Hey, D down. Down. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Yeah. Yeah. down.
Yeah. Heat. Heat. Are you baby? Make baby Baby, baby, baby. Hey. Hey. Hey.
Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1.
>> Okay. Good morning everybody. Sorry for the delay. We were waiting for Nick, but we're going to go ahead and start. Uh welcome to the February I'm sorry, April 7th planning board meeting. Um, want to start with a a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting. If I can
get a motion. >> Motion to approve. Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? I. >> Anyone opposed? No. >> Okay. Mr. City attorney. >> Thank you. Good morning. Today's meeting of the planning board is being conducted in a hybrid format with a quorum of the board physically present in the
commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicant, staff, and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. Those wishing to participate in today's meeting via Zoom may dial 877-853-5257 which is the toll-free number and enter
the webinar ID which is 861-4342 6327 pound or log in to the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 861-4342-6327. Individuals wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if using
the Zoom app or dial star9 if participating by phone. Before I swear and those who are testifying, I'm going to read into the record the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration. If you are appearing on behalf of a business, corporation, or another person, including as an architect, attorney, or representative of an
applicant or an objector, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office before you speak to the board. You do not have to register if you are speaking only on behalf of yourself. You are testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in
this public meeting. Or you are appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support for or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing
disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principle on whose behalf they are communicating. These rules apply whether you are appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. I will now swear on everyone who is physically present in
the commission chambers and intends to testify. Virtual speakers will need to be sworn in one by one before addressing the board. So, if you will be testifying, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will be giving is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. We now have a full board. Uh we're going to proceed with the first item on the agenda, which is progress reports for planning board file 220495, uh the Shelborne Hotel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a standard progress report as required by the CUP. Um the CUP for the Shelborne Hotel was originally approved in 2005. In 2022, the board approved modifications to the CUP as part of the renovation and
restoration of the hotel, which reopened late last year. The applicant is before the board for a progress report. There have been no warnings or violations issued to the property since reopening, and staff recommends the board hear from the applicant and the public and conclude the report. Thank you.
>> That's what we like to hear. Counselor, >> good morning. Nicholas Rodriguez on behalf of the Shelbourne Hotel. Uh so as Jake mentioned, they did open at the end of last year around October. Uh we've had no violations, no issues. Uh they are proceeding in accordance with their
CUP and their operations plan. Their valet has been working as intended. Um pretty low utilization rate there. Uh and they're, if you haven't been there, uh the new lobby bar is really beautiful. They restored the original Morris Lapidus design to the lobby. And they actually have entertainment in the
lobby. That's what this board approved for them. something different uh than what they actually previously had and that entertainment in the lobby has gone really well. Uh we have a residential building across the street, but the the ingenious solution was providing a noise limiter in the portair. So they're they
did their sound testing with Debbie and Michael Belalouch and we've had no issues with sound escaping that lobby bar even though they are having events with entertainment pretty frequently. So I think we're proud of the work that they're doing at the Shelborne. We hope they can keep it up. Uh but they you know so far so good and we intend to
keep it that way. So >> okay is anybody in chambers here to speak on this item? Anybody on Zoom? >> Okay. Close the public hearing. Any questions from the board or somebody want to move it? >> I'll move it. >> Okay. >> Second. >> So you're moving to close it out.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? >> Just shows we can have entertainment and yet have quality of life. That's a good mix. >> I wanted to mention it precisely for that. There is entertainment that works in some places. Thank you.
>> Okay. The next is a second progress report planning board file 180251500 Alton Road. >> Um thank you Mr. Chair. So this um is for the uh residential building located
at um on Alton Road and Fifth Street. Um there were some recent discussions regarding um some issues that the property has had with their loading. The property is governed by a cup. It received in 2019 from this board um for
a neighborhood impact structure. So, it doesn't have entertainment. It's not a nightclub. However, because of the size of the of the project, it did receive a neighborhood impact structure cup. Um within that cup, which we had passed out to you, there are several conditions
that govern loading. The loading can take place um through the loading dock off off of Alton Road or on the Sixth Street easement area. So, they have those two locations that are rather specific in terms of the hours. Um there are conditions and I think this goes
without being said that they're not allowed to impede uh traffic in the right of way or or impede the right of way whatsoever. Um there have been a few since um I think it was since uh September of last year a few parking
violations that were issued. This recently came to the planning department's attention. Um we had reached out to the property owners as well as the management who's here today to to address you um to try and figure out a way to make sure that this doesn't
happen again. Um, I know the parking department has also been on site with the general manager of the property who um is is working with them to figure out the best way to take all of the allowed loading and get it into the private
property and not in the right of way. Um, so I think if the if they're building would like to address the board that >> the citations are for obstructing >> which >> uh for Alton. So there's a there's a striped area as you approach the
building from the south um that is really for an emergency vehicle only um portion of the right of way. And what um these I believe most of the violations were for the um for parking large loading trucks in that area
>> there and then a parking either correct police officer or someone in parking department saw it and gave a citation. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> This is part of the the uh park. Sorry. >> Okay. >> Morning the board. Uh Hector Mel with terror group uh representing TCH500
Alton the developer. I'm with uh Marvin Palasios who's the operations manager for KW for bike park and then Christina Kamargo which is the general manager and I think we can talk about specifics. >> So when you say general manager, general manager of what? >> Of park building. >> The whole building. Yes. >> Okay. I didn't know they had general
managers. Okay. >> Yes, they do. >> Go ahead. >> Excuse me. >> Pleasure to meet you and thank you for having us today. Uh before we go with our progress report, if you don't mind if we can pass it around. >> Sure. for you to has some illustrations for you to take a look. We just first of
all wanted to apologize to you and to the community for any inconveniences that overloading dog operations have caused and at the same time thank you and all the colleagues from the city of Miami Beach for all the support that you guys have given us in understanding the
issues at hand. Marvin who is our operations manager is going to be um walking you through this progress report. He has some illustrations that be very helpful to understand the situation at hand. So, you're going to have to excuse me. I got a little sick this weekend, so I
lost my voice. Just >> stay over there. Be careful. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. Sanitize everything around me after. But I think the biggest issues we had with the city was two things, right? having contractors parking on the striped right
away of Alton heading southbound to the causeway and contractors doing illegal maneuvering on Alton when they're trying to back into our receiving bay which on page three on page three of what he handed out you'll see the pictures of him specifically talking about
>> so these areas have been marked out obviously to kind of give that traffic out of the island a straight flush into a causeway since we you know, at 3:00, 3 to 5:30, that causeway gets packed with
vehicles leaving the island. Um, to maximize the space that we have in our receiving bay, we have removed almost everything entirely except the big bin that we have for construction debris. But in our receiving bay, as Terara
initially had given the city a promise was our receiving bay was going to be the maneuvering area for contractors. So they gave it enough space for a big truck 18 yards to go inside and reverse
into our bay areas and not have to do that on the street. So now that we've come up with a plan to kind of mitigate that traffic, we've removed a lot of things from our receiving base so that big trucks are comfortable enough to
enter inside our private property and not have to have any work or any onloading, offloading on Alton Road to, you know, make sure the traffic is it's as fluid as possible. So um in sorry excuse my voice
another three bays we have we have three bays to accommodate moveins and to accommodate deliveries for the building. We have started to make sure that we have enough space so everyone could back in and we are now checking in
contractors at a much broader space to allow trucks to come inside and just maneuver in our private property. I've not repeated that, but I want to make sure that you understand that before because of the volume that we had in our building opening up. A lot of trucks
were just outside standing. This is when the city got, I guess, the most alerts because we had two or three trucks parking outside and it really didn't help traffic when pedestrians are walking by, bicycles, people walking their dogs. So now
um we're monitoring with cameras on Alton Roads to make sure that anytime we see a truck pass by, we can send a security officer or our receiving agents to kind of tell the drivers, hey, you need to move over or you need to come inside the loading dock, one of the two.
Um the donor placement that we have inside our receiving bay to allow the third party waste management group to pick up our trash has been moved also so that they can accommodate themselves early enough in the morning with no
traffic is into our bay to be able to have the whole loading dock to themselves and take our trash. Um, we've contacted them also so that we can schedule for the future just a trash pickup before our receiving operations
even open, which will be sometime between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning. Um, since we open from 9 to 4:00. Um, and >> and the rules that we've enforced too is we make sure that every contractor beforehand with our admin when they're
scheduling contractors know to tell their drivers that there is no parking on the rightway of Alton and they must all come inside our loading dock to maneuver. Um and and I feel like that's pretty much been the plan that's been working now as there's much less traffic
that's being let in Alton and I'm sure I mean you can tell but I feel like after these this plan is put into place in the last month or so it's definitely allowed us to accommodate and be able to let our
residents know that there's obviously a magnifying glass on us for the mo most part and we're trying to do everything to accommodate their moveins and make sure that we comply with the city. >> Was it impacting the residents getting in the building? >> It was >> well the moveins. So there was a lot of
a lot of construction >> people moving into the new building. So I have a question. First of all, um I think it's really cool and nice that you did this kind of addressing each problem. I I like that. Um I notice, unless I'm not reading this properly, that you have four citations, but three
of them were on the same day at three different times. Uh, is was something going on on December 10th? Like >> I believe it's just since the season is back. We have a bunch of residents that were >> moving in and they're not aware of the
rules more or less. They're just like, >> "No, but it's just all three on one day. Is it just so it's a busy moving day?" It's just trucks that are kind of they don't have nowhere to park on Alton like as far as a fright zone >> because most of the load that they're
bringing is marble is drywall. It's it's very heavy material. So for >> No, I get that. I I just thought >> to be able to park few blocks away and I guess maneuver everything to our loading dock. That's where the mission begins. So, >> right. Let me ask you this. You're the manager. Have a majority of people moved
in now. is that is the is the bulk of the >> payment, but they also are remodeling units which is causing a lot of traffic with contractors and many times they show up unannounced. So now we implemented a rule where any truck contractor doesn't matter who it is if
you show up unannounced we're we're not going to allow you access to the building. So that's going to pretty much force them to move from the areas of non-restricted parking. and um residents, you know, have taken it as well as possible, but sometimes, of course, they put a lot of pressure on
management to allow their, >> you know, what was your name again? >> I'm sorry. >> What's your name again? >> Christina. >> Christina. Um, I also noticed that there's been nothing since December. So, I'm assuming this plan went into place a few months ago or a couple months ago. >> A month ago. Yes. Since we started
receiving the violations, we implemented the plan. >> Okay. Um, can I get can you post signs on the street? We need to do something about that because this there's I don't >> there are two signs that say that say no parking um I don't think they're very
visible. So, one of our request to the city if you see on page four No, I'm so sorry. My apologies. I see ballard signs, but I don't see >> but I don't see anything that says, >> you know, no, >> there's actually there are two
>> there are two signs >> before and after the entrance. There's no parking signs. They're small. >> Um uh and then she one of what we're requesting here is these ballers. You can see on page three. These ballards are are the the flexible ballards is to put that on the hatched area so nobody can park there. But but can you I mean
one suggestion is having a you know five park sign that sticking to the grass that says >> if you park here you will be ticketed and towed by the city you know I just like it and then I imagine less people. We also I'm sorry to cut you guys off, but we also since these kind of ballers
are called delineators, we wanted to see if >> if it would make sense to you guys if we had some that kind of are not so such a Yeah, >> like a bright orange reflective maybe like perhaps a white like the ones we
have. And that way we can kind of put those there and they're easily you can run over them. So if the city has an emergency like a fire rescue or police officers, they can more than happy go over them and it's not really >> I think that sounds great with us but it's not really within our purview.
That's something you have to work with the city the parking authority and the city but we're that be sounds great to me but work with work with them but and we appreciate you making all these efforts and taking it seriously. That's what we want to see. We have cones that we've used to put in those areas that
has absolutely helped us especially in times where it was busy during like the holidays cuz that's when everyone is here. Um so but in those times when it was closing then it's almost like the battle begins again. We always have to gear up and make sure our cones are
outside and make sure they don't get stolen. Some some things just I don't know they went missing sometimes too. I feel like people might have ran over them and just taken them with them across the bridge. But at least with the delineators, they're voted on and they're not something that you can just >> remove easily. Yeah.
>> Hold on one second. Anybody here in chambers to speak on this? >> Nobody anybody on Zoom or we're close to public hearing. Um >> I just have one thing. I drive past the building every morning, so I uh I understand and appreciate your challenges. Um quite often I'll see that
a lot of the workers that are going into the building are queuing and lining up on Alton. So I guess have these plans been put into place to try and alleviate that as well? Does that incorporate that issue? >> Absolutely. >> A lot of times I'll see the trucks are trying to navigate around the workers
that are kind of stationed on Alden. So how does that work? >> So in the past, right, especially when season started, we started opening up our receiving check-in workers about a half an hour earlier. Mhm. >> So if our receiving opened at 9:00 and
we had a queue of people lining up already outside, we would just open up the gate and start checking everybody in. So our elevator operator would arrive at 8:45. So from about 8:20 to 8:45, we're just checking in contractors and making sure that everyone's at least
in our loading bay and not queuing outside, you know, creating a line on the sidewalk. >> But um I think for the most part, folks, the worst is done. The first year maybe 2024 to 2025 was absolutely hectic. It was
>> it was almost impossible to make any of this a reality. But 2025 to 2026 is definitely changed and it'll be a lot more easier as time goes by. >> Yes. The first year we have also the developers still doing construction in the building. We were checking in close
to 250 to 300 um contractors a day. Right now we're down to 100. So it's way more manageable. So, why are you not loading on Sixth Street to take away from Alton Road >> and posting signs there also? >> Okay.
>> I mean, we just need >> Yeah. I mean, Sixth Street is the primary >> Sixth Street is the primary entrance to is the primary entrance to the building. So, blocking that off would just impede the residents from entering the building. If I if I could just clarify. So the plans that were approved for this
include two loading spaces, two regulation size loading spaces along Sixth Street. From my what I have observed, there are currently no signage on those loading spaces that those are even actually loading spaces. So I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but there
were conditions in your cup that were specific to commercial loading on Sixth Street that it should be taking place there. So I think it might also be a good idea to have signage that indicates those two lo loading spaces and allowing you know the overflow or the commercial
deliveries um to to load from six the sixth street easement. >> I mean Alton is just >> and normally you guys have a recommend I'm assuming the recommendation is to reschedu just to make sure everything's okay. >> Yeah, I think we give them a little bit of time uh to implement. It's a large
building. there's a lot of residents so that all of the residents are also aware um of the rules and maybe bring them back either at the June or July meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Listen, I appreciate your efforts. It is, you know, it's a big building. A lot of people moving in the last couple
years. A lot of my friends are moving in there. >> Appreciate the efforts to remedy it. But yeah, because and I'm really happy to see there's been no violations the last four months, but just to be safe, we'll reschedule for six months. And you know, if we can, if there are no violations
between now and then, I don't even care if you cancel that hearing if that's a possible mechanism. But if there are, obviously, we'd want to have them come back. >> And I and that that's fine. We can uh tentatively schedule another progress report for October
>> of of this year. And if there are no violations, um, we can >> there's no violations, we can just cancel it. >> Yes. >> I appreciate it. >> Is that okay with everybody? Anybody? >> Absolutely. >> All right, Christina. Guys, thank you for your time. I need a motion to move it to October. So moved.
>> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Okay. Okay. Item four, planning board file 240731 and uh planning board file 25737, companion amendments, Lincoln Road West residential use incentives and
comprehensive plan amendment. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so these are two companion items. One is for a amendment to the land development regulations and the other to the comp plan. This is specific for residential
use incentives. So, this would be for to encourage non-transient uh residential use along this uh commercial corridor. Um, if we could in communications, if you could pull up the presentation from March 10th um that
would be helpful so I can summarize um what the actual incentives are um per area because there are four different areas which can get confusing. Um the in order to take advantage of these res
non-transient residential use incentives, um this ordinance would require a restricted covenant that would limit um or prohibit any short-term rental um of any of the new residential
units. Um you would also be required to provide a minimum uh micromobility uh area within the property. um that is to encourage non-car non-truck
um travel um amongst the residents. The the part of the intent here is because we all know uh you know traffic is a real challenge in this city is to how do we add more residential units while not add more to the uh parking congestion
within the city. So um we would require as part of this a substantial uh microobility component which would include um private area microobility for actual residents of the building but also a public microobility station uh
located at the at the ground level um to to increase the network that we already have within the city which is quite successful. So if you look at the map um I think that's the easiest way to understand this. Um we have area 1 which
1 A and 1B. 1A is uh fronting 17th Street to Lincoln Lane North. Um this particular area is the highest zoned area of all of these um locations.
Um and we are recommending an increase in height in this particular um area to 150 ft. We're increasing uh the F in this particular area um to a
3.5. So this would be the most intense area. Um area one 1B along Alton Road to uh West Avenue is substantially similar in terms of the incentives um that are provided. Again, this is
Alton Road is a major uh commercial corridor. When we go to areas two and three, we actually have a a shift in character because this is part of the historic district. This is our our historic Lincoln Road corridor and the
character, you know, changes quite dramatically. So, area two, which abuts uh Lincoln Lane North, um this is all, you know, commercial area, area one and two. Um but yet there's some sensitivity
to area 2 because we are dealing with um predominantly contributing buildings. Um so we are recommending a slight transition in terms of the reduction of the incentives from a 2.5 F which is um existing to a 3.0. So instead of a 3.5
we're stepping down to a 3.0 and then a maximum height in this particular area of 100 ft. That would also include uh setbacks uh required setbacks of any portion of the building over 50 ft from both Lincoln Road and the side streets.
When we move further south to area 3, this is where it gets even more sensitive um primarily because it's uh immediately adjacent to Lincoln Lane South. Lincoln Lane South is adjacent to a very lowcale residential neighborhood which is also
part of the Flamingo Park Historic District. Um the this Flamingo Park residential area has a maximum F of 1.25 and a maximum height of 35 feet. So one of the least intense uh districts in the
entire city. So on on area 3, we're recommending a maximum incentive F of A2.75 and a maximum height of 75 ft. again including setbacks um from both Lincoln
Road, the side streets and Lincoln Lane South um to to further protect um the lower scale district. Um, so that's a basic summary. Um, and I know we talked about this before, but um, we would have
either restrict like extremely reduced parking requirements or a a prohibition on providing parking. Um, depending if if you were taking advantage of both the F and the the height, there would be a
prohibition on providing parking for these units with the exception of allowing loading spaces. You know, we just had that conversation and employee type um spaces that were equivalent to what the required loading spaces would be. So there would still be an
opportunity to provide um certain uh operational type parking um but it would not be for the residential units. Um so in summary that is the ordinance. There's there's probably other things and you may want to ask a question or two about that.
>> With the microobility uh minimum and the uh parking restrictions, has anything changed since our last meeting? Have we made any modifications? >> Yes. So, and I think um with the microobility component um what we have clarified in the
ordinance is that while there's a certain percentage of the ground floor in terms of the area that's required for the microobility component, it doesn't have to be located at the ground floor. So, we've clarified in the ordinance that while there would be a minimum square footage that that square footage
can be distributed within other common areas of the property. So, we don't want those microobility stations within private units, but they could be in other common areas in the uh residential portion of the of the building. So, it could be, you know, per floor. You could
have these these spaces. We're also open to the idea, and I have spoken with the with Commissioner Suarez, the item sponsor. We're also open to the idea um of capping the square footage. So right now I think we have um up to 40% of the
ground floor would be required. Now in a very large project which some of these may be I mean you could be talking about 10,000 square ft. >> That's too much >> which which is likely too much. And another note on that is because we're also exempting these microobility
facilities from F. You know I think it's more reasonable and um measured to have a cap on that. And looking at at this, I think it would be um probably most equitable to assign a square footage per
residential unit. So if you have 100 residential units, you know, it would be a sliding scale. I would recommend a up to a maximum of 10 square feet per residential unit because that's enough to have um you know maybe two um ebikes,
maybe a scooter and two ebikes in terms of the storage area. Um again these would not be allowed in private residential units for the reduction of F. They would have to be in common areas. Um but I think capping it also makes sense particularly for for a large
project. Um in terms of the parking, the parking has not been amended. Um we are currently uh the ordinance currently allows for up to 20% of the required parking to be provided for the
additional F. However, if you are going to take advantage of the additional height, it would prohibit any parking. Um, that is something we did have our community meeting. >> Any parking whatsoever? >> Any parking with the exception of a loading, >> right? But no residential parking.
>> Is this for one B. >> This is all of the areas correct. >> That's insane. >> So, so hold on one at a time. >> Okay. So they came and and and the developer for 1B said he needed 100%.
Now you're saying at 150 he has 0%. Who could build that? Who would build that? >> Right. >> And I and I think you know some of this these comments also came up during the community meeting that we had. I think and I I have the sponsor has reached out
to me to to discuss maybe further developing some of this. The goal of this and I think this is this is the challenge. The goal of this is to re have a have a housing stock that is different from what we have now. So
right now we have ultra luxury and and you know we know we're seeing more and more of that. That is currently the trend and we have you know maybe less than than ideal historic buildings that are not being properly maintained
without parking. So the idea is to increase the housing stock for for units that maintain some level of affordability. Um, one way to do that is to not provide parking because the more
the more amenities including parking you you include for a unit, the more the rent is going to be. Um so the I the the intent which maybe we need further development on was to produce a product that would be
naturally reasonably affordable rent. And one way to do that is to limit the amount of square footage. It's to limit the parking that will naturally keep the rents from skyrocketing like >> micromobility. And I'm not going to get
into a big discussion because this isn't a a community setting, but a reasonable transfer of trying to lower the traffic might be to still expect people to use their car. They have to get to Bickl. You want everyone to Uber, but if I want
to go a mile down the road, I might use an ebike. So, I'm lessening the use of my car, but I still need a car. I can't imagine somebody you're going to have a 100 plus units where everybody is a bike rider. What's I don't know if that works
in in Oregon, let alone Miami Beach. What is that? >> To add on to Keith, it's not like the city is making some great changes in increasing public transportation. At the same time, there's not this, you know, double down effort into to encouraging this. So, I think we're forcing something that it's going to end up failing.
>> You know, we're getting into it. Wait, hold on. We're getting into the merits. Are you finished with the presentation? >> Um, yes, unless you have any questions. Um, >> well, I want to Is there anyone speaking on this? And yeah, let's let's do the hearing and then we can ask all the questions we want.
