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 five, four three, two, one. Okay. Good morning everybody. This is our first meeting of the year. We didn't have a quorum last month.
So welcome to the February meeting. Do you Nick, do you want to do the swearing in? Do you want to do election? We don't have any minutes to approve because we didn't have
a meeting last week. So we can start with the the notice on lobbyist registration, the and then and then from there we can take the election of the chair and vice chair. Okay. It's all
yours. 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 the toll free number,
which is (877) 853-5257, and enter the webinar ID, which is (861) 434-2632 7 pound, or log into the zoom app and enter the
webinar ID, which again is 86143426327. Individuals wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if they are using the zoom app, or dial star nine if they are
participating by phone. Before I swear in those who are testifying, I'm going to read into the record the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration. If you are appearing on behalf of a
business, a 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. If you
haven't registered yet, you should register prior to appearing. You do not have to register as a lobbyist if you are speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party, 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,nd the principal on whose behalf they are communicating. These rules apply whether you are appearing in favor of or against an item, or encouraging against or arguing against its passage,
defeat, modification, or continuance, I will now swear in everyone who is physically present in the Commission chambers and intends to provide testimony. Virtual speakers will need to be sworn in one by one before addressing the board.
If you will be giving testimony today, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will be giving in this
proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, thank you. Okay, actually, I need to correct myself. We do need to approve the minutes from December because we didn't have a January meeting, so could I
get a motion to approve December minutes? Motion to approve. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, those are approved. All right. Because it's the first
meeting of the year, we have to do an election of a chair and a vice chair. So. So, Mr. Chairman, you could either entertain a motion to appoint a
chair, or we could do a nomination and vote process. It's up to the board. I'll make a motion to nominate Brian
Elias. Okay. Second. I'll second that already. All in favor? Aye, aye. Congratulations, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Well deserved. We can follow the same process for
the appointment of the vice chair. Not make a motion for Melissa. Thank you. Chair. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Congratulations. All right.
Thank you. Okay. We're on to request for continuance withdrawals. We have a few. So we'll start with item planning board file 25 0776. Liquor store prohibition on Lincoln
Road. Mr. chair. Thank you. We are recommending this be continued to the July 7th, 2026 meeting. Currently, there are some state legislation that
prohibits the approval of this ordinance. So again, we would like this to be continued to the July 7th meeting. Okay. Is there anyone here to speak on
this item? Anyone on zoom? No. Okay. So we want to move it to July. So moved okay. We have a first from Jonathan. Second I'll second it. Okay. All in
favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Move to July. Next is planning board file 25 0777. Increased distance separation for tobacco and vape stores.
Mr. chair. Thank you. Similar to the previous application, staff is recommending this be continued to the July 7th meeting. Okay. Anyone in chambers to speak on this?
Anyone on zoom? No. Okay. So want to move it? Okay. Okay. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Move to July. Next is
planning for file 2507 893 2320 third Street. Mr. chair, this application is actually being re noticed for a future meeting, so no action is required if the board today. Okay. Next
planning board file 25 0739 Lincoln Road East residential use incentives LDR amendments and then a companion 0738 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Both of these items, Mr. Chair, have been withdrawn at the request of the item sponsors, so no action is required from the board for these. Okay. Next
one plenty of board file 24 0731 Lincoln Road West. Residential use incentives and LDR amendments and companion Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. chair, for these next items, the sponsor is requesting a continuance to the March 10th meeting. As we further refine
both of the the Comprehensive plan and the LDR. Okay, anyone in chambers speak on this one? Anyone on zoom? No. Okay. So I want to move a motion to approve to march, to March.
March. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed. All right. So they're moved to march in. The first two are moved to July. Okay. Progress
report, planning board file 24 0715 1800 1810 1818 Michigan Avenue. Single family home lot
split. Thank you, Mr. So this this particular property did receive early or late last
year. There were a couple violations. Primarily we were concerned about the vacant property standards that were not being adhered to regarding
these these vacant properties, including minimum landscape requirements and fencing. We are happy to report that on December 23rd of last year, a full building permit was issued
for the the picket fence, and that fence has now been installed. So I want to thank the applicant for cooperating. And at this point, we do not
see any additional need for a progress report. So we're asking that this be concluded. And with that, I can answer any questions you may have or turn
it over to the mic. Go ahead and present. Good morning Mr. Chairman of the board. Thank you Debbie. So again, Mickey Marrero, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard here on behalf of the property owner, I obviously
don't disagree with staff's report and recommendation. This was a trustees that that took over this property from the estate. It was, you know, a bit of a bear to deal with, with
all the violations and all the work done without permits. We now after the lot split, there have been independent Historic Preservation Board approvals for each of the parcels. Until those get realized into
permitting and construction, the property will remain boarded fenced. As for the city standards, so we believe that we're in good shape here. Hopefully get these things built in the relatively near future. So if you have any
questions, I'm happy to answer them. But okay. Anyone in chambers to speak on this item? Anyone on zoom? No. Okay. Unless the board has questions, someone I want to move it to a
dismiss it. Make a motion to dismiss and close the progress report. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you. Mickey, I think you're up again. So, modifications of previously
approved projects. Planning board file 2507 six for 1200 Ocean Drive. I think it's a
change of ownership, but yes, Mr. Chair, so this is purely a change of of operator. The
previously approved Cup does does not have the condition that this come as a progress report because it's an older approval. So the the owners I
know are here along with their representative to agree to all of the conditions that are currently in the Cup. They're not requesting any changes to any of the previously imposed
conditions, and staff is recommending approval. I know they want to. I know they want to speak, but do you have anything to say other than them, or is anybody here in chambers
speak on this item? Anybody on zoom? No. Okay. So just again, for the record, Mickey Moreira turning South Biscayne Boulevard here on behalf of the ownership group at 1200 Ocean Drive, it's exciting to be here on two back to back
applications that don't have violations or any issues. So, you know, clients for that for you. So in any event, just a brief introduction. This is 1200 ocean used to be a
location of pink taco. That that went away and it was replaced. Our clients owned the building. They entered into a partnership with these folks behind me, affiliated with the ownership groups of La Trova
and Sweet Liberty. And they're now running this new restaurant, La Carnita, which has been, you know, I'm proud to say when I was preparing for this, I looked at the Google reviews and the average Google review,
and with hundreds five, five out of five. So they're doing great. I hope they keep doing great. You know, obviously no violations, no issues raised with staff. They are here. And I think Noah and David wanted
to say a few words to introduce themselves. And with that, hi. Nice to meet you. I'm David, I represent the operator and Noah and Larry represent the ownership of the building. We are very pleased to be on Ocean
Drive. We want to invite you all to pass by. An experience like Anita is a nice place where we serve great Cuban inspired food, and we just have an incredible entertainment from local entertainer and
Latin Grammy entertainment. They come and spend time with us and that's we're very pleased to be on Ocean Drive in the entertainment district, so very, very happy to be part of this city. Thank you so much.
Thank you for coming. You guys want to say anything? You're good. I'm on behalf of the ownership group. We're we're very thankful for Ocean Drive's hospitality, and we're looking
forward to returning it to you all. Great. Thank you. All right. So we need to move it. Make a motion to approve.
Second that okay. Change of ownership. All in favor. Opposed okay. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. All right. New applications planning board
file 25 0791 1330 18th Street. Mr. chair, this is an application that's filed requesting a contional use for an approval of a restaurant with more than 100 seats and an
occupancy content in excess of 125 persons in this particular area of the city, in the Sunset Harbor neighborhood, within the
I-1 zoning district, there are much more limited. In terms of the. The occupancy and the number of seats are more limited than would be if it was
in another commercial district within the city. So the existing the the existing restaurant initially opened in 2021. At that point, they did
not need a conditional use approval because their patron occupancy was limited to 104 persons and 60 seats, so that would be below the threshold
within the Sunset Harbor neighborhood for the cup. They are currently proposing to expand the restaurant into several storage areas within the building, increasing the
number of seats to 132 and increasing the occupancy content to 198. Just to point out, the maximum allowable occupancy in the Sunset Harbor
neighborhood is 199 people, so they do fall below that. Another thing I would like to point out is that entertainment is prohibited in the Sunset
Harbor neighborhood, and that applies to both exterior entertainment as well as interior entertainment. The applicant is proposing hours of
operation consistent with the requirements of the of the zoning district. Inside operations will close at 2 a.m. Tuesday through Saturday, and
outdoor dining will be closed at 12 a.m. so 12 midnight. The restaurant will also be open on Sundays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Staff has noted in our
report that the previous operations did receive several violations. We have had conversations with the applicant. They have advised us
that they're there while the ownership remains. Substantially consistent with the previous ownership group, that their operations have
evolved and they are not currently looking to violate any of the conditions in the Cup. Staff has included
additional conditions regarding outdoor speaker prohibition, and just reiterating in the order that entertainment, whether inside or outside, is
not permitted. So with that, staff is recommending approval and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Savage, with law offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I'm here together with my client,
Tiger Sabila, and also my colleague from my law firm, Ben Sherry, as well as our traffic engineers here for any any questions you may have, as well
as our architect of record as Debbie, Debbie explained, if we can pull up the the presentation, which I will go through very quickly, this is in the Sunset Harbor
neighborhood that, as Debbie explained, we would not if we were anywhere else in the city, we would not trigger the neighborhood impact establishment requirement for a
conditional use permit before this board. But because the city has designated an overlay district in Sunset Harbor as a special area entitled to
special protections, the threshold is lower. You know, just to make sure that that neighborhood is preserved. And it's and the experience of the residents is preserved. So that's why we're here. Debbie
explained that we worked extensively with staff. I did want to just make it clear that while the entity this happens a lot, the entity you know is the same entity. My client is here,
and he assures me that the management and operation is entirely new, and that ever since they got on the scene, they they worked through and closed all pending code
violations and do not have any new ones. Lastly, this is entirely within the envelope of the building existing. There's no extraneous, you know, walls
being taken out or anything like that. It's just interior. And we're adding a private dining room and some other areas. So with that I'm going to quickly go through. I know you have a full agenda before
you. Are you are you in agreement with all the conditions that city has recommended? Yes, sir. Mr. chairman, fully agree with the favorable staff recommendation. As Debbie summarized, including
all conditions of the proposed order. Great, thanks. This is the this is the. Of course, you know where the Sunset Harbor neighborhood is here, right off
Dade Boulevard. And and that is the site, the zoning and comprehensive plan treatment is here. It's urban, light industrial. This restaurant has
been in operation. There's no question as to the appropriateness of the zoning. Here's the overlay district with the special areas of
additional regulation applicable to Sunset Harbor and the location of the subject site. Again, we have a favorable recommendation, as
Debbie summarized, including certain conditions that we agree to in the proposed order as prepared by the professional staff. This is our proposed
site plan. This if you know the street at all. It's really nestled in there. There are structures on both sides, you know, commercial structures on
both sides with walls. So it's really nestled in there. There's some planters and things in the front, and there's also a little a little
cafe window on the, on the top of, of that, of that drawing. But this is the proposed site plan. As you can see, there's a private dining area up in the
upper right hand corner of that site plan and a reconfiguration of our seating, and just a more efficient and expanded use of the site. Again, you can see
the the new private dining there in the upper right hand corner. And the we're going to totally redo the front with additional landscaping and an
improved experience. This is the occupant load that Debbie described and is also set out in the staff report. Again, we're going from 60 seats to
132 seats and an existing of 104 to a 198 occupancy load. A quick a quick little shot of
the menu here and the sort of fare that's offered. And also we have a happy hour there. But again there's no entertainment allowed and the music is
ambient only and the neighborhood is very sensitive to that. And we are also very mindful of that situation. Again, as Debbie summarized in
the staff report, these are the these are the times of operation. And as the professional staff report recites, they are within the
permitted times under the code. As I mentioned, these are the code violations that were existing under the prior ownership and operations. Our
new owner has addressed and closed the code. Violations were the noise violations noise related or. Yes, some of them.
Some of them were. I'm not sure exactly. The outdoor speakers are level. Okay. So my client is explaining to us that just
just so the record is clear that there were outdoor speakers that are that are not permitted and they were greater than the ambient. That's that's
allowed. And those are gone now. Those are gone. Yes. Okay. Just just the code again, the code section resided, which I won't
go through the trouble of reciting all the numbers, but it's the one that's special for Sunset Harbor, requiring a conditional use permit and a
public hearing before this board. The staff report recites that all of these code based
criteria are favorably met. Again, this is our existing floor plan, and as I described earlier, we're going to be making better use of the rear area with the private dining
and some additional areas. You can see here the the proposed layout. And with that I will conclude again, we have our
full design team, traffic team owner and operator. And we're here for any questions you may have. And with that I will conclude my presentation and reserve minutes for rebuttal if
that's necessary. Yeah, we'll open the public comment and then maybe we'll get back to you. Thank you for the presentation. Anybody here in
chambers? What a surprise. Hi, Sarah. Hi. Sarah de Los Reyes Harbor Neighborhood association. We have spoken to to the attorneys, and we agree. We
support. We support the restaurant. I'm very happy. I really hope speakers don't show up or DJ's playing that type of thing that they actually do, but they know that there's no
entertainment. I'm happy you guys reinforce that. It's very, very good for our neighborhood. Wow. Hi, Marilyn Freundlich,
Sunset Harbor. Also, we met with the attorneys, which was a very productive meeting. And we just want to emphasize that we
welcome the restaurant. I think it's a great place, but they have to be mindful that there is no entertainment. And that includes a disc jockey, because
people don't think that this jockey is entertainment. But it is. So, you know, they blast that music. The louder they blasted, the louder the people
get. And it I mean, we've already gotten complaints about noise coming from that place already from neighbors. Okay. So we want to make sure that
they abide by all the rules and so on, said Harbor. And I believe very strongly that it is not the job of the
neighborhood, us, the neighbors, to be policing these places. First of all, they shouldn't do what they shouldn't do. And secondly, you know, you call
code and of course they turn everything down. Code gets there, oh, no violations and so on. So we want to be good neighbors. We want Sunset
Harbor needs the infuse of restaurants. We've lost a lot of restaurants because of rents. People say you we don't have restaurants because of entertainment. No. The rents
have gone off the charts in Sunset Harbor and we're losing many, many, many good places like the coffee shop and, you know, all of those places,
right? Which is why we have to also do things to help businesses succeed. So it's about but you don't want people blasting music. It's always a balance. We want you to have a
good quality of life. We want them to succeed. Absolutely, absolutely. We want to be good neighbors, but they have to be good operators. Great. Thank you. So we are we support this
project. Thank you mayor. Thank you. Before I get to you, is there any disclosures that need to be made on this item? I forgot to do that. Nobody. No disclosures. Okay, sir. Thank you. Joseph Pardo, three Island
Avenue. Sunset. Excuse me, Miami Beach, Florida. I'm a resident of Bell Island, speaking actually in my individual capacity because I'm a hop, skip and a jump away from Sunset Harbor. I want to express my personal support for
this project. I think it'd be a great addition to the Sunset Harbor neighborhood. Great. Thanks. Anybody else in chambers? Anybody on zoom? Yes, Mr. chair, we have Bruce
Backman. Bruce, before you start speaking, I live in Sunset Harbor. I'm on the board. But I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do swear I'm speaking as an individual,
although I'm also a neighborhood member of the neighborhood association. Actually overlook the property. And I do support the
application. Looks fine. I did run into trouble with blasting music on the previous management. When code came out, they did not even recognize an outdoor bar counter. Although
it was totally exposed, it could not be sealed off from the street unless they roll down shutters were closed, in which case they couldn't operate at all. The real problem there was that after
the building plans had been approved, no one from the building department actually came out to see that they build it as such. It was the previous people built it out completely
in violation of the plans filed with an open bar counter, excessive seating, pergola and outdoor speakers. So no one checked. And that was the real problem. This application looks absolutely fine. I just hope
that the building department, the planning department, will actually come out and see that was completed as designed. Thank you, thank you. Anyone else on zoom? Yes, we have
Mitch Novick. Mitch, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Of course. Good morning everyone. Mitch Novick I live in the entertainment
district. I echo the same sentiment as the last as the speakers. But I want to comment that I had my hand raised regarding the 1200 Ocean Drive
item. And it has to do with noise and open air entertainment. Such noise. I, in my mind, clearly fuels the
chaos that we find along Ocean Drive and yesterday's Miami Herald. Front and center was a picture of Ocean Drive with people smoking weed on the street, and open air
entertainment degrades the community, especially when abutting residential interests. So with moving moving forward, I would expect you guys doing
your best to do your best to contain this noise. It should be subject to the property lines of of the property and not thrown out into the public
realm. Thank you. Okay, Nick, mic, sorry that we didn't see your hand up apparently on the last item. So our apologies. Anybody else on zoom? Okay. I'm
going to let you guys see I'm going to just give my $0.02. I happen to know Tiger, the owner, the new owner, the new management, and he's a stellar guy. He's made many commitments to me through this process that
they're going to be good neighbors. And I know he will. And the restaurant's fabulous, so I hope everyone will support it in the neighborhood with that. Any questions? Keith. No. Scott. Anybody have any
questions? Okay then. Some want to move it. Move it second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay. Passes.
