[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] he [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to be begin please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1 okay good morning everybody and welcome to the April 25th planning board meeting in our fancy new digs actually I'm really impressed for a makeshift uh room this is pretty impressive so uh thank you all for being here um I want to start by having great news that Nick colis is staying with us the city thank you seriously great news and and with that I will turn it over to Nick for uh some comments thanks Mr chair and good morning to me members of the board um today's meeting of the planning board will be conducted in a hybrid format with the board physically present at Miami Beach City Hall and applicants staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via zoom in order to participate virtually in today's meeting the public may dial 1 1877 853 5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 861 4342 6327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 861 4342 6327 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon uh or dial Star 9 if they're participating by phone next I'll read the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration if you're appearing on behalf of a business a corporation or another person you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office if you haven't registered yet you should register before you speak to the board you don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific technical or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting or if you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item expert Witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose and writing to the city clerk their name address and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating if you're an architect attorney or employee representing an applicant or an objector you must register as a lobbyist these rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage defeat modification or continuance and lastly I'd like to swear in any members of Staff any members of the public who intend to testify today please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do thank you thanks Nick uh before we get into the agenda we need to approve the uh minutes from March 26 meeting can I get a motion to do that second okay all in favor anyone opposed okay after action reports approved D okay um the first is a deferral um Mike you want to just go sure Mr chairman before we begin I just want to clarify we do have all seven members present today I'm not sure if that's aware from the from the camera's point of view but we do have all seven members I'm present today as the chairman not we do have one deferral which is PB 24- 0661 this was commercial industrial residential height and setback regulation modification Citywide this has been deferred so there's no action that the board is required to take on this item it will be re advertise for a future date so just wanted to bring that to the boards and the Public's attention Okay so we'll move on to requests for continuances and withdrawals the first is planning board file 23609 um Alton Road Palomar Hotel yes I believe the applicant is requesting a continuance to the June 25th uh 24 2024 meeting uh Mr morero is here on behalf of the applicant good morning Mr chairman members of the board um actually just was in communication with my client again uh they this is for the uh restaurant expansion to to the rooftop they're currently working to finalize deals with the uh new restaurant operator that's going to replace merini by the way Mickey morero to at southp game Boulevard we actually would like to request a continuance to July to make sure they have enough time to work out those details uh we originally said June Mr blch is right but if we could have a continu to July that would be great let me ask you have you had reach out with Sunset Harbor neighborhood we've talked to you know we actually had a meeting scheduled but but I told them since we're deferring continuing let's delay we we've reached out to Palm View to Sunset Harbor and several other affected parties but since we don't have the final details now that we're working on new operator we we deferred that meeting but we will be having it great okay anyone have any questions okay do we need to move it or we should just ask if if there's any public comment on the request for continuance is there any public in the audience and no one with their hand raised there is on Zoom there is one person no they lowered their hands so there's nobody with their hand raised on Zoom okay so someone want to move it to approve the second to July correct to the July okay was it June originally email was June but it is July okay all in favor anyone opposed okay see you in July on that one the next motion for continuance is planning board file 23643 1212 Lincoln Road 1628 Alton Road uh P padel or paddle courts I've learned it's paddle apparently according to according I i' I've gone through that exercise too I'll let Michael take I was going to say Mr Mr Pence here on behalf of the applicant thank you uh good morning everyone Graeme penber Howell Fernandez L and tapinis 200 South bis G Boulevard as you probably know from your emails we've had some concerns raised on the application especially from the Bay View Plaza which is to our West and we met with we' met with the uh some of the board members the president's here Darren's here to speak um and and as as well as wava but we need additional time to keep talking about issues related to lighting etc for the property so we would ask for a 30-day uh continuance until the June meeting okay you mean the May meeting right oh are we in I keep thinking we're in May yes 30 yes I didn't want to