>> And I just I do just want to clarify one thing about the parking. So, area 1B um is would allow up to 20% of the allowable parking >> at 150 ft. If >> the other all the three other areas
would prohibit parking for if you wanted to achieve the maximum height. >> Okay. >> The 20% is across the board across all four of these areas as long as you stay within the current allowable height. You could
still increase the square footage the F. But it's still showing that the micromobility station is is constitute no less than or if not less than 40% of the ground floor. >> Correct. Now the or right the ordinance has been amended the the current
ordinance that you have to clarify that that could be distributed throughout the property. However, we have not included a cap and I think that's something that that the sponsor and staff would support the introduction of a square footage cap on the micromobility component so it
doesn't become excessive. >> I don't think it needs to be on the ground floor. >> I mean, >> correct. And we've clarified that already. >> Valuable. >> We've clarified that it does not have to be on the ground floor. That wouldn't prohibit, you know, like the Deco bikes or the public microobility stations from being placed.
>> Let's hear from him and then we'll go forward. Hi, David Berg. Thank you for uh having me on behalf of Alton Ventures. We uh are one of the properties in area 1B. So, uh as mentioned in the last hearing, we have three uh friendly amendments to this that I think are really important for at
least our project to have the possibility being built under this legislation. And I think it's important to note that, and you'll you'll hear later in the day, we're going to present an an actual project that f that hits a lot of these uh hits a lot of of the points in this legislation. So, as
opposed to being um an in theory legislative bill, we'll actually show you with an actual project how this applies. We did send around a presentation ahead of the meeting. Um if if it can be pulled up by chance, it's the it's titled Lincoln Rose West legislation.
Just be easier if everyone can view the three major points that we have. >> One moment, please. And David, just to be clear, just for the benefit of the board and the public, th this item is the broader area for the entire length of Lincoln Lincoln
corridor. >> There will be a separate pair of items later on the >> private application. >> Thank you. >> So, um you can slip to the next slide. So, so our three proposed amendments are the following. We'll summarize them on the first slide and then uh we'll go
into detail on on each one. Um the first one is we think that there that the pro it is a residential incentive and we believe that 60% of this of the gross square footage of the building should be residential. With that said, currently the legislation doesn't allow for any commercial use above the ground floor.
And this legislation is proposed to be on Lincoln Road and Alton Road, which are, you know, two of the heavily most commercial corridors in probably South Florida. Um, and so as a result, the character of the neighborhood is commercial use on the ground floor and you know, second and third floors right
now. So I think that going for a, you know, what you'd see more of like a garden style or suburban type of residential building here in this commercial corridor isn't appropriate with the character of the neighborhood and it should be more of a mixeduse concept. This mixeduse concept would also deliver a live, work and play
ecosystem where people can live here, work here, um, shop here and as opposed to getting in their car and driving to their their where they commute for work. They can hopefully have a place an office space in this location and we can we can deliver office space and retail to the residents of the neighborhood. So
again, there's more foot traffic than vehicular traffic. By doing just residential, you're inviting people to leave every morning and come back at rush hour. Um, the second reason I think this is important is that because these are commercial corridors, people aren't going to want to live on the second and
third floor. I can't imagine anyone in this room wanting to live on the second floor of Alton Road or the third floor of Alton Road or Lincoln Road for that matter. Um, and so it's not going to be as attractive from a residential standpoint as if those uh areas could could be commercial. Um so we think that
the 60% you know really makes it a majority residential which is the in which is the intention but it keeps more in line with the character of the neighborhood. Um the oh another very important point on that is that the you're talking about the highest rent areas of the city in terms of Lincoln
Road and and Alton for commercial. And so if you're trying to deliver attainable rents on the residential component the commercial rents will offset that greatly by having that commercial space. So just for perspective, um if residential rent is $4 per square foot on a gross level,
you're going to ultimately net call it 30 bucks a foot on that. Whereas the retail and commercial rents could be $100 a foot triple net. So it's a bas basically a you know probably $80 to $90 spread on the rent levels which help you deliver cheaper apartment units versus
if you're strictly apartment units then um you won't have that offsetting income by the commercial space. on the microbility. I think uh as Debbie mentioned, if there's a cap at at maybe 10 square ft per unit or maybe it's 3,000 ft or 4,000 ft or 2,000 ft for the
entire building, I think that captures it. In our project, it would have been 14,000 square ft at the 40% level, which for perspective is about 50 parking spaces. It's about an entire floor parking garage for micromobility. Um, so I think as long as we're capping it at, you know, a few thousand square feet or
10 square feet per unit, it's it's fine. Um, and having it be both, you know, throughout scattered throughout the building in the parking garage and the ground floor is I think very important. Can't it can't be on the ground floor because again, the ground floor needs to create a neighborhood and you need commercial space to do so. Um, the last
thing is the parking and so we can we can skip to that slide. So let's >> David, a quick question. Was this shared with the city before today? How about how about Mr. Sores? >> Uh we've had detailed conversations with the commissioner and as of last week, my impression is that he's supportive of
cap microbility supportive of the residential uh commercial square footage. Um and our our proposal is to want a one to one parking ratio. So one spot for every unit. His position in my opin from what he sp told me is that he doesn't want studios to have any
parking. He would like a a parking ratio for one bedrooms, which I'm not sure if it's he landed on half a space or one space. And he's okay to have two spaces for anything greater than two bedrooms. I think what he's concerned about, which I agree with, is that if you build an entire building full of studios, you could have, you know, 100 studios and
100 parking spaces, which doesn't make any sense. I think that if you build two bedrooms, one bedrooms and studios, and you have one space per unit, you know, by by math, you'll have studios with no parking spaces, two bedrooms with two, one with maybe half or one and a half,
depending on, you know, the unit size, and you'll end up blending to that ratio. Um, I think it's it's challenging to to to build a onebedroom and not have a single parking space for that because a family of two cars may only have, you know, may have zero zero spaces. I'm assuming there'd be some flexibility that there's a twobedroom or
threebedroom unit that has an extra parking spot to lease a two studio. >> Correct. Right. Correct. And so, um, I I do think it makes sense to have some sort of, you know, limitation onu a studio only or a very efficient one-bedroom only building. But if you have a healthy unit mix, I think you need a 1 to1 ratio.
>> So, you've got a concept plan, but um, how big are your units going to be? >> We're estimating around 850 ft on average. So we want to have you know three bedrooms that are going to be and again these are round numbers but 1,200 f feet one two bedrooms that are maybe
1100 feet or 1,000 one bedrooms that'll be 750 to 800 ft² and then some studios at like 600 ft². So we want to have you know ideally 20% studios 20% three bedrooms and you know balance ones and twos. That's a pretty vanilla apartment building. >> Okay.
>> Um so you can go to the next slide. You can actually you can actually skip to you can actually skip to uh you can skip that. This is just the the ground. This is example you'll see this later in our presentation but this is example of our project of hitting the 60% threshold
and allowing a true mixeduse ecosystem building. So second floor would be would be retail. We have a we have a 350 foot long spit project. So it's a little bit unique. So, we would want to do office um on a on a boutique level on the north side of our building and then re
residential the balance. But as you can see, it's easily over twothirds of the square footage. >> What's the total square footage of the office? >> The total square foot of the office would be 43,000 square feet in our project. >> And your retail? >> Retail about 42,000.
>> They're not going to be narrow depths. No, the idea is to create I mean this gets into our project a little bit, but you know the idea is to create 3,000 4,000 foot spaces for office users so that it's like boutique. I think that's what's going to appeal to the Miami Beach resident and we want we want office space for Miami Beach residents
because we want them to to live, work and play here and not commute across the causeway. So if we have a 20,000 foot like pancake floor plate kind of like what you're seeing on the second floor there that's retail, you know what it what it yields is basically like 20 doors. is like a Mount Si corridor and it's much less attractive for companies
to want to to work here. So, they're going to go somewhere else. So, we think by having, you know, a more boutique for plate with maybe three or four tenants, it's much more inviting for the small user. >> Will will the offices be limited to the residents only or anyone?
>> The res I mean it won't be, but it'll be targeting incentives to >> Yeah. Hopefully, people in our building will work there. That's our goal. I mean, if we can create that ecosystem, that would be that's that's hitting everything we want to try to do. >> Cool. >> Um, next slide, please. This is just an
we we spoke about microobility. I don't want to touch on it too much, but as you can see on the right, this is what's currently proposed and basically 14,000 square feet will be for me micromobility in our project, which is I think too much. I think that curb cut I think that F dot
has a 12 to 17 foot limit. I'm not sure, but 20 ft is pretty wide. Um okay. Okay. Yeah, we're I mean we'll have to address that with them. This this this
was really just to show the you know the impact of microobility on being on the ground floor. Um the next slide is the important one I think related to the parking. So what's proposed here currently for this is an example of our project you'd have.3 spaces for every
unit. Um so it's not even one space for every three units. We're looking for one space per unit and then keeping the, you know, the tier one levels for retail and office, which is basically one space for every 250t of retail and one space for
every uh I can't see 400 ft of office. Um, it's important to note that I spoke to uh the parking department. Over 2,000 Miami Beach parking transactions a month have been lost in this neighborhood. And I don't have the exact number, but from speaking to residents of West Avenue, I
think over 300 parking spaces have been lost in West Avenue. Over twothirds approximately of the lot behind the Epicure site that's the public parking is being lost approximately due to the uh the pump stations. So there's a lot less parking in this neighborhood and uh
we think it's important that this neighborhood, you know, develops parking for the for the uses. >> Thank you. >> So quick question so I'm make sure I understand. What is the interplay between this LDR and comprehens and the one you have coming up in the private application?
>> Our private application is for an alternate overlay district which is a separate uh you know reszoning for for a block of real estate um includes like maybe five six parcels. This is a much more grand uh neighborhood uh urban planning.
>> So it's not an and it's not an either or. It's an and. >> It's they're both ants. Yes. Yes. because they're both to completely separate legislations. >> Okay. Anybody in chambers to speak on this item, sir? >> Yes. I'm on last.
>> Hold on. You had to introduce yourself and your address. >> Many last. I'm a board member of West Bay Plaza condominium 1688 West Avenue. His presentation was very presentable. The reality it doesn't work that work. Have you seen the traffic between
Lincoln Road and 17th Street? they back up. There's so much traffic that they backing at 17th Street. So, you can even go left and 17th Street because the cars are backing 17th Street because of the amount of traffic between Lincoln Road and 17th Street. So, this
creation is going to bring more traffic to our neighborhood. So, very pretty, but it's not realistic. Be there. Go there 5:00. You're going to see what we're going through every especially now with West Bay Pl
is closed. Go there and you're going to see the traffic amount of traffic that every day anytime between Lincoln Road and 17th Street to back up the traffic is blocking 17th Street. We're going to bring what 40 how many more parking space? 100 more parking
space. >> We would bring spaces for for residents and the use. >> So we're talking how many more Yeah. How many more? >> How many? >> Depends on. >> Sir, these are your two minutes to address the board. If you have any questions, you can raise them to the board.
>> Okay. So, how many parkings are we are creating more parking? This building is going to create parking space 100 20%. How much is that in my answer?
Is the entrance is going to be through uh Alton Road to the parking space? Anybody know what the entrance is going to be? >> The original plan was on the access was through West Avenue. Are we still doing the access through West Avenue? >> So, we haven't reviewed a project or a
site plan. That's not what we're what we're was before us today. >> That's for another day. As far as the specifics >> and the space that we're going to be losing on the uh West Avenue, it's going to be 10 spaces. As soon as the project is over, they're going to bring back the
public parking space and they're only losing like 10 parking space from previous one. So, we're not losing that many in that area. >> Okay. Thank you for your >> Good morning everyone. Tim Cars, W
Neighborhood uh Association President. Uh just to clarify the the comments that you just recently heard, we have had multiple meetings with the developer for this site. And just to clarify, in reviewing the Rickman construction plans for our neighborhood through uh West
Phase 2, we're going to lose over 140 on street parking spots that are permanently gone due to the new regulations and setbacks for entry to different properties. With West Hab phase 3, another 77 more. David has actually offered to to our residents to
help meet that critical need for parking in evening and overnight for our residents. So, we're in desperate need now that we're parking that's going to be eliminated that will never have anymore. And as he had referenced earlier, the uh parking lot for the post office due to the pump station. Again,
we lost another more than a third of parking there. So again, I appreciate the traffic concerns, but again, we are going to continue to have smart development in our neighborhood. And we're going to have two access points, one off of West AB and one off of Alton Road. So I'd ask you please keep that in
your consideration because again, we are looking for solutions and so far he's the only person who's come up to date to help us fill that need. Thank you. >> So So you're supportive. Supportive. >> Yes. And Tim, can I ask you a question in response to his uh and I don't live in that area, but isn't the big issue
right now transient that the problem in that whole zone around 17th is the pump station work and all the extension south on Lincoln. They're tearing up everything and just trying to navigate that area is a nightmare. That's not a long-term problem. It wasn't a problem
when Epicure was there. It's a problem now, >> right? Right. And we shouldn't be shortsighted based on current events. >> Exactly. And then when they put it back though again, we were going to lose over 140 spots in that immediate area permanently. Thank you. >> So also would these spots I guess be
available for other residents along West Avenue or is it just for the residents and retail specific to this project? >> No. So again, he's developing for residents, but again, a lot of that commercial space won't be there in the evening because they're gone. So that'll
be opportunity for our residents to use which they desperately need for people when they come home from work to have an option. >> So the idea is to have the parking available to the surrounding residents. >> Right. >> So um well first of all Tim congratulations on your race last week.
I saw I saw you did well. >> I had a little help with another commissioner former commissioner. >> I saw that um he raced with Grio last week. Um, but on Keith's point, I live in the Venetian and it's there a nightmare right now, the traffic and it's backed up and there's no no flow of it and so
but it's been, you know, definitely uh linked to all the the work that they're doing there and it's never been a perfect perfect um crossing there. There's always been a little bit of backout during traffic hour, but um but no matter what we put there, there's going to be increased traffic. I mean some point and we had Epicure and we had
the hardware store at the time which was bringing customers in anyways. So, um, and I sympathize with you guys because what happens is a lot of time there's some retail areas that we end up avoiding, you know, instead of retailers suffer just because we can't find parking lot. And I and I'm I'm big on
micro. I walk, I bike, I ride a scooter, but I still end up using my car to go to some of these places. And some places I avoid because I can't find parking space. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, Tim. >> All right. Thank you for your consideration. >> Anybody else in chambers? N
>> just curious. Is there anyone on Zoom? There is. Okay, >> good morning chair, members of the board, Niss and Cass and Acreman. I represent Alton Ventures, David Berg, and I just wanted to make a brief comment about what this is really trying to
achieve because right now the people who work on the beach don't live on the beach. There aren't places for them to live. And people who live on the beach don't work on the beach. That's what's creating the traffic. And so what we're trying to do, the city's trying to do
with residential and office development is create an ecosystem where you a certain number of people can actually live and work in close proximity to each other. And that's why David's plan for his site actually accomplishes all that.
It has a small boutique office component. It has residential. It has retail which will be largely uh resident oriented as we will point out in our a presentation later on his specific application. You see this happening in neighborhoods around this community and
in fact the world. For instance, Coconut Grove, they have office, they have residential and they have all the amenities of life, markets, restaurants, etc. People are centering their lives around nodes. It's beginning to happen even in South Point with residential and
some nice office that's going in there. This is what we want to encourage in the city is that mix so that a certain number of people, a good number of people will not have to commute back and forth across the bay to get their jobs
or to their residences. Thank you. >> Anybody else in chambers? Ma'am, >> good morning. Uh, my name is Elizabeth Linker. I'm a resident um since 2013. So, I >> Elizabeth, can you give your address, please? >> Oh, yes. 1688 West Avenue. So, I'm live
on the block that's of the proposed project. Um, I'm opposed to this project moving forward as it is proposed. Um, mostly around the far limits and the height of the building. I think that it's such a substantial change to the
fabric of the block and the neighborhood that will cause increased traffic. I actually have been a resident since before the current um construction that's in the area. So, I do disagree with the notion that most of the issues around traffic um on the Venetian are
transient due to the road works that have been happening over the past few years. It was actually a nightmare before as well. So, I think that we've seeing a lot of these projects that are really changing the fabric of our community. I think that the building's
way too tall. Um, I don't know. Clearly, this is your area of expertise, not mine, but I don't know what the area was previously zoned at, but I don't really understand why we would be making an exception for this developer to go above and actually create a 14story building in a block
that is generally around three stories. Um I just I I don't understand why that um how that helps the neighborhood, how that supports the community, and how that supports the residents. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else here? No. Okay.
Zoom. >> Yes. Our first speaker is Valerie Navaret. >> Good morning everyone. Uh thank you for your time. I am Valerie Navaret. I live in this neighborhood, Lincoln Road West,
for in November will be 20 years. Love the area. Um, uh, lately we already have a lot of trouble in our quality of life in the sense of getting in and out of our properties in certain times and the
need for parking. It's we are going to bleed. We are bleeding as it is and once the streets are raised that we are going to lose so much more parking in addition of what we lost already and I am in support of this project with as much
parking and extra that it could be given and I also support micromobility but we okay you know uh but um we have to be realistic and reasonable the
not long ago it took me 9 minutes to go one block during rush hour uh from 17 from 16 to Lincoln and that's because a lot of people not only are driving to their destination but are looking for
parking the people that will move in as a realtor and I can tell uh for 26 years the people that will move into this building they will not stop moving in with their cars they will come with their cars some of them and some not.
So, parking is absolutely necessary. Once they bring their cars, they think they will be able to park on the streets, but there will be no parking because as it is, we already don't have any parking. So, please, we are bleeding and we don't want to bleed more. I am in
fully support of this project. It's a beautiful project and in addition they will be also um giving us the residents uh parking on off um hours once the the offices are closed. So this will benefit the neighborhood immensely. So I'm
begging you, we are bleeding. Don't let us bleed more. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Valerie. Okay. And >> next speaker is Johan Moore. Good morning. Uh Johan Moore, uh 717 Jefferson Avenue. I wanted to comment on
three things. Um parking, affordability, and unit size. Um I'll start with the end of that. Um this project is not in my neighborhood, so the comment is a general one. I live in a 555 square ft two-bedroom, two- bath
apartment. And one of the benefits is in fact all the walls because it makes for a lot of different rooms, a lot of different spaces and a lot of different possibilities for using that apartment. I am shocked that there is a suggestion that people would in fact want to live
in a 600 ft studio which by definition does not as a rule have a separate bedroom though it may have an al cove. Uh I really think that that is an inhuman uh uh floor plan uh that really limits
the possibilities for those smaller units that feeds into affordability. While these various items, these various proposals by the commissioner are absolutely in good faith and sincere in
their intentions. um affordability needs to be uh managed and determined and we understand that none of these proposed units are intended to be affordable in an AMI sense but that is precisely the
shortcoming of these proposals and the basis for a great deal of the skepticism. My final comment relates to I believe it is zone C which unfortunately due to an agreement made many years ago uh is excluded uh borders
an area that is excluded from Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association's uh uh delimitations. So FPNA I believe does not feel it appropriate to consider a motion uh related to that development.
But I will point out in light of the concerns about 1600 Washington that those people will not be allowed to park in our neighborhood. That would apply as well to zone C. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Johan.
>> Okay, our next speaker is Mark Wall. >> Good morning everyone. Uh my name is Mark Wall. uh owner, resident uh over 30 years at West Bay Plaza, 1688 West Avenue, where I've witnessed uh plenty of changes over the years, uh more so
for hotel commercial development. Um more so with uh new garages, in fact, um now I I can believe that there's probably more of a need for parking than ever before with the ongoing construction. But I can tell you as of
last night when I walked around I still saw plenty of open spaces in all the garages 111 1212. So if we can't fill those garages right now with supposedly all these demands and needs for parking what is to believe that we're going to
need more parking than what we already have. That's that's one concern I have. The size of the development definitely out of character out of scope. Um I think it's a terrible idea to exceed the the height and previous project um I
think did more to address the the the class A office space needs to bring in higher paying jobs and career opportunities. Um I think that those things are are serious issues that we can definitely continue on another conversation. But I think to put all the
eggs in one basket and think that this one project or this change in zoning uh for this particular project is a silver bullet and it's going to address traffic, parking, housing, you know, retail vacancies. I I think we're just fooling ourselves. We had that
opportunity in North Beach and and it was screwed up and it was a total land grab and we didn't learn anything. We didn't create any additional affordable housing or workforce housing and and that area and right now has less vacancies and less issues and yet we're
still trying to focus on a South Beach location that is a premium and and we couldn't get it right when we had the opportunity before. I think that and and I'll end it here that if we're going to try something, do it on a small scale. do it in a in a in a secondary
market or area, you know, not on ground zero Alton Road with all the, you know, traffic that we already have there. This is just a an experiment waiting to to fail and that's my opinion. Thank you. >> Okay. I don't see any other uh speakers.
>> Okay. Nobody else in chambers. Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Questions? Keith, you want to start? what what is in front of us? I I don't understand. >> Okay. And I think that's a great question. We do need to clarify. Um
what's before you currently is the overall Lincoln Road residential use incentives. That includes the four different distinct areas um that I had previously gone over. So this would be from Lincoln Lane South
>> and and so obviously a recommendation for or against It's a recommendation of the commission favorably or unfavorably and then we can make a second motion >> with suggested revisions. For instance, you know >> there
if we were to say for example unfavorable it would just be based on what's in front of us unmodified. For example, if I don't like the fact that it's 20% parking and and 50% and first
floor, I can we can you that's up or down and then we modif the the item sponsor is open to being somewhat flexible with with some of these issues um to to a degree. I think um as long as the the end product
achieves the goal of a significant increase in the housing stock affordability while not bringing cars more you know a tremendous amount of more cars into the city right that is what we want to try to avoid so I think um we've already
talked about the microobility I think some some flexibility of the um percentage of residential may be warranted particular particularly um along Lincoln Road when you're dealing with an existing contributing building perhaps
>> um because a lot of those existing buildings if they're being retained you know already have some office space on the second andor third floors um and I think finally the idea of um the parking you know could be
discussed I think our goal is to increase the housing without increasing the cars so I would just ask to for for the board members to keep that in mind. But perhaps is a a sliding scale for example when you do have a small studio
apartment um or a onebedroom maybe it is you don't pro you can't provide parking for the studios I mean I know maybe none no one sitting on this deis is is going to live in 500 square ft without a car but I do know people in their 20s 30s
and even into their early 40s that live that way. I certainly lived that way when I came out of grad school um for several years. So I think that that there may be an opportunity to have more diverse residential projects, studios
without parking, one bedrooms with a half a space of parking, perhaps two bedrooms, get into more expensive units, and those would be, you know, either the one and a half or two parking spaces for for the certain size unit. So, I think the the planning board can discuss all
of those as amendments to what's currently before you. And you know, staff what staff could do is we could go back and and uh discuss the specifics of that with the sponsor and perhaps bring something to the commission that has
some of those um changes incorporated. >> But is this coming back to us? >> This is the second hearing for the planning board. So, currently it is not scheduled to be brought back before you. But that, you know, if if the planning board wanted to see it come back, we we
could also do that. >> Yeah, this is primarily a recommendation to commission. >> Okay. But I mean, there's a ton of recommendations that we're doing off the top of our head. I if that's what chair and staff recommends, that's okay. But I
I find it kind of difficult on something this large. But I mean, just the things that you mentioned, are we going to just talk about that? That's fine. What?