Thank you guys. Thanks for the presentation. Okay. Next is new application planning board file
PB 2507 921 Ocean Drive. Thank you, Mr. Chair. An application has been filed requesting the review of private and or joint government private uses in the
GU, government use zoning district. Is it possible we could move this item just back 1 or 2 on the agenda? We're just waiting for a few team members to arrive. I don't have
an issue with that, but let's confirm with the chair or vice chair. If you're not ready, we'll we'll move to the next item. Thank you very much. Okay. And if after the next item is finished, if you're if your
people are here, let us know. All right. Planning board file 25 00807 1244 Ocean Drive. New application. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The applicant has filed
an application requesting modification, requesting a conditional use approval for a neighborhood impact establishment. This is specific to the roof deck, which is
currently a a small pool deck. The applicant currently wishes to offer the sale of alcohol from downstairs to hotel guests
that are at the pool deck. So since this particular property is located within 200ft, if another property that does contain a residential unit, this is considered a
neighborhood impact establishment, which is why it's before you. Today. The hotel has been in operation, including the roof pool deck,
since 2014, so it's been an operating hotel, including the rooftop amenity, for over ten years. Since that time, the property has not received any
violations that are specific to the to the activities on the roof. So there there was a bit of history during the Historic
Preservation Board approval. At one point during the roof deck approval, the Historic Preservation Board felt that it was necessary to include several operational conditions,
which is somewhat unusual, but at the time this did not require a planning board application, so the applicant recently, just September of
last year, went back to the Historic Preservation Board to have those conditions modified in order to come and seek the sale of alcohol on the roof
deck for this board. So it's now under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. Staff has no objection to this very minor request. Again, we we believe
that the current hotel operator is extremely responsible, has had no noise violations at all on that existing roof deck.
Further, there is a maximum allowable occupancy of 50 people, so it's a small area. The applicant is also going to restrict all access to hotel
guests and their guests. There is no new construction. The plan of the roof is remaining the same. Any food or beverage
at this level will be serviced via an existing dumbwaiter, so we do not anticipate any negative impacts. There's also limited hours of operation that
the applicant is requesting, and would only like to stay open past 11 p.m. for the 4th of July and for New Year's Eve,
so staff is very supportive. We appreciate the the long standing, responsible nature of the current owner and applicant. And with that, we're recommending approval. But I am
available for any questions you may have. Okay, sir. Yes. Good morning. My name is Juan Pablo D'Onofrio. I'm the owner of the Leslie Hotel, and I think David
made the whole history of the process when we applied for the redevelopment of the Leslie Hotel. It was actually like 15 years ago, bringing a pool
terrace to a rooftop was something brand new. At that time. We accepted this restriction where we could not sell alcohol to our hotel guests in the pool and well,
here, 15 years later, we're trying to remove that condition, which makes little sense. This is there's no open bar or things like that. This is a small property, 35 rooms. You
might have eight people, ten people in a roof terrace. They want to have a beer. We cannot sell it to them. They have to go to Walgreens, or they have to go to the restaurant and come up through the elevator
with a beer in their hand. We're trying to fix that problem. That brings a lot of concerns with our customer service at the at the property. So we do have a residential
building to the back of the Leslie. They expressed their concern when we presented in HPV. We were able to meet with them with their condo
association, and we had a very nice conversation. They are very active in observing our terrace, and so they've seen throughout the years that we did we never had an issue. We
never had a complaint from them. We have a very open dialog. And it was, I think, a nice experience to meet again, and we're hoping to move forward. Okay. Thank you. And again,
thanks for being such a good neighbor. Apparently anybody in chambers speak on this. Joseph Pardo Pardo, law, 1205 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach. I represent
the penthouse two owner at the Carlyle, which is the residential building next door. My client has spoken to other residents of the Carlyle, and even though this is in the
entertainment district, you do have to consider the residential building directly next door. My client's concern, and it's narrow and specific, is that there was no community outreach. Our understanding is
we haven't had the dialog between hotel operator and neighbor that would give rise to their input on what other conditions might be appropriate. And in full candor, I don't
discourage the attempt to lift the condition, but the status quo is the condition. Right now, there's a prohibition on alcohol and the HPV order. My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the only way that HPV amendment gets
approved is if the Planning board gives its approval as well. So you do have a consideration, which is the public health, safety and welfare. And as it relates to the residents in the
residential building next door, there is a concern that ambient noise turns into live music, that code enforcement doesn't get called on time, that a person who's designated to be
reachable isn't reachable, and that it affects clients particularly like my client on the penthouse level, where the ambient music is more likely to travel. So we would suggest to
two conditions, two to alternatives, one continue this one month and require the applicant to liaise with the residents directly next door to the Carlyle and report back so that we can at least have a
comprehensive discussion. They can present their opinions to make the consequence for noncompliance draconian, so that there should be no question that strict compliance with conditions is necessary.
And finally, have the hotel owner operator potentially provide a benefit to the neighboring building, fix the facade, install hurricane impact windows, and make it
uniform for the building, which would mitigate the noise exposure. Thank you. So anybody else in? Just a couple of
things. One is one second. Anybody else here to speak on this? Anybody on zoom okay. Go ahead. No. It's unfortunate that we did not have this contact before because we would
have more than gladly meet the same way we did with our rear property neighbor. We already have a high impact glass windows in the building. We're not requesting live
entertainment. We're not requesting an enhancement of the music. We're there's no noise related change in our
current situation. Right. Let me just sort of respond to your point. If we always said no because we need to make sure the operator complies with the
CPA, then we'd never give a cup. So part of the cup process is trusting the owners to comply with it. I don't see what other condition meeting with the neighbors. I mean, I don't know what other condition would be
reasonable, more reasonable than what staff's recommended. If anything, they could come in and object and say, we don't want to have that condition at all, or that the possibility of
alcohol. But but just to respond to you, you have to trust the owner at some point to, to comply. And so the remedy for that is if they do get several code violations,
then we can rescind the cup or add conditions. So I respect what you're saying, but it's kind of like we would never give anybody, even ambient music if the question was, well will they comply with it. We
have to assume they'll comply. So anyway, any questions by the board? Yeah John. So number one, I was a little confused in the staff report about the hours of
operation because it said Monday through Thursday, 7 to 9, Friday through Sunday, 7 to 11, and then July 4th to December 31st, 7 to 2. So on those two
specific dates, not from that date. Oh, it's and okay. I thought it was through. Okay. So for those two days then I guess so here's the question I have. It makes total sense. You
have a pool attendant upstairs. You don't want pele bringing in outside alcohol. It makes total sense to sell the people at the pool, you know, alcohol. And I think everybody, you know
that. That's fine. Actually, I think it's preferable so that people aren't bringing in their own alcohol. It's probably makes for a better atmosphere. I guess the concern that I have
is and to the neighbors, you know, point is you have it going until 11 p.m. which is when people aren't, you know, sunbathing anymore, and then
you have until 2 a.m. on certain on those two dates. I get it because the to see the fireworks and so you know that I don't think is a problem. But the going to a late at night
and then and then one other question is are you planning on having I know there's a 50% capacity. Are you planning on having private events, you know, renting it out or anything? Is
it just for hotel guests? The terrace is only exclusively for our hotel guests, so we don't bring people from outside. We run three hotels in the. We don't even bring people from out of the hotels to the
terrace. It's intended to be a very exclusive terrace for the hotel owners. Leslie. Guess I'm sorry. So when would an event? An event would be a welcome
drink for the guests. If they have. There's a wedding. There's 15 rooms by a wedding. They want to do a welcome drink in the afternoon prior to some activity. So this is the sort
of events that can happen in a very small hotel. We're not we cannot hold large groups of, of of rooms because we don't have them. So no, the 2 a.m. has to
do with the possibility we have a privileged location for, for the fireworks. We're basically below the fireworks. It could be 1 a.m. because it's a 20
minute thing. After 12 one that's over, everybody leaves. It's not a big deal. We've been doing this for ten years. We've been doing illegally. Everybody goes upstairs, watches the
fireworks and then leaves. It doesn't make sense. We try to be on the on the right side, but there's no there's no outside events. We don't have the parking capacity. We don't
have the security capacity. We don't have the vertical circulation capacity. We wanted to bring 30 people, 50 people together to the to the roof terrace. Well, I guess okay. And that makes sense. I mean,
that's fine. I mean, but my I guess my concern and clearly one of the concerns of the neighbors in that penthouse and probably others in that building, is if it starts with every Friday night, because,
you know, if there's a wedding at the hotel or nearby and they want to have, you know, their guests come up for the, you know, the rehearsal dinner and have a drink on the rooftop at 10:00 at night. And they get
the microphone and give a speech. They wouldn't have a microphone because we're not allowed to. Okay. So it's it's I don't see that scenario. I can understand the complaint.
If 10 p.m. we're going to 11 a.m. because this is the standard time frames for every single roof terrace approved in the last ten years. So we try to match that. It's not it's
barely going to happen that we're open at that time because we have our operation until nine. So we're just requesting that in case we have an exceptional situation where we want to have open the terrace,
I'm fine. If we want to go into ten, I'm fine with that. I don't see an issue. And just to ask for the neighbors. Mr. Pardo, do you have any issues? Is there something specific in
the staff report that you disagree with or you object to, or. It's just a general concern? If the offer is to reduce the
time to 10 p.m. that would be a welcome concession. The specific staff report comment is that the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood is not partially satisfied that condition would be partially
satisfied. Our condition is that by failing to have any meaningful conversation with the neighbors, they don't know what the impact is going to be. And so we believe that more investigation into the impact is warranted. At a minimum,
that dialog with the neighbors have a town hall so that we can establish rapport, build what I hope to be a very good operation and build that trust. Give us the money so we can have that time and let them
come back. That would be the ask. Yeah. Well, I mean, how about do you have contact with each other? I will in about two minutes. Right. So I think that's going to be the solution. I mean I don't think for this
it sounds like every all the other buildings are, you know, are hotels have similar restrictions if you know. That's correct. And so I think the better way to do it moving forward, because you have to balance the interest. We want
to encourage good operators who are coming here to apply for this. You know, get his cell phone number, have somebody on staff available. Whenever people are up at the roof, there's a phone number to call
that you don't have to go through the operator system, but you know, so you get a working relationship. But unless you have, you know, I want to, you know, give you guys an opportunity. But if you
don't have proposals, you know, or ways that you think that this is going to negatively impact you, you know, it's kind of hard for us to put that in. We welcome the concession to reduce the hours to 10 p.m.
with the exception of those two holidays. And my understanding from the staff report is that a person is required to be on call 24 over seven. Okay. So good. So does that work for you?
Okay. Great. So was that a an agreement to modify to 10 p.m. I just want to put that if he's not opposed to it then you're opposed to that. I'm fine with that okay. Are you sure? Yes.
Okay. John, do you want to move it? This is a this is a pool terrace. And I can tell you we barely have 6 to 8 people, and I don't know how long the owner
of the next door penthouse has been there, but we've been there for 15 years, and there's nothing, you know that. I mean, you've come to the planning board before just to speak on behalf of the neighborhood and other applicants. And I think
you've been a steward of the area. So I'm okay. So, you know, but since you've been here before, you know why we're asking these questions? Because we've seen some stuff, so. All right. Great. So I'll move it with the ten. Hold on one
second. We have one more comment. Good. Then we're going to my name is Jonathan Plutzik. I live at 1455 Ocean Drive. I'm here on another matter, but I can't help myself. I chair the
Ocean Drive Association. We need 15 Leslie hotels on Ocean Drive. We should be doing whatever we can to lift up the Leslie Hotel. Our challenge as
a community for all of Miami Beach is to fix Ocean Drive, and this is one of the rare examples of progress. So I encourage you to be supportive of this application. Thank you
very much. Thanks, Jonathan. Go ahead. I'll move it forward with the 10 p.m. closure. And
that's on Fridays and Saturdays. Friday. Yes, yes. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Thank you sir. Thank you. Appreciate
again okay. Back to planning Board file 2507 921 Ocean Drive. Okay. Is the applicant ready to go? Yes. Okay, great. An
application has been filed requesting the review of a private or joint government. Private use in the GU government use zoning district.
This is pursuant to chapter seven, article two, section 7.2. 16.2 E of the Miami Beach Resiliency Code that requires
the Planning Board to review the public private uses proposed within this particular property, which is city owned and within the zoning district.
The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for the project. These. The uses contained within those plans include a mediterranean concept
restaurant that includes outdoor seating, a Japanese concept restaurant which includes outdoor seating, a beachfront cafe, a beach club with pool cabanas, outdoor
dining and a children's club, alcohol beverage service, outdoor bar counters, a fitness club and retail are the proposed uses as outlined in
the operational plan that has been submitted. The hours of operation will not exceed 11 p.m. and no entertainment is currently proposed for any of
the uses. As proposed. The uses are largely commercial in nature, so staff has pointed out there is a conflict with the future land use map. The
future land use map for this particular property is Ross, which is recreation open space. The allowable uses in the Ross
are limited to recreation and open space, and it does not provide for commercial uses. Therefore, we, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office,
have no objection with the Planning Board issuing a recommendation to the Mayor and City Commission with regard to the proposed uses. This will require an amendment to the
city's comprehensive plan to change the future land use. We've already been meeting with the applicant to submit that application. With that, I'm
available for any questions. All right. Before you start, Michael, any disclosures on this item? Yeah, I received a email from two attorneys, not
the applicant. I haven't talked to the applicant, but the applicant was arranged to meet with continuum Master, of which I recused myself of the
presentation and did not see the presentation there. I also was a part of a meeting in which I walked out and recused myself. So I just want to put
on the record that the first time that I saw the plan and the information was when the packet was delivered to me, and I have not talked to the applicant. Okay. Scott, no, I
haven't spoken with anybody on this. Okay. I assume we all received the emails from the attorneys. Okay. Same emails. Yeah, I've received emails from, I guess, Stearns, Weaver and
the Dickman law firm. I spoke with somebody from Stearns Weaver about this. That's it. Okay. And, Deborah, I think you pointed it out, but I just want to confirm that you don't have
any. The city attorney's office has no legal concerns with our ability to make a recommendation to them. What we would recommend is that as part of your recommendation, whether your recommendation is
favorable or unfavorable, that if the city Commission is inclined to approve the use, that the Commission first or at the same time amend the future land use map designation for
this property, that amendment to the future land Use map is required to come before you. So that would that would come before you, right? So you have no problem with us addressing it today though prior to that. Correct? I would just I would
recommend you include in your motion that that recommendation. And Mr. Chair, I would just ask anyone who was not here in the morning when we swore in witnesses to please raise your right. If anyone's going to testify on this, please stand
up. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Okay. And the only other thing I'm going to say is I've gotten multiple requests to exceed
time. I'm going to be deferential to that within reason. So, you know, if you hear the beeper go off, just keep going and it gets ridiculous. I'll stop it. But I'm going to give everyone a Ford, everybody that
opportunity beoause I know it's an important item. With that being said, Mr. Larkin, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Board members, staff Michael Larkin, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard here representing the
applicant. PJ, can you pull up the presentation? Great. So we're here today representing the applicant. With us today are the Boucher brothers, Steve Boucher and Adam Sedrati, also
from Major Food Group as well. Nazar. We have Kobi Karp and Matthew Picard from Kobi Karp architects, Joe Goldberg, our transportation consultant, my colleagues, Paul Savage and Ben Sherry. We come before you this
morning seeking your favorable recommendation for our proposed project in connection with the concession agreement awarded to the applicant for the redevelopment of the Nikki Beach Restaurant site and beach
concession facility. Next slide. This is the team responsible for the project before you this morning. The project is a product of years of discussions, agreements and collaboration between these highly qualified
team made up of the City Commission, City Administration, the Boucher Brothers Major Food Group and Kobi Karp Architects. Next slide. It was in 2023 that
the city issued an RFP for the management and operation of a high end beach establishment and ancillary uses at One Ocean Drive and adjacent concession areas. The respondents had 60 days to prepare, bid and
respond to the RFP. Next slide. In the same year, 2023, the city Commission adopted a resolution authorizing the city administration to negotiate an agreement with Boucher Brothers and Major Food Group based upon
its proposal. Next slide. Further into 2023, the city Commission adopted another resolution that entered into concession agreement with the city between the city major
food group and the Boucher brothers. This concession agreement established project requirements such as project location, design and approval procedures, uses, access operations, maintenance, and
repair. Next slide. The concession agreement, as Debbie outlined for you, basically has three distinct dining concepts Mediterranean restaurant, Japanese Restaurant, and
outdoor cafe. Next slide. So the lease for the current tenant expires in May of this year. So back in 2023, the City Commission was very forward thinking, understanding that
the lease was expiring. Further understanding that many neighbors in the south of fifth neighborhood had issues with that current operator and city commission was desirous of a change so well in advance of at
least expiration, the city Commission moved in 2023, and ultimately resulted in a concession agreement between the City of Miami Beach, the City Commission, major food group, and the Boucher brothers.