go to June thank you the May meeting okay anyone here in Chambers to speak on this motion you are okay good just introduce yourself and your address you bet Darren spedal 1621 Bay Road uh good morning everyone uh for those of you I haven't met uh I'm the board president of Bay View Plaza which is an 80 unit Condo building at 1621 Bay uh I'm also an uh active participant wava which has been integrated in discussion has been uh very helpful and supportive in this matter uh since the topic has been postponed till next month's meeting I just wanted to stop by to put a face to the name behind the emails that you've received uh and just to say we appreciate uh 1212 Lincoln's willingness to uh work together to try to find Common Ground uh we'll collaborate in good faith to try to find solutions to the issues that we raised to you all and uh we hope to return to you next month with a collectively favorable outcome uh other than that I just wanted to thank you all for taking the time to read my initial Communications outlining the concerns of my residents in my building and the surrounding area uh and lastly I just want to thank you all for the hard work you do to help make our city better uh we your fellow residents uh greatly appreciate it thank you thank you we do also have um are you here to speak on this item James um no okay we have one we have one of callers to speak on this item wait what are you for I have request for an additional continuance for another matter okay absolutely we have um Gail Durham with her hand raised online Gail are you there Gail oh hi there thank you thank you um yeah just watching these continuances and I just remember that a lot of Cups and wanted to come during the summer during uh June and July so that there would be less residents around to um push back against their requests um I'm really surprised the Palomar said they reached out to wava and the Sunset Harbor because I don't think they did um I think neb out actually they said they had not yet that they were waiting for final plans with the restaurant before they do that they said they we Nicki morero said he reached out but that they decided you know to push it back they they didn't reach out um yeah July is when most people aren't in town and I don't think you know when I was on the planning board we didn't rubber stamp continuances because we knew this trick so I'm really surprised this just went through without really asking the right questions um you know why is this on the agenda agenda why you making people show up to meetings like myself um when it's not going to be heard uh I went to the meeting that was set up for the 12 Lincoln because Russell galet and his daughter Marissa were supposed to be there and they didn't show up and they didn't even tell us beforehand that they weren't showing up they just didn't they just didn't come so I don't think that shows good intent um thank you very much thank you with that there is nobody else with their hand raised online so I believe the applicant is requesting a continue need a motion and the request for continuance to the May 28th um plan yeah just to address Gil's points I mean I I you know part of this is good faith and I have to assume that if an applicant needs more time to either work on the on specifics or deal with the neighborhoods you know sometimes we have to accept that as good faith you know um I mean her point about people not being here in the summer you know that may be true but I don't want an applicant to have to come here if they're not prepared um so but I appreciate your comment scale was appreci yeah together so yeah okay um anyone opposed to the continuance all in favor we need a mo someone has to make a motion Sor motion to approve the continuance to the May meeting I'll okay all in favor all all opposed okay much so now you have a a motion it's not on the agenda for continu it's not under that section chair uh it is number five on youron yes sir okay go ahead well you Mike you have anything to say first well so yeah I would normally um give you an introduction from staff but because he's asking for a continuance uh I'll let him make the request for continuance and then we will take public comment on the request for a continuance before the board decides on what to do thank you Mr chair James Dr with greens SP Mar office at 600 Brickle Avenue here on behalf of 1100 West Investments thank you honorable chair and board members I'm asking for continuance primarily because our client um our client's ownership uh appear before the board uh on these types of items and they could not be here due to observing Passover so they would like an opportunity to be heard in your your St report actually requests um to hear this matter again in 60 days so if you could just continue this uh portion this progress report for 30 days to your main meeting I think you can accomplish that same goal you can have the discussion in 30 days and and again 30 days later and you would still be back in the same place but that's the primary reason that I'm step remind me this gets on our agenda because you all said it in we we um sent a cure letter to the applicant advising them of the planning board meeting today and let them know this was placed on the agenda um for a progress report right but because you all received noise complaints correct is there some U threshold I'm just curious is there a threshold of complaints that need to be reached before it comes it's not it's not a hard and fast written in stone number it's up to the planning director's review of The Evidence I would also just add that um since the Cure letter didn't provide any detail on those complaints we started investigating it we sent a response to cure letter which you all were passed out but since that time we obtained numerous other documents from Code Compliance