh the specifics in that, but I would like to cover uh a range of comments uh in my
three minutes about this building. North of Lincoln Road is an entirely different animal from south of Lincoln Road in terms of the impact on our historic district. There is no objection to uh an
impact uh of a heat island nature or of a blocking sunshine. Contrarily uh one or the other being being an issue uh for properties north of Lincoln Road, including on the Lincoln Lane North uh
parking lots, provided obviously that they don't rise to 3 or 4 or 500 ft. this property uh makes a claim uh among others that approval should be based on the fact that there are nearby buildings
that are higher uh specifically nearby buildings that are in different zoning districts. There lies the beginning of the slippery slope, and one can imagine further claims deeper into the
neighborhood being made based on an approval should it be granted for this building. I want to point out that there is not opposition as such to this proposal. There is only opposition to
its disproportionate excessive impact on our neighborhood. I went and reviewed the site the other day and was struck by the somewhat dilapidated condition of a very charming Spanish revival uh residential building across the street
that has louver windows. When we think of the heat island effect that this proposal irrespective of its height but certainly exaggerated by that not modest height increase but 50% increase over the normally allowed 100 ft. When we
think of the heat island effect that's going to impact that building across the street, that building will at a minimum require new windows. uh in terms of various assertions in the letter of intent uh in addition to the.3
uh claiming uh approval based on nearby highrises. I would argue that multiple other points including specifically 8 9 and 10 are both unsupported and easily rebutted. uh light and air to adjacent
areas are affected. Property values such as that modest building across the street will, I would argue, decline as the heat island effect uh specifically affects that building. So, I'm gesturing in the direction of various mitigations
that could happen. I was also struck by an earlier development proposal today and neighbors concerns. I'm sorry. May I have another minute or two? >> A minute. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh my neighbors concerns about unresponsiveness. We had reached
out to Cecilia Torres Toledo uh to specifically ask for modifications of aspects of this proposal and received a rather unhelpful response. We are not opposed to the proposal as such, but for
the developer to claim that the project can only pencil out by imposing negative impacts on our neighborhood is not acceptable. Should you choose to go forward with this, we would ask that you consider imposing conditions. that extra
50% height should require affordable housing and various uh other uh I think mitigations including specifically a seismic monitoring requirement in order to prevent uh uncompensated damage to
contributing buildings. Uh we would urge that those be two two conditions that you impose. We also would prefer that you wait until the next meeting after which time the neighborhood association will have had the opportunity to weigh
in. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Yes, sir. Next speaker is Jessica Pa. >> Thank you planning board for having me first and foremost. I want to commend everyone for showing up to this meeting
for all the varied um proposals. I love seeing this engagement. I am at at work, but I've been able to leave it on in the background. So, I think that we're sensing an overall trend in Miami Beach of development fatigue. That's the way I
interpret this. You're starting to see a lot more community involvement and uh lack of trust, if you will, residents, citizens feeling like things are being passed and permitted and then they jump
in and say, "Wait, no, I didn't know that." So there's a lack of understanding um of the implications of a lot of these projects until they're right at our doorsteps both literally and
figuratively speaking. Now getting on to this specific project at 1600 as I know my time is limited. Um let me tell you Mr. Nissan and lovely Miss Bastilia that I've had the privilege to uh to meet in
person and see via Zoom. Uh let me tell you something. This block curiously I do call it curious is already zoned CD3. So you guys already have and your
honorable ambassador, the owner of the property, this property and and others and and what a fortunate guy, you know, we are so happy for him that he probably lives very comfortably having all these properties in Miami Beach and God bless him. I want everyone
to be comfortable and successful and happy, but not at the cost of our neighborhood. Not at the cost of our historic district. South Beach Art Deco Historic District, just like you see it on those pretty brown signs. As you're
going into the beach, let me get back to what I was saying. This block already has the city center status, which was curiously zoned that way about 20 years ago. Hm. Mr. uh Sepha still owned it
back then, right? Kind of kind of curious, right? Maybe he knew. This is of course speculation. Maybe he knew. Oh, one day I'm going to want to build something pretty tall there. Can we kind of fix that zoning up a little, guys? Maybe. Just Just saying. So, you already
have that. And then you guys have the audacity. Mr. I'm writing this down and posting notes as I am a a teacher, guys. Uh so, Mr. Nissan, he he comes and says, "I we're just and and Mrs. Celia, we're just asking for minor modest changes."