Who's up to talk? Me? >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'll go. I I think that we're not New York City. I don't think that the concept of having a bunch of
500 or 400 ft² closets in a in an area where you can walk everywhere is practical in Miami Beach. I do understand the goal and I think that there needs to be a transition. Um, I
think that we can limit the the activity of cars, but eliminating cars, like someone else said, I think that was a caller, is is probably not realistic in Miami and
Miami Beach. People go places. And what you're really telling somebody is that if if I buy into this place and I have a one bed, let's not talk a studio. Maybe that's okay. But I have a one-bedroom and I have a car. I can't buy there
because I have no place to put my car. I can't rent there. And I like the fact that it has an office space. If you have micromobility and I have a car, then I don't have to take that car around the area.
I use it when I need it. When I go your distinction for business, you're not you're not you're saying not the car is the problem. It's the traffic. >> It's the traffic. >> Why are we picking on vehicles on a parked What harm does a parked car in a
garage have to the city? I I mean, when we we're looking at the wrong problem, the problem is traffic. And yes, micromobility can limit it if you make it available for those appropriate trips. But to tell somebody that, oh,
the government says you don't have we want we don't want to have cars in that area. I think that's to me from a a business perspective and and a a social perspective, it's it's nonsense. People use cars. We're not New
York City. And that's my biggest problem. And and unless we can solve that, I can't recommend this. So, >> well, you can recommend it with an amendment like >> Yes. Well, I I want to hear from others about that, but that is my that's my
block on this this thing. I like it. I I like the incentives. I like the work play. I like everything about it, but I think that the concept is is overly aggressive and missing the point of micro building. I think we need to
reduce traffic, not reduce physical cars. Uh if we have appropriate parking for cars because cars are used and the only alternative is Uber and that's going to cause traffic too. So what's the difference if I call an Uber? I have
my own car to go to Bickl or to go to North Beach. I'm not going to ebike to North Beach. >> Well, I'm I'm not going to ebike anywhere. >> You're not going to North Beach, >> you know. >> But it's it's Let's Let's get real. My
That's my comment. We We got to get serious. >> Thank you. >> Let me go, >> Scott. >> Um first a few general questions for all the districts. One, I don't see I see a minimum unit size, but not a maximum. I
think we we need to have a maximum unit size. Um we don't want to have two 3,000 square foot units because that um obviously uh um cancels out whatever we're trying to to accomplish here in terms of affordability.
Um second thing far as parking, I've always said that we have to have some parking. Um we we you just can't put 150 200 units there and no parking. you're going to have people that have cars and what that number is, I don't
know. We don't have to have a a spot for every unit. Maybe we talked about not um studios or whatever. I don't I don't know where that number is. I don't know where we where we we draw the line, but we have to have parking um for and it's
for all the districts, not just the one the one B, but I think in all of them. Um let's see now. Uh I guess a more specific questions on in for 1B I is there currently permitted short-term
rentals somewhere on that because I see that and I'm where is that? >> Yes, that that was a project that was approved um with hotel units or short-term rental units. So that is existing today and that would be um if the project moves forward that Mr. Ber
presented that would be part of the unified development site. So that that you know because it's an existing permitted use um that's been approved by all required agencies we would not require that to be vacated
>> but we couldn't just I mean say going forward any um in other words if they lost their their ETR um the way this is worded they could actually lose that do something else
there and then go back to short-term rental >> down the line. Why couldn't we just keep it as it's pro uh short-term rentals are are are not permitted there, but if they're grandfathered in, they can continue to exist as long as they they're active. >> You certainly could make that
recommendation. >> I think that would be the better way to go. >> Yeah. Um, next question I had was, okay, in area three, this is, um, uh, bordering the Flamingo Park neighborhood, you have a maximum height
of 75 ft. Um, but then when you talk about setbacks, you're talking about setting back just the portion above 50 feet. I think because this backs up into the Flamingo Park neighborhood, the the low scale neighbor, two and three story um
buildings, you know, I'm picturing what a building like that would look for look like. Normally, when we set back, it's above, you know, maybe the first two floors, everything set back. This seems like you're going to allow the maximum size there, but only set back maybe the top one or two floors. I would like to
see more of a maybe a above 35 feet two or three stories. It's set back the 20 feet on the south side and 50 ft on um on the Lincoln road side. >> And I think there's a HPB waiver if they wanted. >> Well, I mean if we we could put we could
put that in and then the HPB could you know if maybe it's they want to go up to 40 feet before it's set back on the south side. Um that's fine. Um, but I think it should I just, you know, when we talk about a building that's
again on the south side of Lincoln on this Lincoln Road, um, Lincoln Lane South, uh, fronting the the the lowcale neighborhood, you're talking about 50 feet there and then maybe going up more. I just think the setback should, how do
I phrase? Start lower at 35 ft. 30 35 ft. Um, I think it would blend in or or fit in better with the with the low-rise neighborhood, Flamingo Park neighborhood. Um, I just again, it's
it's it's almost like there's no when you talk about a 75 ft building, but just above 50 ft, that's when the setback is going to start for the for the it's it's not I don't know. I just I I can't envision that there. Um, and the
last thing I had was uh talking about setbacks in area 1B. I didn't see any mention of setbacks. I mean, I I unless I'm missing it somewhere in here, but what are what's being proposed as far as
setbacks in area 1B? >> Okay, I think I can I have got you had several questions in there. So, let me maybe go one by one. Um the first question was with regard to the maximum unit size. Scott, you are correct. The
current version of the ordinance does not have a maximum unit size. We originally when this was presented um to the land use committee had a maximum unit size of,200 square ft. At the discussion at land use, the members
voted to actually remove that maximum unit size. Uh we had a similar discussion about Washington Avenue and ultimately because Washington Avenue is a little bit further ahead in the process than this particular uh amendment is
the there was an agreement to roll back into Washington Avenue the the maximum unit size and that was determined to be 1300 square ft as a maximum. So, the planning board as part of this discussion could certainly recommend
that a maximum unit size be rolled back into um the the proposed language. Um the other question was about let me see the the height um on the Lincoln Lane South
side. So, that would be area three. The reason why we chose the 50 foot limit is because that is currently the allowable height that um that 50 foot which is currently allowed for a commercial building or a hotel building. This is a
CD3 zoning district um does not have required setbacks. So someone could build now a 50- foot tall building from you know all the property lines. So that's why, you know, in why staff chose anything above 50 ft to be set back
further, but certainly as part of the draft language because going up to 75 does have more of an impact. You could you could recommend >> if they take advantage of the additional height then we need to incorporate the the the setbacks. >> Correct. So, you could look at the 35-
ft height because that would match what's to the south of Lincoln Lane South, which is the RM1, which has a maximum height of 35. So, you could look at stepping back in above the 35 ft as a recommendation. And then, um you asked
about the setbacks for area 1B, and you're correct. We did not introduce um as part of our recommendation setbacks for either area 1A or 1B. We believe these are fronting on um larger
commercial corridors, Alton Road and 17th Street that may not have, you know, setbacks warranted because the scale is different. These are also two areas that are located outside of a historic district. So the >> no setbacks for those areas already, right? >> Um correct.
>> Why was that area included? >> Which road 1B Why Why is that included? that was that was part of an expanded area that was not part of the original and I think the intent was you know Mr. Berg approached the city he owns property uh property that's currently
vacant um and was interested in you know and being included for residential use incentives. The city is also very interested right because the goal is to increase reasonably affordable residential housing products while
limiting new cars coming to the city. So, we um you know did take a look at it with the with the item sponsor and our recommendations may not be identical to what Mr. Berg is is looking at doing, but I think certainly um you know the
board can make some recommendations. Staff can also um you know take a second look at it depending on the direction um of this you know of how this moves forward. >> Yep. So Scott, I believe I answered all of your questions.
>> Yeah. I just think I I I mean going back to, you know, you're proposing in 1A and 1B 150 ft. Normally whenever regardless of the situation, whenever staff has I mean proposed a height that they they've always seem to incorporate
uh some kind of setback. So that's that's why I brought that up. I I do think there should be some uh in in 1A and 1B. Okay, Jonathan. >> Um, yeah. So, I guess, you know, some of my concerns
surround the grouping of all of these together. Uh, one of, you know, one thing I think we've seen in the past, and maybe maybe I missed it here, but I would certainly like to see it is an understanding of how many of these properties are going to be take, you
know, how many properties could be taking advantage of it and what the the new landscape of the areas would look like. And I you know one of the things that it's it's hard to tell for us is you know the additions on time the rooftop additions can totally change the
dynamic here if >> more take advantage of it right so I don't know necess you know I I'm curious how many buildings which are now you know four stories could suddenly go up to 12 stories uh if they just re
redesigned their lobby uh you know and and put some microobility in there. Uh it could change the whole area. I mean to me the there are certain areas where I think that this would be, you know, it makes sense and increasing the height,
you know, makes sense. I'm in favor of increasing the height. I mean, I think it's it's it's just that something that's necessary as a city develops. the drastic increase of more than double for some of the zones to me is a bit uh
extreme and that's kind of why I'm concerned about grouping these all together when they all have different standards as well. But um you know the other thing you know I find it hard to find a middle
ground uh when we're talking about all these different zones and I you know anybody who knows me on this board knows that I try to find a balance between every you know between the different sides here and so I think you know what Mr. Ber is proposing is seems like a
great project. Seems like a great you know uh proposal for the city and and for the residents in the area. Uh the problem is is if you allow this you know with these you know
very high uh thresholds uh you know if Mr. Berg passes on ownership to somebody else. This is the second or maybe even third hands we've seen this property in. And so if you allow this, you might not have somebody as you know, you might not, you know,
miss a very I think is a resident of my so I mean cares a lot about our community. You might not have that from somebody else who comes in and wants to do things as of right. Um and so I I I have I'm a you know I think that's
probably unlikely if we pass the no parking. Um, I think the kind of to hate to jump around, but I think the no parking isn't realistic. I think it's going to be hard for anybody to get, you know, a loan, you know, financing for a
property with no parking, um, you know, for residential. Now, do I think that people would rent it, you know, th those units without parking? You know, probably. I mean, there's probably a lot more units on South Beach with no parking than we
realize. And it I mean I don't know any buildings that have significant uh vacancy um you know especially in that area. So um I do think it's important to be thinking about and talking about the the reduced parking but I do also think
it's important especially given that the situation that West Avenue is going through right now. They need parking. If you don't give them parking, then they're the residents are going to be forced to park on the street or in the other garages, taking away the spots that the other residents need. So,
that's kind of why I feel like these group these zones shouldn't necessarily be together because there are some other areas that might have more parking. you know, like some of the garages on Lincoln Road probably are, you know, empty and and could hold more cars and
uh but here, I don't know, on West Avenue, on that side of West Avenue, um you don't necessarily have that and and the residents to park aren't really, you know, it's harder to cross Alton Road, not easy to cross that street there at that at that light. And so I just it's a
challenging uh thing. Um, so the other thing is, you know, and we I appreciate Mr. Berg's, you know, proposal or offer to to provide evening parking for the neighborhood. If there is a new developer, I would want to make sure there's a way to pass that on that
requirement um on uh you know, to the next owner of the property. So, I don't know, you know, h how do we memorialize that? It's just a question I have. Um um I I do like the con I'm curious why did the
was it the land use uh that didn't approve the maximum unit size. Do we know like what was the reason? >> We removed it. >> I think it was us. We removed it. >> It was us. >> Yeah. >> Because it's just it's not I mean the cost to redevelop these buildings and to add things to it. It's just it's
impossible. You can't have um I I I don't know how it would be done and I don't think we want to get into a situation where you're I mean having a floor. Yes. Having a having a ceiling. I
don't think so. I mean I wouldn't I wouldn't support that because I get it. So if you're I don't know. It makes sense. I mean the the no parking sort of restricts that, right? because you're not nobody's gonna have a, you know, 3,000 square foot or buy a
3,000 square foot unit without parking space. >> And and the hotels, I mean, not the hotels, the uh parking decks that are close by, I think 11-11 is 20 bucks an hour. I'm not going to pay that, >> right? you know,
>> but I I think just to your point, um the discussion at land use kind of centered around in terms of unit size a a diversification of different types of housing. So, um you know, buildings that you you can you know, say you move in,
you're single, and then you get married and then you have so buildings that could uh grow with their tenants. Um I think that was discussed at land use in terms of having a mix of different types of units for family um for families as well. Now once you
get into families, I think the question that we've talked a lot about today is well then how realistic is not having a car? I do know several urban families um that have one car for example that you know between the but some require two
right um especially once you have children involved. So I think you know it's a productive discussion um about you know limiting unit size and talking about maybe maybe a little bit of a sliding scale for some type of parking I
think is all very valid. >> Yeah. So so I think that I definitely think the parking is a whole discussion that need or decision that needs to be made sort of a threshold thing. Um I'm in favor of some parking not unlimited parking. I understand the problem is is
you know with the height I mentioned the height increase like in order to facilitate the parking you need to increase the height uh to make the project work. So it's a problem. I get it. But I don't know if I have the solution for that. Um the so I but I do
think that there should be a cap on the unit size. Um again the whole purpose of this I think I think the purpose of this legislation is to of course increase microobility but increase uh you know available housing for residents not to
have you know 15 high-end luxury units um that can make the developers a lot of money but it's not really benefiting the city. Now, that would of course fix the traffic problem, address the traffic problem, but um the traffic going to the
traffic, it's another issue and reason why I think that the sections like 1B, maybe even 1A need to be separated out because there's different considerations in those areas when you're talking about uh putting retail, additional retail
there. uh additional, you know, possibly a a supermarket of some sort, you know, not supermarket, but a grocery store. Um, you know, which I think is a great benefit to the neighborhood. And it's ne, you know, I know there's a lot of supermarkets already, but you know, I
think everybody would would welcome, you know, a g grocery store, but um, you know, just the traffic understanding. There was a comment about the, you know, the, you know, the SE between Lincoln Road and 17th, like, yeah, I live in that area and it's really horrible. Um,
especially during the the high weeks or weekends. Um in terms of the office space, you know, I I guess one question is how do we avoid you know it to the purpose and the idea is to have
residents working in the building or you know Miami Beach residents working in the building. How do you avoid we what we've seen in several projects in the past is family offices taking over uh you know these spaces you know big
spaces so that's big beautiful and elaborate you putting somebody putting their art collection in these spaces um but it's not really having you know there's not really Miami Beach residents working in the space and so I guess a question is how do we ensure that you
know one you know uh you know uh I guess a company or or family office doesn't take over the whole space with very few low you know my beach residents uh working there. I don't know if I have a solution for that but um I guess maybe
capping the office space size you know per space as well. >> What >> um >> why why why would you do that? Capping office space. Well, here's here's the what we've I've seen in the last, you know, four or five years on the planning board is, you know, there's incentives
offered to create office space and then uh or and and if a building has like a residential spa, residential and office space. Okay. What has been done in the past, they create a residential unit in
the building to get the benefits of the F increases and then that residential unit gets tied into an office and it's like a sort of a flagship residential unit for a company. It's not >> which we've seen the buildings we've approved for Sunset Harbor. We've seen
them do that, right? could just put in one big large unit. >> That's my point is I want I feel like we should be getting ahead of these things, you know, uh you know, if we really want if the purpose is, you know, and I and I I believe that that's the the purpose is
to create this uh this this environment to have a live, work, play thing in the building. But as the city, I think you need to there needs to be guard rails on that to make sure that's actually what's happening. and we're furthering the
intent of that when so my you know I don't know necessarily if I have a I have a solution for it but just my thought is you know making sure these units are not um you know too big and too expensive for Miami Beach residents
and workers um making sure the office space isn't you know taken up by one company that most people are remote and it's just a big beautiful space um you know um But Jonathan, I mean, what we've
got in North Beach right now is it's their micro units. They're they're small, tiny. I don't want to do that again. Like, I don't I don't want to do that in South Beach, and I don't want to >> What's the issue with the micro? >> That's not what we're talking about, though. There is a minimum. He We are
being told they're short-term rental. >> They're all co- livingiving all of that stuff. I just I think that if this is going to be done, it needs to be done the right way. And I don't think, you know, if somebody wants to use that space as a warehouse, I don't I'm like,
who cares? Like, I don't I mean, do you see what I mean? I just It's like if I want to rent another condo or if I want to buy a condo in my building and I want to use it as office space or whatever, I mean, or or as a closet, I mean, that's, you know, up to the person doing it. I
don't think that that that what we're trying to do here, and maybe I'm wrong, is trying to create, you know, totally like this is just to incentivize development here. It's not to to to put so many guard rails on something that
nobody's even going to come. I don't know, are there new projects even that are looking at it or um so I've spoken with a with a couple property owners um that are excited about the idea, but I haven't, you know, there haven't been any projects submitted for my review.
>> I mean, I think if you put too many too many handicaps on them, they're not going to do anything. I mean, I'm just I'm meeting >> Well, I agree, which is why we need I think that there will need to be changes if there's, you know, we need
to remove some of the restrictions that make it so that it won't work like parking for example, the microobility cap. I think that and that, you know, that's been a sort of agreed. So what so what we we saw earlier are are reasonable I think are reasonable
changes that could be made. You know I was looking at um our parking situation. I think at some point maybe we could have a discussion item on that. But um you know suppose you have one car for um
I don't know 400 square ft to say 1,200 ft² or or even 1,600 and then um you have two cars anything over that or you have a valet space that's required. I mean, my building, I've got one space
and Sam works in Miami and he, you know, parks in the valet space, but I think that that we need to set some sort of I mean, it's all over the place. I mean, you have to have a permit for this, permit for that. You know, I
>> I I guess going back to my point about the sizing, which is when we started was if we're giving the benefit of a more than double increase in height in an area, that's the that's a benefit that this the city is is an exception
basically so that we can serve a public benefit, serve a public interest, which is more housing. >> Well, that's what this is doing. That's what this is doing in order to when we are relaying that that exception to
increase 150 ft. It should be by the city's to it should make sure there should be guard rails to make sure that it is actually serving the city's interest which would include making sure for example the top floor of the 140 you
know the the unit that starts at 135 ft. There's not one penthouse unit that takes up the whole floor and it's and it's a $20 million unit. Um that's why I think having a maximum size unit size is important.
>> You you just want to make sure we're addressing these issues ahead of time so that when you know a new developer comes in who's you know not you know uh you know serv you know as interested invest
invested in Miami Beach as Mr. verb or one somebody else pops up on any one of the Lincoln Road, you know, the other zones and wants to build up to 150 ft and puts in one big residential unit on the top two floors. You need to make
sure you're you know that's that's been a problem in the past. Is this supposed to be >> I think you're right and it's something we need to really make make sure that I think you know above all that that the unit size I know it's we got to be careful putting too many limitations and and you know letting giving a little elbow room in the way these are
developed but I mean a big concern is that we don't want luxury um buildings and um and so >> which is clearly not the intent in the intent in this case but we we have more coming and and just >> aren't these aren't these rentals I'm going to do a little more order so
Jon I want to let you finish and we need to move on. >> Yeah. So, I mean those are um uh I think those are generally my my thoughts. >> Yes. >> All righty. Um few things. Number one,
in terms of the friendly amendments, I don't know if Commissioner Suarez and and the applicant for the next item have actually discussed it, but my personal opinion, I'm okay with with the introduction of parking. I think it's not enough parking where it would kind of really change the fabric of of the
area or the project, but at least it's let's call it a bare minimum where hopefully the two, you know, the sponsor and the applicant can work out some happy medium. But generally, I'm okay. I think it's a good idea. Terms of the microobility, I think what was originally suggested was probably too much. So, what was suggested as a
friendly amendment, I think makes more sense. The only thing that I can't get past is the reduction of the multif family, I guess, residential count in favor of the office. I know what they're trying to do with the introduction of the live work play. Um, the city has
approved quite a bit of office. Um, ultimately my number one goal is to try and see as much residential count as possible. Um, so I'm in favor of this item. in favor of most of the friendly amendments but not the replacement of the residential account with the
commercial component. Uh what I would love to see is I appreciate the minimum minimum unit size. What can we do to I guess I don't know if there's any mandate. I don't know what the ultimate intention is whether it's for condominiums or for actual you know
multif family rental stock. Um but if there was any appetite for I guess introduction of actual workforce housing, not affordable housing, workforce housing, maybe um you know the sponsor for this entire district can get more flexible with other items that are
needed uh in order to I guess meet more in the middle. So, I don't know if that conversation has taken place or not, but with the introduction of actual workforce housing, that would actually keep it as true rental stock, which I think kind of speaks to what you were trying to to accomplish and ultimately
solves a significant issue in the city, which is solving for that missing middle attainable uh housing. That's all I have to say. >> Guys, aren't these these aren't third or second or even fourth homes. I mean, these are rentals. So I I don't >> Well, they they could be, but I mean
>> No, they are. That's >> once we approve, at least what Nick has said in the past is that we can't necessarily mandate actual rental stock unless unless a project is, you know, workforce housing approved, the applicant has the ability to go ahead with a condominium project or not,
>> which which is fine. That's their right. But if if the applicant uh for that project was willing to work towards some type of workforce housing project, >> I think that should >> and and I think Yel, if you were um I if if since this is really designed as an
incentive framework, I think you probably could attach a condition that uh that that the units be um rentals. Mhm. >> Um I think it's when we're when we're talking about a requirement that's going to apply to all new development. That's a distinction we we can't make, but this
is this is all structured as as an incentive. >> Okay, that's great to know then. Uh those are my comments. I don't know if you all have spoken about that. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's one of the things I I'm very supportive of the ordinance, but um David, since you're here, I'm
going to ask you to um >> they proposed some friendly amendments to the comp. Were you privy to those and have any thoughts either way? >> I So, there's been conversation about um about imposing a maximum unit size.