uh which we actually believe supports the hotel being compliance but you haven't had an opportunity to view those documents so at a minimum I think the board should be able to view the full uh picture all the facts and the documents which I've shared with the city attorney's office so far but we just got them so we haven't had an opportunity to put it together in a format for for the board so I think it would accomplish that goal too is giving the board all the information so that you can have that discussion perhaps at your May meeting and then you can still hear it again at your June meeting as you want to move to May yes sir all right let's see if there's public comment anyone in chamers to speak on this good morning my name is Tim Car West AB neighborhood association the resident of West Avenue again I'm the president of wna this is am Leos and Susanna purer we would ask that you hear this today and hear what we have to bring forth because we're talking about residents quality of life and not only are we talking about quality of life we have some videos to show you the impact we have in this 1100 West Avenue we have two residential towers that flank on either side over 450 units on either side and on a daily basis starting as early as 7:30 in the morning till well into the early mornings of the night they have been assaulted and it's an ongoing issue so I would ask that we do listen to this today have a good discussion and then take it from there so if I could turn it over to the video please so you could get a snapshot of what these residents are dealing with I think I think before we go to that we should just talk this is just a um a discussion on the request for continuance so you can make your argument our argument is no continuance we need to have this heard today because of the significant impact on the resident quality of life right so with that if the board will make a decision whether to continue or not and then at the time if the board does not continue the item and once it heard today after I give my disc my initial comments um Mr Ralph has a chance to respond and then we open to public testimony at that time you can bring forward that information all right thank you I got a couple questions when did they get notification uh the mandrin about the uh about today's meeting so the The Cure letter was sent out on um March 18th so they so March 18th so they've had a couple weeks they've had like almost a full month so it's not because of Passover I mean Passover date hasn't changed it's it was you know in the calendar for a while so um and so you guys had a month to prepare for this meeting and have not prepared you know to to your to your comments I'm just I'm just a little concerned that you guys are asking for a continuance this morning at the last minute when we have a bunch of people that have already showed up and when you guys had a month to prepare for this just to clarify um I was asking for continuance due to Passover because my client couldn't be here um and he typically likes an opportunity to be heard particularly when there's going to be um residents that are friend to Russell who yes yes but but my my comment is that you know he could have given notification earlier last week or that he didn't he wasn't going to be able to show up at the meeting today so that these people that weren't showing up all prepared to be speaking today and our first our first request was and not to get into the substance but because this came up our first request was uh that The Cure letter be withdrawn because the facts did not support Court a cure letter there were complaints that supported the hotel being in compliance none of which were violations and did not were not violations of the conditional use permit so we're asking that we were asking originally if the Cure letter be withdrawn we didn't know if that was going to be the case and then that's why when that turned out that the staff wanted to have the matter continue on the agenda that's that's why here obviously this is a progress report so the ramifications of continuing it because if we hear it today then we can set it for a modification revocation hearing so it would it would delay that issue correct okay well and your staff report still asks that you hear it again in 60 days so in terms of moving this discussion to your May agenda it would keep that same timeline you you would still You' still hear it hear this discussion in May and and then in 60 days you could still take whatever action you were going to take it's not really going to delay any action it would just give us an opportunity as I said one for our client to be here to be heard and two for us to give you all the facts because the The Cure letter paints an a picture of complaints that are just not accurate um I mean I see there's a it's it's beyond just the complaint I mean there's clearly a deep issue that's been sort of uh simmering among the neighbors for a while now and so I think I think we should at least hear preliminarily what the neighbors have to say today not you know we can't take any action today uh on it um other than you know noticing it for a future hearing but if we're going to you know continue it for 60 days anyways let's at least hear what the neighbors have to say today um that's what I would think yeah I agree and I think I think any any evidence on the merits you would have that opportunity because all today is it's a progress report so you'd have the op you'd have the opportunity to challenge the merits at at a revocation hearing or or the next you know progress report so I I agree just because I I don't think it's fair to have them come here and and not know you're going to see continuance we we would just ask the board not take any formal action understand we're I mean unless the board disagrees