Next slide. Boucher brothers need no introduction. For as long as I've been on the beach, they've been on the beach, and they have been the premier beachfront concessionaire for all the time that I've been
here. Next slide. Major food Group was a major driving force in the hospitality industry in the United States right now. They brought to South Florida, to Miami and Miami Beach. Carbone, Dirty French
Steakhouse, Contessa Club and Chateau, which I've yet to get into. Next slide. As I mentioned earlier, the existing lease is is expiring and this
concession agreement is valid and we're moving forward under this concession agreement. Next slide. This is Pure Park, approximately three acres in size. It is Ocean Drive is the
western boundary. Beach walk eastern boundary first Street on the north and south Point Drive on the south. Next slide. The the the zoning is obviously
government use because the city owns it. Anytime the city owns any property throughout the city, it's zone GU. Next slide. Under the G regulations, we have to come before you today
and you all make a recommendation very clear. The scope of your review is something akin to legislation where the City Commission has the final say, but you all are certainly integral part of the
process, and you all make your recommendations on this as you would any type of legislation. Next slide. It also is very helpful that your professional staff is recommending approval
and asking you all to grant a favorable recommendation for this project. Next slide, I'm going to invite Kobi Karp up, and he's going to walk you through some of his design.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kobi Karp. Which button? Here we go. This is the front entrance to the building. If you go to the next
image, please. This is the arrival point. Open to the beach. This is the beach front, and you can see the connectivity to the beach walk.
This is the image looking to the northeast. And essentially what you can see is the poorness of the site allowing entry along Ocean Drive and
along the Beach Walk and the properties to the north and to the south as well. On the bottom left hand side is the restaurant at hopefully will be
open from sunrise to sunset. So when we come there on the beach, we can get a juice or cafecito in the morning. And that is. You want me to go through this, Michael, or do you want to pick
it up on the fitness center on the Mediterranean restaurant location? The idea is basically to have saddles and the Japanese restaurant in the fitness club open to the neighborhood and to the
community, basically to be open to the public from the Beach walk to Ocean Drive. This is the point of arrival where we have the parking in the front,
which is the city public parking, and we also have a great landscape architect on the team, which is Enya and Bishop to the interior design.
I'll let you with that. Thank you. Thank you Kobe. So the hours are set forth one through five. You have the beach concessions open one hour after sunrise and close one hour prior to sunset. The
Mediterranean Restaurant 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. The Japanese Steakhouse, 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. Saddles Boardwalk Cafe, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. You have an outdoor lounge, pool, kids club,
wellness and retail. 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. next slide. And of course, we have a variety of security measures security cameras at all access points. We have our back of house areas, secure security staff. We have
reception areas and host stands, valet staff, and we particularly will have control of the parking lot at night because unfortunately, South Point Drive, particularly on Washington and South Point, is
where a lot of teenagers gather to do their car burnouts or their donuts. So that won't be tolerated within our property. Next slide. And of course, we presented to soften at the
beginning of December of last year. Our project was well received by Swapna and they adopted a resolution of support for this project. Next slide. Again we're here today. Your
scope of review is narrow. You're to review this particular project and offer recommendations, critiques comments to the city Commission.
Next slide. Just a few lasting renderings. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. So, Mr. Chairman, I
know that you all have received emails. Letters from the objector attorneys. I just want an opportunity to correct the record and give you all some guidelines so you don't get
caught up in some of these arguments. So the objector attorney representing the current tenant, whose lease expires about three months from now, will invite you all to make comments about an alleged
inconsistency between the project we are presenting to you all today and the concession agreement. This is a trap. I advise you all not to take the bait. The purpose of
such a discussion will be to use these statements in the ongoing litigation between the city and Penrod's, which came about based upon Penrod's failure to timely submit their
response back in 2023. The goal of their litigation is to Michael. Is their pending litigation on this? Yes there is. Yes. A trial court judge recently dismissed multiple counts in their complaint. They
have about four counts left in their complaint. Okay. And what would the impact of a of a hypothetically adverse ruling have on this whole process? I
don't know if the city attorney's office wants to discuss that. It's not as much. I mean, the the litigation really has no impact on the body's ability to hear this
application, right? The litigation is ultimately a challenge to to the to the procurement of this contract. I would rather not speculate what
the impact there's been no stay in that litigation on any plans. Okay. I just want to make sure we're procedurally proceeding properly. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So but bear in mind, we would not be
before you today unless the city attorney and city administration had determined that we were consistent with the concession agreement. In fact, they are the co-applicant here today. Your role here
today, the Planning Board is to review the project and offer recommendations to the city Commission is a very narrow role. As I suggested earlier, you all are accustomed to this role because it's just your same role that you have when
legislation passes by you all and you offer recommendations to the City Commission. With regard to the letter from Mr. Dickman, Mr. Dickman submitted
a letter to you all. He did not provide us with a copy, but thankfully we discovered it as we routinely check the hearing file before the hearing. With regard to the comprehensive
plan claim, the inconsistent claim is not new, nor has it been recently discovered. Back in 2023, the city was already referring to the site as nonconforming. Based upon this
inconsistency, the questions are really, what do you intend to do about it and when? So, as Nick and Debbie has told you all, we will seek a small scale amendment that will designate the property from recreational
open space to public facilities. A small scale amendment is an easy process. It does not require state review. It appears before you all and you all will get a chance to review
it, probably in April. But that is our intention and that will resolve the inconsistency claim for today's purposes, you all can make, as Nick has suggested to you all, a condition that
this property be redesignated before the city can take a final vote on this matter. Mr. Dickman letter threatens a consistency challenge, but there could be no challenge
based on any action today because you all are intermediate. Reviewing body. There is no final action from you all. The final action is reserved for the City Commission. There is another
allegation, the letter suggesting that this is technically a park, that the city treats this as a park. The letter states that we are you all. This is not a public
park. I can assure you that we don't have to work that hard. In our discussions with the director of the Parks Department and our review of the inventory of the parks that
the city keeps, this one Ocean Drive is not considered a park. There are different marketing claims that go on, and marketing claims often do not comport to reality. If you all
know the city of North Miami Beach, you know it's nowhere near a beach. If you know where I live in Flamingo Drive, there's never been flamingos there now or in the future. Maybe a lot of iguanas, but
certainly no flamingos. So even if you were to treat this as a park, when I looked at this and looked at the county charter section, there are exceptions for neighborhood parks that don't have to go through, and this clearly can qualify as a
neighborhood park. So no matter how you look at it, the city does not characterize this as a park. And even if you would in a more liberal posture, it falls into an exception of the neighborhood park. And finally,
in our review of the lobbyist registration records, we see that Mr. Dickman is not registered as a lobbyist. This is a very serious thing because he has sent a letter to you all at the beginning of January,
another letter at the end of January, and is here today to offer testimony. You all have the discretion to disallow the testimony because he's not registered lobbyist, but that is solely your choice. Mr.
chairman, I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal. I appreciate the time. Are you done with your presentation? Yes. Okay. All right. Who is
here that wants to speak? Good morning. Members of the planning board. My name is Andrew. Stern's address is 150 West Flagler Street, Miami,
Florida. I'm appearing before you all today on behalf of Penrod Brothers. We are an interested party due to the location of our property, which
is the subject property. So sorry to say we will be venturing into that time issue that you mentioned. I believe we're entitled to the full
allotment of time as our status provides, but I'll try to get through everything as quickly as possible. We have a presentation we'd like to put on the board to go through to lay out exactly what is going on here, because it's an
interesting scenario. Now, your role as a planning board is important. It's to ensure compliance with all elders in the city of Miami Beach. And
what that means is you have to take all development regulations into consideration as part of that task. And this simple analysis here, which is unavoidable, is that this
project does not comply with the what happened is resolution 20 23, 32, 82 approved a contract, and that contract required development of this
property to be to substantially conform with the authorized conceptual design and what you would see if you had been provided with those underlying documents which neither the
city nor the applicant provided to you for review, is that their submission was for a renovation only, not a new build. And what you're going to
see is the new proposal for a new build was not even presented to the public or anyone until more than two years after their renovation
proposal was approved. Now, the comp plan issue is important because as part of the. Comp plan is a land development
regulation and it doesn't make a lot of strategic sense for a board whose job is to ensur compliance with the law to knowingly pass something non-compliant when the correct
path would be get into compliance with a comp plan amendment if the board so chooses. Okay, let me interrupt you one second. Sure. But again, we're recommending not approving. So does that not have a distinction to your
argument? I think it's not really a distinction because you would be recommending something out of sequence. You would be putting the cart before the horse. All right. But the city attorney doesn't seem concerned with that. I
want to be respectful, but I want to make sure your arguments are accurate. That's a really good point that you raise, and I want to address that, which is you need to take into consideration the posture
of what's before you. Today. You are an independent planning board of the city. Your job is to be fully independent. Where this is before you is the city
is an advocate for this project. This is a city project together with a private applicant in a matter that has pending litigation. So this is the very
purpose of an independent board to exist. The city has a motive and a bias to get this approved. You all are independent and
need to take that view as an independent view, irrespective of what you may be being told by the city. Now, this LDR requires that substantial
conformity, and here is the language that you haven't seen. It says that the concessionaires shall submit to the city acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of the concession area. All of
the preliminary plans and specifications for the renovations and improvements to be made to the property, which shall substantially conform to the conceptual designs
presented by concessionaire. With its RFP submission. Now, this distinction is very important because this project was competitively bid, and if
at that time of the bidding, new projects had been vetted against each other, the city could have selected the best of new bids or new builds. And that never happened here. What was presented was a renovation.
And then two years later, oh, by the way, we're not going to renovate anymore. We're going to build a brand new project, and we're asking you to approve that. That's, that's that's what's happened here. So what
they're asking you to do is ignore the LDR without any evidence regarding the substantial compliance with the the LDR. And by the way, the LDR, here is the resolution,
the resolution from the city and its attachments is the zoning regulation, the land development regulation that allows this thing to proceed and that allowed for renovation
only. But they're saying ignore that LDR even though you're a planning board, ignore it. They're not offering any evidence to you regarding their substantial conformance with that initial plan, because
there can't be because it's a completely new project and they don't even want you to look at it because they haven't even provided you with the underlying documents. We will show you that the submission
was a renovation, and we've provided also into the record an architectural report which delineates all the substantial nonconformance, which is obvious to see anyway, and also
the comprehensive plan issue just can't be avoided. Now you have two choices you can defer, or you can deny that is your
right as a board. Now the bait and switch would happen here is interesting, because what the applicant is going to tell you is that bait and switch is a procurement issue, and it's not
a planning board issue. And that is a total red herring, because this project is wrong in multiple ways. It is definitely wrong at the procurement level for the bait
and switch they did at the RFP procurement level. But what's before you today is a completely different issue. Wrong in a different way, which is the LDR compliance issue. So they're going to try to confuse
you and say, oh, they're just complaining about procurement. This is an LDR violation. And that's what's today. Before you Now here was this is a picture from the RFP submission which you haven't seen from the
applicant. This is what they were going to do to the existing project. And this is what was approved. Now this is what was first shown to the public two years after the RFP was approved, which is a
complete redesign, huge increase in footprint, never competitively bid against anyone. Obviously, it's pretty easy to see there isn't a substantial compliance here.
The required development pursuant to the LDR that were approved required maintenance of the existing structure. The parking format had to be maintained. The parking had to be maintained during the 70 to
72 spaces had to be maintained during the entire constructn process. The operational square footage was 73,600ft and a lot coverage of 13%, and a
sustainability feature was to reduce waste, hence renovation. Now, what this new application is, is completely different. It's obviously total demolition and new construction. It's an
understory parking facility that will take the 72 spaces out of commission. For the years that this project will take to be built. It's an increase in the footprint. It's
an increase, a substantial increase in the operational square footage and traffic and impact. Because of that, an increase of an impermeable lot
surface and a huge increase in demolition because previously there was no demolition. Now their site plan alone, looking at their proposal, which is on the left, and their new one to
the left, was their RFP approved concept. The one on the right is their demolition footprint, which is everything. And their new building with this substantially increased
footprint. Now, when asked during the application process so by the city, they asked the applicant, so you're not proposing any tear down or
rebuild from scratch the applicant's answer. Correct. That is correct. We are looking to do is we're looking to take the existing building and basically we're going to rehab
it. And that what was ultimately approved based upon that representation. Here's a scope of the complete demolition, and here's a zoom
out of the entire footprint. Now the parking, the yellow is a new structure which will overlay what is now existing
parking. Again, brand new concept which takes the parking out of commission during construction. This is the existing parking footprint and that was what was proposed and
that was what was approved. So can you clarify the number of spots that we would be losing or gaining with the new parking lot? The, the, the preliminary
proposal that's before you by the applicant. It says that at the end of the construction process, they will provide 72 parking spots. The original RFP submission said that those 72
parking spots will be open during the entire time of renovation. The new proposal is that that's going to be completely closed for however many years it takes to build the project, but there's no
change in the number of spots at the end of the project. In this preliminary plan, they have 72 spots after and there were 72 spots before. Correct. But again, there was a DRB
meeting about a month ago where the applicant appeared to agree with DRB, which deferred a decision on the project, that there's going to be some kind of redesign to the project.
We're not sure what that is. This was the same plan that was submitted to the DRB. So we need to anticipate that there's going to be a new plan, but we don't know what that is yet.