There's been conversation about increasing the parking allowances. um for properties that are closer to Lincoln Road. >> I mean, N you have them documented. Can you hand them to them? Cuz >> Yeah. >> You know, I thought they were discussed
already. >> I just want your thoughts cuz everyone's I think everyone's supportive of this, but obviously there's some, you know, suggested revisions that >> we send it separately. We send it with a recommendation and then we can make a motion for, you know, suggested revisions. These were what were
suggested by the um >> But didn't you all meet to discuss this already? >> Yeah. Do >> you mind going to the mic if you don't mind? Sorry. Just got to make sure we can all hear you
>> for the well maximum unit size. Um um and in fact that's what I led with when it came to when I first proposed this. It was a previous colleague who really suggested that we we didn't. So to be amunable to that, I I acquiesced, but
I'm okay with having a maximum unit size for for for Lincoln Road West. Uh the microobility, yes, I think to a certain project, it does make sense to cap it because you don't if you have a very large project, you don't want 40%
of your of your floor being dedicated to micro mobility if it doesn't make sense. and parking. I understand. Look, everyone here has their own opinions on parking. I, you know, I as someone who just got into government
two years ago, I've realized that, you know, there are other opinions that above your own uh that you have to take into consideration. And uh I'm learning through that. Um, I'm I'm of the opinion
that the more parking spaces that you build in Miami Beach means that there's going to be another car that lives here forever. And if it's here, it's going to be used. Um,
and I think that's a problem. I think that we we consistently build all of these luxury condos and the the selling point of all these developers who made these luxury condos was well they're only going to be second
and third homes and they're not going to live here so there's not going to be any traffic. But what we didn't realize was that when you build such high-end homes, every unit has to be maintained. There's housekeepers,
there's concier, there's house managers, there's a lot of work that goes into these sort of luxury units. And those people can't afford to live here. And so what do they do? They sprawl. They go from they come from not Miami Beach. They get in a car for an hour. They
drive here. Then they go home. they're in another car for an hour again for for two hours of their lives every day they're in a car and that's what my intent is to avoid. I do realize that if there are going to be units that are
above a certain threshold yeah I mean if you have a family and you have an infant you're going to need a car. You can't have you can't put an infant on on a on an ebike or a scooter. So, I am I am im amunable to that and depending on where this discussion goes, I didn't really want to come up here cuz
I really wanted to hear what you guys had to say. Um, but if you're asking me, yes, I'm I'm certainly immunable to to most of these amendments. >> Thanks. You know, it's funny. The the parking is
always a weird issue because, you know, if you read articles on planning, they say in 1015 years, no one's going to have a car. They're all going to be Whimos all over the street. But yet in the short term, it's a problem and that's the real balance. But anyway, I'm supportive of this. I do think there
should be a second motion with some suggested revisions, but I'll go ahead Melissa. >> No, I get a little two more. >> So, um I we've been talking long enough and I think we're on the same page when it comes to the parking space. and think we need to think this through to make
sure that uh this becomes a successful um initiative because I think kudos to to David for pushing us through. I think um having a comprehensive plan for this whole area is like a big important thing for us to do and it's been my biggest
complaint since being on the planning board is I I I really think that we shouldn't be doing a case by case on every development pro you know project. should be really unified across um um these uh neighborhoods. So, but um and
um again, I think that um as Keith mentioned, we got to make sure that we don't we make a distinction between cars and traffic. One does not necessarily mean the other happen. So you can own a car and a bike and you can be living in an area where you don't need to use your car so much and you use your bike more,
but you still have a car sitting in your parking lot for the times that you need the car. And I think for a lot of people um it is not realistic to not to to to have no access to a car when we live in a place that has rain 6 months out of the year. Um and so for back to the
maximum unit size because I am very very um interested in us putting um some measures that would uh assure that these units are actually going to the right people and um and and and I we do have I think there'll be naturally um um a
certain type of um people that we'll be attracting into these buildings. I think most luxury buildings want water views anyways. They want to be in certain neighborhoods. So, I it's unlikely someone's going to want to live on Lincoln Road and buy a huge luxury unit, but you know, it's still a possibility.
So, I think there should be some guardrails. Um, I don't like overcontrolling some because I think the the the economics of it kind of take its own sort of of of of pace and making sure that, you know, things fall into place. But I I would be open to looking into maximum unit size and maybe being a
little bit on the generous side, but something that avoids being a penthouse, you know, avoids what you said because it's one thing to have a percentage of that is committed to residential, but then then they're open to do whatever they want with those that that that the floor ratio there. And so
to your point, I really didn't like to see what happened in Sunset Harbor with some of the um use of um the mixed uses that they've done there. So I think we should consider maybe suggestions whether it's maximum unit size or whatever um you guys suggest. >> Part of the reason why
to potentially separate these out you know separate these zones out number one is so you can actually consider the character of each particular area. But number two is so that you can work with the somebody like Mr. Berg who who might
tell you, hey, look, if you let me do a a25 $5 million penthouse, I can make these other units very very inexpensive for better workforce housing. It might be vice vers, you know, whatever. But there's ways of finding a way to make
these projects work in terms of the financial aspect that we don't know about which is >> exactly. But the problem is there's some incomp incompatibility if like you know a building that's going to have a $25 million penthouse is not going to be in the same building where you have workforce living. You know it's just
you're not attracting the same crowd and there's rarely mix. And so so again like I understand your point but I think the reality is is that you there you know a building has its own kind of crowd that it's going to going to attract and they rarely mix like that especially if these are not short-term rentals. So um um and
I think something to offset that though is is what was brought up is to make sure the first two floors are retail because first of all there's a lot of value that's lost on the second. I look at the building across from where we ble you know the the the the first floor building of that um rental apartments.
You know you can see those are the last units that got rented out and they put all these barriers so you can't see into their unit. So, I think it's sensible to f to make the first two floors retail because it also offset some of the cost. So, I I I I thought that that was a very easy yes for me. So, I'm super
supportive of this. I think the parking the unit size need to be reconsidered. >> How do you know what? >> And the last thing is I want to say is what Scott brought up is area three with the setbacks. I think it's very important. And I think that's an area we got to be really careful in what we we allow there because um it's very
impactful to that whole residential neighborhood. >> Can I ask a question? The uh in terms of the later appro later later discussion for the actual project >> is that somewhere where we can
>> make other recommendations or tweaks. Does that make sense? like limit put more guard rails as opposed to complicating this here. >> Do you get what I'm saying? >> Yeah. I I would caution you from commenting too much about a specific project because if there is a specific
project that will come before you as a completely new separate application. So you don't want to prejudice >> that just you know future potential application. Um the discussion about maybe removing um an area from the currently proposed I
think is completely valid because it is a confusion right now because we do have a separate private application. There's nothing wrong with talking about it all as one ordinance. But there's also some a valid point if you if the board you
the planning board said we're recommending that that area be considered separately and not part of this. I think that's also >> point well taken about this talking about specific project. I guess my question was just in general when we approve if we were to approve this you
know ordinance >> then it recommendation recommendation for approval. Uh when would each of the new projects come back before us and
for a for a planning board approval coming before us with these are and they'll tell us these are our unit sizes and these are our this is where we plan and put office space and what we intend to do and at that point we can reject or
deny I guess Mike in terms of the process. >> Sure. So any project that is that exceeds 50,000 gross square ft would be coming before you. Any project regardless of the the square footage would also be required to go to the
historic preservation board. But it's likely that any project proposed under this ordinance would exceed significantly exceed the 50,000 gross square ft. Um, and that requires a neighborhood impact structure
conditional use approval from this board. So, at that point, you know, when we have a real project, you would be discussing things like the unit size mix, the parking, the loading, um, and all of the other operational components of the project. So could that be one of
the requirements of the ordinance or an amend a suggested amendment is to if you're taking advantage of these incentives that you have to come before the planning board. >> Yes. Yes, that could be our >> might be the way to do it. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes.
>> May I uh just briefly to clarify a couple of things. Number one, the at the community meeting the concerns about parking and where how much micromobility where it would be located in the mix were all raised. Commissioner Suarez, the sponsor, has been open-minded to
acknowledge that. And uh and so uh what what we are suggesting or requesting is that we have three very specific, very tightly tailored uh modifications. Uh Mr. Needleman has mentioned another one. I think it was either Miss Bey or
Miss Leone mentioned another one about unit size. What you can do is this is very meritorious legislation. He's taking the city in an areawide basis and looking to do something to change transform things. But these amendments,
you can make a specific motion to have these four or five amendments uh go forward with the legislation and I think that is a way you could handle it. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay,
last comment. Go ahead. I just sorry I just want to add the um we obviously I think the intention is is rental and so I think a max unit size uh makes sense um what that number is I think is is subjective because of the a threebedroom could be 1500 ft² or 1,300 ft² or 1,700
ft² um but I think that the two things that we're recommending one the 1:1 parking ratio is geared towards a rental product in the city of Miami it's 1.5 spaces per per unit so a luxury condo would demand much more than one uh parking space per unit, especially of that size and scale. Um, I also think,
as I mentioned, the office component and the commercial components offset the rents and allow you to build the rental product versus going condo. And I think that's a really important factor. Without the commercial component, it's much harder to justify the rental product and the pricing that we're trying to achieve. Um, and in addition,
I think that the commercial product also helps limit the the ability for a luxury condo because people aren't going to want to live in luxury condo that's also an office building. All right, going to close the public hearing. So, um, I want to make a motion on the
recommendation of the ordinance and then knowing that there will be a second motion with suggested revision. >> I'll I'll make a motion to transmit the proposed ordinances to the city commission with a favorable recommendation. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Let's do roll call if you don't
mind. >> Okay. Um, Miss Bey. >> Yes. >> Mr. Frerieden. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marks, >> yes. >> Mr. Needleman, >> yes. >> Miss Leone, >> yes. >> Mr. Cement, >> yes. >> Mr. Elias, >> yes. >> Okay. Excellent.
>> So, it's move the favorable unanimously. Um, >> now, who wants to take a shot at suggested revision? >> I'll take a shot. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, I'd like to make a recommendation that the city commission consider
uh the following friendly amendments to include as part of the Lincoln Road West um I guess ordinance. So number one uh that micromobility stations uh I guess
with no less than I mean what's the language I guess that would be included in order to accommodate that flexibility >> where we going to do that with the cap at a certain square footage. >> Yeah. I don't know the specific >> she has it. I would recommend h um
having a cap in terms of the required square footage. >> Okay. >> So it would be per residential unit. I think you know from my initial >> look at this it would be 10 square f feet per residential unit as a as a requirement. >> Great. That's what the language should
be. Uh and do we also have to include any mention of the location of those? I know >> that's already in the >> Okay. So that was already included. All right. Great. Uh and then next for uh the parking. So what kind of language can we include again to introduce some
type of flexibility? So I know that right now they have uh parking may be provided as required by parking tier one without the F penalty. >> Yeah. And this is really up to the board because again you know staff is supportive of really reducing the
parking to the greatest extent possible. Um, currently the ordinance allows for 20% for certain types of projects. Um, so that's a possibility, just 20% across the board for everyone. There's also the possibility of looking at um a sliding
scale, which I think is probably pretty smart when when you're trying to balance affordability um with parking um a sliding scale for, you know, units either, you know, studio, onebedroom, and twobedroom. So maybe zero parking allowed for a studio
unit, one space or half a space for a one a onebedroom and then a twobedroom maybe two spaces or we could look at, you know, a square footage for the unit in terms of >> Can I can I ask a question? We keep
talking about square footage in the in the units, but he has office space. He's got retail space. They need parking, but people aren't going to walk to a retail space unless unless it's this building is just looking for somebody who lives around
the area to go to it. So, I think that's are they included in that convers and I like the sliding scale, but what about the offices? What about the retail? How do you account for their parking? Well, that's why that's why in
their proposal they talk they mention that the applicant can request a waiver from the planning board um you know for the >> up to 80%. >> Up to 80%. So of the required parking there there's a formula that they come
up with. And so to me that leaves it I don't I think it's wrong for us right now in 2026 to determine what the parking needs are going to be you know in 2035. So, I I like the way that it's left to the planning board on a case-by
case, you know, basis for waiverss for particular properties, unless you think that that's not >> No, I I think that's valid. I think I would I would recommend if if that's your recommendation to also include a recommendation that there's some type of measurable criteria for your review
because I don't think you want to be put in a position where >> you don't have to objective criteria to to review >> because it's mixed use. We have to look at retail different than office, different than the sliding scale of the size of the apartments.
>> All right, you in the middle of a motion, so >> yeah, I'm sorry. >> Keep going. Oh, >> this is all healthy dialogue. Uh I would say that parking may be provide may be provided uh and we should include some type of scale whether that's at a bare
minimum you know studios do not get allocated parking to ensure that there is some kind of minimum unit threshold that's not going to be >> what's the minimum for a a um studio what's the square foot that you would call studio? Well, the minimum unit size
is >> 500. In this in this ordinance, we would have 500. Are are we by doing that though, are we maybe um discouraging like so a developer who wants to be doing a building with with, you know, smaller all sudden they don't do studios
because then they're restricted. They won't get parking spaces. like I'm just scared that there's some side effect here by us scaling it that way where you're going to see >> different behavior in the development because we we we limited um you know the parking with with with only being with
units bigger than than than studios, right? So all of a sudden you'll have maybe a different behavior and we're trying to encourage these studios or these smaller places. So maybe instead of doing it on a scale is a one per one you know you know up to one parking space per unit and then and again so if
you have a threebedroom place while if the studio is not using it they can rent off and you know the extra space that's not being used but I think we go into a scale then you're sort of pro you know you might be having some side effects there that are not favorable. So >> well I guess you got to be careful. I
guess what I would say is that when the city is going to look at let's say a project like this so how will they kind of adequately size the parking if we say it's one to one on the residential side then then what additional parking would be required for the commercial and retail use
>> right I mean currently the we would the way the ordinance is currently drafted we would not allow for the additional parking >> right >> if we revert to parking district one um where most of the area I believe is in one there's there's a little bit of
parking district um two as well um you know it would be per square foot right one space per every 300 ft of retail for example and then the office would be one space per 400 >> so as somewhat of a middle ground what if we were to say that it's
we have to think through what the ramifications are but if it's a one one kind of parking to to unit you know ratio and no addition Additional parking shall be provided for the commercial or retail which essentially would would mandate that they would have to come up
with a flex parking situation. H meaning we've done projects where where you know residents park in the evening hours, commercial tenants are parking in the morning hours. >> If I may and Mr. There may be some of that but we know for a fact that that won't work for the kind of tenants who
will be local serving tenants that they want to bring in. I think the simple solution, >> no meaning parking can be provided to them. There's no additional parking that's going to be allocated to them. So they would, you know, an office tenant would go in and and use that parking, but then at night they leave.
>> They've worked out those numbers. There needs to be some in addition to that for the commercial just to be able to get really signed the commercial leases themselves. I thought that that I thought Mr. Ber solution was you know the 80% of tier
one with the planning board to decide based on criteria established as to how much of a waiver up to 80% is allowed. That gives you the flexibility and the control without being too prescriptive
at this point in time. Again, we got to remember that the developers are are looking to maximize the amount of use for retail in and and >> I get, trust me, I'm I'm usually in in that seat. So, I totally get it. I mean, we have projects where parking is an
issue, but I also I'm I'm trying to not put myself as someone on the city side saying, "Hey, we're trying to kind of direct the city towards a certain path." So, what's the best way to do that? >> So, so here's what I was thinking. What about office is one per 400 to 800
square f feet and retail one per 300 to,000 square feet. >> Doesn't the tier one like the tiers already have those determinations? >> Currently retail parking um is going to
be one space per every 300 ft. Office parking is one space per every 400 ft. That's the current parking requirement for >> not for every parking district because we have different incentives uh throughout the city in different parking districts.
>> Um like for example on Lincoln Road, a retail does not have a parking requirement. Um you know that's because we haven't seen a need for significant parking for retail on Lincoln Road. It's extremely walkable, right? Probably the most
walkable retail street in our city for certain. And then we have all those parking garages. >> Parking garages. Exactly. >> You know, and surface lots to be quite frank. We have also a lot of parking surface parking lots. >> But I guess the qu my my point is that doesn't their proposal which is up to
80% of the tier one required parking. That's what they can request the waiver of that those tiers already give them the number of we know from that the number of spaces that they're required to have. So, doesn't that address everybody's concern instead of right now?
>> Yeah. If if you know the planning board wants that responsibility and and again, I would strongly recommend that we develop some objective criteria for you to review um to allow for 80%. 80% seems a little high to me to be perfectly
frank. um when we're taking all the uses um of a property into consideration, 80% seems >> especially if we're really promoting this mixed use, right? Live, work, play in the same block. Um 80% does seem somewhat >> excessive. 80% is the cap.
>> Uh and you can find a number below that I think as Mr. Frerieden is saying that there is a standard set in in tier one if uh but uh what Miss Tacket is saying if you want to develop recommended developing additional criteria for
guiding the decisions on how much of a waiver are granted that's certainly fine and we would be supportive of that. You know, we don't have all that criteria sitting here today, but subject to criteria developed by the planning board, you could get a waiver of up to
80% of the tier one parking. >> And then just to make sure that that's I guess could pass commission, Commissioner Suarez, is that generally in line with the vision that that you want to push forth? >> I always thought that commercial should
be separate from resial. Mhm. >> Have you seen too many Have you seen any mixeduse projects that have the commercial above the retail and then the homes above the office? >> New York City.
Not I'm that's not I'm talking about like >> like No, like in Atlanta there's a there's a number of open air centers that have um that is almost identical to Lincoln Road where you've got
all kinds of things. You've even got a hotel in the back. You've got even >> you can go to South Florida. >> Yeah, but that center's >> not that I know what you're talking about. That's not exactly, but but you it's you can you can make
>> there'll definitely be a shared parking factor, but you the planning board will be able to look at specific projects and say this is the appropriate factor to apply. >> Sure. But then it becomes I don't want to say spot zoning, right? But now we're looking at it project by project instead of trying to set a general precedent
that >> Well, you do you have an upside at 80%. you have uh uh at at most you have the waiver. It's not different than many other things in which there's discretion given to the boards to judge based on the specifics of a project.
>> Mr. Chair, if the if the board is interested in um providing for a waiver process, you don't need to develop that criteria today or even the you know the specific amount of the of of the the cap on the waiver today. um you could
include in your recommendation that that that's something that staff develop for when the ordinance is presented for first reading. Um I'm just sensing, you know, it's it's hard for the board, I think, to make some of these decisions on whether it's one or a half space or zero spaces for for which type or size
of of unit. Um you you don't need to, you know, with particularity set those requirements. >> I'll I'll accept that. Thank you. a a waiver shall be included for the commission to determine uh you know what
kind of parking can be included. um h >> important to but what Nick was saying is a the staff shall come up you know look into and discuss and come up with a proposal for waiver criteria >> right that's right >> above the 20%
>> and also that that >> because that's what we're saying be provided by these projects I think that's also important >> yeah it doesn't maybe it's not 80 but it can't be >> parking instead of not being allowed >> you I guess shall be included to some
degree and then the commission we need more staff will work that out. >> Um that's where I'll stop. I don't want to include anything about the >> uh non-residential uses but if anyone else wants to think about that then I'm open to it.
>> Well, you made a motion. So, >> okay. >> Are you addressing anything with the unit sizes? >> Sorry. So, now on Thank you. on the maximum unit size. I think that there should be something included in there. I don't know what that will be, but that's again something that the commission can
talk through as to what makes sense there. >> Okay. >> 2,000 square ft is good. >> I I don't >> Well, how about coming back? How about requiring planning board approval for the any any applicant taking advantage
of these incentives requires planning board approval. Nick, >> well, what I was going to say is I I think, you know, to to have a maximum unit size, just a flat number that applies to all residential units, ignores the diversity of units that a project may have. So, that's what I'm
saying. So, you may want to recommend and I think on this, this is the kind of thing that needs to be the code needs to be clear on what I don't think you want each project having, you know, uh different maximum unit sizes. I think you could uh ask staff to to recommend a
maximum unit size whether it's a studio, onebedroom, two-bedroom, or larger. >> Yeah. And what we could do is we could we could also look at um for a little bit more flexibility, not having a maximum unit size, but having a minimum average unit size. that would then allow
for the larger units, but then the overall number of units would have, you know, you would have some smaller units, right? If you had a 3,000 4,000t unit and you had it a a required average unit size of say 800 ft² or 700 ft², that
means you would have to have, you know, um a good amount of studio units, for example, to offset the larger unit. Um, so that that might the average unit size instead of a cap on the unit size may allow for more flexibility.