we're going to go ahead and hear it James and um like I said any arguments you have like what you just mentioned obviously you'll can present them at the next hearing okay um and I'm sensitive to the Passover I'm sorry Russell can't be here but you know it was on the agenda and they show up and all of a sudden it's being asked to move so I just don't see there's real downside to hearing it because only because you still preserve all your Arguments for the future hearing I agree and Mr chair if the board is not inclined to continue then I would suggest allowing staff to make the presentation and then and then open to the public but I want to make first I I I guess I have to have a motion to deny the motion for continuance you you don't need a you don't need a motion oh we don't okay unless somebody wants to move that the progress report be continued you don't need a motion okay does anybody want to move it to be continued okay all right Michael okay thank you so again this is PB 0616 0034 1100 West Avenue the MRI and hotel progress report now back initially in October 8th of 2008 the board did approve a conditional use permit for a neighborhood impact establishment the subject property consisting of a restaurant and bar Lounge located throughout the garden Lobby and po deck areas um specific to the current um um the subject application March 18th of this year the planning department did send a cure letter to the applicant in response to n no nine noise complaints that were received um for the pool area between January 1st and March 24th of this year we did advise the applicant that the progress report was scheduled for today we did provide a summary on pages 14 through 16 of the board packages which outlines the noise complaints that were received um by code um since the planning department sent the C letter to the applicant there was a violation issued that's noted on page 16 of the um board packages including a photograph that shows um a live band performing um on the property now as noted in our staff report that unless associated with an approved special events permit entertainment which includes music played at a volume that interferes with normal conversation is prohibited and abs in a special event permit music may only be played at ambient background levels um generally the cup also requires that all exterior music except in covered areas such as Cabanas cease by 10 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays and 11:00 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays there are some exceptions um to those hours for certain holidays as noted that um the cup does expressly prohibit the use of percussion instruments on the exterior you know at all hours all times and um clearly prohibit such instruments as outline the conditions 7j and we noted that this is exacerbated by the fact that it occurred late at night after 11: p.m. when even ambient music is prohibited so our recommendation is to discuss the progress report take testimony and continue for 60 days to to allow um ongoing monitoring however if the board want if the board wishes you could set a revocation modification hearing the earliest that could happen we be for the June meeting since we do have to notice it in accordance with all the noticing requirements of 30 days so that'll turn it over to Mr so both both a continued progress report and a modification June the progress report could be continued till May if you wish you said 60 days so we're Rec we're our recommendation is 60 days either way if the board wants to recommend continuance as as James is suggesting until May right and at that time discuss whether or not they want to set a revocation hearing all I think that's what Mr ral's um request okay all right thank you very much Mr chair board members James Ral with green SPO M 600 brookl Avenue here on behalf of Le West Investments um just at the outset I just repeat um what I indicated previously there are numerous um documents in terms of detailed case reports from C- compliance which we believe supports that the hotel was in compliance we just got those we share them with the city attorney's office um but we haven't had an opportunity what do you mean by that I don't understand what that means sure let me so our response to the Cure letter which is pro which was provided to the board today um provides some of that information but um to elaborate on that the case reports well for one of these nine complaints zero resulted in a violation so Cod compliance officers went out they inspected and they determined there was no noise violation and that's what we're here on today because the Cure letter cites to a violation of condition number 21 that's for late night noise as defined in the noise ordinance a number of those case reports that relate to the violations which were not included in your package or the Cure letter have comments as follows not unreasonably loud or excessive pool area was not isly loud excessive while I was entering my notes the complaint called again I assessed the music again and it did not seem as though it was turned back up it sounded lower than before and I'm reading from the reports in one case um the co-compliance officer even indicated in their notes this sounded like a civil issue between the complaintant tenant and the hotel the complaintant called again to speak with a supervisor the manager explained that the resident who is complaining has registered complaints with the hotel because they will not let her out of her lease early to move on to just and I'll finish quickly um in one instance when they observe music being played they indicated specifically that it was at an ambient level which is the standard under the conditional use permit and lastly um in one instance the pool area music was not unreasonably loud excessive they went out