Guys, come on now. Be real. You already have CD3. You already have CD3. That's right there. That's back to back. We rub shoulders with residential historic Flamingo Park neighborhood. You have Let me have a little bit more time, please. Is that okay?
>> Yeah, but you don't need to be so facicious. Just Just figure your case. I bet that's Scott. I don't have the video up. He's good at He's good at reeling me back in. He just has that great energy and that is something that I'm sincerely working on. I really am trying to do deep breaths. But
>> all right, you just make your point. Go forward. >> Got you. Yes, sir. If you'd look at this property, 1600, if you're facing west and you look you look west, what you see is sky. Beautiful sky. Nothing tall. It
needs to stay that way. There's also a palm tree there. There's also a curved building there. This fits in with the continuity of the art deco neighborhood. That's the only curved building in that quadrant. Also, you have El Shalan right
there across the street. And then across the street, I think there's that yuka. There's squares. Those curved buildings are precious. They are monumental to to the district. You know, I'm against this. Lastly, on Zillow, do a quick
search. you'll find more than 300 units. I looked quickly while on the call between three and 500 units under $2500. The city needs to get better. Um it incentivizing rehab of our historic
infrastructure instead of just thinking that we have to be nice to business people, nice to owners in the district by letting them build build. There is another way. There are so many more innovative ways to do business. Okay. And I guess that that's it. And sorry that I did get heated. That's something
I'm working on. One of my character falls. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Our next speaker is Adam Shedro. >> Adam, you can unmute yourself, please. Oh, that's better. Uh, okay. Uh, first of all, I'd like to thank the planning board for allowing me to address the
issues. Um just briefly though let me mention that I haven't had an issue personally uh with Ambassador Seahas in addressing the issue on previous issues. I've asked to meet with him and he's met with me personally and discussed the issues. So I I don't think that's an
issue. I think that uh the issue should stick strictly to uh the proposal. Um, this proposal uh is not only CD3 zoning, but it also has the city center designation. So, it's already uh allowed
additional height. Um, I think that that the time the uh city center designation was allowed, it already allowed for the maximum capac maximum compatible height for our historic neighborhood. And I don't think that additional height or
massing are uh justified in this case. Um one other issue though is the parking. Um the uh zone 2 parking in Flamingo Park is completely full. If you come back in the evening uh from work, there's no place to park. You can park three, four,
five blocks away. Um and it was represented by the council of uh this applicant that all the parking would be inside the garage. Um however, that wasn't uh a part of the application. Uh at the Flamingo Park Neighborhood
Association, the council for the applicant indicated that at this meeting it would be incorporated into the proposal that parking would not be allowed within the Flamingo Park neighborhood or public parking. Um, I'd like to find out if that has been in uh
added and if not, I think it should be a condition. Um, just because there's parking available or spaces available in a garage doesn't mean that somebody won't have several cars or won't find it convenient if they're driving home to park on the street. So, I'd like to ask
if that condition has been added and if not, request it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Adam. Anybody else? >> Yes. One last speaker. Alec, >> can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Thank you for your time, everyone, and
thank you for the presentation. Um, I'm a property owner at uh 1568 Pennsylvania Avenue, so approximately 1 and a half blocks away from the proposed site um
along 16th Street. Um I'm ser uh I did not was not able to attend the previous meeting. However, reviewing the urban core legislation impact items, I am concerned about the bullet point on
their presentation for minor peak hour increases in traffic. um uh specifically due to that the property entrance doesn't have any sort of designated ride share drop off pickup
zone. Um I'm really concerned of I know a lot of these future residents are like that they're targeting young affluent nurses and doctors. Um I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the area.