>> I just I was just looking at Dave just curious how that that sits with um >> I think that makes sense. I think I think you want to have a a healthy mix of of different units. I don't think you want to be all studios. I don't think you want to be all three bedrooms. Uh I think that it's hard to determine what
the size of a three-bedroom use or two-bedroom use will be now and in the future. But I think if you if you pick an average unit size, you know, most unit sizes historically have been around 900 ft². They've gotten smaller over time. Um, we're proposing roughly 850, but I think that that Debbie's referring
to kind of the range. It has to be large should be probably average unit size. It's hard to say because you you want to say larger or smaller. the average unit size um you you'd be dictating someone's building if you say the average unit size has to be this number but you can't
go smaller and you can't go bigger right in your in your proposal and that's the challenge. So if you said the average unit size is 750 ft now someone's got to solve to you know to that across the building which again for a big building that'd be easy for a small building that'd be very challenging >> but I think the idea would be for a
maximum average unit size >> so we're so that makes >> 800 or or 850. >> Yeah. Are there any other Sorry and I know we're not supposed to discuss, but are there any other suggestions on how to address the concerns to make sure that
we don't don't get these luxury buildings in too big of units? >> Yeah, I think 800 ft is a little small. I would say um I would say my personal opinion if you said 900 950 if you're much safer. Um again, I don't think you're getting into big luxury units
there. A one bedroom could easily be 850 ft. Great. I agree. Um, and I and I do want to comment that I think one uh of the proposals that that's that Ehil clearly is not in favor of, but we want to touch on is the commercial component. If you're going to uh recommend something, I think it's really critical
to actually achieving um attainable rents here. Thank you. We just don't want to get into a situation where we've got the micro units again, those really small units, you know. I just think that we're trying to find a balance >> for everyone and it's just
>> all right. >> No. >> See, finish your motion, please. >> Uh the Thank you. The only other last thing I would say as somewhat of a compromise is that in the event um that non-residential uses were to be included
on let's call it the floors above parking or or above the first floor then applicant uh shall agree that the project would be workforce housing and then you know workforce housing rents and I guess that could be a compromise in my
mind where >> you should it should be rental you should just say it should be There won't be a condo building. >> Fine. I mean, the board can make that decision, right? That's you're the independent planning board. So, if you want to recommend, >> you can. >> Yes, that that's that's also fine as
long as it remains a rental in perpetuity. Um, that's ultimately my number one goal. >> That it. >> That's it for me. >> Okay. All right. That's a motion. I need a second. >> Wait. Oh, and there were things that I
had brought up. Um, one being the um, >> well, it's his motion, so he's got to agree with No, he's got to agree with you. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Then I'm going to offer a couple of friendly amendments. Um, one, um, any existing short-term rentals in these areas would become legal, non-conforming. So, if they were to go
away, they can't come back. Um, second thing was in uh, area three talked about these these setbacks on Lincoln Lane South, which I think should be um, uh, above 35 ft. that's where the setback should should begin, the 20 foot setback
um just in that one area. And um I do think I I don't know, we should for areas 1A and 1B, we should recommend that the commission incorporate some kind of setbacks on those properties in those areas. Um I don't know what those
are right now. Um but I think there should be. >> Uh so question for you in terms of legal non-conforming. So, I guess what I would say is that if a if a project were to take advantage of the incentives, then shouldn't the language be that they can no longer offer short-term?
>> Well, that's in there now. >> In one area in in area 1B, there's an existing um hotel use, >> right? >> And what I'm saying is that as long as that's there and is is is, you know, has all their licenses and and BTRs, they
can continue to to to leave. But if they leave and it, you know, >> accepting on uh on item one in terms of the setbacks, I mean, the language I would use is that the commission can look into the setbacks, but I just don't know enough about what these specific projects are going to be where if you
start to mandate, you know, more narrow or or guess wider setbacks that might start to really impact these projects. So, >> well, we could say that that we I we feel the commission should incorporate a um how should we phrase this? a it's not
a greater setback, but it's a the setback um I don't know how to phrase this. Uh >> yes, I would say >> reconsider the setback to to make the any new development there more compatible with the with the properties to the south.
>> Something along those lines. >> I just don't know what that would mean in terms of the the scale that we're trying to achieve, especially once you're starting to >> consider F increases. Yeah, this is just one. This is just in area three on the south side of area three um that fronts
the Flamingo Park neighborhood which is mainly two and three story buildings. And I'm saying that um to set back instead of up, you know, the where you can build the first 50 ft and then set back this uh above that set back 20 ft
above that. I'm saying you can build up to 35 ft which is comparable to existing buildings in the neighborhood and then after 35 ft then you set back uh the remainder of the building's height. That's what I'm saying there.
>> I mean ultimately it's up to the commission. So >> yeah, I mean we can include it as a >> and then if they >> don't see uh >> done >> fit >> included >> and the last thing was just in again I'm not going to get into numbers here but incorporate some kind of setbacks in
areas 1 A and 1B >> with no HPB waiver in either one. >> Um again not inclined to discuss the setbacks there. No, I'm just saying incorporate some commission. Yeah, I'm not I don't know what those numbers
should be now, but >> I think also if there's any parking um that's offered to the public that it should match city parking rates if possible. I mean, right now you've got 1111 that's 20 bucks an hour. I mean, that's just
not doable for most people, especially if you're trying to incentivize people to come and live here. And you know, and if they do have a car, >> love that one, match city parking rates incorporated. Okay. >> And maybe encourage. I I think on that one we can say encourage because we
can't set prices for >> private saying if possible. We're where possible. >> It's encouraged. >> And and I would ask for I would ask for a where possible on the short-term rental amendment, too. The this district allows short-term rentals. That project was licensed. Um, and so I I don't know
that we'll be able to deem it legal non-conforming, but we'll look at that. >> Didn't you say you were foregoing the STR? >> No, no, they the the private applicant is, but because of the existing building at the southwest corner of 17th and
Alton, um, that, you know, that is a that that building is licensed for short-term rentals. I don't know that we can deem them legal non-conforming. under under state law, we're preempted for regulating short-term rental. So, I just on that one, we we might that
>> if it's illegal, then obviously not. But the the >> to the extent it's legal, I guess, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. All right. >> Do we have a second? >> You're finished. Okay. We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay, great. Roll call, please.
>> Yes, I am clear. Um, Mr. Needleman, >> yes. >> Mr. Marks, >> yes. >> Miss Leone, >> yes. >> Mr. Frerieden. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cement. >> Yes. >> Miss Bey, >> yes. >> Mr. Elias, >> yes. >> Okay. >> World Peace is next. >> All right.
>> Lucky Commission. >> If I could. >> All right. New applications. Planning board file PB250811. The Delano Hotel. An application has been filed requesting a conditional use permit for a neighborhood impact establishment with
an occupant content exceeding 299 persons, including indoor and outdoor open air entertainment. >> So in 2022, the Delano Hotel received historic preservation board approval for the renovation and restoration of the historic building. Construction is
nearing completion and the applicant is requesting a CUP to oper operate an aggregate of uses within the hotel as a neighborhood impact establishment. Um the request encompasses three venues. The Rose Bar in the lobby, Gigi Regalado at the ground level, and Mimi Kashuki at
the fourth level. Um the first venue is the Rose Bar, which is proposed to operate from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. and includes 32 seats and indoor entertainment. The second venue is Gigi Regalado Restaurant which is located at the ground level of the hotel and
encompasses four components. A signature restaurant, outdoor dining terrace, pool deck service, and an outdoor bar. The signature restaurant and outdoor dining terrace consists of a total of 251 seats with indoor and outdoor entertainment.
The pool deck is proposed to operate daily from 10:00 a.m. to sunset and includes outdoor entertainment. The outdoor bar is located adjacent to the beachwalk and is proposed to operate from 7:00 a.m. to midnight, 55 seats and
outdoor entertainment. The last venue is Mimi Kushuki, which is located at the fourth level, has 162 seats with indoor and outdoor entertainment. The hours of operation are Sunday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday
and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to midnight. Um, they are also asking for extended hours of operation for holidays, high impact events, and private hotel functions. During these instances, the applicant wishes to operate several of the venues past midnight until 2:00 a.m. During the
extended times, only ambient level outdoor entertainment is proposed. The applicant has submitted a sound study as the project includes indoor and outdoor entertainment. The city's peer reviewer reviewed the study and expressed concern that the study did not analyze potential impacts of sound on
adjacent properties. The applicant's sound expert in the city's peer reviewer met to discuss a project and agreed upon a condition to require post installation acoustic testing due to a number of variables. This testing would be on the Delano site within the guest rooms at
the National Hotel Cabana building and within the SLS hotel property to ensure the outdoor entertainment component will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Um, regarding the general operations of the hotel, the existing building does not have any parking or loading spaces on site. The
applicant will provide valet service from both Collins Avenue and 17th Street and is anticipated that there will be significant patron arrival by rid share. Additionally, all loading and trash collection activities will take place from a designated area along 17th Street to the service entrance at the north
side of the building. The city's transportation and mobility department has reviewed the project and has included several recommended conditions in the draft CUP. Finally, the hotel will have 24-hour security on site, including a full complement of surveillance cameras. To summarize, the
project includes a total of 729 seats and an overall occupancy of 1,124 persons, including both pool decks. The standard hours of operation until midnight, except the lobby bar, are not excessive, especially when considering there are no immediately adjacent
residences. The proposed extended hours of operation from midnight until 2:00 a.m. for holidays, high impact events, and private hotel functions includes only ambient level entertainment outdoors. With that, staff is supportive of the applicant's request and looks forward to the reopening of this
historic hotel. >> Um, thanks Jake. Also, if I could point out, uh, the city did have a peer review of the sound study that was submitted and our peer reviewer, um, Jesse from Arpeggio is available if you have any
questions via uh, Zoom. He's available. >> Uh, good morning again, Mr. Chair Nissan Casden, Ian Bachov, and Marissa Amuall of Acre representing the applicant. If you could please uh bring up our presentation.
Uh I'm very proud to be able to bring to you this re renewal and revival of one of Miami Beach's most iconic properties, the Delano Hotel. With me today is the ownership group represented by Chrissy Sarosino and Lucy Reef. the operator
Delano Hotels with Valentine Mihail and Cristiano Bono. Uh Jennifer Manei of MG Architecture, our architect, Langan engineers, Joe Goldberg, our uh traffic expert, and uh Sam Shroyer, our sound
expert. First, I'd like to tell you a little bit about Kain in case you're not aware. The property, I think we know where the property is. Everyone's been to Delano. Kain International, which is an affiliate of Eldridge Industries, a
global corporation, has huge investments in this area and beyond. The highest quality products. Some of Kane's products uh portfolio include the Raffles Hotel in Boston,
uh 8:30 Bickl, which is today, and the Sia Club on top of 8:30 Bickl of course, which is today the premier office building in Miami. They are also have ownership in the Aman Hotels brand and are in the process of developing as well
the Aman Hotel and Residences in Beverly Hills, which is the finest hotel and residential project ever to be developed in that community. The Delano, of course, is a storied property. It was built in the late 1940s. The original architect was Bob
Schwarzberg. So happens that Bob and Lilian Swartberg were my neighbors when I was a kid growing up on Flamingo Drive. Uh and uh it's considered one of the finest examples of post-war Miami modern architecture. Uh as you know, the property was
reinvented in 1995 by Ian Shreger when he renovated and purchased the Delano Hotel and it became the iconic brand globally that it is today. that is now the brand that Kain owns. The um key part of the key to the
success of the Delano Hotel in the '90s was of course its food and entertainment and bar venues. There was people remember the Blue Door restaurant, the Florida Room, the Rose Bar, there was a club underground under and below levels
as well. That was part of what the scene was that made the hotel so successful. >> And so what we are doing today here is recreating the Delano but even stepping up the level of investment. This is an staggering investment in this property.
If you see uh it has been redone throughout including all systems, mechanical, electrical, plumbing uh an investment that this hotel has not seen since when it was first built. This is something to last for generations and
maintain one of the most iconic historic properties in the city of Miami Beach. I'm going to take you through some images of the hotel and you should also note all approved by the historic preservation board and it is now poised to open with its first guests on April
27th. Of course, providing we can get the conditional use permit. Uh these are images of the main entrance restored to its original grander. The lobby, the guest rooms which are all being redone, reduced from over 200 guest rooms to 171
guest rooms. A pool and beach club as well, keeping the original iconic pool from the Delano, but redoing the entirety of the outside. A wellness component as well. uh spa and and and of
course there are the food and beverage uh venues which are iconic. They Rose Bar is being recreated in the lobby. Uh and you can also see GG's which is the main restaurant which is also going
to be and we'll go through that in a minute in the um uh the uh the GG the GG Rialletto. That's the heart of the hotel and it's going to be the fullervice restaurant uh both in the hotel itself in the
outside terrace as well and for service in the pool area and the oceanfront bar which will be all under the GG concept. And then uh that is the pool deck as you can see. On the fourth floor, there is
uh uh uh Mimi, which is the Japanese themed from the uh early Deco era restaurant and club for members and hotel guests only. These are the venues that will be
created. One thing I would say though is if you have not seen the hotel, and I'm going to have Ian pass this out. If you have not visited the property, the pictures that I've just shown you do not do justice to the quality and the
beauty of the restoration of this project. And as I know at least one of you have seen it, I'd invite you all to see it. >> What? >> When can we do that? >> This is truly truly spectacular and will bring the Delano back and
actually elevate it to a level that it has never been. And this is critically important for this part of Collins Avenue, which of course has been the city is anxious to see these hotels reopen. I'd like to briefly address there's uh
uh something an opposition you've received from a neighboring property, the Ritz Carlton. Uh and I want to briefly address that as well. But the early in February, we toured the owners
and managers of the Ritz Carlton through our property. On February 10th, in fact, is the day they came. We gave them a complete tour, gave them all the plans uh and all the plans were also available publicly. We said, "If you had any
questions or comments, please ask us." We received no response whatsoever. However, late Friday afternoon, this past Friday on Good Friday, before Easter weekend, just two days before the this board
meets, an objection letter was submitted by them. You be the judge about the appropriateness of that and the timing of that. Now, there are a couple of other things. Uh this conditional use approval is
recommended by the city staff and meets all of the criteria for approval of conditional uses. The neighbors we have support and actually our immediate neighbor to the south Deline owner of the national hotel
is here and can speak for herself but they're supportive of our our project. The immediate neighbor to the north, which is the Ritz Plaza Hotel, has been fully informed of this over two months ago and advised of the project details
and has no objection. So, the immediate neighbors either favor this project or have no objection to this project. Ritz Carlton is not an abuing neighbor. It's located two to three properties to the south. And the issues that they are
raising in their with regard to their sound expert have all been addressed by our sound expert by the city's independent sound expert reviewer and the recommendation is in the staff
report that we are uh our approach is the correct approach. So, uh, and and remember as well, one of the recommendations in the staff report is that 90 days after the property opens
that the sound will be tested to make sure that what they've installed works. And the concern they really have, the sound expert, was only about the National Hotel whose cabana building is actually the closest structure. There's no other concern raised. And that will be tested in 90 days. and you know as
you do with all conditional uses will retain jurisdiction over the matter as well. Now I don't know the Ritz plans per uh you know residential uses in the future. There are no residential uses today. There's not even a building permit today. They are years out from
any residential uses being present on their property. But the opening of this hotel is critical for the revitalization of of that neighborhood. >> And Nissan, are you in agreement with all the conditions in the proposed?
>> Yes. There's one one change, minor change which I want to bring up before we come to to to a vote on that. And finally, and I don't want look, we can bring our experts forward if necessary, but I do want to quote to you what
Commissioner Fernandez stated just this past March 24th at the Lusk meeting, talking about the Delano reopening. He said, "This should be a big community celebration. It gives us an opportunity to highlight our architectural heritage
and the importance of preserving it." and the success stories of those who have seen value in investing in preservation. And so that is what we are presenting to you today. This is the way to do preservation to provide economic
viability for a important historic building. I'm sort of going through some of the images uh just to save time of some of the the Gigi Rialletto space uh which is as I mentioned is the is in the
lobby the outside dining terrace as well as the pool area and Mimi Kukushi which is the Japanese restaurant on the fourth floor with a small pool as well. Uh so we encourage you to give this
project this final approval. We stand ready to answer any questions that you may have about the project. But I think you will see that this is a magnificent project that the uh venues that they are
creating there are going to be special uh as well. And I would invite actually uh briefly up uh uh I'd invite Valentine to briefly talk about the venues. Let me >> Okay. And before you start, does anybody on the board have any disclosures to
make about communications? >> Nobody. >> I do. I spoke with a lawyer and I need briefly about >> do that on the record. I'm sorry. Can we have your disclosure on the record? >> Yeah. I I went forward to her visit and and spoke u with the council.
>> Thank you. Hey, I forgot I exchanged brief emails with Mr. Casten. >> Anybody else? >> Elizabeth. >> No. >> Okay, sir. >> Uh, good morning everyone. My name is Valentine Mail. I'm the hotel manager for Delano. >> If you could speak into the mic, it'd be really helpful. Or you can raise it.
Sorry about that. Just want to make sure we hear you. >> Okay. So, I'm going to briefly go over the uh our list that we currently bring at Delano. We are going to start with Rosebar, the famous Rosebar, which we bring back. We currently have eight
seats at the bar along with the 24 seats in the lobby and that will feature an extensive cocktail menu along with light bites and uh entertainment throughout the evening. Hours of operation for the Rosebar will be from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m. daily and food served until midnight. Um, and this that's the layout with the rosebar being on the lower part with the a seats and the um the lounge being part of the the main lobby.
Uh Gigi Regalato, also known for uh Dolcevita style service restaurant with uh currently having uh uh restaurants in uh Paris uh uh Rome
uh also in Turkey in Bodum, Dubai and uh um we are bringing that for the first time in United States at at Delano. That's the layout of uh Gigi uh Regalato with the left side being inside outside
with the three terraces blending into the main pool area where uh Bellini Bar uh will be located. Mimikushi um Japanese uh uh style restaurant with
uh bringing Osaka 1920 style back to life with um Japanese cuisine with blends of uh um inspired dishes uh with local twist along with entertainment
such as jazz uh uh days, Wednesday jazz nights and uh uh crafted the DJ uh uh settings. >> So GG's on the first floor, that's on the fourth floor. >> GG's on the first floor and then Mimikushi on the fourth floor along with
right next to the uh this pool. That's that's beautiful pool that's uh right next to Mimikushi overseeing the main pool and the ocean. And that's a layout of uh the venues on
the top side, the first floor uh with um rose bar um gig and then on the second uh layer will be the mini kakushi and that's this is more of an
information with the hours of operation and um style of service that we have for all venues. Okay. And that uh the only other thing I would like to add as well for historical
information is that the occupancy of this property is already grandfathered in for 1,425 occupants. All the spaces including the gyms and you know the uh the other rooms
there. of the lobby that is actually one fewer than we are rather uh one more than we are seeking today. Today we are seeking occupancy of 1424. So the occupancy of this property is not increasing and as you all know probably
all of you maybe maybe a few of you are too young to remember you know the the blue door in the Florida room and and on and all the great venues. It's staying the same in s in sense in terms of the number of of seats and
occupancy for that those uses. The reason really why this uh need for a cup is triggered is there's a mix in the spaces that are being used. The fourth floor before did not have an activation where Mimi Kukushi is going. So that's
new to the property. But at the same time, the club that was in the basement of the property is no longer going to be a disco club. >> That was the Florida room down below, right? What's it going to be now? >> It's going to be a spa and also some
back of house operations. So really the re real reason this is before you is because the location of some of the FnB uses are being are are are being shifted around. And again, I encourage you to visit this uh this this project. I was
blown away by the job that they have done. This is spectacular. It is going to be so good for Miami Beach and so good for this neighborhood. And we just uh request your support of this application. Thank you. >> Thank you, N. Anyone in chambers speak on this?
>> C. I'll get to that. Should I speak from May I speak from here? >> Yes. >> Hi. Good morning. Were you sworn in already? >> And if you don't sworn Go ahead. Sorry. >> Even though I'm an attorney. >> Do you swear I tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> And in part of your presentation, please
um maybe N misrepresented, but I doubt it. But why? There was no response for 3 months until Friday. >> Well, I was retained about 10 12 days ago. We were waiting until determining what the staff report would um ultimately recommend. We were surprised
that the staff report went as far as it did. Um and my clients have vigorously attempted to negotiate. I've seen dozens of emails going back and forth over the last two or three days trying to resolve something. Um so I have a presentation.
And I have both a uh a electronic presentation, but I also have a verbal um presentation. The electronic presentation, I'll try to fly through it. It's going to take four or five minutes. Then I have a verbal presentation. Um and it has four
sections, four arguments, and each one's about 90 seconds. So I'm going to try to certainly I won't be able in two two minutes, and we are certainly a party would directly impact it. So it's going to take I would say probably 12 minutes plus. I have an expert here, the sound
expert who's prepared to testify and who also submit a report. I think everybody has seen the analysis that we have provided to and presented on Friday. Uh we submitted it as in accordance with the deadline that the city provides.
That's why it was filed on that date. Um could we have the presentation? >> Okay, next page. >> Mr. Chair, how much time for this comment? Uh um >> just to be clear, >> um >> just to be real clear, may I go? >> Sorry.
>> Okay. Um I'm Ken Harrison Robbins. I represent Dolo Beach Resort Land LLC and DO Beach Hotel LLC, which is the Ritz Carlton South Beach and the owner
and operators. and that's located 1671 Collins Avenue within 175 ft of this property. We are an affected prop party. We have standing and we oppose some parts of the cup as
proposed. As you can see, the Ritz Carlton is within 175 ft and clearly could be adversely affected by music on the fourth floor. And we contend also on the lower floor, especially once our
residential buildings are completed. You can see selfexplanatory. Let's run through the Miami Beach code. Next. Next. Principal restaurant supper club which is the only place where you can have um
live entertainment is where the preparation serving and selling of food to the customer for consumption on the premises. That has to be the business primary business. Let's go to the next line.
So there are there are three guidelines we're going to talk about. The concentration of similar types of usage shall not create a negative impact on surrounding neighborhood. We're addressing the six separate venues that are being proposed. Next, there's there's an issue of requiring a
noise attenuation plan which addresses how noise will be controlled to meet the requirements of the noise ordinance. And finally, you have to consider the proximity of proposed establishments of the proposed establishment to residential uses. Next slide.
The conditional use permit matrix was provided by the applicant and we recoded the colors of it so it's clearer how many different venues are in there. There are actually six venues that are outside.
Next slide. The GG Supper Club a total of 368 occupancy 500. It's with live entertainment. Next slide. the outdoor dining and tier terrace which is
separate from the indoor club. Uh there's 126 seats and 134 occupancy. Next slide. That's the actual rendering or plans for
that outside use. Next slide. Then you have the GG pool service. Live entertainment is also proposed in that area. Next slide. This is the area there's as will be explained by the sound engineer uh Mr.
Moho he will explain where the speakers are going to be placed including 24in woofers. Next slide. Then at the end all the way at the east side of the pool there's the GG Bellini which is a bar and that's also proposing
to have live entertainment right on the beach right on right on the walkway. to midnight. Let's go next slide. That's the actual image of the bar and you can see it encroaches on the beach preservation dune area.
Next slide. And the fourth floor, live entertainment in the supper club. Once again, we're want to make it clear we do not oppose live entertainment in enclosed areas. Next slide.
Next slide. So, this is the outdoor dining area that's going to be on the fourth floor. And you saw the picture at the very beginning, that's in a right line of sight of the uh Ritz Carlton. And if imagine loud music, live music on
that deck on the fourth floor. Next slide. And then finally, there's the pool area. Next slide. And that's also on the fourth floor. Also proposing live entertainment.
Make it clear. I want to make it real clear. This is a six outdoor venues for live entertainment. 472 seats. Total occupancy of 613. That's quite an arena.