Now, this is the existing footprint of the project, which was supposed to be maintained and was promised to be maintained. And this is the new structure footprint, obviously
not insubstantial conformity. Excuse me if we are going to if this is if there's going to be a different plan, then why are we looking at this one? That is
a fantastic question. I agree with you. I don't think you should be looking at this plan, and that's a great question to ask of the applicant. You're pointing out this is a whole different plan and that there's
going to be another plan. So you're asking the exact right question. We have the same question, which is they've already told DRB that they're going to do a new plan. And so
that's that's in the past, DRB hasn't seen that new plan. It's been because it was deferred. So we don't know what's ultimately going to be before you. This is an illustration do
you, sir. How much more time do you need about maybe about five more minutes. Okay, okay. And then but following that, because this is a quasi judicial hearing, we have some questions we'd like to ask the
city as well. But I can either defer that to after you guys do all your presentations or do it right after this. Let's go ahead and finish your presentation. Thank you. So this illustration is the lot
coverage 13% as agreed to and 41% as proposed. They they in their required development the one they agreed to. They said that they would increase the
jungle tree canopy. What they've really done is reduce it. They said they would do sustainable surfacing of the existing, make it more permeable. You've actually increased the impermeability. They said they would install
solar panels for resiliency. There's no solar panels in this project. The location of the pools amenities would be next to the restaurants. Now those have been relocated, creating a
safety risk for the public. And here's an illustration of the impermeability issue that's been created with this new build, massive new structures due to this undergrounding of
partially undergrounding of parking. Now, I mentioned this before, but this on the parking issue, but they did include in
their presentation a little bit about the increased traffic flow and existing impact. Again, the four times increase in traffic that they've presented
to you in their new proposal was not which was is not what was approved in their RFP submission, they had 13 months of construction, which was the
approval. They're now thinking 24 to 30 months. Their fur was 23,343. They're increasing that as well. This is the specific
language in the in the governing zoning document, which is before you, which is the resolution which says at no point during construction process will the city have less than the required 72 available parking spaces available for
use. That is now also being thrown away because the new project demolishes all existing parking? This slide shows you the trip generation that will
be a result of this increase in intensity of this new project. And here is the timeline of the construction. Again, promised to be 13 months. Now it's 24 to
30 months. The comp plan amendment is an issue that's been been addressed. And just to be clear, the project the
site is goo. The the use that is there now is a legal nonconforming use. The applicant could continue that legal nonconforming use with the existing structures without
a comp plan amendment. The only reason the comp plan amendment is an issue is because the demolition, which is an issue that they've created. So they need an amendment to the comp plan because they're violating
the RFP that they agreed to. And that the requires a comp plan amendment. It's interesting scenario regarding the litigation. I want to just
correct a couple things. There was a motion to dismiss that was heard. And following the motion to dismiss, all of the applicant's core claims have survived. And ultimately we're
going to trial on that issue. At which point the judge, if we are to prevail, would totally redo and require a rebid of this RFP to begin with anyway.
So despite what the applicant has told you, the litigation is not over or dead in the water. It's proceeding full bore with all of our claims intact. It's not before you, but the applicant mentioned it, so I
just had to clarify it. Now I mentioned. The. Because this is a quasi judicial hearing, there are some questions that the city should be required to
answer. We have provided a list of questions which we think are very difficult to answer for your review. I'd like to ask
those, but I can do it now or I can do it later. It's up to you guys how you'd like to handle it. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few clarifications to some of the statements Mr.
Stearns has made. This this is a quasi judicial hearing. So he does have a right to cross-examine witnesses. If I could, I'd like to make just a few comments now to, to to help
guide you. Consider yourself a witness in this. Well, no, I mean, I'm certainly not. Are you receptive to him asking you questions. So what what I would advise the board what I would
advise you as the chair and the board, is that the Mr. Stearns can ask questions of, of any witnesses who, who have testified or will testify today.
I want to I need to make a very clear distinction between the regulatory staff of the city, like, you know, the building or planning departments and the
the the staff of the city acting ints proprietary capacity as a co-applicant on this application. None of the four of us here are advocates for a project, right? Your
professional staff reviews applications and advises you and makes a recommendation on whether something should be approved or not. And our role, the attorneys who sit on this
dais are is to advise you on procedure and on the rules that govern your hearings. The only advocate on this application in support of this application is is is is is the team that
presented to you at the beginning of this hearing? So I would so so Mr. Stern does have a right to, to to cross-examine witnesses. It would it would be witnesses who testified today.
And if you have any questions for staff who are sitting on the dais, it would be questions about the review of the application. Correct. And I want to clarify, I would not be asking Mr. Claridge's any
questions at all. It would be to staff. And then if I could just have a few. Do you have do you have a question about any of that. Well, no. No. So there was an insinuation thau your
bias and you have an incentive to get this approved. Similarly, he has a bias. He's representing a litigant adverse to them in litigation. So there's biases everywhere. What I have to ask you is I'm
assuming you're not biased is whether you, as a city attorney, agree that we have some type of jurisdictional issue here or any other issue about reviewing
and making a decision on this project, even if it's favorable. So we have to defer to you as a city attorney what we can and can't do. Well, can I clarify that you always have the right to ask for independent counsel
if you want it? All right. Well go ahead. So the what the application that's before you is a request under the GU district regulations to approve
a private use on city property. The code requires that any such use first be reviewed and that the planning board make a recommendation before it is ultimately approved by the city
commission. The GU district regulations also say that no GU property may be used in a manner inconsistent with the Comp plan, which is why we've recommended to you, if you do transmit this today, that you
include a recommendation that the planning Board that the City Commission amend the future land use category for this property from from Ross to
presumably PEF. Right. And assuming that recommendations made you don't you don't anticipate or see any procedural issues legality legally with us proceeding with
the recommendation even if it's positive. Correct. It's his his suggestion is we can only defer deny. So I want your opinion if that's accurate or not. And if we decide to approve it, is
there any procedurally legal issue or obstacle to us doing that? I don't see an issue with you making a recommendation today. Okay, the last clarification I'd like to make for now is the the
comprehensive plan and the land development regulations are are two different documents. The comprehensive plan is the city's long term vision that establishes our goals, policies
and objectives for each future land use category of the city. Everything that we do in our land development regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan acts like the city's charter or constitution on planning matters, and the land development regulations implement that. You need no reminding of any of this, but I want the record to be clear.
The resolutions that relate to the procurement of this contract, the resolutions of the City Commission, are absolutely not a land development regulation. The Land Development Regulations are adopted or amended by
ordinance of the City Commission. You have a few on your agenda today. You have all probably reviewed hundreds of them. So the only LDRs that your review today has to be
consistent with are are what's in the codified land development regulations. And again, for today's purposes, that's a that's a review of a proposed private use on public
property pursuant to the new regulations. Okay. Can I just clarify a couple points? I didn't mean to. If I stated it, I stated it incorrectly. You can recommend and you can deny
or defer. Obviously we prefer that you defer or deny, but I didn't want to make you think I said you can't recommend. Okay. You can. I thought you said your only choices were well, only from from our perspective, your only choice is given the
fact that's different. But thanks for the clarification. Okay. And regarding the the one issue on the it's already been stated on the record by the applicant in front of DRB that
they must be in compliance with their contract in order to be to have this project go forward, because it is the authorizing regulation. So I do have a little bit of a by the way, I
have the utmost respect for Mr. Mr. And Mr. Larkin. They're the best at what they do, but reasonable people can disagree as to what these things mean. And the the truth is the
authorizing document for zoning for this project, the LDR is the authorization and the resolution and its attachments to do this project. That's it.
Can I proceed with the questions, or would you like me to do I mean, do you he wants to ask you guys, who would you like to who are your questions for? I think the first question for what I'm sorry for city
staff. For city staff. Okay. So my recommendation, Mr. Chairman, is that you are you know, you preside over these meetings and, and can rule on, on procedural questions. And the board can also as a body. But my
recommendation would be that if Mr. Stearns has questions for staff, I think those questions really need to be limited to staff's review of the application. Consistency with the land development
regulations, consistency with the comp plan, but not, you know, questions as to the procurement, what the concession agreement requires. I think those questions should
best be directed to to to to the applicant. Okay. So so you'll ask your questions. And if you think it's inappropriate you'll just say that's an inappropriate question. How about that. Go ahead. Would you
like me to proceed now? Sure. Fantastic. Okay, so I'm not sure who will take a stab at this, so I'll just ask it. So the RFP was awarded in 2023, and the first public
presentation of a demolition and new construction concept was November 2025. This new construction proposal was not included in the RFP submission.
Correct, I think miss, unless. Debbie, unless you feel comfortable answering that. I think that it really is more of a question for the applicant, either the private application team or if anyone from the administration is here with the
applicant team. But I think those questions are best directed to the applicant rather than staff to the board. I think that the underlying assumption on that is that the underlying staff or the staff didn't take into consideration
the RFP and making a zoning recommendation. Okay. So the application that's before us today is limited to a very
narrow question regarding the private uses proposed for the GU property. Staff evaluated that staff has not performed an entire evaluation of an RFP
that occurred three years ago, etc. So we have evaluated the request, which again is a recommendation by this board specific to the proposed uses
of the site. The zoning has been reviewed by city staff. There is an application that is currently pending before the Design review Board. That
particular evaluation by staff had a full zoning analysis. There were variances that were requested for relief from certain zoning aspects as part
of that application. So I did not personally review this. The plan that went to the DRB for the zoning, but the planning department has done that. So I
think that I believe that answers the question for the purposes of the planning Board meeting or materials that were prepared for the Planning Board or the staff's recommendation,
did anyone analyze whether the applicant's submission substantially conforms to their RFP and the resolution? Again,
what what the task at hand was to evaluate was if the proposed uses are consistent with the planning Board review criteria. So that is what we reviewed. We
did not perform an analysis of the previously issued RFP. So just to be clear, there was no analysis as to whether the existing or this new construction plan substantially
conforms to the conceptual designs submitted with the RFP. That is, that was not part of the application. So staff did not perform that evaluation.
Okay. So just to be clear on that issue, staff is recommending that the board approved this. No submission. No, sir. Staff is recommending
that the board issue a recommendation to the mayor and city commission of a favorable recommendation. Not that you approve anything today. Staff is recommending that the board
recommends for the commission's approval. This project, where there's been no analysis as to whether the project substantially conforms with what we contend are the underlying LDR, which is the
RFP and the resolution, the land development regulations are separate and apart from any resolution or agreement. As the city as the owner of the
property, the Land Development Regulations are contained in the Resiliency Code and city staff has performed a thorough zoning analysis of that. Again,
that is before the Design Review Board. In terms of the detailed plans, the Design Review Board is tasked with reviewing the design, reviewing any variances from the zoning
regulations that may be requested and the physical, you know, the demolition, the physical built environment that is currently being proposed. So that is separate and apart from
the task of the planning Board today, but nonetheless occurring in accordance with the requirements of the Land Development Regulations. During
as the As staff conducted an analysis as to whether the 72 parking spaces will be available during construction of this new project. Again, that is part of an agreement
with the city as the owner. The planning department is not acting as the owner. Well, my question was, have you analyzed whether those spots will be or will not be available during
construction? Again, that is part of the agreement between the owner of the property and the applicant. So maybe the applicant could could speak to that in terms of their negotiations with the city as
the property owner, the planning department, which is the department I work for, is a regulatory agency. So I am to provide an independent evaluation of the specific
application that is before you today, which is very limited in scope, but the applicant is not provided an affirmative representation that those 72 spots will be available during
construction. I would I would suggest you ask the applicant that question. The applicant is taking notes of what you're asking and he can address what he can. Okay. And since the
staff has not considered the RFP or the resolution as part of its analysis, you have not provided that to the board for review. Is that correct? Correct. That wasn't part of
the application. Okay. So the the there's no way because evidence has not been presented to this board for them to determine whether this project
is indeed in substantial conformity with the underlying resolution by the city. That's not the task at hand. Today. The application is specific to
the proposed uses, not whether the RFP needs to be redone or any of that. I mean, that's not appropriate to bring before this board. Well, thank you. That's my questions. But I just
want to make it clear that what we're seeing here is that the only reason this project is even here is there's a resolution and an RFP, and that
is what governs this agreement. And we already see there is substantial nonconformity with that agreement. And I think you're going to hear more of that today. Thank you Any
questions for me. Not well. You want to wait for the applicant rebuttal okay. Now. Right now.
Great. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the board. Thank you. My name is Andrew Dickman. Dickman law firm. We're at 809 Walkerville Road
in Naples, Florida. I represent Erica Soto, who's at 300 South Pointe Drive, the Portofino. She's here with me and she'll be speaking later. I had this organized so that I could get
through this very quickly. But Mr. Larkin has put some allegations out there that I want to cover as well. So I'm going to take care of that first. First and foremost. Yes.
On obviously, January 6th, I have a stamped lobbyist registration from David Marquez. They've cashed my check for $850. I don't know if he's if
Mr. Larkin took the time to go down and talk to them or not. But I, in fact, am a lobbyist, and we can get the clerk up here if we have to. But I have
registered and I have proof of that with regard to. The questioning about the relevancy of the land development
regulations and the comprehensive plan, I want to point out, I want to point out something that what what? And, Mr. Chair, you made a great you
had a great question. If there is an adverse decision by the courts, what would the result be? Well, the result one of the results would be that this concession agreement is
actually a lease of public property. And you've even heard Mr. Larkin say, our property refer to it as our property. And all of their designs, which
are still the same designs that the DRB was shown. They say Pier Park on them. But why is that important? It's because in
your code, it it does say that the planning board has review authority over conveyances, lease and other things of public property and that
there's a list of seven criteria that you have to go through and evaluate. And one of them is, ironically, consistency with the comprehensive plan. So one of
the things that as the local planning agency, by law, that's what you are, you should be asking the staff, okay, let's see this small scale amendment.
That's what we need to see. If this was a private development, you would absolutely be saying, hey, we need to see a companion item so we know what we're dealing with, what we're
talking about. Staff didn't even mention the small scale amendment. That's the first time we've even heard about how they're going to handle it. It was being poised as a text
amendment, not a map amendment. So when you're dealing with that kind of a policy implication of a neighborhood park, and it is a neighborhood park, it is listed as Pier park.
It's city property. If in fact, that is under your jurisdiction, the conveyance of this and it's also under the jurisdiction of the city and county charters
related to parks, there are big implications not only for this board to have to review it, but there's also going to be a requirement for additional
public engagement. And that has been the problem here is that this isn't a private development. This is a public this is a public development on public lands, and it needs to
have greater public engagement because, as you heard before, you know, what was presented to the city commission is entirely different than what is being
presented now at the DRB. And I do want to mention Member Marks. Thank you for your text message and thank you for all the disclosures, because that that's very important to this process. And just to help you,
you did mention that you watched the DRB meeting. So I want to make sure that that's on the record. You texted me that you watched it. Is that not allowed? No, it is allowed. But it's important that, you know, it's important that you
disclose it. So so no one feels prejudiced. So I appreciate you doing it. I just didn't hear you mention that. But thank you very much. These disclosures, Mr. Attorney, are very important. You can't just stay
silent. They have to disclose. Otherwise. We're we're prejudiced about what what kinds of things they did. So what? I don't want to get too deep into this. But in effect,
to answer your question, if in fact, the court says this is actually a lease of public property, you all have jurisdiction under your code that says that you have to
review it not just for the resiliency, but for a lot of different things, not just compliance with the comprehensive plan, but is it adequate? Is it is it appropriate for the neighborhood? What's what are
the impacts on the neighborhoods? The is this is there a public purpose involved? Is there quality of life impacted? There's a whole lot of stuff that you would and
should be reviewing as the planning board under your code. The reason why you need to have a companion item with you. Now that you know that there is
going to be a comp plan amendment coming forward, is because you need to know exactly what is going to take place. If you give a recommendation and move it
forward, it'll never come back to you because it'll already be approved. And you'll then see a small scale amendment. And this is the first time we've heard this today. And I think that
you should ask for that. I think you should basically table this and ask for the information, because apparently they've already had conversations with staff about a small scale amendment, and
that should be revealed to you right away. When when you talk about the earlier we talked about load counts or seats,
basically what you're talking about is a, a tripling of seats. And what that means is cars and people in a neighborhood park. This is a massive, massive
change of that area. And you're going to hear from a lot of people that are going to tell you about traffic and noise. And all of that has to do with large scale establishments.