More importantly, I am concerned about the rainwater impact of the balconies as they drain off onto 16th Avenue. Within the past year, my car has been flooded several times in impact high impact
events. Thanks to the city, we now have access to nearby garages. However, I am concern I'm I would like to know how the the proposed development plans to mitigate flooding of our neighborhood
streets along 16th Avenue um from rainwater. And lastly, like the previous speaker, I'm mostly concerned about the residents of this future building getting access to zone 2 parking. Um
I the parking in the area is very limited for zone 2 residents specifically during peak season. Um and like the previous speaker said for those of us that work 9 to 5 jobs or sometimes 9 to eight jobs when we get home at the
end of the day there's not enough parking for us to park in. Um, so I would really like to see if this um is passed by the planning board, black and white legislation from uh that residents
will not be able to apply for a zone 2 parking permit. Thank you. >> Yeah, ju just responding to your one comment. We're we don't we don't approve it. We just recommend it to the commission. Ultimately, the commission will decide. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Chair, if I may um respond and sort some of these things out so it has proper context as well. First of all, for those issues with respect to the particular design, those will be determined by the design review board obviously not this board. This is a
legislative matter to change the uh and the comp plan to change the F and the height with respect to particular a couple an issue that was raised by a couple of people which was no residential use of residential parking. This board did consider and approved a
conditional use permit for the project with specific condition that the residents of this building cannot have residential parking in the neighborhood. separate process, but that's already been taken care of and it's in your order. I would also like to point out
they were here at our prior meetings, but this legislative change has been endorsed by the Lincoln Road bid as well as the Washington Avenue bid. Um th and in its broader context, this is
uh this is almost the poster child. If we really want to incentivize residential development along the Washington Avenue corridor, Commissioner Suarez, who is sitting here, has been trying for two years to do that, and this falls also within the parameters of
his proposed legislation as well. Uh then this is it. If we can't do it here, then we're not serious about really incentivizing residential development in the urban core of our of our city. Um,
the final thing I would like to say, I know it was mentioned about Ambassador Seahas. Ambassador Seahas purchased this property about 30 years ago, the entire block when nobody was investing in
Lincoln Road. He had the faith and the confidence and the willingness to invest his money when other people weren't. And he's not a flipper who bought the property and sold it. He's held it for 30 years. Has put millions and millions
of dollars in upgrading the property. Is maintaining one of the most probably the largest historic building in the city, the 420 building itself. and he is asking to redevelop that portion, the 1600 Washington Avenue corner to fulfill what everyone in the city wants, which
is more residential housing. I think he should be lauded for his uh commitment to this neighborhood, to the city, and not to mention all the other great things he has done from this for this city from the Bass Museum on on down,
but lauded for his trying to make this a better neighborhood and a better uh 247 community. So, we uh again would appreciate your supportive vote for this. Thank you. >> Okay. Are you speaking on this? Okay. All right. We're closing public hearing
and uh Keith >> as I said and when Nissan was in front of us before I think it's a great project and I'm fully supportive. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um you know when it came up before I mentioned that if there's anywhere in the city that we should increase our F
it's the city center. Uh, this building is kind of right on the border of that and it is a rather large building and it I mean if this was north of Lincoln Road, great. It's right bordering right at the the um to the lowcale
neighborhood, two and threetory buildings right across the street from it to the south. Um, with that being said, um, you know, I could see myself vote voting to recommend this, but I'd like to see two things in our recommendation. I mean, these are things
I mentioned before. One is that there has to be, and I leave this up, staff of the commission, some sort of articulation the building, setbacks, things like that, something to make it more, excuse me, more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Like I said,
you you have a 150 plus story building across the street from two and threetory buildings. So our I think our recommendation should be that there has to be setbacks or some kind of articulation on the on the facade,
something like that. And I leave it to staff. I don't know what those are, but I I'd like to see that in our recommendation. Also, um, and I'm I brought this up before, a lot of these other larger projects that were asking for F
increases, we ask for a public benefit. I think we should ask for one here, but commensurate with the increase in in in density you're asking for. I'm not saying a park. I don't know what that is, but I think our recommendation should be to the commission to have some
kind of public benefit. And if those two things are in our recommendation, I'm going to go along with it and and vote in favor. >> Okay, Jonathan. No, >> I think we've covered a lot of these issues the last time. I just I and to