Uh we do not oppose to have ambient music up to 10:00 on the outside. We're just concerned about all this loud potential very loud music outside. >> I'm going to interrupt you one second. I have a historical question. Did the Delano prior to its closure for
renovations have a CUP? >> No, they were grandfathered in as non-conforming because they opened and and maintained their occupancy um before this up requirements. >> Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. >> And they certainly didn't have anything
on the fourth floor on an open area. Next. And then in the draft order, it dictates what would be allowed on each of these six venues. Next page, the GG supper
Club and its four separate areas, outdoor entertainment until 12:00 a.m. including the pool deck, at least in the proposed order. And >> I have a question. Um, again, sorry to interrupt you, but while it's on my mind. >> Um, I don't know the timing between the
RIT, but the Ritz and the Delano when the Delano was fully operational. They coexisted, right? The Ritz was open, the >> Yes, they were. They did coexist. >> Okay. And they had parties all the time. What is there a history of problems or complaints that you know of? >> Um, >> cuz >> different ownership, different control.
Um, I cannot make a affirmative representation. >> All right. So, you don't know. Okay. I was just curious because back when the was open, they had the Florida room, they had all these venues and if you coexisted, I'm wondering if there was any history. >> I don't believe there was permission to have live entertainment because it was
the city would really clamp down on it. In fact, what's amazing is this city has turned around and stopped all the partying during Labor Day, during Memorial Day weekend. We stopped it and now we're introducing what will be a
party party arena. And that's exactly opposite. What this the commission has done, what the mayor has advocated for, we're reversing it. Let's go next next page. There's another on the supper club on
the fourth floor, which is going to directly impact us. Okay, next page. That's the last page. Okay. So, let me go through the legal arguments and I'm going to try to do the four and 60 to 90 seconds and at the end I'll we will
discuss the actual language of what should be in an order. Okay. So, the outdoor entertainment is not authorized for venues that don't qualify as restaurant supper clubs in the RM3 district
7.5.48 4 A3 permits outdoor entertainment only as part of a restaurant supper club. And that's defined under 1.2.24 as an establishment whose principal
business is the preparation, serving, and selling of food. Three of the outdoor entertainment venues fail that principal business test on their face. The GG pool deck, 258 occupants, operating as a pool amenity with
cabanas, is not a restaurant. The GG Bellini, described in the appellent's own LOI as a dedicated um bar, is not a supper club. And then on the fourth floor, the pool deck, again, the it's a pool service, not a restaurant.
The board cannot grant outdoor entertainment and venues that do not meet the threshold requirement of being a supper club. The second argument is that there is no valid attenuation plan which is mandated under 7.5.4
B1G which requires a noise attenuation plan demonstrating how noise will be controlled to meet the noise ordinance. This is mandatory, not discretionary. And even though there's discussion after the fact, there will be some type of
control systems put into place and limiters, there's no discussion about live entertainment. You can't limit the noise of live entertainment. So, the staff's own report rates this criterion only partially consistent, which means
it's not in compliance. The city's own peer reviewer, Arpeggio, concluded the applicant sound study lacks any quantitative prediction of noise impact on adjacent properties. Our acoustic expert, David Bohol of WSDG, who will
speak after me, identifies what is missing. There's no predictive modeling, no sound level predictions at the Ritz Carlton, no bass frequency analysis, no cumulative analysis of all six venues operating simultaneously.
And this is not a background music system. This is approximately 50 to 60 speakers and 10 to 15 subwoofers. The same function one equipment found at 11 and live nightclubs with subwoofers and elevated planters aimed directly at the
Ritz Carlton gest rooms. Some of those subwoofers are as wide as 24 in. The proposed fix post insulation testing is reactive and not preventative. You cannot make the required fine that noise will be
controlled without the analysis that would allow you to make that ter determination today. You should not cannot and should not delegate your duties to postdeision sound technicians. This is your duty to assess the facts and you don't have the facts to make a
decision. There are mandatory guidelines concerning um consideration of residential uses in proximity and these these applicants know full well may I have a few more minutes. These applicants know full well that we
have our proposed residential uses and we they are well they're in litigation against us. They know what's happened. Um under 7.5.4 4 B1H. The board is required to consider
proximity to residential uses. Both the applicant and staff assert there are no adjacent residential uses. That is not accurate. On October 10th, the Historic Preservation Board granted a certificate of appropriateness to our client, the DO
Beach Resort Land LLC, for construction of a condominium residential building at 1671 Collins within 175 ft of the Delena. That approval is in the record. It was omitted entirely by staff's
analysis. The mandatory proximity finding cannot be satisfied by ignoring an improved residential project at the adjacent property. Finally, the concentration of similar uses creates a negative neighborhood
impact. It's a mandatory guideline to evaluate. That's 2.5.2.2 2 A7 mandates that the concentration of similar uses shall not create a negative impact on the neighborhood. Staff itself acknowledge that adverse impacts from
this concentration may be expected but acknowledging the problem and adding conditions does not satisfy the threshold fighting finding. The Collins Avenue Quarter already has multiple NIE permitted hotels. This application adds
six simultaneously outdoor entertainment venues with a combined outdoor occupancy of 613 persons. A nightclub grade audio system operating unit which would operate through midnight in an RM3
residential multif family zone. This is not a hotel amenity program. This is an outdoor entertainment complex and it fails the concentration standard. Finally, I'm going to close, but then I want to address the condition.
We ask that the cup denied as proposed as to the outdoor entertainment at the pool deck, at the bar venues, and the outdoor areas because they do not especially those that do not qualify as supper clubs under the code.
And it should be entire enti either deferred or denied entirely pending the completion of a proper predictive acoustal modeling that demonstrates compliance with the noise ordinance. Not after this board acts. My client is
prepared to participate in any testing process to get this done. Finally, I'd like to spend a few more minutes on postapproval testing or whatever testing will be there. Um, as it's proposed, it's legally in
insufficient and structurally un uninforceable as worded. If the board is inclined to grant the CUP in reliance on condition 4 um 4L the post insulation acoustic testing
requirement. I want to address directly why that condition does not cure the legal deficiency and why it does not protect the Ritz Carlton. First the condition is per permissive not mandatory as to our client. Condition 4L states that the applicant shall use best
efforts to coordinate participation in testing. Best efforts is not a legal requirement. It's aspiration. There is nothing there's nothing in this order that compels it. The Ritz Carlton is entirely excluded from the testing
process that determines the sound levels that will affect our guests and our future residents every night until midnight and possibly even later. Second, the testing methodology is drafted is inadequate on its face. The condition requires testing at the
National Hotel's Cabana building and a point 100 ft north of the Delano's North property line. The Ritz Carlton is to south at 1671 Collins Avenue. There is no testing requirement at our property line at our facade or or at our guest rooms. We are the objecting party. We
are the affected neighbors and the testing condition does not require a single measurement at our property. Third, once the COP issues enforcement becomes reactive and practically ineffective under 2.5.2.5,
the board retains modification and revocation authority, but the standard for revocation is very high. The process is lengthy. In meantime, our guests and future residents would be subjected to a nightclub grade audio system whose
impact was never modeled, never predicted, never demonstrated to be compliant before the permit issued. And certainly live music could not be controlled by a controlled sound system. Instead, it is the duty of this board to
determine whether there is a valid attenuation plan. There isn't any. And it should not delegate that determination to an after-fact determination by technicians,
not by this board. The fundamental point is the code requires the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the noise ordinance as a condition of approval, not as a condition of continued operation after approval. Condition 4L
inverts that requirement. Asks this board to approve now and verify later. That is not what 7.54 B1G authorizes and it is not legally sufficient basis for the finding that this mandatory criterion has been met.
Now would you like to um >> Hey, you got to wrap it up. I've given you closing. We ask is the cup denied as to the outdoor entertainment. Um we ask that that in its entirety that the pending until the compending completion
of the analysis is done and the modeling is done that this you either defer or deny the application. But certainly let's get the scientific analysis done before we approve this. And now I have to introduce Mr. Moho and he's going to
spend five minutes. I told him he has only five minutes to make his presentation and he's worked very hard to limit what he's going to say, but he has a presentation and you can bring that up. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moh. >> Thank you, Mr. RS. Can you pull up the presentation, please? Good morning. My
name is David Mohu. I'm a a partner and head of the acoustics department of WSDG in Miami. We're a firm with over 55 years of experience in the field of acoustics, AV system design, and recording studio design. We have done over 3,500 projects and we have been uh
request to perform uh a review of the documentation submitted by the Delano Hotel redevelopment project and the potential impact that sound could have at the Ritz Carlton. Uh next slide, please. The first finding that we Yeah. Next
slide please. >> Or I think I can do it here. >> I'll do it here. Yeah. The first finding and the most important finding we thought is that there is no predictive analysis. There is not an acoustical environmental analysis. What is the typical due diligence that any acoustic
consulting firm would do for this magnitude of project with the amount of speakers outdoor speakers that we're going to have at the Delano and the of course close close proximity to the Ritz Carlton and other neighbors of course so there is no understanding of how loud
the sound at the Delano multiple venues individually or simultaneously could be at the Ritz Carlton so this is the first and most important thing of the review that we have performed formed. Uh, as Mr. Robbins mentioned, we have multiple venues across the ground level and the
fourth floor, meaning we could have uh, first of all, fourth floor sources have a direct line of sight to the Ritz Carlton. And of course, at the ground level, we're going to have over 10 function one 24in horn loaded subwoofer sto
very very big speakers capable of playing very loud bass content. you know, bass that transmit very far distances and it's harder to control. To give you a reference, a typical background music system would have around 10 15 speakers, maybe a few
subwoofers, one two. We're talking about here a combined uh amount of in the order of 50 to 60 speakers over 10 subwoofers. So, this is certainly not a background music system. This is a nightclub uh type of system capable of
playing very loud music. Uh and this brand that I just mentioned, function one, is a brand that you will find in nightclubs such as leave at the point blue or M2 formerly mansion used to be also installed at uh club space. And my
point here is that this system is it's like a Ferrari of audio for high-end clubs. And the the applicant is proposing to put a limiter on this system. But imagine having a Ferrari and saying that you're only going to drive it at 45 miles per hour. It sounds
unreasonable to us. And the only way to understand if uh this system will actually affect and impact and disturb the neighbors and the guests at the Rich Carlton is by a proper acoustic study. Again, this is a typical due diligence. I personally do it all the time with
both indoor and outdoor uh spaces. I'm interrupt you one second. So you made the comment that um that the the cup does not discuss how this would impact the rits. Did you read the proposed cup? >> Yes, >> you did. Okay. Did you read K and L?
>> K&L >> the K and L of the proposed >> uh CU. >> Can you tell me what it says, please? Well, this shall include the requirement the sound from the interior sound system shall not be plainly audible on the exterior of the property
boundaries and the sound system maximum oil shall be set during testing to comply with this requirement. The applicant shall use Beth's efforts to coordinate the participation of the National Hotel and the SLS, which I believe are closer in proximity than the Ritz. Um, at each location, the systems
volume shall be adjusted to ensure that the sound is not plainly audible. So correct what is the base of your statement that >> this doesn't discuss how it will impact >> because usually this is a reactive solution. This is a solution after the fact when we're doing a typical acoustical study we overview we predict
we have the technology nowadays to do that to >> so basically you're assuming they're going to violate the cup is basically what you're saying. >> I I can't tell yes or no to that but I need the acoustical study. We need the acoustical study to understand that because these low frequencies they travel very far. even walls they can't
maintain it and we have several at the outdoor so this is our concern how that noise will impact >> okay and I'm going to interrupt you one more time >> to the staff is this any different than any other type of testing we do on sound from a >> no this is becoming more and more
standard and you know our primary concern and focus um was the national hotel that is extremely close in proximity whereas you know if if if the sound cannot be plainly audible at the then it sure wouldn't be plainly
audible. You know, >> trying to understand his comment. This is reactive. What does that mean? >> No, I think that the because it's because we're asking for testing, right? And I think the testing is critical. Correct. I think testing because of of lots of different factors, background
noise, you know, wind conditions can even affect sound. So, I think actual testing on site is critical. >> Right. So in your expert, what else can they do than do the proper testing and make sure there's no sound heard at the neighboring?
>> Well, first of all, there could be uh acoustical barriers besides the walls that we have now. There could be barriers at the perimeter of the property higher than the walls themselves. This it's a matter of a coordination. There are other solutions and also there could be >> But would you would you agree that if
they comply with the cup then the rits will not be impacted? Would you agree with that? If they comply, I'm assuming they comply and they're good neighbors. >> No, I I Okay, I cannot say yes or no without studying. That's the thing. I would be going against everything I >> Well, I'm saying the CU says it will not
be plainly audible to the to the National Hotel. So, I'm saying if they comply with that, would you agree the rich should not be impacted? >> No. I I >> You won't agree with that? I'm not able to say that >> to the chair. My my issue that they brought up is we're not talking about
the types of outdoor entertainment that we've always that I've heard since I've been on the board. We're talking about live entertainment. And I can tell you being a neighbor of Nikki's Beach. Live entertainment cannot be controlled. You get those guys with the the amplified
saxophones and you can hear it for miles. So, >> okay, I I get that and I'm going to get that. I want to hear that. Let let him finish and then >> Yes. But that's where we I think we need to focus when we get back to our side. >> Okay. Okay. >> Go ahead, sir. Sorry to interrupt you.
>> No, no, please. In addition, the the venues at the fourth level, they have a direct direct line of sight. So, it's even harder to control even specially low frequency. I'm making an emphasis. Low frequency is bass. Uh and in addition, I'm going to skip to this. As
you well said, we're very well said. We will have live entertainment. This could mean an acoustic guitar playing softly, but could also mean a jazz big band, could be a Latin percussion, Brazilian bratucada. It could mean very loud instruments that are not amplified and
they are loud just by themselves. So there is no uh noise attinuation plan to help us understand how to also address these conditions. And this is what we are uh requesting. This is just a demonstration of the line of sight that I'm mentioning. Of course, ground level
sources could be maintained by walls and barriers, but fourth level sources it's harder and again without this predictive modeling there is and and therefore no attenuation plan there is uh no means to understand the impact at the rich
carlton or other neighboring properties. And again one more time this is a standard practice. I'm not requesting or asking for any out of the ordinary extraordinary at all. This happens for most uh venues when you have these kind
of loud sources and very sensible receivers nearby. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh anyone else in chambers to speak on this item? >> Nobody else needs Hold on. Is there
anybody on Zoom? >> Yes. Yes. Let's do the public hearing and then >> because I wanted to rebut the uh that >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I just want to hear public comment then. >> Okay. Our first speaker on Zoom is Neil Ross. >> And Neil, do you swear that the testimony you'll give is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> I do. >> Thank you. You have three minutes. Uh the only the only concern I'm the I'm the president of the board for the decoplage is we just want to make sure that the outdoor noise does not exceed an ambient level where the owners would
be disturbed you know after hours at 11 1212 plus in the morning and uh that's our our major concern. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is Peter Canova. >> Hi Peter. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do. >> You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Um I'll leave the uh questions of the sound to the experts, but I just wanted to make an observation. Uh first of all, I agree with the comments that we all should be very happy that the Delano is finally
reopening and it should really be a um you know, credit to the neighborhood. And I only use the qualifier in this regard. Uh for the past decade at least, the area between Lincoln Road and um 23rd Street has been evolving into a um
more elegant u row of hotels and planned uh upscale residences. And the direction that we've been heading in and we've tried to be part of this is quieting the neighborhood down. The plan for the Delano
really uh shows that it's operating uh maybe less as a hotel than as a nightclub venue that is going to attract people from the beach, attract people from the outside and so forth. Uh this is an econ an economic paradigm that we usually see in the smaller hotels that have a hard time competing with room
rates and so forth. But um it's uh it's kind of to me it looks like they're really winding the clock backward to where the evolution of this uh area has been going and I just wanted to make that observation. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Uh I see no more speakers. >> No, Mr. Chairman, I have some brief rebuttal and response. Uh, first I'd like to hand out to you as well this letter from the National
Hotel, our immediate nextdoor neighbor signed by Delrine Dre, the owner >> who is here in person as well. If you have any questions in support speaking, Mr. >> Object to that object to submission of any new evidence after it's after
>> not evidence is a letter of support and they're receiving it. >> All right. I gave you a great difference. I'm going to give him a difference. >> And so this is of course he doesn't want the next door neighbor to be able to speak. Um the del the national is
supporting our application and the staff's recommendation. They are our next door neighbor. That's what they wanted and we are working with them. So it is important for you to understand the property most affected potentially is supportive. I'd like to correct a few
things that were said on the record that are also not accurate. Uh number one, uh Mr. Robin said that there is litigation between my client at Delano and his client. That's not so there isn't litigation. There hasn't
been litigation. I'm not sure where he's coming up with that. Number two, he misreads the code provision with regard to the distance of residential properties. The code is clear that it must be an existing
residential property within 200 ft. There is none. Not one that's planned, not one that's approved, but an existing residential property of which there is none. In addition, we'd like to talk about
just generally speaking the Delano. Uh to say that this is just going to be an entertainment venue is a gross misstatement. They have spent an enormous amount of money. They have 171 hotel rooms. This is primarily a hotel, but it also has the customary
uh entertainment and food uh operations that a hotel of this scale and stature would have. And there is no one who would be more affected by there being too much noise than the occupants of the hotel rooms at the Delano Hotel. Those
cabana rooms that you see along the poolside will be renting for $3,000 a night. The average daily room rate for the Delano will approximate $900 a night. Those are people they're going to want to make sure are comfortable and
are not bothered by the activities. This is not some small hotel of 10 or 20 rooms which has a huge food and beverage venue. This is a hotel, a premier hotel operated by a company that owns and invests in premier hotels like the Aman and the raffles in Boston. And so this
is what this is. Uh in addition uh he quotes from the code as saying that uh this creates uh a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood because of the concentration in this part of Miami Beach. Hotels with
accessory dining and entertainment are the norm, not the exception. And I would point out, by the way, that the two properties he represents, the Ritz Carlton, the Bagotel, has a cup that allows entertainment until 5:00 a.m. And the Sagamore, the other
property, has a cup that allows entertainment till 2:00 a.m. So they uh that's what's called the pot calling the kettle black. Um the code requires and then the final
thing that he dealt with is obviously the equipment has the capability perhaps of projecting louder but the equipment will be regulated as it always as it always is. The code requires an attenuation plan.
The code requires that we comply with the noise ordinance as well. Uh and so and the city staff, the independent reviewer specifically said with respect to the testing that it is preferable
that the testing occur post installation and that's why the requirement the condition in the order is that 90 days after it's it's uh it's its operating it will be tested and reported back to this board where you will continue to retain
jurisdiction over the matter. Uh and so um finally uh if there are any other questions you have, our sound expert is here. Our sound expert, the city's sound expert have all agreed on the course of action for this and this property has,
as the chair has pointed out, has historically as well had these outside areas activated. >> Can you clarify the type of entertainment that the Delano has planned for? Uh, I I'd ask uh uh to would you uh to talk about the
entertainment? It's going to be obviously given the nature of the hotel, it's going to be very high-end uh entertainment, but if you could talk about it briefly. >> Absolutely. So, um, most of the, um, DJ activation will be inside with the
exception of the the one that's by the pool and then the jazz nights that I was talking about, those are actually inside the restaurant as well on the fourth floor, not on the patio as explained by the
>> both pools or just which pool? There's two pools. So, >> there are two pools. So, the the the main pool, the main pool. Okay. So, downstairs by the Yes. >> And one other thing I'd like to point out is uh there is food service
throughout all of the premises where there is entertainment. There's a uh the the the the portion of the Gigi by the beach. As you know, the last cabana there is going to be also a kitchen for the preparation of food to serve it out
out there as it was historically on this property as well. So all areas will have food service at all times that this uh entertainment is uh is is offered. But as you can see by the level of investment then what they will be
charging the nature of the property. This is going to be a very high-end offering. Finally, there is one condition if you're if you're ready to move, there's one condition that does need to be clarified, which is the uh condition 4B, which references the
maximum total occupancy. That number appears to include only those areas associated with the entertainment. So, it doesn't appear to include the spa, the the gym, the lobby, etc. We're not requesting any increase
in occupancy over the existing grandfather in occupancy level, but the correct number of occupancy is 1424 persons and 741 seats. We'd like the order to reflect that. >> And regarding noise, you have your own
hotel guests you got to deal with. who will be paying an awful lot of money and are the and are the closest the closest people >> to to where the noise will be generated from. >> Right. >> Okay. >> May I correct one fact in the record?
Two facts in the record. The Sagamore I just confirmed with the director. The Sagamore does not have any CUP. >> The Ritz >> We have a copy of the order. If you like it, we'll submit it. Yeah. The Ritz has a CUP, but it's only for inside for live
entertainment, not outside. >> Well, that I mean, did they seek outside anyway? >> No. >> Um, >> all right. So, anybody else in chambers? Nobody else on Zoom. Correct. >> We're going to close the public hearing. Um, I'm just going to start by saying
that, you know, we're trying to encourage businesses to make it in Miami Beach. There's a lot that aren't. So, there's a balance um between wanting the hotel to succeed and quality of life. Um I um and I know Keith, you're going to be concerned with
live entertainment, but to me the key is um being a good neighbor. I happen to know Ben Pundle, who's I believe involved in management of the Delano. They are really good operators. And uh I I I hate to go on with the premise of they're going to violate the CUP. The
cup in my opinion is very strict with respect to what music can be heard outside of the premises whether it's a stereo or a DJ. Um so I I'm going to you know I proceed with based on my experience and knowing these people that are running the hotel
that they're going to comply and I that's why I asked Deborah if there's any difference in the testing and and all the requirements they have for any other venue and I haven't heard that. Um, that being said, I am concerned about quality of life for the neighbors who may be impacted. Um, uh, but I
believe based upon the conditions that have been imposed, that shouldn't be a problem. But anyway, that being said, Keith to the chair, I I I'm reading on page seven of nine of the planning report and and it's just the wording. >> Let's get there. Let me
>> Yeah. And it's it's the wording of every outdoor bar is the same. Well, actually, it's it's sometimes it changes. Uh, it says, "Sorry, where are you? I'm on page seven of the planning report, not the not the actual order
>> and their analysis and they say the proposed hours to midnight 55 seats outdoor bar Gi Bellini as well as ambient level background music beautiful and or live and recorded
entertainment and and curated DJ programming. So is it ambient? Is it live? Is it what level DJ? Are we imposing ambient level restrictions on outdoor?
If it is, and God bless you. If you can do it with an a jazz ensemble, good luck. But is that the this is a mixed terms. It's not clear. >> Well, in fact, the staff can answer that, but >> you can't have the live ambient. We've discussed that 100%.