When you think about it. Joe's Stone crab, I think that's around 500 seats. You've got Smith and Wollensky, maybe 600 seats. I believe that this
proposal, with all of those commercial proposals are upwards of 900 seats. That is significant. That is massive. It equals cars. It equals
liquor sales. It equals noise. And you talked about like the the parking, the parking. Oh yeah. We don't want people on our parking so that we're going to patrol that that's our
property. That sounds a lot like at least not a concession agreement. Okay. So I would really take homage to that. And when you talk about if you had a chance to look at the DRB
meeting, they clearly said, we need to see a different design. We're not this doesn't look right. It doesn't. You know, we don't know anything about any any anything else that's been
has anything been reduced, have have any uses changed. Are we think the planning department would want to tell you about because that's what you're looking at. Uses. Have a of
the uses shrunk. Have any of them been eliminated? We haven't heard anything about that. Okay. Now you know, I will say, Mr. Larkin, I did
call Mr. Larkin and ask him because I got hired right before the the the January 6th meeting, I believe it was. And I asked and told him, I said,
look, I'm trying to get up to speed on this. He said, no, no deferral, whatever. He actually had the ability to know that the meeting was going to be canceled because they weren't
even here. The rest of us were in the audience waiting for 30, 40 minutes until we were finally told that you guys weren't having a meeting. And I drove all the way over from Naples. So, you know, for him
to be a little annoyed that I didn't give him a copy of the letter that I sent to you, I knew that that staff would send him a copy. I don't have an obligation to send him a copy
of the letter. And I do know Michael Larkin. He knows me. We we're friends. I like him a lot. Just to wrap this up, I want you to please listen carefully
to the the neighbors, the neighbors. And with no offense to you, Mr. Marks, I know you're involved with the sofa or something like that. I saw the resolution with your name
on it. I don't think you speak for everybody in that neighborhood. I. I did not sign. Well, your name is on it. Well, December 9th, there's a resolution with your name on it.
That was a mistake by the VP. Okay, let's make sure that that record is correct. His name should not be on that. So in conclusion, I think you should
stop this right now. Ask staff about the small scale amendment because you are the LPA. And also I would what's the harm in doing the evaluation that's
required of you when there is a conveyance of public property and get all that stuff wrapped up. So there aren't any questions, and it shows the community that you're being transparent and you're taking
the extra mile. There's no rush to finish this. Put it on the table, get the small scale amendment in front of you so that the community can see exactly what major. That's a
major policy decision to do. A small map amendment, a future land use map amendment in your comprehensive plan. So I would say put it on the table, tell
them to bring it back. I would pause the DRB meeting, recommend you pause the DRB meeting until you know exactly what changes are being made to the design, because you don't
know what the uses are going to be now, because they may go to DRB on the 12th and show a reduction of uses, a change of uses, and those are all things
that are relevant to you, not necessarily the design but the uses. So thank you very much for that. And I would like for you to have some have a conversation with my client.
She's a resident. Thank you. Thank you. Three minutes. Hi. Good morning. My name is Erica Soto. I am the founder of the South Fifth Moms organization,
where we have over a thousand active subscribers. I'm a full time resident in South Fifth for over six years. I'm a community builder, and I'm very disappointed on what's being
proposed on our local land. What is being proposed is not what we expected. What was supposed to what one approval was supposed to be a small, modest renovation, and now it's
being proposed as super large project based on the proposal that won the public competition. We're expecting a historic building to be preserved, the
existing footprint to remain and scale to respect the south of its neighbors. Instead. Now we're facing total demolition structure that is much larger
and heights that are out of character for this area. We live here in south of fifth. We're residents of the community. Were not just a destination project of this
size and intensity will affect our daily quality of life from noise, congestion, access to the beach. We're already struggling with traffic and
parking in this area, and the original proposal indicating that parking will be remain open is not under the new plan. We're told the construction is
going to take about 13 months, and that timeline makes sense for renovation, but not something of this scale. Realistically, we're looking at years of construction disruption, congestion. This
park belongs to us. If a private operator wants to pursue a project that is materially different to the proposed approval, it should return to the public through a fair process rather than move
forward through an administrative approvals. At minimum, we are asking that this project be paused so the city can fully review whether it aligns with what is promised
and what the community wants. We we deserve a meaningful voice and we appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you.
Anybody else in chambers speak on this? Good morning. My name is Gerald. I leave South office
and I review this application and I urge the board to approve it. I think it's a meaningful improvement of what is existing.
And that will be here. Thank you, thank you. Just anyone speaking, just introduce yourself and where you live. Good morning, I'm Bruce Taylor, I'm a resident of Miami Beach.
I just have a prepared statement. It's about two minutes long. Please, dear members of the Planning Department, I'm speaking as a resident of Miami Beach to expressed my strong support for the proposed redevelopment of
the former Nikki Beach location in the South of fifth neighborhood by Boucher Brothers, a major food group, into a luxury beach club with public access. As a member of this community, I believe this
project represents a significant upgrade from the previous use and will provide substantial benefits to both residents and visitors of Miami Beach. Major food Group has established an exceptional
reputation for creating an operating, world class hospitality venues, and I'm confident they will bring the same level of quality and professionalism to this beachfront location. Most importantly, I want to
emphasize my strong support for the project's commitment to maintaining public beach access in an area as desirable as South of fifth, ensuring that our beaches remain accessible to all members of the community
is paramount. This project demonstrates a balanced approach that allows for quality development while preserving the public's right to enjoy our beautiful coastline. The proposed luxury beach club will provide quality
amenities that will enhance the experience for both Miami Beach residents and visitors. Such facilities contribute to our city's reputation as a premier destination while serving the
needs of our local community. The upgrade from the previous establishment will elevate the south of neighborhood and continue to contribute positively to the area's continued evolution. I believe this redevelopment, under the
stewardship of experienced developers like Boucher Brothers and a renowned operator like Major food Group, represents responsible and thoughtful development that aligns with Miami Beach's vision for the future. Thank
you for considering my support for this project. I encourage the planning department to approve the application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Next. Good morning. I see a lot of familiar faces. Thank you for your service. My name is Brett Benza. I've lived in Miami Beach for the last 20 years. I currently reside at
650 West Avenue, where I'm the president of the board of a 334 unit condominium. But I'm here today in capacity as a local, a
very cold local. I eat, sleep, and I work in Miami Beach. I'm here because I want Miami Beach to be what it was 20 years ago. A vibrant electric, electric
community, a mix of interesting people from everywhere in the world with spaces that were globally known, like the Art Deco district in Lincoln, Rhode. Ladies and gentlemen, Miami
Beach has lost its mojo. That's not a secret. We need world class projects like Nikki Beach site to bring the luster back. I have heard a few objections
today, but nobody has mentioned the failed business that is there today. The property has been under serving the local community for years, and in fact, many of us haven't been there in a very long time. And
I'm betting that includes many of you that live across the street. That said, we do need local input to make sure it serves the local community and
not just the visitors. There is no vendor that is more local than the Boucher brothers. They have been outstanding partners with the city for more than 30 years. You know this already.
We have all seen them serve the city and their clients with the utmost professionalism and quality. I trust their choice of partners, who all have shown a long history of excellence in
their various fields. I have known the entire family for a very long time. They live here. They grew up here. Their families are growing up here. They are literally the home team. And while this may just
be another project to the planning board, it's their family's legacy. Whatever concerns locals have, I can assure you there is no better group to hear them, address
them, and work with them. They have a 30 year track record to show this. This project is a big step in helping Miami Beach get back, get the luster back, and I and many others are
excited to use and support this space. And you can bet there are many of us locals rooting for the home team. Thank you,
thank you. Okay. Hello. Hi, my name is Natalie Lascano and I have been a Miami Beach resident for over 17 years. I live in south of fifth at
Portofino Towers, which from my balcony I can see Nikki Beach. I take issues with the effect this project of this magnitude is going to have on our daily
lives. With traffic congestion and just construction two years, which they say two years. I feel like construction in Miami especially, you have to add at least double the time, and I
just don't think it's going to happen in two years. And two years is a long time to to go through that construction. Unlike my previous, my other neighbor that just spoke
earlier, I have seen since I've had my daughter seven years ago, I've seen a lot of changes in the south of fifth neighborhood, but I see them as positive changes. The neighborhood went
from like a party destination, and now I see a lot of young families with young kids there, and I, I love it, I love it, it's quiet. We walk the boardwalk every single morning
with my daughter, and I get to enjoy the ocean views. It's just the reason why I haven't moved out of the beach in 17 years is because of South Point Park in that boardwalk. I just
think it's stunning and it just brings joy to me, and I just wouldn't want the integrity of that neighborhood to be tarnished with such a big
project. And I'm asking the board to reconsider the changes and maybe to hear from the residents. What is it that the
locals want? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi, my name is Andrew Mermell. I'm a Miami Beach resident for over 50
years. I live south of fifth. I own five units, two at the, three at the Yacht Club and two at Portofino Tower. 201, 708 and 710 at the Yacht Club, and
1901 and 1902 at Portofino Tower. I just jumped through hoops to. Renovate a home at 1210 Michigan Avenue that was falling apart. That required
something that never happened. Full demolition. So I understand what's going on in this project. And I could say that I know the Boucher brothers, I know Perry, Michael and Steven very well. I could
promise you that if this project is moving forward differently, it's for a very good reason. It's for something that Miami Beach needs to compete against. The cities of Miami and Wynwood. Miami Beach
is suffering. I own property on Ocean Drive that is dying right now. Please move this forward and approve the project as it's
being presented. Thank you very much. Thank youir. I will thank you for your service. My name is Gabriel Krieger. I live
at 2201 Collins Avenue. I would just like to confirm my support for the project. What I love most about. As you can probably tell from the accent, I'm not originally from here. What I love most about Miami Beach is
its accessibility, its world class venues, and its lifestyle. I think this project supports that in absolute compliance and totality. This is a place where I look forward to taking my
elderly parents when they come visit me, and also my niece and nephew. I trust the operators because of their reputation and what they've accomplished and what they do. And I trust the words they say because of how well they operate. And I trust
that everything that they've showed us will be in compliance with the laws and regulations that you stipulate on them. That's all I'd like to add. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody
else? Ma'am? Good morning everyone. My name is Sonia Velazquez. I'm a homeowner, I'm a homeowner and I live in south
of fifth. Let me be clear from the start, we recognize that change is coming to this site, and we understand why the facility needed attention. And
we've seen what the Butcher Brothers major food group have accomplished with their projects. We acknowledge their strong reputation and track record, but this conversation
isn't about whether we want improvement. We do want it. It's about whether we deserve an honest and transparent process when our public land is
being redeveloped, what we were told versus what we are getting. In 2003, the city Commission approved. Well, what you heard before, now we are facing some
major changes. That's why what's now before the planning board is fundamentally different. And we went through
that with my friends here. This is about fair process. Some might characterize our concern as resistance to progress. That's not what it is. We want
progress. We're not asking you to reject this project. We are asking you to acknowledge that when a proposal changes this substantially, it deserves to return to the public for proper
review. What the project offers. Let me be clear about what we understand. This project includes upscale dining concepts from major food group quality restaurants that are a
significant upgrade in terms of type of destination being created, new pool, wellness center, and retail pavilion, significant revenue for the city, jobs and economic
activity from an established, well-regarded operator. We can see the potential benefits here. The Butcher Brothers have been providing beach services in Miami Beach for over three
decades. Major food groups has created successful, well-run establishments. We admired that, so we cannot have said it's a process where a modest renovation becomes total
demolition. Promised parking availability disappears, realistic construction timelines are clearly communicated. Questions remain about whether proper procedures
were followed. This is about opposed. This is not about opposing development. This is about maintaining, maintaining integrity and how we make decisions about public land.
Our request is simple and reasonable. You're asking the planning Board to pause this application until the next amendment to the comprehensive plan is completed, so we can properly evaluate whether this
is this use is appropriate under our city's master plan of full public review process. Of course, that evaluates these projects for what is actually is a new construction project,
not a renovation. Realistic timelines. The variance variance requests are properly justified, not simply granted the benefits that everyone.
Here's what's important to understand. A proper process would likely benefit the developer too. It's. This project is a strong as it appears to be. Then it should
be able to withstand public scrutiny, scrutiny, transparent reviews, building community support and trust. Rushing through approvals creates resentment, opposition and
potential legal challenges. Challenges down the road. The Butcher Brothers, a major food group, have an opportunity here to be true partners with this neighborhood, not just another developer that bypasses the
community to get approvals. Thank you very much. Yeah. Just to respond to you again, we're not approving anything today. We're making a recommendation.
So that needs to be clear next. Good afternoon. My name is Jonathan Plutzik. I live with my wife and son at 1455 Ocean
Drive. I own the Betsy Hotel at 1440 Ocean Drive. I chair the Ocean Drive Association, which is the business community of Ocean Drive. I'm on the board of Subsafe, which is a resident
organization at the north end of Ocean Drive focused on quality of life and public safety. For the last 20 years, frankly, I've been preoccupied
with elevating Ocean Drive, and we have moved forward, but very, very slowly. It's important that we elevate Ocean Drive while actually being welcoming
to all. And I want to repeat welcoming to all on Ocean Drive. So being a luxury enterprise or an elevated enterprise doesn't mean it needs to be
exclusionary in any way. For 20 years, we've employed the Bouchet brothers to run our beach. And as someone who's in the hospitality business who has to revel in or suffer from
all the public scrutiny we get because people get to post online our performance. Think about the Bouchet brothers, who operate up and down Ocean Drive, and every single person who
takes advantage of their services gets to comment on whether or not they're doing a good job, much less the owners of the properties that employ them. And yet they continue to
be successful. What I'm struck by in having conversations with them over time is how one deeply committed they are to the community. It is everything to them, how family centric they are, how family centric
they are, how welcoming they are of everybody. So again, luxury does not mean in any way exclusionary. I want to refer quickly to my comments about
the Leslie earlier because I was struck by this was a successful renovation and enterprise trying to be able to serve perhaps 10 or 15 of their guests on the roof. And I saw
the hoops they had to jump through again to make progress. I'll wrap up. We must make progress on Ocean Drive. We have in some respects about
safety, but the work is slow and slogging. It's why I spoke up unexpectedly about the Leslie. We are simply doomed as a street as famous as we are.
We are doomed as a street. We're never going to fulfill our potential unless we move forward on projects like this that deserve, I'm going to say, approval. Mr. Chairman, even though we're not, you're
approving without the approval of projects like this to continue to move forward, we'll find ourselves back here again years from now, having achieved nothing. Thank you for your
time. Thank you ma'am. Good morning. My name is Lee Lentz. I've lived in South Beach for about 23 years. I live south of fifth now for about five years,
and I just came to take up a little bit of your time this morning, because I think that I've heard a lot about Boucher brothers and how much they brought to their community, and I've been here long enough, so
I've seen a lot of that. But I think there's a right way to do things and there's a wrong way to do things. And if you know you have a company that presented a bid for a project and that project now, as
presented two years later, is significantly different. There were also efforts to characterize it as a concession agreement versus a lease in order to avoid public comment
and public vote. So if you are planning to do this project, it should have been presented before. If you want to do this project, then do the right things like the text amendment. Look at all the different
things, have it before this board the way that they want to present it, and then you have a way to make a choice. For me, it's if they do want to bring all this to the community, then
don't do it all these different ways. Put it together, show us what you have. If that was going to be your plan to do a complete different overall, then that should have been presented two years ago. If it's something that you kind of
came up with, like, hey, those other guys had a good idea, then it should go to a different way. But, you know, we're not trying to stop progress. We are trying to move forward. I love the community. I love South Beach. I like we
need to make improvements in Nikki Beach. I agree, I haven't been there as often, but I don't think this is the way to do it. And so my hope is that you would recommend to pause the project and get more
information, and so that you have all the information that you need before you can make an informed decision. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew. Good
morning chair. Good morning board members. My name is Matthew Golden. I live at 125 Jefferson Avenue. It's less than 1000ft from this proposed
project that you all are giving a recommendation on. Today, I want to start by talking about
the the impacts. Usually when when a project of this size would come before your board in this neighborhood, it would be so as a neighborhood impact establishment seeking a
conditional use permit, and there would be criteria that you were to review. And those criteria help us understand the impact that this could have on the neighborhood. We've heard
from people who live in this neighborhood some of their concerns, many of which revolve around traffic. And there was 150 plus page traffic study
attached to there. I went through the whole thing, but the thing that really stood out for me and I'm going to hold it up here was page 12 of that traffic study. And what it
shows is that there is almost a four times increase in the projected peak hour traffic. And to understand why this is a high end destination dining
establishment with proposed over 900 seats, we heard earlier that that the largest restaurant I believe is is Joe's Stone crab, with about 500 seats. So we're talking
about if this place is successful. And that's always a big if, because we've seen many restaurants come and go in the south of fifth neighborhood in the last five years, and they
have not all been successful. But if it is, it's going to have a major impact on traffic in the south of fifth neighborhood. And we've heard the lack of community kind of discourse about this. And,
Mister Chair, could I have one more minute, please? Thank you. A lack of community discourse about this. And like Mr. Dickman, I have concerns, too, about board member Keith
Marks's name on on that resolution. Whether there is or there is not a conflict of interest, there certainly appears to be an appearance of a conflict. And I'm surprised
that he hasn't recused himself from this. But notwithstanding, there has been not much discussion amongst the community members. And we've heard that from there's been
between 5 and 10 today. What I would suggest is and this is nothing against the applicants, the applicants, the Bush brothers and their partners and the community. They have a great reputation, and I don't
think anyone here is speaking against him. But what they're saying is this project is just too intense. There are too many seats. There's going to be too much of an impact to the neighborhood if it's successful
during the busiest times. Traffic is the number one concern. So why don't we go back? Let's meet. Let's have real engagement with the community. Let's meet. And perhaps we find a middle ground.