the resident's concerns about parking, I think it was covered as part of the conditional use permit. So, I don't think there's anything we need to do here. >> Okay. Just to restate what I've always thought. There should be a springboard for more thoughtful residential
development in the uh city's core. So, I'm supportive. I >> agree, Melissa. >> Yeah, it's the same thing. I'm supportive just as we were last time. Uh but there's one thing that came up today that I have a question. Is it correct that there's no drop off or pickup spot where that has been integrated in the
design of the building? Well, there is a driveway in the building on the uh and not that this is the uh the plan board consideration, but there is on the in the alley that that bisects the block. You know, there's a
alley uh that sep in the middle of that block and that alley will be able to be used for the cars to go in and out. >> Uber Uber coming to pick up a resident will be guided to that specific address store entrance. Well, that that is where
the parking is and that's where the uh drop would be. I don't the final design it hasn't been done, but it's accounted for. And if you look at the block itself, I'd be happy to bring that back up. You can see they have that internal circulation in the alley. >> Okay. So, that's just one concern. I
mean, I am for these buildings that are trying to reduce some of the uh parking re requirements, but we do need to consider the impact it's having on some of those main streets around there. So, Okay. Hi, N. Um, I am excited about
having new housing um especially that supports our workforce. Um, I did I would like to suggest to I'm going to vote in favor of this. I would like to request that um parking be required in
the garage. I'm I'm afraid that what's happening is I'm seeing more and more projects that are eliminating parking completely. And even if we are even if we have a a residential base that has, you know,
alter, you know, alternative um mobility, I think that we need to have some parking. We've gonna have we're going to have people that are going to live in other parts of the city. We're going to have people, you know, moving to, you know, not moving, excuse me, uh,
driving into Miami. And I just think that we need to to have some parking. And if we could use that parking garage, I think that would be >> and we are >> helpful. >> This this ordinance allows us to and we will be using the garage. >> Is that required though? I mean, is I thought I thought it said that you could
use it. >> Correct. The or the LDR does not require the parking to be provided, but it allows them to. Would we require that? Would that be something that you would look at? Cuz I I don't want to get away from >> us having no parking at all.
>> Well, I think as a practical matter, in order for them to be able to rent units, they're going to have to provide parking. >> But anyway, >> I want to require that. I would be that would go with the recommendation. >> Yeah, I asked that of the commission. Um
and also um what what are we're waving mobility fees. Um I how can we I feel like there needs to be some sort of um impact fees that are paid because I
don't know that you know it says in several areas that the sewage may sewer may be able to handle this or it might be able to handle that but there's nothing that that shows whether it actually will be able to. So you you had said somewhere in the document that it
would be that if it needed to be taken care of that y'all would finance it. I'd like to somehow address that >> that that we have to meet concurrency. But we'll say this as part of the process of doing a land use plan amendment that we are doing. We have had
all of those studies done in terms of water capacity, sewer capacity, traffic, etc. and is well within uh well able to handle what we are pro proposing to do. Uh you know and uh of course but the
actual if there need to be any particular upgrades that comes through the building permitting process where they say you need a wider >> and you'll finance that. >> Well, we'll do whatever the city requires for that in order to meet capacity. >> Right. This the the language in the LDR
amendment was is just specific to the mobility fee. county water and sewer fees, all of that would still be applicable. >> I just want to make sure. Okay. >> All right. >> All right. So, two things. We have to move it favorably or unfavorably. And then if you want to
do a second motion with recommendations, we can do that. So, someone want to move it? >> I'll move. >> I'll make a motion to approve favorably. >> Okay. Second. Second. >> Okay. Elizabeth, all in favor? >> I. >> Okay. We're well, we're going to do a second um recommendation motion that we
can include yours and vote on that. So, they have to go separately. We can we So, anyway, go ahead. So, you're opposed to that? Sorry. >> They have to go separately. >> Yeah. Yeah. We'll make a separate motion that in connection with our favorable recommendation, we'd ask that the commission consider whatever you want
them to consider. So, >> Okay. >> I mean, there's no way to I mean >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, all right. So, >> so was that unanimous, Scott? Were you a yes on that last vote? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that's unanimous. Now, Scott, go ahead and make a motion for a rec,
you know, a recommendation in connection with the favorable recommendation >> that one, there would be a public benefit commensurate with the increase in in density they're asking for and leave it up to the commission to >> determine what that is. >> Okay.