>> It's ambient after after midnight. It's not ambient. Uh it's not live after then. >> It says as well as ambient live background live music and then the proposed hours to midnight. So is it I'm this doesn't make sense what I'm
reading. >> And if I could um Mr. Marks, so the ambient restriction is >> when they exceed the midnight hour of operation. So, they are asking to be open between midnight and 2:00 a.m.
That's when you would have ambient entertainment. Prior to to midnight, they would be allowed to have entertainment level sound, >> whatever they want. >> Although, we do have the the condition that that sound would not be able to spill out and that's where the testing
comes in to their neighbors property so that that sound would be plainly audible >> and all the speakers have to be focused in inward. Correct. But that would be insured during a testing period in terms of,
>> you know, spilling out and we would need access to, you know, privately owned properties. We know the national hotel owners are phenomenal and I'm sure they would um be happy to allow us um access to ensure that they will be >> um they will not be
>> and that would include the decoplage and and the rits are >> well those are so much further away than the national that if you can't hear it within the national >> here's the other problem I and the I'm not against I don't want to sound like I'm against
anything but I don't know sitting on this board that the National and the Delo I don't know National's intent for live music. So you can't assume that just because the next door neighbor which is a hotel is going to represent
the entirety of that 100 200 f feet and what is loud if unless you cover all areas 200 feet from there and say you can't hear it then that's not a good order in my opinion.
I am I off? >> I mean, we could certainly >> clearly audible within 200 feet >> within I mean that I have no objection to that um condition either. >> The Ritz would cooperate. The Ritz would allow testing on its site.
>> We will have our acoustical engineer present if we need to and help this out. But if there's a process allowing some type of music that should be tested, they're on a direct line of sight. The music on the fourth floor is going to go
over the national and into the Delo. If you remember that picture we showed, it's on the fourth floor. The music will go right over in directly into our >> So, so there in section L, it says at each location, I think it's
talking about the SLS and uh or maybe it's talking about the the entertainment speakers location. I'm not really sure, but it says at each location, the systems volume shall be adjusted to ensure that the sound is not plainly audible.
>> It's what I read earlier, >> right? I think it just could be tweaked number one to say not plainly audible at whatever properties. >> Yeah, >> you can include it to say >> all properties within 200. >> Can you include it include it to say the
at the Ritz Carlton as well? Uh >> I mean that remember the code governs that already. It would be a violation if it was. >> So that's what's the problem. What's the problem with saying that? I mean the
>> if if you want the testing to go out 200 feet, we're fine with that. >> Yes. It's not only the testing, it's it's the when there is I mean if we've learned from like the you know other hotels where testing can work on
you know it sounds great in one day but then when it's very windy on another day it's very loud on you know um so I guess and and the point's well taken that you know the the national hotel is lower than the Ritz Carlton and so if it's if it can't be if it's not supposed to be
plainly audible however many feet then I think we just make it clear. The problem is code enforcement always has issues if it's not after the fact if it's not very clear. But if it's >> you're I I think the terms of this already would include it being plainly
audible there. So then >> why not include it just >> so at each location the systems volume should be just as town sound is not plainly audible. >> And then there's the other issue. They're doing it >> all locations. >> They're doing it venue by venue. What if all the venues are playing? What if they
this system? Yeah. According to my acoustical engineer, he said they can be integrated into one sound system. They can have one act and it can run through our DJ and run all the speakers on the entire site. So, it has to be a cumulative effect. >> He's not a sound expert. I'm not a sound
expert. The city has a sound expert and they're going to conduct the study. And if there's a problem with the way the study was conducted or if you don't even like the order, hold on. Bring it back >> since the chair left. I'm interrupt. >> I'm enjoying all those vice chairs. Uh
I'm just saying it sounds to me like we number one I mean obviously there's going to be have to be a little a little give in terms of the Ritz Carlton because it is South Beach. There are going to be events. You're lucky that such a great you know uh operator came in and put in so much money to this.
They're going to have their own hotel rooms that they're going to not wanting to be disturbing. Of course there's going to be special events. New Year's, Art Basle, all those things that there is going to be loud music that you are going to be hearing it. That being said, u nobody, I don't think even the Delano
wants to be interrupting your guests or residents in the future. Um, and that's something that, you know, we we can address some of it now, but not all of it is going to be able to be addressed. So what I think is the better what I think you're saying Nissan is is the
code currently wouldn't you know requires that it not be plainly audible from the Ritz Carlton and so why would if it would make everybody happy to add in at you know it shouldn't be plainly
audible at the Ritz Carlton um >> I think they said 200 feet of which >> 200 feet is fine within 200 feet are property for properties located within 200 ft, but some of it's going to be 175, some of it might be 220 ft
depending on the location. Depends on how we say is it by the crows how flies from each venue or within the property line. >> If it's if it's a problem at 175 ft, uh if it's not a problem at 175 ft, then it's certainly not going to be a problem
at 250 ft. >> Depending on what location you're looking at, you know, you test all locations. Why can't we do it where they test it >> on the areas at the rits on exposed
>> and 200 ft we don't know what part of the rits you're going to only >> due respect I don't want this to be a game of whack-a-ole right saying to go to 200 f feet we're fine with it that encompasses properties within 200 feet but we're not going to sit here and have Mr. Robbins dictate to you or the sound
experts what you should test and how you should test. That's not appropriate and he's not an expert at >> I have the expert here and he will testify as to what's appropriate. >> So all right you know I've closed the public hearing. So, >> so in terms of the language, I I just
think that the >> that one sentence uh is an important sentence and I just think it needs to be >> Where are you on section L the second to last sentence it says at each location >> the system systems volume shall be adjusted to ensure that the sound is not
plainly audible but it doesn't obviously I mean that doesn't make sense >> you want to say within two >> I guess uh is is it satisfies or doesn't violate the the whatever the ordinance is. I mean, >> yeah, 200 feet from any neighbor.
>> Yeah. So, I think that's a good clarification that um at any property within 200 ft, the systems volume shall be adjusted so that it's not plainly off. >> Right. And and drop the specific of the national and that's it's irrelevant. It
should be 200 feet, >> right? >> Yeah. I I think the intent was that those were the closest property. So, but yeah, >> that's similar to what we've put in other other things. Just, you know, the sound can't be heard, can't be plain. We all you don't need to name.
>> But, but I guess regardless of here here's my question, though, because >> when you say at each location, is it talking about the national and the SLS? >> It should. >> No, at each location within the Del. >> Yeah, there's six outdoor locations.
>> All right. They need to test it at the pool at the GG at the Yeah, they need to test it. >> And then I do think that the section about and uh Debbie, you mentioned it, section J versus any outdoor entertainment shall the last sentence shall be limited to ambient background.
I just think it should say any outdoor entertainment after 12 a.m. >> Yes. >> Yes. It wasn't clear. >> Yes. The other is it is it clear Debbie that that after testing that they must have
>> whether it's decibel level or what they have to have some kind of control >> that's >> so that it doesn't go above the test >> correct the sound system that's in here will need to have a limit and that the limit will be placed during the testing and is subject to retesting right
>> if complaints yeah right >> but I want to make it clear that They will run the entire city, not just one venue at a time and that is a real problem. >> All right. Again, the city knows how to do the testing. I I want you both to sit down. >> Okay.
>> We'll sit down, but one thing, Mr. Chair, thank you. >> No, you've each had an ample time to talk and we get it. >> Mr. Chair, I did want to just lost in the discussion was the note on the occupancy in section 4B that it should read 1424
person occupy. >> What we need to do with that, Mr. Casden, is to make it clear because the spa is not part of the NIE, >> right? >> So, you know, the occupancy that we listed is part of the neighborhood impact establishment, the alcoholic beverage establishment. So that we can
add another occupancy for the total property occupancy, but we didn't I mean the spa is not going to be included as part of your neighborhood impact establishment. >> There's there's also >> sorry um Ian but um so the occupancies
there's a little coffee shop in the lobby that's got 12 seats. Those seats weren't included here. So, the limit should be increased to include those 12 seats even though they're not in the neighborhood impact establishment. Our concern is that the whole hotel will be looked at as a neighborhood impact establishment, not just the individual
venues we're applying for. So, when we go in for uh certificate of use for our occupant lid certificate with the fire department, we're going to get artificially limited to the numbers in the cup, even though those don't include the rest of the hotel that wasn't included in this application because there's
>> Yeah, I think we just need to make that clear because if you're not an alcoholic beverage establishment, if the coffee shop, for example, is just selling coffee and pastries, that wouldn't be included in the the overall occupancy of the NI. So I think we can just make it clear in the order by listing the other
venues, the spa, the coffee shop, and the total hotel occupancy, but that that we also list the maximum NIE occupancy and the maximum number of seats for the alcoholic beverage so that it's clear that what's part of
the NIE and then what's just the total number of seats for the property >> to the extent just to avoid any confusion there. So like for instance, the lobby of the hotel is under the hotel. It's part of what's covered by the hotel's liquor license, but there's not going to be an entertainment component there. So that's about 100
occupants right there. That wasn't included in the total occupancy. So I just want to make sure it's not just about the alcohol establishment. It's it's about the whole hotel and all the public areas. >> I I don't think this order needs to control the occupancy for areas outside of the neighborhood impact
establishment. And and in fact the condition is very clear that that it's the NIE subject to this conditional use permit that has the maximum output. So Debbie do you think we need to make any change to that number based on the >> I wouldn't but if you know if there needs to be >> your concern is to get a certificate of
use. >> The concern is the business licensing after this is approved when we go for a certificate of use planning is going to review it and they're going to say well this cup says your total occupancy is limited. We don't apply for a CU just for these venues for GI and for Mimi. I don't think it says the total occupancy
is limited. I think it's just in the >> rooms and everything else. >> Um >> I mean is there any merit to that that that the planning when they try to get a certific? >> No, I just and I can't think of an instance where we've included those types of areas right that aren't part of the >> right. So yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.
>> So so the neighborhood impact establishment is the Delano Hotel, right? It's not just GG and Mimi. And 4B specifically says the neighborhood impact establishment subject to the cup shall have a maximum occupant content of 1,124.
I'm saying that 1,124 doesn't include the lobby. It doesn't include >> So I have to defer to staff on >> Yeah. I mean we listed the venues, right? So >> can you just say listed below like >> the venues are that are listed are part of the NIE. So maybe we can just include
a sentence that say all areas within the hotel that are not included within this order shall be separate for purposes of occupancy. >> Yeah, I'm okay with that as long as they're not converted so that they are, you know, in terms of, you know,
>> well, you can add that too, >> right? >> And that's agreeable. >> All right. >> Okay. >> You got that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions or comments? >> Sure. >> No, I was just going to say that I don't, you know, we talked a lot about testing. I don't really put a lot of credence into testing because when you
test it, it's all controlled, you know, circumstances. But when you go to open up or after you're open, you know, all it takes is someone to turn the volume knob a little to the right or or turn a speaker one way and it it changes everything. >> Right. Again, that's comp as long as we
have in the CP, >> you know, the the changes we made where >> the music, the sound can't be a or however we phrase it. That's fine. The control we talked someone mentioned the control is us is this board. If they violate it, they come back here.
Correct. And I know we've been >> lax in the past in in in in Yeah. I mean, when I first started, we haven't really uh going back to the Good Time Hotel. you know that that went on for years and years and years and um >> you know and and well
I mean we don't control that but you know if they come back to if it comes back to us and there are violations we need to not say well you know let's do another sound test or you know do this or they're going to promise this we need to take action if that's the case
they're good faith faith in the applicant and I do and and um right now but if they come back us and there's a problem, then we'll deal with it then and hopefully we will deal with it and not put it off for another few months. >> All right. So, I would make a motion.
>> First of all, let me just Kent, thank you. >> Nissan, thank you for your and so hopefully we're striking a balance. Again, you know, it it's always tough for us, but we want business to succeed. We want residents to have quality of life. So, you know, we do our best. So,
go ahead and make a motion. I make a motion to approve staff's recommendations with the modificate the tweaks to the language as discussed in those two sections. Um what did we say about the occupancy? >> No, they're going to figure that out.
>> You're going to Yeah, they're going to that's more administrative. >> Anything else? >> Nope. >> I'll second. >> But the tweaks being 200 feet from each location tested regardless of the name of the building that's 200 ft away. and I'm thrilled to have the Delano back.
>> Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Um I think with this one we can just say all in favor. >> Anyone opposed? >> Okay. >> Yay. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I really I'm serious. If you would like >> a a tour of the hotel, let let us know.
You will be >> When do they open? >> Oh, totally. April 27th. >> Oh, >> the first guests will come in. They want to be able to be available for Formula 1. >> Wow. And uh I really uh I think you'd be so happy to see what's been done. It
really far exceeds the original recreation of the Delano in 1995. >> I I've been waiting a long time. >> Will uh Madonna be there? >> No. By the way, Isn't the Gail the closest hotel to you or am I Isn't the Gail even closer to you? >> Yeah, it's across the street.
>> Across the street? Yeah, >> across the street. Yeah, >> that's behind where the music is now. >> Right. >> Mr. Mr. Mr. Chair, I just want to make one comment since it came up during the public hearing, but it's really more of a of a of a zoning issue is um a reference was made to the restaurant supper club regulations, which this
board may remember uh reviewing a few years ago. That ordinance unfortunately was impacted by Senate Bill 180 which was adopted uh last year by the state legislature essentially preempting the city from
adopting more restrictive land development regulation or comp plan amendment. So as it currently stands we cannot enforce the restaurant supper club ordinance. >> Um I'm not you know I'm not making any comments as to whether it applies to to this property or not. I just want the
board to be aware that that's one of the ordinances that that the legislature has preempted. >> Got it. Thank you. >> All right, we're going to take five minutes cuz I think your lunches are here. >> Um and then we have one more item. So >> I got to head out. God bless you.
>> Oh, you do? >> Yeah. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. >> Okay. Uh, welcome back. I'm sorry that was a little longer than I said, but
we're ready to proceed with the last two items on the agenda. Um, planning board file 20 PB25 0812 and 0813, Alton City Center overlay
comprehensive plan and LDR amendment. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um this both of these applications were strongly alluded to um at the earlier discussion um regarding the Lincoln Road uh residential incentives. This is specific
to um the Alton West Avenue parcel which in the previous application was area 1B. Um, this is a comprehensive list of incentives for non-transient residential uh uses for properties located between Lincoln Road and 17th Street from West
Avenue to Alton Road. Um, the applicant is uh requesting an F increase um up to a 3.5. That would be a bonus of a 1.5 above what's permitted today. um a density bonus of 50 unit dwelling
units per acre for a maximum total density allowed of 150 units per acre, an increase in height from 65 ft to 150 ft. Um a requirement that a minimum uh residential unit size of 500 ft. um they
would profer um in order to take advantage of these that all uh residential uses have a restricted covenant that does not permit any short-term rental of any of these units. Um the proposal also includes a requirement that 50% of the new
construction should be of the gross square footage of the new construction be um residential use. um they are um proposing a smaller micromobility component than we discussed previously without a an actual
square footage requirement. Um basically this is very similar to the proposed um Lincoln Road residential incentives. The two um the two differences that are the most significant are number one the percentage of residential units
required. the previous Lincoln Road um incentive ordinance that we discussed was that all square footage above the ground floor be residential. Now, the planning board has made a different recommendation to the commission regarding that. Um but nonetheless,
that's how it was originally drafted. And the second largest difference is the ability to provide up to 100% of the required parking in tier 1. While none of it would be required, um they would
be able to provide up to 100%. Um, again, that was not part of the Lincoln Road overall incentives, but the planning board did make a recommendation um for a waiver process for up to 80% of
the required parking. Um, so with that, um, I we can turn it over to the applicant, but I'm happy to, uh, answer any questions that you may have. And just so the board knows what we are doing today would be moving it forward to the um public um out outreach I believe. So
>> right >> Mr. Chair uh members of the plan board Nissan Casden and Cecilia Tortoisedo Verman representing the applicant and the principal Dave Berg is here as well. Uh at first I would like to start with what you have just referenced that this
is this is not the meeting at which you will be taking action on the item making your recommendation that is to the city commission. The next step in the process is to go to the community meeting and get that feedback and then report back
to your board for your recommendation. With that said, if you would please put the presentation up. Um, I thought that the uh, obviously the discussion you had earlier today was very informative and constructive members of the board and Commissioner
Suarez and and David's participation. Uh, and so a lot was covered, but there are, as I think uh, Jonathan Frerieden pointed out, there are some differences to some of this and as as Scott Needleman point out, some differences to some of the sub areas which I think are
relevant to our discussion here. Um uh first of all, I think you're all familiar. We're going to call this the Epicure block. Uh everyone fondly remembers and misses Epicure, that block
is now uh vacant. Uh in that portion of the former Epicure site, but also if you look within a half mile radius on Alton Road, there's a tremendous amount of vacancies. And so that is a part of town that needs revitalization. I'm going to step one
step ahead of my uh presentation and talk to you about uh localized living because that's really what this is coming down to. And it's a three-legged stool. You have to have places where people can live, where they can work, and where
where they can buy their goods and necessities and enjoy themselves. If you're missing one of those legs of the stool, it doesn't work. If you have only residential and you don't have office or places to support jobs, it's not going to work, you know, and you also need the
markets and other things to sustain life. Similarly, if you only have offices and you don't have residential, it's not going to work. What's going to happen? Everyone's going to have to commute in and out to go to their places. And so what you're seeing happen in the metropolitan area, and I mentioned it earlier, Coconut Grove, two
areas in Carl Gables. Frankly, I'm beginning to see it happen in the Sunset Harbor neighborhood with offices developing there. So, the people who live there don't necessarily have to commute to go to their offices. I mean, in the south of Fifth area. And that gets us to the proven model for success
for what David is proposing for this block, which is Sunset Harbor. Sunset Harbor, like Alton Road, historically in this city, was basically a service street for local needs. It had garages. that had warehouses. My dad's warehouse
was on Alton Road years ago. Uh but those uses became obsolete and were uh abandoned or not used. Sunset Harbor was exactly the same way. Now Sunset Harbor is a very vibrant neighborhood. How did that happen? It happened by the changes
in zoning that incentivize residential but also office and also retail. And so Sunset Harbor is a good model for what can happen in this important uh nexus of Alton Road and 17th Street. Um I'll turn
it over to David in a minute. Infinity Collective, his company has a very impressive record of doing fine projects with great sensitivity to the community. Among them includes the renovation and operation of the Esme Hotel. I think everyone knows that's they did a
spectacular job on that on Espanola Way. The Variety Hotel on 17th Street, they also renovated and operate as well. They have properties on Ocean Drive, also on Biscane Boulevard in Miami, and they are doing a major uh live local residential
project in Little River. They know residential, they know uh they know office, and they know communities. The Alton City Center overlay uh includes multiple properties, not just the property uh that our client
has, which is 1677 West and the Alton Road properties, but the city of Miami Beach has a block. Uh the tra there's the Trader Joe's property. There's the US post office. One thing I want to mention as well because it has come up in discussion is
the uh height. The proposed ordinance as the one this morning as well talks about 150 feet in height. 150 feet in height is absolutely contextual for this neighborhood. And you're looking at a real live shot of this neighborhood which has uh buildings
actually if you go down to the Flamingo and Five Park much taller but you also see buildings across West Avenue across Alton Road where the parking garage is well over 100 ft and tall. the height that they're seeking is is quite
contextual. In fact, I think that uh more would have worked better in terms of the efficiency of the project, but the planning staff and and Commissioner Suarez really wanted to hold the line at that. So, with that, I'd like to turn it
over to David to take you through how a project like he's proposing works with this overlay zoning. >> Thank you. Again, David Berg, uh, Infinity Collective on behalf of, uh, Alton Ventures. So, I think I'm going to try to fly through this since we had a deep conversation earlier. Um, but I do
want to specify, as I mentioned earlier, that this is an actual project. Uh, it's still in concept and design, but it's but it's not, uh, theoretical in terms of legislation, so you can really see what we're trying to do. So, it's through our four plans. Um, one thing I wanted to touch on that we mentioned
earlier, just because it applies to our project, is a couple things. One, this is not a spot zoning. It's an overlay district. Obviously, Nick can give you the legal terms on that, but it's not considered a spot zoning. We we are grateful to be included in Commissioner Suarez legislation, but this is a private application for the Alton Road
um overlay district, which is a separate ordinance entirely from Commissioner Suarez's legislation. Um two, we are not planning on building any uh short-term rentals. So, the existing building at 17 West, which has a license and was already approved, has I think 24 or 28
short-term rentals, that would stay in place. Um, and there'll be a covenant in Loo with that property for the purposes of um of the alleyway and shared and shared parking, etc. But, um, we're we have no intention and are fully I think our application includes no short-term
rentals in any any new build that we have. Um, so that's those are a couple things I wanted to address. The on our project what we're trying to create is an ecosystem as I mentioned of live work and play and a lot of connectivity to Alton Road and to Lincoln Road from West
Avenue. So we spent um many many hours with residents spoken to probably over hundred of them. We provided 19 letters of support. or more coming in for the next uh hearing, but these letter support include local business improvement districts. Uh the Alter Road Neighborhood Association, as Tim spoke
earlier, uh Soie West is supportive of us. So there'll be uh major employers such as Think Hospitality, um V&E Hospitality, uh the Fountain Blue who have employees here. We've we've been speaking to to employers like Mount Si and looking to create ways to house
their employees and provide shuttle systems to the employment centers from you know our property for our residents so that you know nurses or general managers etc can live at our property and then and then Fountain Blue for instance could bring a shuttle and bring 40 people to their to found blue versus
them all having one individual car. Um, but we in in our discussions with the neighborhood, we also realize that people will walk north to Sunset Harbor and they'll walk south to to South of Fifth on West Avenue, but they will not really walk east to cross uh, Alton
Road. And that's why Lincoln Road has suffered on Lincoln Road West for the vacancies. And it's also why Alton Road has suffered. It's also why some of these garage spaces like 11 of the Lincoln that may have vacancy at night make it challenging for residents to live because they don't want to cross Alton Road to get to their to their to their parking spaces. Um, so what we
want to do is create this breezeway similar to Sunset Harbor where you're going to have an entrance on off West Avenue, an entrance on Alton Road, and a big um PO like experience in this breezeway where there'll be cafe seating. It'll be very inviting. It'll be a nice connectivity to allow more uh
collaboration between the streets and really drive traffic to the Altim Road Corridor and Lincoln Road West to deal with all these vacancies. As Nishan showed, there's over 30 vacancies within um a half mile radius and we think that comes from lack of residents using the
commercial corridor. Um so as you'll see just as as the design, we have a community garden. That was one of our one of our public benefits. I'll get into that later. We spoke a lot with community to to generate public benefits for everybody. Um so we're going to provide community garden space. You'll
see a a bike room space for um for me mobility. We also have that up going through the garage. Um it we're separating the office lobby and the residential lobby. So there are two different experiences. Our site allows us because it's 300 feet plus of of linear frontage to have this flexibility. I'm not sure many sites
would have that. Um we are providing a a public paddle court for the community. So anyone in the neighborhood as might be resident can book it on an app and use it. Um and then of course ground floor retail which we think is is critical to drive uh foot traffic and
and vibrancy to the neighborhood. So, this is a just a quick stacking plan um of our project. Essentially, you have ground floor retail, second floor retail. We're really leaning into the blue zone initiative. We want this to be a blue zone certified building. Um what that means is a lot of community space,
a lot of shared spaces, a lot of outdoor spaces, a lot of walkability. Um there's there's many there's nine foundations of blue zones that I can probably talk a year ear off another meeting, but um we're we're we're actually designating about 4,000 square feet on the second floor to be a blue zone hub for Ryan Beach residents. And there'll be
longevity uh uh discussions and and and professionals and medical professionals and specialized uh you know services for longevity. Um, as I mentioned earlier, the office component is vertical, but it's a bout it's a boutique office component of about 4,000 square feet per
per each space. The total four plates 8 9,000 ft². We demi we demise that into, you know, 2, three, four spaces. And the idea there is to have office space from each residence. Um, but as you can see, the bulk of the building is is residential units. It's over twothirds of the floor plate. And the reason for
that is that we think that a pancake- like floor plate is much less attractive than the boutique floor plates as we're as we're designing. Um the rooftop is not open to the public. There's no outdoor music. There's nothing of that nature. It's just a a pool and amenity space for the residents of the building.