Instead of being 80,000ft■!S of operational space. Perhaps there's a way to rightsize this so that this project can move forward so that the neighbors feel like their voices were
heard. And the actual, the real legitimate issues are actually addressed and that we don't have potential impacts that could negatively impact quality of life in this neighborhood.
Thank you. Thank you. With respect to Keith, he said that he did not sign it and that was an error. So did not sign it I did not no need for you to recuse yourself. So oka Next.
Anybody else in chambers on this? Alright. Anybody on zoom? Yes. We have several members of the public on zoom. Our first
speaker is Allison's iPhone. Allison, hi. How are you? Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. My name is. My name is Allison
Herman. I am the current VP of software, as well as the president of Portofino Towers and Portofino South Point Master. I am the signatory on the resolution this afternoon. Resolution of December 10th.
Someone had mentioned the date, but that was incorrect. On December 10th held an open meeting of the membership where the Pier Park new design was
expressly on the agenda. It was presented by Mr. Larkin, Mr. Karp, and you know, their team. The new design as as before you
today and after. There was only support in that meeting for for the presentation. All the questions were answered, the height, the difference. And they explained why they had to have a new building. The
difference in the height was very minimal. It wasn't going to. There was no residential, there was no hotel, and the community firmly supported it. At at a very well attended
meeting. And after that meeting this afternoon, board with me as a signatory signed the resolution. It literally has my initials. It's an A and an H. Keith was not the signatory and
he's just on there as a member of the board. So I just, you know, I just want to reiterate that Sophia did see the new presentation. The members saw the new presentation, and we support the project. We believe
that it will elevate the neighborhood with the high end restaurants, the community pool, a beach club, a kids area. I mean, these are all community.
It is all in the in the interest of the community. It's it's meant to be a community oriented place. You know, Nikki Beach has been neglected of late and it has it is not does
not represent the community. And, you know, we think this will be an asset and and I hope you, you know, move forward with your recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Our next
speaker is Erica Durst. Erica, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I, I, I do thank you.
You have two minutes. Good morning. I'm Eric durst. I'm a South fifth resident for the last 16 years. I have thoughts on the latest design proposed not being the proper esthetic
or scale for that iconic corner of our neighborhood, but I also don't think we should even be opining on planning and design at this point. And we should be remain focused on this process. There were lots of initial
concerns that this was not a fair or transparent process. The other RFP participants felt sandbagged, not just the Penrod's, and it appears those concerns were valid. Now that there's been significant
changes to the terms that were promised in order to get approval back in 2023. This feels very much like a bait and switch. And whether that's been intentional or not, it's not
the impression our city should be making upon its residents and stakeholders. I just heard a few members of our community speak to the character of the Beach Brothers this morning. I've never met them. I'm sure
they're perfectly lovely people, but that has nothing to do with the process. And this process has been violated. There has not been enough public notice about the changes post RFP
approval. I do get the emails and there was an item on there saying they would discuss the new building, but anyone who's reading that is not going to understand. That means there's
been a new change to what was approved back in 2023. New building could just mean a renovation to many people. Glancing at a few items in an
email, I respectfully urge you to recommend that the city recommit to a fully open, transparent RFP process one that's clearly communicated, fairly, administered, and
deserving of public trust. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker, let me just people keep talking about this RFP process that that's completely outside of our purview. Correct. All right.
All right. Go to the next speaker. Next speaker J. Caprio. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. You have two minutes. Yes.
Hi, my name is John Caprio. I reside at 1000 South Point Drive. I am. President of the Murano at Portofino HOA and I'm also a director on South of
fifth Neighborhood Association. First of all, I want to mirror what Allison said. I am on the board with her at South of Fifth Neighborhood Association. We've had many meetings, lots of community outreach, and we
have very active with our buildings and the neighborhood. And I think we have our thumb on the pulse of what is best for the neighborhood from a few
years ago, advocating to get to change the always for story nightclub and other businesses, helping and enhancing the neighborhood. I've been a
resident here for over 20 years. I own two units. I own a two apartment south of fifth, and I just want to say I strongly advise the Planning Board to move forward with the
recommendation to pass this new design of of the Nikki, the Nikki Beach Club parcel. As it is right now, it is an eyesore. It's a bad run business. It's
bad for the neighborhood. What they what they want to do, I think would be a great enhancement to the neighborhood. I know our residents are excited about it. I think it's
going to be a great operation. Everything that I heard about parking traffic, we don't really have those issues. As you see, when a state when a
citywide vote goes to enhance anything on Ocean Drive like it was the Marriott it passes, this is very important for our neighborhood that this gets recommended and it gets passed
by the city and it gets done. It is a vital piece of our community and we all look forward for Boucher Brothers, major food groups, businesses
to to join our neighborhood. They major food group has been a great operator in our neighborhood and we are very happy in their operations south of fifth and then also Boucher Brothers. I think their record
speaks for themselves. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next. Our next speaker is Luis Salom. Luis, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do. You have two minutes, Louis Salom and Gloria Salom, lifelong resident of Miami Beach, 800 North Shore Drive.
I'm representing about 30 people in my family. We fully support the Boucher, and we commend them on the great community partner that they've been, and we fully support this
project. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Ken Koppel. ■Ke, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? Yes. Ken. Okay. Thank you. You have two minutes. Okay. I'm on the board of SoBe. Safe. As is Jonathan, who you heard from before. And we're
weighing in because of our commitment to continuously elevating South Beach. And we believe this project will have far reaching effects, positive effects on our community. We're
very impressed because neighbors have the most important stake around. And here is the board of Sofina that is approving of this. And
they've they've held meetings on this. What more do you need to hear when a neighborhood association blesses a project? I'm also told that individual
buildings surrounding this this project have have voted their support to it. So in addition to that, this project satisfies requirements we deem essential.
And 11 p.m. closing time for restaurants. No external speakers or ambient music provision for local families to utilize open areas, and more.
We've looked at the plans. They're attractive. They will elevate the the area and they will resolve problems that are inherent in the current structure. So for these reasons,
we advocate the passage of of this without delay. Thinking back to the firehouse debacle, we've seen what happens in this city when things are delayed,
the costs go up and opportunities are lost. Thank you, thank you. Our next speaker is screen iPhone. Do
you swear to tell the truth? The whole truth? Nothing but the truth I do. This is Steve Krenek. I'm resident year round resident at 1500 Ocean Drive. Just start out by saying we
don't say it enough. Miami Beach is a is a great place, great place to live, great place to visit. And but I think we all agree, whatever side we're on for this proposal, that we need to continue to
elevate it. And we've lacked doing that to some extent over the last 25 years. And so this project I'm fully supportive of, it elevates, you know, the the
area, South Beach, all Miami Beach in both the short term and the long term as as and just want to go back. I'm speaking individually not not for any organization that I'm a
part of. I do agree the the hours, you know, which Ken just mentioned I believe in previous you know, are important. Almost every establishment in the area stays open at least to 11, if
not later. So I mean these these hours are, are very, you know, very appropriate. And, you know, I think we've seen it many times in our city, you know, we hamstring, we water
down projects to try to get them through. And then they're not the quality of the project that we want. And so, you know, kind of, you know, again, fully support the project as is. And
hopefully we don't do that with this project. And we should keep this project moving forward and not have a hole in our important neighborhood for many years if we if we go down these rabbit holes. So again,
fully supportive. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jordan's iPhone. Jordan, do you swear to tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? Jordan you can unmute yourself if you would like to speak. Okay. I'm unmuted. Thank
you. Yes, I do, thank you. My name is Jordan Levy. I live at the Murano Grande, 400 Alton Road. For the last 14 years. I'm also one of the owners of South Pointe Tavern, which is right on the kitty corner,
right directly across from where Nikki Beach we located. And I'm the commercial director of. So I just want to make sure that you all understand that
we've been deeply involved in this project, going back to 2021, when we met with the Penrod's, expressing our concerns about the quality of what's happened to Nikki Beach
over the previous 15 years and our desire to help them to get back to what it was when it first opened. We engaged them, we met with them, we had a community meeting there, we had
an event there, and we got them to offer benefits to the people in the neighborhood. Still didn't change what happened at Nikki Beach in 2023? We were
extremely involved in listening to every single presenter who wanted to take or participate in the RFP. We engage with them, we met with them, we gave them our feedback and comments.
After that process was completed, we unanimously supported the proposal that was submitted by by Bouchet
Brothers and Major Food Group back in November. When they came back to us to tell us that they'd made changes to the plan, they came and showed us the new their new vision, which we
thought was a major upgrade to what was originally presented. As a matter of fact, when original proposals were made, we asked them why they were taking a really poorly built
building that was very old and just remodeling it. And they had told us that because they couldn't get more than a ten year lease, it was almost impossible financially for them to build a new building. But
that would have been their choice. Well, lo and behold, a few months ago, they've come back. The math now works. We we as a community met. We had an open meeting. We listened to
the proposal. This is so far superior to what was presented originally. It's the same project. It's just much better. And we unanimously supported it and we hope that you guys will
as well. Thank you. Thank you. Jordan, I believe our final speaker is Wayne. Wayne, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth? Yes, sir. Thank you. I just wanted to call in to say what I said. I'm sorry. Wayne, what's your full name and your address? Wayne Roberts, south
of fifth. Thank you. I just wanted to call in and repeat what I said to the HPB. That I support this project, and I
wasn't thinking I was going to, but the design or the size relative to the to the to the lot and the improvement to the
neighborhood south of fifth, certainly makes me. For the project and not against. And I
congratulate the the partners in this project in putting forward a project that makes sense to me. It's balanced, that looks at the interests of
the neighborhood, the city, the business community, the tourism business, and residents in general. So I want to applaud
this project. You know, it really was a really successful plan. Thank you. Thank you. Wayne. No one else on zoom. All right. So the only thing I'm
going to do is Michael, you want to. Mister chair, just a point of order. I just want to mention that the member from the clerk's office did come up and confirm with me that I am
properly registered as a lobbyist. I asked him to tell Mr. Larkin that, and he did. And we accept that. You said that earlier. Yeah. Very clear. Thank you, thank you. And also, I think I heard someone say
that some of the board members live in the area, and I think that they should disclose that as well as the fact that I think Mr. Marks was on the RFP selection committee process.
That's fine. I think I think he's the only one that lives south of fifth on the board. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Which meansTI understand. So there's your disclosure. He
lives south of fifth. Sure. Yeah. I want you to just rebut what you've heard, and then we're going to close the public hearing. Sure. A lot was said, but with regard to what Mr. Stern said, 90% of his
testimony involved the concession agreement. That is not before you today. That is not your role today. Your role is very narrow. It's to offer recommendations to the city Commission with regard to this
project. We would not be here today. As I told you all, unless the city attorney, the city manager, had determined that we are consistent with this concession agreement. We have spent many months working
with them. This is not a surprise to them. These plans are programed. Everything is utterly consistent with the wording of the concession agreement. Bear in mind who Mr.
Sterns is. He is an attorney with a firm representing the current tenant of the project. I hope that doesn't. It's not lost on you all. This tenant failed to timely submit their
response to the RFP in 2023, resulting in this litigation. The goal of this litigation is to undo the results of the RFP. They are not an unbiased party
here. That is their driving goal. Their lease expires three months from now, along with any standing they may have to challenge this process. Now
with regard to Mr. Dickman, he mentioned seven criteria, one of which is determined consistency with the comprehensive plan. Those criteria relate to conveyances of property, leases of property,
concession agreements that extend past ten years. Our concession agreement is less than ten years. Therefore, those criteria do not apply. Again, it is worth mentioning
that this property, One Ocean Drive, is not in the inventory of city parks. It is simply not. No matter how much Andrew might want to wish it in, it is simply not in the inventory of
city parks. The alternative argument that if you want to characterize it, a park, it is certainly a neighborhood park, and a neighborhood park is exempt from the from the requirements set forth in the
county charter. Regarding parks, the public facilities land use designation. That is what will be before you all in April. The latest, maybe in March. That is what we're going to be designate to. If you look at
the text of the Public Facilities land use designation, it encourages commercial uses within government owned property. That perfectly matches what we are proposing
to do at this property. With regard to Erica Soto, in April 2023, she appeared at the City Commission Hour along with Lucia Penrod, advocating for
the Penrod to remain in place as the tenant. I do not think she is an impartial neighbor. I think that she has a relationship with the Penrod family, and it's important to understand that in the last
week I've been approached by several people who have told me, in fact, that the Penrod family is paying the attorney's fees for Mr. Dickman. I cannot prove that one way or the other. I am not going to cross-examine
Erica. I think that would be in poor form. But there are situations that you need to know about. What you are considering. Today is a pivotal moment. The way that Penrod is
look now is run down and is shabby. The City Commission, the neighbor south of fifth Solomon, all agree that what we're proposing is a superb improvement over what exists right now. World class
restaurants, beautiful pools where people relax during the day. It is it is a vast improvement from what we have there. Now, in closing, you all
have a very narrow scope today, in spite of what has been told to you, in spite of process, your scope is to review and make recommendations upon the project that we presented you
all today, which is consistent with the concession agreement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Can I ask, can I speak? Yeah, I'm going to give you the
other rebuttal one second. Just because he mentioned your name on a on a late on, some go ahead and respond to that. But don't argue your case. Thank you. I just wanted to go back to Mr. Larkin. We are we we get
along well. Don't don't worry. We are. We are both advocates. And that's what we are doing here. Correct. We understand that. We understand your role and who you're representing. And we we get it. I want to
just circle back that. I did mention that what you would hear is this is just an RFP dispute. And don't worry about it. And what I try to convey to you during my presentation was that the core reason you are
here is because of the underlying documents that need to be complied with substantially, and I don't think you've heard anything that they have been. In fact, I think everybody has advocated for the exact opposite, that
they are complete change. And obviously we take issue with everything that Mr. Larkin said about what's going on in court, because that is factually incorrect. But that's why we're in court. So with that, any
questions I can answer? Yeah, actually, I'll ask you. And I want Mr. Larkin to reply. I keep hearing bait and switch. By the way, I'm closing the public hearing now, and now it's time for interaction.