>> If I can just um Mr. chairman, the the city is constrained as far as what we can require in connection with a private application. >> Um I think if the board the board has had some discussion about setbacks, about other design requirements, about
parking, those are the kinds of things that um that can be addressed in legislation. Um but but a a text amendment like this really should not be conditioned on an
applicant um you know making a grant of a property interest or or anything like that. >> Well, I don't think we're conditioning. I think what they're saying is is that something the commission can consider? >> If the if the applicant were to were to profer some sort of public benefit, that's something the city commission.
>> Yeah, that's why we did it separately. We're not conditioning. we already sent it favorably and so this is just a motion for the commission to think about this. >> But I think but the what the city attorney is telling you is that it's an improper condition and I if I may address this uh and I think this is important to understand
first of all the you are approving this based on criteria. Is this a goal of the comprehensive plan? Is this consistent with the comprehensive plan? The goal, the benefit to the city is creating rental housing and not having transient
housing and accommodations. That's the big benefit. I don't think we want to uh ask applicants to be offering money to burden this. >> Well, again, Niss, we're not we can't condition it. No, but I but I but but I but I I think this is an important discussion and I would also point out,
you know, this is asking for a.5 increase in F, >> right? >> This is not like, if I may say so, West Avenue where the F went from 2.0 to 5.5 or the Doville site where it went from 3.0 to over 5 a.5. We're talking about a
very very modest increase in F in order to be able to achieve putting restrictions on our property. It won't be able to be condo. It won't be able to be uh short-term rental in order to be able to facilitate what this city has identified as its one of the most
important goals for this part of town. >> All right. Well, Nick just said unless you profer, we can't do it. So, if you're not going to profer, then we're not going to do it. So, um so that's what I hear you're saying. he'd have to profer that. So, we can't >> if if if what if what the board's discussing as far as public benefit is
the is the applicant providing either a financial consideration or a property interest, that's something that the board cannot condition. >> So, we're not going to do that. All right. Um >> what was the other >> what are the recommendations? >> The other one was that um
>> more compatible with the neighborhood. >> There needs to be some sort of design consideration, right? Um whether it be, you know, a set back above the first floor, a setback above 30 ft, something like that. I don't know what those are, but you know, right now on
Washington Avenue that is zoning, you know, you have talked about the good time that was built, the the Moxy was built, you know, above a certain level. It's set back um some kind of articulation on the facade, some something to make it more compatible
with the surrounding. Um >> Mr. Chair, may I address that as well? Again, this is a recommendation >> but but just so it's in the proper context and I understand the uh the the concern. >> Uh but I would point out two things that
number one across the street uh uh at 1601 the building is 124t tall almost as tall as we were proposing and and this is actually very relevant. the there is a large buffer to the west
between the proposed building and the residential neighborhood which is the garage itself. So that is a setback of well over a 100 ft. So I think just by its nature you know I think it already is doing that.