So there's been a lot of talk about traffic and cars. Uh we're using this to point out that despite population going down over the years, traffic has gone up. And so we think that our belief is that the data shows that traffic is driven by um people commuting to and from work to the beach and not living
here. And that's why having the office component and the residential component is so important. Here's the conceptual massing of the property. Uh again, we consider this to be midrise and very much in line with the character of the neighborhood. So we didn't list all of our benefits
here, but I'll memorialize them uh verbally with you. But um through this project, we would deliver approximately 184 units to the to the uh the neighborhood um and make this kind of like an economic hub for Alton Corridor. We're going to, you know, revitalize
this historic stretch which has now been a vacant site for many years under the Shio plan. Uh we're going to add neighborhood uses and retail. We as we have mentioned publicly uh we are near execution with a replacement for Epicure a new age Epicure which is not I wouldn't call it a grosser and I wouldn't call it a fresh market but it's
a hybrid of both there'll be coffee bar bakery hot bar prepared foods um kind of like a Cinderella or like a round swamp um or airwan is a good good example um we're we're providing housing through the missing middle this is largely uh
accomplished by the commercial component but this is this is We're looking to do rental apartments. Um I think that's you know can be stipulated in our in our order. We have no issue with that. Um that's our business plan. The uh you know we think that by providing rental apartments at this level you're going to
have year- round occupancy. So you're not going to be vac it's not be snowbirds. It's not going to be vacant in the summer months. And as a result it'll be year- round traffic for the neighborhood for sales to the restaurants and the community. Um we're reducing the traffic. The current plan that was approved under the Sherbos
scheme was 250,000 square feet of office. Large for plate would have attracted hundreds if not a thousand employees commuting in and out of Miami Beach not living here. So this actually substantially reduces the traffic. We submitted a traffic plan with our application provided by Kimley Horn which shows that um we're encouraging
foot traffic and microobility. Uh we're strengthening the local economy and those are some of our you know what we think are project benefits. In terms of community benefits, um we are offering a paddle court to the community. We're providing community gardens. We're providing micromobility. We we're talking to employers about shuttle
services to reduce traffic. Uh we're we're burying all the FPL lines in the uh the alleyway. We are landscaping the alleyway and beautifying it. We are beautifying the landscaping surrounding the parking lot of that the city uh neighbors with us to the back on the
west. Um we are we've agreed with Soie West to fund uh to to provide funding support for the Alton Court Parklets which I think is on 10th 14th and maybe 8th Street but there's like three roundabouts off of uh West a Alton Courts. Um we're pro also as we
mentioned with our commercial parking we'll be offering all of those spaces that will not be used during the you know non-commercial hours to residents of Miami Beach at the Miami Beach parking rates. So, anyone that lives on West Avenue goes to the neighborhood may park overnight in the uh in the garage at the whatever the dollar an hour rate
is. Um, and as I mentioned, I think that uh you know, healthy and communitydriven uh living similar to the blue zone initiatives is an important factor and will become a growing factor as new communities are built and we're incorporating that uh initiative and we we hope to be certified by them, you
know, through our project. So we we've spent a lot of time uh you know speaking to a lot of people. We've attended three or four town halls between Soia West and Wava. We've presented to uh broad groups of 100 plus people. We've presented to small groups that come to our office. Anyone that has
reached out to us has we've met with. There's not a single meeting we've ever declined. And even um one group uh that is, you know, wavering on support or not support, we don't know exactly where they stand. We've had over 10 conversations with them. So we're not hiding from anybody. We want to meet with everybody. We want we want
community feedback and our public benefits are driven by the community feedback. A community garden was not included initially. A paddle court was not included initially. So these are all continued feedback items that we're getting from them including the parking. >> Uh I don't think we need to neily get into this. We can skip this.
>> Uh these were just the differences with the Lincoln Road legislation we presented. So thank you for your time and all we're asking for at this point is to proceed to the neighborhood uh process. It's a just a discussion item for you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, anybody in here to
speak on this? No. Anyone on Zoom? >> Yes. Uh, our first speaker is Valerie Naret. >> Welcome back, Valerie. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. So just again being uh uh fast, I just
would like to uh say again my support to this project with the current uh parking uh situation. Um allow them to have all the parking that they can offer. I believe
that 14,000 uh squaret of uh you know scooters and vasper parking is the size of a Mercedes dealership. I don't think we need all that. So we definitely need parking for cars. We are already suffering a lot of traffic for people driving around looking for parking in
our neighborhood. We already lost parking with the construction and once the street raising, you know, is all complete, we have lost all of it basically. So uh thinking that people that will move into this new construction will not have cars is not
realistic. They will have cars. They will be parked. They'll be able to walk all over. But like most of us, they will have cars. And uh please let them have their parking. Otherwise, it will affect our quality of life in the sense that we will not be able to get in and out of
our properties in certain times of the day every single day. And in addition, they're offering us the night park uh night parking for the residents. So this is absolutely awesome. um comparing with
the garages around at $20 an hour parking is not visible for the residents that we currently have here. Thank you all very much and have a lovely afternoon. >> Thank you, Valerie. >> Our next speaker is Annabelle Lopez.
>> Hi, good afternoon everyone. Good afternoon, chair, members, and city staff. Annabelle Yopies, Lincoln Road Business Improvement District Executive Director. I'm calling here on behalf of the board to show um and speak about our
support. This is a wonderful quality mixeduse development that we could not be more welcoming. Um twothirds residential is key as well as office. We need um daytime traffic to really
patronize our restaurants, our cafes and our retail and this project really really checks all the boxes that will be positive for the entire district. So we are here very supportive of it and we
wanted to share our support. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> No more. >> Okay. Close the public hearing. >> Can I just make one quick comment? Sorry. >> Sure. >> Um I just want to address one of uh Mr. Needam's comments earlier. Our project which I can show you h does have
setbacks. So um by election we've chosen to have setbacks on the street. Um I think above the 50 ft correct me wrong is I think 20 setbacks on the ground floor in the lower levels which is what your comment was. Um we have about 50%
of the floor area set back. Uh you know on all levels. So not not everything is set back across the whole 300 ft but over 50% is set back on on the lower levels as well. I think it's about uh
it ranges from like you know 5 to 20 ft. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. >> I my only question to them. >> I'm I really love the concept of the
work play, but I've seen this in other locations like in Winwood and other cities that where there's a tight bundling of you you have a space, sometimes it's a loft, and then you have an office and it's combined rents.
Have you thought about some kind of incentive to drive the rental to offices and tie them together so you don't have a whole bunch of independent offices, people driving to their offices versus the work play where they're there
and working? >> Yeah, we have um >> I haven't heard yet. Can you articulate that? >> We have and and we're definitely planning on incentivizing that. We are right now we don't have you know because we don't have approval to build anything but the existing as of right. So, we were speaking to retailers and our
conversations with the retailers is we want to give office and residents discounts to the retail establishments, but once we get into, you know, discussions with office tenants about can they have a discount to live here, >> discount to work there, we're going to run the same program. We're also um
offering the employers u such as Mount Sinai and Vienn Hospital a discount on the rents for their employment. So we're really trying to create an ecosystem of like people that live and work here >> um come to our project. So uh you know certain certain employers are they make
it a they they'll write a letter of support. Some people have you know precedent but they don't you know put anything in writing but the conversation is um we will offer discount to fair market value to you know your employer as long as as long as there's like a bulk lease concept.
>> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> We'll jump in. Um question on on height. Um I know it says a maximum of 150 ft, but you know where we measure that from is not ground level. It's I guess it's
from freeboard and you know we've seen this before with certain projects. You know they say a maximum height of whatever it is and it ends up being quite a bit higher from the ground or the perception is it's a lot higher from the ground level and it is higher. Um, the building across the garage across
the street is Do you know how tall that is from ground level? >> I don't. It's um >> Yeah, I was told there's about 150 ft. >> Yeah, >> I think it's a little less than that. A little less, I think. But
>> but the office portion goes higher than the garage portion, right? So the office on Lincoln actually is higher than the garage, just to clarify. I guess, you know, I'm okay with roughly that height. Um, but I think there should be some better control on it than just saying
150. I'd like to know. In other words, if you say it's your building is not going to be any taller, the highest architectural projection on your building is going to not be any taller than the garage, I'm fine with that. Um, but I I just think that in terms of when we say 150, it's a little bit
misleading. Um, and and I and I just I don't know. There has to be some kind of more control, I guess, is what I'm saying. >> This is a survey we did. >> Yeah. Um, well, I mean, I'm talking about the immediate neighborhood, which
is that and like I said, I'm look, >> we're roughly at 150 ft give or take. Um if you look at the if you look at the context um actually uh David if he could have had more height he could have had even more residential. It would have
been more efficient but keeping the height down um 150 ft. You have to look at the context. This is Alton West. You have West Bay Plaza which is behind it which is almost 100 ft. You have >> You're looking at that. I'm looking at the building right across the street.
diner stand. There are a lot of buildings close by that are even taller. >> But there's Sun there's the there's there's Bell Ale those buildings. There's all the buildings on West Avenue which are considerably taller. And so you're really transitioning to an area which which really does have taller
buildings much >> there. I'd like to hear you know what the rest of the board has to say. But I but that's not my main concern. >> Just just to comment on that. Our initial application was for 180 ft um and a 4.0 F. We got feedback from staff
to reduce it to 150 and 3.5 which we accepted kind of off the bat. Um what that did was it lost parking and it lost residential units. And so um reduction in height has the same impact. >> Uh again I'll I'll leave that to the
rest of the board. But my bigger concern is the setbacks and you you mentioned that. Um, you know, I'm looking at your renderings on here and I know you mentioned the ground floor is you got about 50% of that is set back quite a bit from the
sidewalk, but I'm looking at the parking levels. You have three levels of parking. >> Yep. >> And that's right at the property line. >> No, set. That's set back, too. >> Well, from my >> I mean, I'm looking at this rendering and it looks like it's right along the
property line. Um, >> so if you look at the second floor, >> you need the microphone, >> not the the parking, the levels is what I'm looking at, >> which is third, fourth, >> third, fourth, and fifth from right in town. >> Yeah.
>> Um, you sure those are separate? >> So, here here's my concern. Here's my concern. Um your your property you said is about 320 ft long and with that parking right there it's almost going to be like a 30 foot tall blank wall that whole 320 ft
long. Um I and it's right on Alton Road and I think that takes away a lot from Alton Road. >> And what I prefer, what I'd like to see is something more in line with what the city originally recommended. I would go
even further, which is, you know, maybe the first few levels you're right at Alton Road, but then after, let's say, 35 feet or three floors, whatever it is, then you're set back quite a bit. everything. I >> if if I may, if you look at 1212
Lincoln, it's a long building which is activated. It also has the hotel portion. Uh that that height is uh uh that's about 75 ft, I think. And it shows you it can be, you know, you can articulate and have transparency on a
facade, but you're asking for >> bigger, taller building. Well, then it's stepping back after. >> Well, it's stepping back above 75 ft. >> So, in essence, you could have >> and again, this is what this is we spoke on. This is your right. >> You could it could change and you might
have a 70 a 320 foot long facade that's 75 ft up from the from from uh right at your property line right along the sidewalk. And that that's that that's concerning. I >> I I understand the concern. I I think that you know well as as as currently
designed and with the current height limitation if you set back you're ultimately losing parking spaces right so you're going to lose entire row of parking spaces you could lose 30 40 50 parking spaces as you as you go up three or four floors with that with that setback and so then we'll be I think we already are
underparked by the way but you know then we'll be underparked significantly and you would need another floor of height so the question is is you know if if if there's if there's a if there's a trade where it says, "Okay, well, you can go above 150, maybe to 160 or 165 or something like that for an extra floor
of of height. If you set back to these levels, to me, that that that works. But in as in our current project, if I were to offer a significant setback on all the parking levels, >> then we would need another floor of parking cuz we're going to lose, you know, >> two rows of of you can look at the parking.
>> I understand what you're saying. >> I might be open to that. You go a little higher and that' be fine, too. set that cuz my concern is what that's going to look like on Alton Road. That's my biggest concern. >> We we're happy to design as as socially responsible with the city. We just need
to make sure we hit the needs. So like if we lose a whole half a floor parking, I'll need to build half a floor parking more higher. >> Your parking basically because I know your tower on the back on the west side is set back a little too as you go up. So you're saying your parking is is the entire
>> entire set. I'm looking at the plans. We're set back. We're not we we do we're set back on the ground in second floor and we're set back above the parking is we're trying to maximize the parking level and the purpose of that is for maximizing parking spaces without going higher in parking. >> Again, what that does it really takes
away in my opinion it takes away from from um >> so we we would definitely be I mean you're not voting on today, but we'd be definitely open to having a little more height and just and and having the step back on the parking garage or having the option to do one of the two. I have no issue with that. I just I just can't
leave parking garage. Another idea, you know, you can go up a little more parking, maybe four levels on the back side. Um, and then just for your tower, you're basically there's almost no setback along the alleyway. >> You need the um the podium for all the
mechanical equipment, right? You're going to have all the, you know, all the HVAC units for the retail, the commercial, all the residential units. You have the farm for the mini splits. So that big podium, if I were to add, you know, a row of parking, let's say, on the podium in the back, I would lose all the mechanical space. Oh, you mean where you step back, that's
where you're going to have your mechanicals for the units? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, look, that that's my concern. My concern is though is what that block of Alton Road is going to look like in in theory with what this is proposing, what's what's in the wording,
not so much the rendering, is you could end up with a a wall. Obviously, it'll have a driveway in the middle, but 320 ft long, 75 ft high right along Alton Road. And I think that's >> well let me ask something since um we're not really taking action on this and
this goes to community outreach meeting who who organized that the city. >> Yes, we will with the with the applicant. >> Okay. And is that can you take note of Scott's concerns and have that as a discussion in this meeting? >> It's not necessarily something that I
mean we could we could present the planning board's general comments at today's meeting. Yes. Can I ask a clarification question? I want to be clear that we're not staff will not be putting that that's why I'm asking if they can ask this will come back to us.
>> But will it come back to us or is it >> this goes this goes to a public meeting and then comes back? >> My question is that's his discussion sounds more like design review board. They're the ones who'd say, "Oh, the setback should be this. It should be broken up more." Isn't he going to go in
front of the DRB? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. But we we're we're setting we're we're recommending language regulations changes to them. >> Yeah, I understand. But that's like let them bring up your concerns because they're going to have this public outreach. >> I'm I'm assuming after that public
comment and outreach that you all will tweak it, >> right? >> Not necessarily because I mean in this remember this is a a public I mean a private application. So during the public workshop staff will be um you know in attendance um and addressing the
public but we will not be giving our presentation a formal presentation that will be the >> but what's the p what's the purpose of the public outreach if if you don't if some of their comments and concerns are receptive that it be slightly amended. I'm assuming that's how it works, right?
>> Maybe they love it the way it is and there's no >> input is for you. >> What >> and that that would that would be up. So the applicant could after the applicant receives uh input from the public, the applicant could profer to modify portions of their draft ordinance and
staff could certainly also make recommendations. >> I'm assuming if there's public outcry on some issue, you know, you'll think about that and >> Well, yeah, we we'd actually love to get the public meeting as soon as possible. We've already met with do it in April. >> If we could do it in April, it'd be great. Um, we've met with we think
almost everybody that wants to meet with us. So, um, sooner the better for us. >> What's Wabno's position? >> Well, that's a complicated question. I don't know the answer. I've had, uh, no less than 10 to 12 conversations and
multiple meetings with Wava. Um, recently I sent an email to all of you yesterday talking about the Shio design and the, you know, his his approval process that granted him higher height on the on the office program and the vacation of the alley. Um, you know,
that's not our business plan. Our business plan is to build housing. So, um, they have not formally said they support us. They've not said they formally do not support us. They have told us that they've met multiple times, you know, to come to a conclusion, which they have yet to provide to us. And as
of yesterday, they said they thought you were voting on it today, so they wanted you to continue it and send us back $3 million um you know, from the city development. So, uh you know, it's a little bit uh I don't know where they are. I know that we've that we have spent as a tremendous
amount of time with them. We continue to talk to them as even as recent as yesterday. Um, and everybody else we've spoken to has given us full support. >> Am I Am I just a question for staff, am I wrong that that the state has
preempted us from re I guess basically reversing anything and becoming more restrictive >> and correct that that's the um the Senate Bill 180 I was referenced earlier that we cannot adopt an amendment to the LDRs or a comprehensive plan that is more restrictive than what we have now.
>> Okay. Thank you. Would this, similar to the last ordinances that we talked about, would this allow like for example the Trader Joe's building to build up and you know build residential up if that makes like on top
of their current building >> under this under this one >> it would but I believe that's going to be part of the proposed unified development >> as part of this. So remember this is overlay legislation but specific to the project he's presenting to you that
includes the existing Trader Joe's building exactly as it is. In other words, the through a covenant eloo the uh the uh development rights would be aggregated on the epicure parcel. >> So if this project happens there would
not be another building replacing Trader Joe's. What what about in terms of you talked about the lease space and the vacancies on Lincoln Road? I mean I I I don't necessarily agree with you that it's
because of lack of residents living in the area. Um but in terms of you know I think obviously it's hurting Lincoln Road having all those vacancies. I don't think it's a coincidence. I don't think you know all those businesses in a row that you showed a picture of you know
are closed. I don't know if that's because they were all not doing well as businesses or because the developer, you know, had other priorities, but um what what can you say to making sure that the retail space is occupied, especially at
the bottom level or the first two levels because I mean we see even where you know where Sadels was supposed to be now foc. >> Yeah. Um, so you know, our company, not just in South Florida, of course, across the East Coast, owns approximately a million
square feet of retail. Um, in South Florida, we have maybe a dozen properties that all have retail in them. We have one 1,000 foot vacancy. We don't hold vacancy. Um, Espanol Way hasn't ended vacancy in over 10 years. Um, and that's a restaurant street, which means
that restaurants turn over quite a bit more than typical retail. And even on our one vacancy, we're negotiating terms right now. and that was uh a relocation. Jesse Boutique on 17th, moved to uh Meridian. Um so, you know, that's we that's not someone who we are. Um I will
say that that we I office on 17th in Alton. So, I office on this block and I live on Alton. So, as I mentioned previously, no one commutes up and down Alton more than I do probably. Um >> I hope not at 3:00. >> At 3:00 and 5:00. So, I live through all
of it. Um, you know, I I believe firmly that the reason why the more eastern part of Lincoln Road uh does better than the western part is because a obviously because of tourism, but but most of the commercial office, you know, that feeds Lincoln Road is a little further east.
It's not along Alton. So if you if you're, you know, on Meridian or east of Michigan, etc. you know, you're you're there's Joe's Pizza, there's Harry's, there was Harry's pizza, there you know, there's a lot of food and beverage around that area that doesn't necessarily exist as much on Alton and
because the office market feeds that, it stays. Sunset Harbor is another great example of that. Sun Harbor has a tremendous retail um offering and it has residents and office there and it's very walkable neighborhood. And so for someone who lives in Mid Beach, I probably go to Suned Harbor six times a week. Um, I don't I can't say I that I
frequent an Alton Road corridor uh retail establishment that often. So, other than my office. Um, so I think you need residents and I think you do need commercial office which is why a mixeduse job is so important to us. Um, and I think that's going to solve the the retail vacancy. You need people and
right now it's just a vehicular traffic. So the breezeway that we're connecting, the uses we're bringing that that's what we think is going to drive it. And it's more Alton is more local serving even than Lincoln. >> Yeah. Alton the is the local corridor. Um and there's not much tourist business
there. So you have to rely on the residents to drive it. >> All right. Again, this is going to come back to us after public meeting. So you know unless you have any more comments, I don't think there's anything for us to do. Right. >> Okay. So move to someone has to move to
continue it. >> Okay. Okay. And that will be to the May 5th meeting. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> All right. All in favor? >> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. >> Thanks for your time today. >> Appreciate it. >> Thanks, guys. >> Um, unfortunately, I have to leave, but
couple things. There's two things on the item uh for discussion item. The first was asked by Yil and because he had to leave, he wants to defer the single family drive to the next meeting and then you guys can go ahead and discuss. I think Elizabeth's with exterior paint. passed it at commission.
>> Huh? >> It's already passed. >> I already passed it. >> Oh, so you don't need to discuss it. >> Okay, we can remove that. >> All right. So, if you could just move the single family driveway to the next meeting. >> Absolutely. >> And we're ajourned. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks, guys.