Thank you. Because some people on the board were asking, so I'm. Bear with me for a second. The old RFP proposed a completely new look of the
building. The new is proposing a completely new look for the building. Is that true? Yes or no? You go first, Andrew. The
original RFP was a renovation of the existing structures. Did it fundamentally change the look and structure, or did it leave it in place? The answer
to the question is the original RFP yes. Is a renovation of an existing structure. The the new proposal again as of November is complete demolition basically property line of
property line and brand new construction. Okay. You are aware that for 30 years that all the other bidders had
complete demolition in their bids. So you had indicated that it's a bait and switch that that and implying that perhaps the RFP didn't even allow for
such a concept. The concept was allowed in the RFP, is that correct? That's absolutely right. And there were other new construction proposals that were rejected affirmatively
because the commission through, however, it proceeded, decided to affirmatively reject new construction and to approve renovation only. And those new
constructions were only for the 30 year option, which is what they rejected. I can't make that assumption because that's too many baked in assumptions that the original RFP had three
restaurants. How many does the current one have? It depends on how you're footprint it, and we don't really know what the redesign will look like. But as it was presented, it looks like
that the the number of restaurants appears to be similar. But you'd have to ask Mr. Larkin, similar or identical? You have to ask Mr. Larkin that. Can I go? Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. It's the
same amount of restaurants. Hasn't changed. It won't change. The original. Had swimming pools any change? We have swimming pools. Okay. The original had a kids daycare and
he changed. We'll have those kids there. Okay. The original had daybeds and lounge chairs with some even located in the pool. Any change? No, sir. That
stays okay. Any change in parking spaces from beginning current to when it's finally done? I think the only change is that under the current
scheme, there's an understory, and we're actually able to increase the number of private parking spaces. More spaces. Okay, the original plan had
extensive new landscaping. What about the new plan? Same. Okay. The original plan was a short term lease of less than ten
years. What is the new same financial to the city? Have they changed in the concession agreement? Since this plan is,
I assume, very expensive compared to the original for the applicant. Have they asked for any better terms? No, no, the same, same plan. And so can
I ask Mr. Max? I'm sorry, I just have to want to make one clarification. You asked whether it was a short term lease. This is this is a concession agreement. Concession agreement? Less than
ten years, ten years versus 30. Bad art of term financials are the same. Okay, now, he caught
me off guard. The estimated extra cost to the applicant is what for? Doing it this way. It has increased. I think the
investment amount is just below 30 million extra. Okay. And when it's done for nine years and whatever, does the
applicant own the building or does the city own the building city. So the city is getting all the same features, all the same functions as original with
a building that's $30 million more, not paid by the city on the same financial terms. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. I'm done. Can I address some of
your questions and where they're going, which is, yeah, you can ask me a question. The public hearing closed, Mr. Chairman. Wait wait wait. Hold on, hold on. You want to do what? I just want to address some of his questions. Because
some of the directed to me. Yeah, I, I think that all of your questions are great questions. Thank you. And the issue is not whether new construction is appropriate for
this particular property. The question is whether there should have been a competition of competing possible designs, vetted through committees that are ultimately selected. And
the problem with what's happened in this process is that you're being presented from the first time to make a decision on something that was vetted by nobody, with no community input. And although
there may be some consistency with some attributes between the new construction and the promised and the contractually agreed proposal, the new
construction process for this public park should have been a competition between the best possible options, and that never happened here, and that's
just want to because it was, I mentioned I was on the RFP committee. So I do have some knowledge and it's public record. Boucher actually tied
and there was a new construction. We actually preferred on 30 years. We we looked at what Boucher was
doing for 30 years, and another vendor, and they proposed an entirely new look, an entirely new building. And some of us like that and some of us didn't,
so they ended up tied. So it isn't. I just want to clarify the record that it was considered completely this particular whole, the whole new building concept for that space.
But this particular new build. No, not this, not this building. Thank you. You're correct. All right. Scott. Two quick
questions. First for staff. This it I think we heard from one of the speakers. This is not going to come back to us at any time for a cup. Correct.
This does not require a CEO. So basically normally I mean this is the kind of project though that, you know, if this came to us and it was a private applicant on a private property, a project of this size, I'm
sure we would we would probably scrutinize the project and look at like things we normally do, deliveries and parking and things like that. So basically everything is going to be left
up to the commission for this because it's in the zoning district. It is it is the commission's ultimate decision. What types of uses and the
intensity of the uses. Now, that being said, the applicant did provide an operational plan for your consideration for the currently proposed uses. And I
and and I would say the board while the city commission through through through its agreement with the concessionaire has set
parameters for the proposed use. The board holds an independent role here. And you you can make recommendations as part of your motion for the city Commission to consider as it relates again,
as it relates to the use. That's what's before you today is the use. Issues of of design will be resolved when this when the application is is when when
the application is presented to the DRB. And DRB makes a decision on that. One more question. Has the I think we've
had this situation before. Maybe it wasn't a lease or concession agreement, but where a project came in front of us and they needed an LDR amendment and we, I guess,
approved the project and made the recommendation for the LDR change at the same time that that may have happened. It it
it comes up often with more complex projects. It's not unusual for projects, especially projects that require multiple hearings before different boards to to
be approved, sort of, you know, one step at a time. The important thing for, for today's purposes is the Geo district regulations say that no use on geo property can be used in a manner inconsistent
with the comp plan. Well, you're not granting final approval today. The the applicant is aware that there are other steps required in this process. Design review board approval final approval
by the City Commission as it relates to the use. So it's, you know, especially for a more complicated project that requires multiple hearings. It's not unusual for for it to be approved in a, in a in a
more piecemeal approach. Okay. If I was looking at this as a a new project. Yeah, I mean I'm I'm in favor of it. I'd be in favor of something happening
there, whether it be all new construction or renovating the existing building. I think we'd look at it or I'd look at it the same way I look at any other project and look at all the different aspects of it and
decide on it then. So, I mean, I don't I'm not opposed to this as far as the, the, the idea that, you know, it doesn't it's
different from what the RFP put out, honestly. That's I don't think that's going to be determined here. It's probably going to be determined in another venue. It may be determined here, but not by
this board or maybe at another, like I said, another venue. I don't know if that's really our our purview. Let the commission look at that. And, you know,
obviously it may go somewhere after the commission, but I'm not going to look at that. Personally. Yeah. I mean, it seems like there were things
that were not in the original proposal. But again, it's that's going to be a call for the commission to make. And, you know, wherever it goes
after that, it goes. But we did say that, that, that nor you know, normally we would have a, a better opportunity to look at all the, the operational
impacts of this. And, and we could make recommendations. But quite honestly, we heard that the DRB is going to they they deferred it and it's going to come back somewhere. Someone
said that it's going to be a different design. It's hard for us, at least hard for me to make recommendations now without knowing what that design is. Just to clarify, at
the Mr. Chairman, I object. The public hearing is closed. He he he can sit down because he is not a party to this proceeding. We are the applicant. We are the party. He's representing a tenant whose lease expires in
three months. He shouldn't be up at the podium still, because the public hearing is closed, you have the discretion to let anybody speak. All right? He's right. But I'm going to let you
respond to this. And then we're going to stop with the back and forth. Okay? I made a representation during my presentation that at DRB. DRB asked for some changes to be
made. And the applicant at that time, the DRB then deferred, and then the applicant said they would take that into consideration or do something and that there would be another DRB meeting. So, Mr. Needleman,
so you're not confused. The DRB asked for some changes to the exterior. Right you are. You are considering the uses, not anything. And the changes to
the exterior are not going to change the uses. Andrew, please sit. Now, you're it is a public hearing. I've closed it. But I appreciate all your comments and your submission. No I
understand well yeah, they have a question of you. Then I'll be by all means. It seems like pretty much everything is going to be determined at a later date, a different venue.
Ideally, I'd like it to come back to us. It's not going to happen, though. You're not coming back for for a cup. So I mean, I'm I just got. So anything you're concerned about
then you've got to we've got to make that a recommendation. Correct. You know it's hard to come up with things when we, you know, we don't really have
a whole an actual. Well I would say we have the we have a lot of information here, but. I mean we normally when a when an application comes in front of
us like this, they're going to come in front of us and they're going to talk about their, their traffic, their operations and everything. And we're you know, we haven't really heard any of that today. It doesn't mean I'm not I mean, honestly,
I'm going to move to recommend we go forward. You go forward. I just, you know, I don't know if there's another way we could look at this down the line, but
you bring up a good point. I think that's an important thing to look at is at the end of the day, if we're delaying this project for other reviews only to circle back and end up at the same point where we're
going to approve the current project. And I understand there's a frustration with part of the process, and I think there's different parties involved own some responsibility. And I think early on, the city should have assessed the current building
and realize that that building was not really workable, and that was most likely that was going to get a demo. And I think some of that clarity to the public would have helped. And I think the public needs to
realize that we're having here in front of planning board, more and more cases, whether it's private property or commercial properties that get bought. And the moment that these structures are evaluated, we realize that it is not it is
not feasible to be renovating or it doesn't make any economic sense when there's different codes now in place. And we're going to see this going on in the city over and over. So I think originally it would have been just more realistic to the
public to realize that the building that was there was not really a building that was sustainable to be working with on this new project, and especially with currently with the real estate cost of, of of
renovating. But your point is right is that if this project was presented as such today, we would probably be all on board. We were just a little bit, a little bit taken off guard that
the original proposal is not quite the same. But Keith made some very important facts is that the usage is the same and the benefits to the public is the same. And yes, for the
residents that are dealing with 2 to 3 years of construction over one year is significant. But but again, we we we kind of failed. And to being completely
clear about what was going to be realistic in a project like this. But again, if we're going to delay it to have a very different outcome and make sense to requestion what, what the process is, but to end up
at the same same place and months and months of delays and a project that's just going to sit in a lot, that's going to be vacant is not very smart to delay it. I just what I thought about was it coming back to us,
we could look at more of the operational things of that. In lieu of that. I know that's not perhaps part of our recommendation could be that the city, because this is going to be a process. This is not going to happen overnight. It's
going to be a process. During that process, maybe our recommendation could be our recommendation could be during that process that the city require maybe the applicant to go out to the neighborhood and talk about their operations and
get some feedback from them and maybe tweak the, the, the, the process or tweak your operations as you move forward to try to get more people on
board. I mean, maybe, right, that's a recommendation we'll make. Okay. So, Jonathan, yeah, I mean, I'm I think the concepts in general are
wonderful. I think the partnership is great. I mean, the Boucher's major food groups all been a huge, you know, both have been huge assets to to our
community over many years longer for the Boucher's. But the I understand where the neighbors are upset with the
process. I'm I'm still having sort of. Yeah. Some neighbors I still have questions about.
Exactly. So we are just approving the concepts of of Mediterranean restaurant recommending recommending. Yes. Thank y. A Japanese restaurant, beachfront cafe, a
pool, kids club that that's a that's what we're saying is in accordance with what our vision for the city is, your role is to review the proposed uses not not really as specific as
whether it's a Japanese restaurant, for example. But but what types of uses are are proposed on the property. And you can make whatever
recommendations the board sees fit with regard to those uses. Okay. So I'm I'm in favor of all the uses. And I think, you know, I don't understand, you
know, looking at them, I haven't really heard much about, you know, any opposition to those specific uses. What I've heard opposition to is the building and the, you know, the
size of it. The plans that were submitted, the parking, those are all valid concerns. But unfortunately, that's not something that we're really considering right now. I would
like to see there be a process for, you know, you know, you know, figuring out similar to a cup. And I'm curious how the city is going to handle it in
the future when there's a violation of something in the concession agreement. Is that a, you know, do they get a violation or do they does the city have to file a lawsuit in
order to get them to change their ways? How does that work? I mean, I think if there were a if there were a use on the property that was not reviewed
by this board or approved by the city commission, that could be that could be a zoning violation. I, I think if there
is a violation of the terms of the concession agreement, that the city would avail itself of whatever contract remedies we have. Right. And I guess what I'm sort of thinking is, I mean,
I would like to see there be some sort of approval process in front of the planning board when, you know, similar to a cup, I understand it may not be specifically a cup, but how do
we make sure that the loading docks, you know, are in a place that's not going to disturb the neighboring building? You know, how are we going to make sure that the, you know, you know,
there are sufficient parking spaces? That's not that's open to the public, you know, how are we going to make sure that the sound isn't traveling to the neighboring units? And, and,
you know, you know, so and so, so on and so forth. Just in terms of enforcement, there's nothing preventing you from making any of those recommendations today. So are those specific recommendations
regarding parking sound all that? Is that something we have to do today, or can we make a general recommendation to the to the Commission that there should be a separate, you know,
approval process for the typical elements of a, you know, cup? I would recommend tt any, any motions you make on this application relate to this application. If you want to
take up after this hearing, a discussion, or maybe bring back at a subsequent date a discussion on what requirements the board thinks should apply to uses on on city property. I
think that, you know, that's that's a more legislative policy discussion that the board has, you know, is is is well equipped to, to engage in. But I think that's really separate from, from this
application. So just just a question from Jonathan asked. I wasn't clear on the answer. So if there's like a sanitation or there is a noise violation, what's the process that it would be, how would this be
treated? Those violations would be would be issued to the to the if the violation arises from the concessionaires operation of the property, the violation would be issued to the concessionaire. No, but I
think what her question is, Nick, is typically if there's multiple violations, it comes back to us and we can address it in the cup. What happens in this situation where there's no cup? I think that's what you
remember. Remember that in most cases, development doesn't require conditional use permit from the sport. It's only certain it's uses that are listed as conditional uses that the board is required. I understand you're saying in the
absence of a cup, in the absence of a cup, it would, it would, it would be like, like any other business. Right. They would be subject to enforcement by the code compliance department. Okay. And that's
not so unusual, Melissa. Like, for instance, the hotel being built right across the street was not done with a 50,000 square foot rule, was not an MNE, because that doesn't it's not required in this particular
zoning district that we're in. So when there will be no violations, they have a huge pool deck there. I'm sure you all remember with restaurants that surround it. So if there are noise violations, it's what Nick described. It was simply
go to a special magistrate. Okay? You I am definitely sympathetic to many of the comments from from the crowd, but the vast majority of them
are really centered around the process, which is not within our purview. Right. There is an RFP that went out. It was awarded to the applicant that's in front of us today, and that
is not what we're weighing on right now. I think, you know, we have an opportunity as part of the planning board, which comes along not too often, to actually be a part of projects
that help to reestablish Miami Beach as a destination. I think this is one of them. The Boucher Brothers major food group are names that are synonymous with great
experiences, and I think joining them together really gives us a great opportunity to ideally propel the city forward in ways that we've really been trying to do for quite some
time. And just to the comments that we've heard on Ocean Drive, the city has been trying to diversify the entertainment and the offering on Ocean Drive for quite some time. So I further
think that this is just a way to really establish it as a destination with great positive programing. So for that supportive and hopefully it's
something that that will really propel the city to new heights. Just a couple of questions. Number one, when does the lease actually start. So does the lease start once it's awarded?
Once they get TCO how does that work? At the at the expiration of the okay, it starts at the expiration of the current lease.