to the pool area and there was literally no one there so Not only was there not an event but there was no one on the pool deck so these are the these those are typical of the comments in the case reports on these nine noise complaints so when you see a cure letter with nine noise complaints it sounds like there must be a noise problem here the all of the case notes indicate otherwise they're the best case we could give you to show that the hotel's in compliance so that's why we initially asked that The Cure letter be withdrawn um in addition condition 21 that signed to in the Cure letter is very unique it's not about just violating the noise ordinance it's about late night noise complaints and as mentioned in our response um except for New Year's Eve all the other complaints were issued or all the other complaints were documented um during daytime hours uh before 11: p.m. which is the standard of the noise ordinance somewhere in the afternoon 1:30 p.m. so it didn't fall under that condition either um whether there are other things to discuss with regard to um compliance under the conditional use permit or relationships with the uh neighbors is could be something to discuss another day but as to this cure letter that's before you it has to do with condition 21 late night noise complaints that violate the noise ordinance and that's not what happened here so if you if you have all the F and that's why we ultimately wanted you to be provided with all the facts ahead of time so that you could review those case reports yourself and see exactly what we're telling you um I provided some of those to the to the city attorney's office in advance I have a question first James give me one second um Michael or Nick so again I this gets back to the threshold about putting this on the calendar and I and everybody knows that a complaint can come in and code may not at the time it's cured whatever so forgetting that um if what they're saying is true that none of these were um none of these became a a actual violation I'm just curious again how how it works internally to put this on the agenda so you're getting complaints by neighbors according to them code went out every time and said there's no violation right right is that first of all is that true that that is true that in the end it came out that there was no violation because as M Mr R mentioned condition 21 does talk about complaints for loud excessive unnecessary or an usual late night noise however since the um career letter was sent out there was another violation that he didn't reference yet there was issued regarding the the live ban that was performing on the pool deck so right but my before I get to that my question is this if you get multiple complaints from residents and code goes out every time and says no violation if it was one or two we probably wouldn't be here if it's but let me finish my question let's just say there's 20 of them and every 20 of them is determined by code not to be a violation well the complaints alone allow you to still put it on the agenda yes that's so it doesn't matter what code ultimately determines correct according to putting this on our agenda correct okay and Mr just to elaborate on that question are these all from from the same building are they say are they different people who are they I think you're going to hear I think you're going to hear that from them I think so the the there's not an indic there's there's a name or two mentioned but there's not an indication as to um necessarily who made the complaints which is another issue because under state law in order to have a violation and have enforcement procceedings um the individual and their address needs to be identified um ahead of time but in this case our position is essentially that um number one the fact that there were nine complaints that were invalid are you aware of the one that that Michael just said has come up since yeah that was issued after the Cure letter it's under appeal and it's not it's not a violation for late night noise it's a violation under the section that pertains to having percussion instruments and live music so it's a different issue but wouldn't that still be a violation it's it was issue if that were true that would be a violation as I said that's undering it saying there was no percussions or Li I mean that's under repeal before the special magistrate that the special magistrate has sold jurisdiction over um that violation since it was issued and it's now under appeal but um even so that wasn't that that was issued after the fact so it's not before us on the complaints but essentially our position is um if an applicant can be called back before the board for invalid complaints that essentially renders a conditional use permit nugatory I mean having and the number of complaints actually supports our position because there were nine complaints I don't think in 20 years of standing here I've ever had a hotel with nine noise complaints that didn't result in a violation and virtually all of the comments from Co compliance confirm the hotel was in compliance so okay I I don't mean to be a jerk but are you suggesting then that the C the residents are just harassing the hotel for no reason I don't I don't what I'm saying is well look no I'm serious sometimes sometimes when there's smoke there's just a smoke machine you don't know we don't know the facts that's what I'm saying Mr now that we know the now that we know the residents are here we could have a discussion with them of course let's let them sorry on the facts there there's not no I understand I understand your position Elizabeth Mr chair um I'd like to know how many since the cup was modified in 2019 how many violations they've had that have resulted in actual um I'm sorry calls that they've had that have actually resulted in violations