>> Across the street to the south are the two and threetory buildings. >> Yes. But, uh, I mean, if you look physically at this property, if you if it it's a it's a fairly thin property. If you had to set it back from 16th Street, wouldn't be feasible.
>> Well, I I it's not feasible. It's not, but I I you know, I understand >> design review board deals with these. >> I understand what the city wants to do. they want to increase our our workforce or or market rate housing, but you know, the city also wants to preserve our district,
the new development um um compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. >> There's a lot of things that the city wants to do and there's always a balance somewhere. Um I I honestly I think what's being proposed is just a blank wall right up on the property. >> HPB is not yet approved.
>> Well, but I said what's being proposed. Um, what I'm saying is I'm I'm not going to, let's say, rely on HPB or or maybe what I think this LDR should do is give the HPB some direction on what to look for, meaning maybe a setback above a certain level, facade articulation, um
um those kind of requirements. I don't specifically what they are. I leave it to staff to come up with something, but you you know, I'm just looking at what's being proposed and it just doesn't fit in right there. I just think this is HPB. I mean, I'd
love to see it more compatible with the neighborhood. Um, but I >> Well, I think it should be in the LDRs. >> Certainly. >> So, so just make a motion that you that the commission consider >> and articulate what you want. Then I would I would make the motion or it
would be a recommendation that the city commission explore um u design guidelines for >> for this particular um um >> LDR chain >> urban core incentives. >> Yeah. Whatever they want to call it. um
that would make any this this wonder and it would kind of set a precedent for any future um thing going forward um that would make it more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Make the development more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. >> All right. That that okay is a
recommendation to go along with the favorable recommendation. Okay. >> All right. That's fair. and also uh mobility fees somehow because we can't continue um not supporting our infrastructure
with development. Um, and again like I was saying, I think we're getting into a situation where whether people want to recognize it or not, we are not required to where a lot of these things are not requiring parking and we're going to run into a situation where
people we're not going to have parking and people you're going to have an older population that's going to need cars. And I'm sorry, but there's there's got to be something that I think that the commission can take that up as well. Um, if y'all would be amendable to that.
>> Well, it's Scott's motion. Do you want that included? >> Okay. >> And can we also put in the I just wanted to be considerate about the drop off and pickup points. I really don't want don't want a negative traffic impact on on the uh So, that needs to be also included as part of the design review. >> Right. So, just to be clear on the
mobility fee, are are you suggesting that the full amount of the mobility fee apply or >> I think it's something they can discuss. I think that that that we're getting into a situation where, you know, let me just give give this as an example if if
I may. Um, you know, we have a budget that's almost a billion dollars and we have 80 some odd thousand residents. Well, in comparison, Fort Lauderdale has almost double the amount of residents
and the same budget and they make repairs to their infrastructure. So, I'm not quite sure what they're doing that's different, but we have to address that. And I think mobility fees, I think um impact fees, you know, people are going to develop in Miami Beach because it's a
desirable place and we've got to start doing something. And I think that's something the commission can can consider and should. Um, and I think that's would you be amendable to to that as well? Okay. >> All right. That's the motion on the table.
>> And requiring the parking in the garage for this project >> because there's no parking. >> All right. >> Again, these are recommendations. Obviously, the commission will take them up and make their decision. So, um,
Deborah, you got all those things? >> Yes. So, let me just repeat them back. Um, to include design, uh, guidelines for projects that take advantage of these incentives. Um, for the commission to further consider waving the mobility fees, whether or not the entire mobility
fee or a portion should be waved. Um, to allocate a location for pickup and drop off, and to require parking for the project within the existing garage. to consider that for future projects as well. >> And for future projects.
>> Okay. Second. >> Okay. Elizabeth seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Okay. >> We we did both together, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Perfect. All right. Thanks, N. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you.
>> All right. We're adjourned until January. >> Wow. >> Happy holidays, everyone. Enjoy. Happy holidays.