And again the the concession agreement will start. Your question is as to the new concession agreement. Right okay. Got it. Okay. So the applicant's willingness to go through a new construction
process, I guess dips into otherwise operational time that they otherwise would have had. Correct? Correct, correct. Just just know that within three months the property is going to
be vacant. Understood. So those that want to pause, they're not realizing that in terms of recommendations, would the applicant again, because we obviously are not really weighing in on uses, but we
would like to have some type of comfort for neighbors. Would they be okay with things such as no queuing from valet on Ocean Drive, things that we would otherwise typically put
in to things that are in front of us? I don't see an issue with that. And I think what happens is, like each of you all are going to make recommendations that will be in one omnibus motion at the very
end. But I can see your point there, and there's no objection to that. I'd like to make a motion. Once we get through the rest of the comments. I want to make sure you're okay with that. Okay, that was it. Another
public hearing is closed, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. We're not going to keep going because there's no public hearing is closed. We should not make any more comments. Discretion 10s. No, Mr. Chairman, it's closed. Let
him go ahead. The way the concession agreement is structured is that the ten years does not begin until construction is complete. That is the actual fact. And you can
ask the city attorney. Okay, fine. Any. No. Okay. Just please the public. So I don't want to be too redundant. The one you know, I always tell everybody that, listen, these hearings that, you know, we
have a very difficult position as a planning board to encourage great development and good operations with quality of life for the residents. The one thing I'm happy to hear universally and you know, as
Andrew said earlier, reasonable minds can differ. And obviously we heard a ton of residents in favor. We heard several opposed. So and I everyone has Miami Beach's best interests at heart. So obviously reasonable minds
can differ. But the one thing that I don't think was in dispute was the quality of the Boucher brothers operation, the major food group. I think universally everybody feels very highly about their
competence, their desire to make the neighborhood a better place. And I think that at least for me, that's very important. I think the operator is critical, and I think
everyone is in agreement that the Boucher brothers are elite in that, in that area. Addressing the the procedural
problems, based upon what I'm hearing from the city attorney, I don't think we have a jurisdictional issue. I do appreciate all of your arguments. I think they were well crafted. I read every one of your letters, and I
understand that. I do think that the pending litigation, which we have no involvement in, could throw a wrench into all this. But, you know, that's for another day. But based on the totality of the evidence that
I've heard, and I do give a lot of weight to soften and homeowners associations, that this was very clearly vetted by them. They said that under oath, the new project, I am
sympathetic to some of the concerns by the other residents, which hopefully in some motions to to ask the commission to think about those things, that those can be addressed. But
generally I am in favor of this project moving forward. I think it's a beautiful development. I think it has languished, sadly, and I think it could be kind of a jewel to to Ocean Drive. I
think the Betsy Jonathan was here earlier. I think that's another jewel to the neighborhood. So with with the thought that we will make recommendations that the
commission think about. I'm very supportive of the project, Melissa. So keeping it short. So I'm basically echoing what
my with Brian said. And so in support of the project as well, I think we've attracted not only we keep we keep mentioning the Boucher brothers and major food group, but we also have an important architect that's
doing the design of the building too. So so I think it's a win for for the beach area, typical of any project. The concerns from the residents are valid. It's noise, traffic
and parking. So it's for the commission for I think we need to make recommendations to make sure the commission is sensitive to that. But I think overall it's a positive project for the neighborhood and for
other businesses around there to to increase foot traffic and to be patronage of the other
businesses around. Thank you. Everyone. Sentiments here. I think that we need to address the that we need to change is
that have to be addressed in recommendation? Yes, yes. Our what we're recommending is whatever the board determines as to your recommendation on
the on the proposed use, that you include a recommendation that the city Commission amend the comprehensive plan. Because currently the use is not
consistent with the comp plan. I think we should address parking, how the project is being built and when it's being built. I think we need to talk about I'm going to support this
because I'll listen to the neighbors. And we can't have this sitting here. And I know that there's all sorts of processes and things that are
objectionable, but that's not in my purview. And I do think that we need to have something good in the South. And I'd like
to talk about all these other things, if we could. The other. Okay. So. Sorry. Motion. Yeah. I was gonna say we can make a motion, and then we can have a
second discussion with motions as to what we'd like the commission to consider. So should the motion meaning two separate things or should for now, it should be either you want to make a motion, a favorable recommendation or an
unfavorable recommendation. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve with a favorable recommendation. I'll second. Okay. You want to do roll call,
please. And just to just to clarify, it's a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation. Yeah. Mr. Needleman yes, yes, yes. Mr.
Frieden. Yes. Mr. Cement? Yes, Miss Beattie. Yes. Mr. Marks. Yes. Mr. Elias. Yes. Okay. Okay. So that passes now, Scott.
Jonathan, can I make a motion? Sure. And it relates to what Elizabeth said. Knowing the area. If there, I would like to
to put a motion in that we recommend that the city look at alternative places during the period that 72 spaces are gone.
Whether it's paying for private areas like Joe's that may have spaces or garages, but somehow find a way that those in that
community that use those 72 spaces can continue to, even though they may have to walk a little bit. Yeah. So what I want to do, I want to we want to put all these recommendations into one motion.
Into one. Yes. So that's my recommend okay. That is my parking recommendation. Is there a public parking lot owned by the city nearby. Do we have something. Because now this is a city project. So there's a private parking lot
because I used it the other day. Yeah. There there's very few public parking lots nearby. I mean, there's South Point Park is probably the closest to walk
to, but the closest that is available, perhaps for the city to pay for during that period. Or the applicant would be in Joe's parking lot. Oh, yeah.
Joe's parking lot. Huge area. That was going to be a firehouse. Okay. If you could, somebody on staff just memorialize each. Okay. And I'd
like to also talk about that. We recommend to the city that there be a process for future land uses and how we address those kinds of things. If there
are violations, if there's, you know, things like that that you had mentioned before that we are you talking about separate from this application? Because I think this motion is is specific to this application. I think that this will be a
second discussion. That'll be a separate discussion. All right. You want to do that. Yeah. But hold on. Let me just go down the road Scott to the motion that there be down the line either one or multiple meetings
with the applicant with city staff or the applicant presents all the operational aspects of the project, like the valet, the loading, how the cars are
going to queue to the public, public meetings and and also give which give the public an opportunity to comment on that and hopefully maybe incorporate
some of those suggestions into whatever the final. I guess would be the concession agreement. It would be the, the it would be the city. I think
what you're saying is, prior to the City Commission's final approval of the use, because remember, this recommendation will go to the city commission and then the city commission will have to vote on whether to approve the use. Scott, I think
and by the way, aggrieved residents are interested. Residents have the right to go to that hearing, correct and correct that the same concerns that will also be a public hearing before the before the final approval by the
Commission that there be a public meeting, as I described. I'm not really sure. Okay. So your recommendation, Scott, is just for an additional public
meeting to discuss with with the applicant and city staff to discuss the operations, including but not limited to, parking noise. Yeah, maybe the city staff could actually. Had
she meeting and talk about or the application the applicant presents. And you talk about the the the all the operations and basically take the comment and kind of try to, I want to
say, incorporate anything that you find valid into the concession agreement, or at least you make that recommendation to the commission. Yeah. Remember the agreement is is is is is
executed. So, so any recommendations that you make today are for the city Commission to consider when it reviews the use for approval to
address noise. Yes. Can we address noise. You can make recommendations. We can. Yeah. Okay. Is can I speak. Yeah okay.
I'd like to talk about how you're going to address the noise mitigation and things like that. Because I don't know exactly what the plan is. This
is very odd. So can we talk about that a little bit. Sure. So you know the concession agreement does not in any way wipe out the city's noise
regulations. There's one regulation that says at no time can any property owner make noise that's unreasonably loud, that remains in place. Are you going to have speakers on the
beach and things like that, or nothing on the beach? Nothing on the beach? No. And then the second noise regulation, which is really almost not relevant because our venue shut down at
11 p.m. but like after 11 p.m. you can't make noise as plainly audible with 100ft of your property. And that's almost it's irrelevant because we're not going to be open that late.
Okay. Can you guarantee on entertainment as long as we're thinking out of the box, are you absolute. Can we I mean, my
recommendation is to that is a given, not a maybe I'm not a lawyer, but you kind of hedged a little bit on that. Is there going to be live entertainment
inside or out? No. Including DJ's under the concession agreement. We can't. Okay. I'm just asking these questions because this is, you know, but I just want to do it. Yeah. I
mean, I'm just trying to think of a word to Scott's point. I mean, there's so many things that the city planning department normally reviews as part of a cup. So I'm not saying they necessarily need to
do every single thing, but, you know, it's just something I think we're never going to be here to, you know, we'll be here all day if we're talking about every individual element. What I'm saying is maybe just
have a recommendation or, you know, a memo to the to the commission that the planning board has concerns about different various elements in
terms of the operations, including loading, valet operations, noise, you know, what, so on and so forth. And, you know, we hope that, you
know, the city, the commission will come up with some way to address those. I mean, Deborah, isn't it a given that the city is going to go through this exercise? Am I am I missing something? Yes. Typically that
would be a requirement. And during the building permit process as well, we have an additional transportation review. So right now there's also a transportation review which includes loading and
deliveries at the design review board level discussion. So you know some of that will be incorporated into the design review board order because that will actually be an approval.
Right. So I believe the traffic queuing and parking and loading are being looked at by the design review board through our transportation department. I feel like we're making recommendations that are kind
of a given. But but if they're not, then that's when I want them to be in a memorialized motion. Do you understand what I'm saying? I absolutely do, and I think for the the two
recommendations that we've heard so far, which are the parking, the 72 parking spaces and the public meeting, you know, would not be normal course of, of business for us. So that's a recommendation in
terms of, you know, the no entertainment. They're not proposing entertainment. But you could certainly make a recommendation to for to the city commission. Well, I'd like to make a recommendation to
memorialize that they have to follow the code of South of fifth. Right. Because Nikki's beach, without getting into any
history, was grandfathered. And just like we got rid of story, it is immensely popular amongst the residents not to have live entertainment out on the beach
in that area, which we've lived with for 20 plus years. So I'd like to make a recommendation
that that is a firm, all right commitment. Okay. Going forward, anything else? Just my previous comment about no queuing on
Ocean Drive to the best of their ability, and also that they offer programing for community members, similar to what I think one of the community members mentioned
Nikki Beach offered. Was it the mommy and me? I don't know, I think there was a mommy and me that that was being offered by Nikki Beach. Whatever programing community members seem to love, I'm sure there's going to be some outreach from
the Boucher Brothers major Food group to just incorporate them into whatever new offering they have. We can talk to that group. I think it's great that Penrose offered to have them meet there once a week, and we can
continue that tradition. That's all I have. All right. Anything else or can we move it? All right, so, Keith, go ahead, make a motion that. I'm sorry.
The yes, I can read back the recommendations if that's helpful. Okay. With a recommendation that alternative locations be explored by the
city to provide 72 parking spaces to the public within the general neighborhood, which could include parking, private parking lots. Yes. The second
recommendation was that an additional public meeting be held with city staff. Present the applicant present, present, and specifically to discuss with the public the operational
plans, including not limited to valet loading, parking noise and other types of operational issues. The next recommendation
is to reaffirm that the no entertainment provision in the agreement will be maintained by the City Commission, and
another recommendation that no vehicle queuing shall occur on Ocean Drive, and finally, that the applicant provide programing for community
members. Good. All right. Sorry. Last thing I would suggest is to I want to make sure it's in your motion that about the LDR right. Correct that this that the city commission amend the
comprehensive plan either prior to or at the same time or concurrently with the with the review of the final of the of the which is required. Right is required. Yes. So okay we're
going to recommend they do what's required. Yes. Okay I'll make a motion to approve those. Well no send on those recommendations on those
recommendations along with the affirmative okay a second I'll second. Okay. That all I ask. All in favor.ye. Anyone opposed. All right. So I want to thank all of you for your
presentations. And whoever's listening again, this will come to a public notice hearing by the Commission. And feel free to attend that hearing to voice any support or concerns you have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We'll be back in April, as I said, for our small scale amendment. And by the way, I was wrong. I'm not the transactional attorney. The commencement date of the concession agreement is when we, our operations are fully open
to the public. It's not when Penrod's lease ends, which is May 6th. Just for a point of clarification. All right. Thank
you all again. All right. We're on to comprehensive Plan Code amendments, item 16, Planning Board file 250804.
Administrative review of temporary surface parking lots. It doesn't matter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently, the design of temporary parking lots requires a review and
approval of either the Design Review Board or Historic Preservation Board. This ordinance establishes procedures for staff level design or certificate of appropriateness, review of temporary parking lots in
accordance with the regulations in chapter four and five of the code as outlined in the proposed ordinance, a temporary parking lot shall only be permitted for five years, and the DRB or HPB may allow for an
additional five years for a total of ten years maximum. Additionally, the property owner will be required to provide a restrictive covenant, agreeing not to invoke or utilize any state preemptions that could allow for the usage
of the temporary parking lot for more than ten years. Although surface parking lots are not the most desirable use of a property, this proposal applies the same time frames and design standards for temporary lots that currently
exist. For surface. Lots that require land use board review. As such, staff recommends the board transmit a favorable recommendation to the mayor and city commission, and we're available for any questions.
Thank you. Anyone in chambers on this item? Anyone on zoom? No. One on zoom? No. On zoom. Okay. Close the public hearing. Any questions or someone want
to move it? I'll move the item. I think it's a great idea, and I really appreciate it. Yes. Can I get a second? Second? Great. All in favor? Anyone
opposed? Okay. Passes unanimously. Favorable recommendation. Wow. We're almost finished. Looks like last item. And by the way,
Elizabeth, do you want to articulate what you want to schedule as a discussion item per your prior discussion? So there are a lot of city
properties, number one being the West. Lots that we really don't know what's going to be taking place there. I think that there should be something that the City Commission takes
into consideration. I'm sure that they do. I don't that's didn't come out right, but that there's some sort of I don't know how we address or how the city addresses what takes place
on these properties and how if there's a violation, if there's this, you know, because it is it is city property. And how I mean, we we experience and I've asked before, does the city
issue violations to themselves for sanitation and for, for, for not mowing the grass and things like that, unkempt properties. I'd just like
something memorialized that they adhere to and how to. So basically a discussion item on potential uses of public property. Yeah, I just don't I
don't know how we just there's. Just discussion item. Yeah. Just like to like to do that whenever we have our least busy upcoming meeting. No I mean
that. So we have time for it and then and then we'll get to the last item. I have one question for you, Nick. So a lot of ople I live in Sunset Harbor, a lot of people are complaining about the fact that
the landlords are letting properties just stay vacant for an indefinite amount of time, not being reasonable with the rent. Is there anything that the city can do in a punitive
way? If someone leaves a an open space for an inordinate amount of time, or is that just private property and they can do whatever they want. So some
of the issues that like come with vacancy, we have authority to enforce, you know, property maintenance violations. We require vacant storefronts to
be to be to be, you know, appropriately covered. We the challenge is we we've gotten this question before about like a vacancy tax. Some cities,
larger cities across the country have have explored a vacancy tax. And the practicality of that aside, whether a financial penalty is really going to, you know, encourage someone to lease property out is a separate
question we don't have in Florida. Local governments do not have authority to levy taxes unless it's expressly authorized under state law. And
there is no authority for vacancy tax. The the best thing that we can do is to focus our efforts on on code enforcement, on making sure there isn't a
nuisance or public safety issue. Right? So as long as they're properly maintained, they could leave them empty for years. Yeah. Okay. I'd also like just kind of a little retail one on
one kind of thing. Sometimes there are leases that are already in place, like for instance on Lincoln Road, Amazon Go was going to open up on Lincoln Road. Well if you've
got a tenant that and this is just kind of just off off topic a little bit. But if you have a tenant that's already signed a lease that say it's 20 years
and they decide not to open, they're still on the lease, you can't double lease it. So they're already the landlord's already collecting rent and they can't go back and and
lease it to somebody else. And I certainly wouldn't let Amazon off the hook if I, if I, you know. But those are just that's just how retail is. I mean everybody seems to see that
that we have all these vacant excuse me spaces, but they don't realize that a lot of them already lease and they can't just can't just go lease it to somebody else. So I just
thought I'd. Yeah. Curious because there's just a lot of open vacancies that have been there forever. And I don't know if there's anything the city could do to incentivize that. Not happening. But all right,
let's finish with the last item. It's planning board file 2506 080 6 to 2040. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and appraisal report. Mr. chair. Thank you.
This is pretty simple application. This is an ordinance that is required for the city to be in compliance with Florida statutes. The
state is now requiring the city to apply a secondary 20 year planning horizon to its comprehensive plan. So the proposal would be have the
comprehensive plan be updated to 2050. Currently, it's 2040, which would satisfy that recommendation, that requirement. There's also some
minor amendments to remove obsolete, outdated terminology like the South Point Redevelopment Area, which no longer exists, that has
sunsetted, and to add the North Beach CRA, which is a new CRA. It's not currently in the comprehensive plan. So with that, staff is recommending approval and happy to answer
any questions you may have. Sounds like we have to write. I mean, it is. Yes. This is to be in compliance with state law. And then the other changes are just minor to to remove some
obsolete language. Right. But the other, the other statutory okay. Anyone in chambers I doubt you're here for this. Okay. Anyone on zoom. Okay. Motion to approve. Motion to
approve. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. It passes. Your lunch is here, guys and ladies, I'm so hungry.
That commission meeting. Yeah. Okay. I love you know, how there's all these hidden
agendas like that. The budgets are, I mean. Oh. That scares.
My fear is true. True, right?
Yeah, yeah. I can't.