because it seems like this has been an ongoing issue and I mean I'd have to go back into the research I could do that we we come back all right but you agree with his statement that all nine of these did not result in a violation that's I just want to make sure the facts are correct okay and then the one that came after is pending appeal right okay all right let's let's let them speak and we'll just ask for we'll bring back okay all right thank you everyone I'm going to turn it over for Amy and just wrap it up at the end but she's going to kind of walk through the actual presentation for you uh that she put together so Amy good morning everyone my name is Amy Leos I'm a resident of West Avenue and if we could please start the slideshow thank you so we could stand I understand are you live in a building next door to the mandrea I just want to get a perspective IA Susanna does you do okay and you live on West on West avue Somewhere not next door okay not next door got it okay um we could stand before you and talk about this but we believe it's best for you to hear it yourselves there is no disputing what goes on at the mandrea and we have a presentation which will um make that evident to you so let's begin with where the mandrea is um this first slide shows that it's a hotel within a neighborhood um it is surrounded by multi uh family um uh condo units so if you have let's say 300 400 units let's say you have two or three people within each unit you are potentially affecting thousands of people with this noise next slide please this shows the proximity between the mandre and where Susanna lives which is the 1200 Mirador and it's the same thing on the um on the South Side next slide please so now we're going to play a few videos for you that will demonstrate what this sounds like for residents and keep in mind this is supposed to be Ambient sound please play the first three videos bear with us [Music] this is actually on the property itself but it would be hard to believe that this sound does not carry to the building's Next Door video two please potentially hundreds of people on this pool deck and again remember the proximity to the building's next St as you see that's the 1200 M behind and video 3 please these are all just random days no special events DJ thank you next slide pleas so I have a quick question for you before you keep going so it's you know obviously we saw what we saw and it's hard for us to determine how far out the we'll show you but my question to you is why do you think the code uh uh officers who came out every one of them determined there's no violation have any thoughts on that that is a mystery okay I just wondered if maybe you had an idea why that okay keep going lot of a lot of businesses use a thing called a spotter so they know when they're coming and they turn it down and actually some of the videos will show you that after they left the music comes back up okay sorry to interrupt go no no worries all right so now we have oh actually we can skip that one yes um so here another random afternoon just to let you hear what it sounds like from the 1200 mirror door please play the next video this is the next door building right yes okay just to the north there's not any way this is Ambient sound from the M we're hearing this from the m so this is someone on the balcony of the building okay on the 16th floor next video please again later on in the same day this goes on for hours that's one of the Sports and Fitness classes they sometimes have boot camps where um the trainers have headsets and microphones and scream at people and count down and goes on for hours I'm sorry can I ask you to to state your name for the record I'm so sorry uh my name is Suzanna puer I live in 1200 best Avenue thank you right next door all right we also heard earlier that the music is supposed to be turned off at 10:00 we have a video that was shot at 10:40 on another random evening please play slide [Music] six this is almost 11:00 at night [Music] thank you okay goe that's one of the boot camps uh there's different videos there's one where they don't use a microphone and one where they use one and you can see how um other sound travels please play slide seven and this goes on for hours it starts as early as 7:00 a.m. and goes on for hours and hours that's those day daytime complaints that seem to be hard to understand but our building has we have people that work from home we have people that have uh small children people with newborns we have people who have to work and one last video again just another random evening [Music] so again back to the question how does code not hear any of this and we could have selected dozens of other videos this has gone on for years every day every day so we heard that these calls amount to nothing however here we have a Graphic and it's a bit small but there are 28 special magistrate hearings that have been had for this one property all but one of those has resulted in nothing yet you just heard what goes on there day in day out and has for years how did all these special magistrate hearings find that nothing's occurred another mystery and the last slide please as a second uh aspect of what we're presenting to you we would ask that the special magistrate system be revamped just so occurrences like this disturbances like this are properly adjudicated as we can see here there are some simple processes that could take place to make the special magistrate system work for residents as opposed to work for businesses all right so in conclusion what we would ask is actually so you saw some of this and you saw some of the challenges and the latest thing they did did similar to The Standard is they now have a beach membership or pool membership so that's why you see videos of why it's so crowded it's not just pool guest it's Outsiders coming in to help create to the chaos so West AB neighborhood association would ask that you all consider no further continuances let's act on this today and we really ask you to take further I mean immediate action on this and actually remove the cup because again this outdoor license situation second just so you you have to understand the process that can't happen today this is a progress report so we don't have the authority to take action today but we wanted to hear it's just so you understand chall well we appreciate you taking the time but the challeng is again the impact uh we've already talked about the special magistrate process and how it's broken how there's a work around around code but unfortunately the residents of our neighborhood continue to suffer and as we do a continuance for two more months they're going to live through that as well and that's not fair to the residents to have to put up with that okay and that's what we struggle with thanks for your time um before James speaks I'm just curious on the special magistrate hearings do do affected residents not get notice of those hearings so is it only the applicant and the magistrate um do you know that information I don't uh I don't believe affected nearby residents get specific notice um but there is notice that the special magistrate is going to hold hearings and those cases I believe are posted online and the public has a right to speak look at it but it's not like if it's not like a you know a hearing before the land use boards which triggers for instance that is a little odd by the way it's a challenge and not only that if you do find it and you do participate often times there's many continuances too no no I get it but I find it odd that that that there's no one the complainants are there to give evidence but anyway that's for another day but but your point is well taken about the magistrate system and often times when are fines are punitive and they're just factored into the cost of doing business right okay and we would ask that you all um all of us are going to thank uh commissioner Suarez for bringing this onto the agenda it's gone on for so long and no one has really heard us until now so thank you thank you thank you all James first thank you first I have to Lodge an objection to the videos and documents that were shown online if if the intention was to take those as evidence um we don't know who took them when they were taken or what they pertained to so it's unduly Prejudice to our client again there are facts that exist they're in the city's records we provided you with some but there are other documents in the city's records that support the hotel's position and that's the evidence that's before you today um are the nine complaints and um the comments from co- compliance um I don't think this I I don't think it's appropriate to criticize co- compliance that they somehow didn't do their job or didn't do it right that's what's in the record um in terms of opinions about other days and like I said I mean I don't know what videos there were I don't know when they were from I don't know if they're for example the special magistrate proceedings list that they showed you some of those were before a client bought the hotel so again it's unduly prejudicial it's trying to paint a narrative like there's a constant problem here a constant history problems here if that were the casee there wouldn't be a cup it would have been revoked by now um so I would just ask you to stick to what's before you the evidence that's before you we're here on a cure letter for nine noise complaints none of which resulted in a noise violation and the C- compliance comments detailed case notes for that support that the hotel is in compliance this and another reason why I wanted my client to have an opportunity to be here to be heard um they can talk to the neighborhood they can talk we they have in the past there's no problem with doing that um they've done that before and I'm sure they like an opportunity to do it again um but that should be before he's going to have an opportunity at the next hearing yeah I just don't think it's fair to the board to throw a bunch of things before the board that may or may not be true well you have some hold on hold on the videos I mean they're not going to come here with false and misrepresented videos so you heard it we heard it all I'm saying is that you're going to have an opportunity to have your client here next time but I think you've kind of been given a Peak at what what the argument is going to be so I think you should be thankful to have seen what they have instead of springing on you next time right we would just like an opportunity to be heard I understand that I do have a legal question for you Nick does it does a city have any exposure if a cup is modified where every violation or every complaint was found to be not a violation by code because that concerns me to be honest from a legal standpoint I and I don't know the answer to that but if you went to a court and said hey they modified our cup despite the fact that their own Code Department found no violations so um the standard in the code for you to modify or revoke a cup is evidence of intermittent or or um or or repeated non-compliance with the conditions of the order um the best evidence of a code violation is an adjudication of that violation right but corre but um that's my concern but you you can you know you your modification revocation hearings are qua judicial public hearings much like an initial hearing to obtain a cup so you you can take you know you can take evidence and testimony from from nearby or affected Property Owners um you know you do have one violation here that was issued so a continuance would allow time for that to play I get all that but my question is a very narrow one is would the city have exposure for modifying a cup or revoking one if all the code VI all the code officers found no violation despite what evidence is presented if that's the ultimate conclusion by the code department and if you don't know the answer that's fine but it it no I I know I know the answer I think what I the way I would answer it is just to say um you know on when you have one violation that is subject to appeal I would recommend you know letting that play out because again the best you know the best evidence of a violation is going to be um an adjudication of that violation right which we don't have any right now not yet okay all right but sorry a question on that in the event that it was appealed and overturned the violation you still have a whole bunch of videos which at least anecdotally seem to show there's excessive noise coming from the property so how would the city then deal with that and a lot of calls a lot of calls but the calls can be somewhat arbitrary I mean true but the videos speak for themselves and they are dated from your phone and they are dated I mean that's not like you can just go present a video I'm just like the legal process let me do one thing before we see is there anyone else here to speak on this anyone on Zoom yes we have one person with their hand raised um on Zoom all right let's finish the public hearing and then we can discuss it go ahead sah deos Rees are you there Sarah hi hi this is Sarah de los radi from s Harbor even though we do not you know we're not close to the mandrain this is the same thing happened with pry Lounge it took me almost 12 years with videos and nothing ever happened with the pretty lounge and you know what we have this issue that code comes and they and it's so true as soon as that you know you're going to call code somebody lowers the the volume and then they go on as soon as they leave everything comes back and Tim car is correct and I'm happy that they have videos because that's the only way to show you guys even though we say this is what it is but it but it it's it's it happens all the time I had experience about this and you know that and I also you know we actually would like to hear what's going to happen to the poar I already told Mickey we do not approve this we do not want to change the Cod this is going to happen to us into then West Avenue the same thing is happened with the Palomar it already did last year Palomar had this big event and we heard it in the neighborhood for eight hours thank you thank you Sarah anyone else we have another caller um Bruce Bachman same building yes hey Bruce I'm just hi how you doing Brian I'm just calling um because although um you mentioned about the special Masters hearings being public if you click on go to m Beach City website and click on agendas there are no special Master seeing that show up this histor preservation board design review board planning board Finance commission I'm reading the list I'm looking at the agendas Public Safety there may be some other special place to find the special Master hearings but they are not on the agendas so for all practical purposes they are not published publicly and people who are not aware of them as bad and of course it's outrageous that the affected parties are not even notified uh if you wonder why people do not want to see you give cups to Hotel rooftops or Terraces whatever this is the reason why this has gone on for years years I've heard this hearing before because I I use it as relevance of what the planning board is likely to do in our neighborhood should such an application come a few years ago I was at I listened to a hearing where a woman was in tears her windows were shaking the noise is so bad you guys don't do anything about it code doesn't do anything about it special Masters do nothing about it this is why we do not want to have cups Cups allowed for for you know venues like this whether it's on the roof or on a Terrace thank you thank you anybody else and now we have Gail Durham Gail yeah the reason my name is Gail dorm I live on West Avenue and I'm a former member of the planning board the reason why you shouldn't rely on beautification is because that is not the only testimony you should be relying on second of all uh as we know from the mandrea uh the Goodtime Hotel you know all of these noise violations valid are appealed because these companies have lots and lots of money and they hire lots of attorneys and they appeal it at special Masters and you know residents don't show up at special Masters to to defend their cause it's just the attorneys for the venue who twist the law sometimes they don't tell the truth to the judge and for example at the good time Hotel the last six valid noise violations six hearings the judge dismissed the case um for very strange reasons that we're and it's just not fair so my recommendation like I don't know why next month you can't have a revocation modification hearing next month um I know what maybe it's against the rules you have to wait eight weeks and if it that's true then we should change those rules too we should have an ordinance and change those rules thank you thank you and Mr chairman I just like to respond Mr simen and Miss Laton asked you it's a public hearing and it's a qu a Judicial hearing so I'm sorry if when you schedule a modification rication hearing that is a qua judicial hearing so you can take uh you can take evidence and and testimony from affected parties okay anybody else on Zoom no Mr chairman before we begin if I can make a couple comments sure on what I've seen and what we noted in our staff report so in terms of the noise that happens on this pool deck in the daytime the standard should not be whether it's loud or unreasonable the standard really is is it above ambient background level levels if anywhere on the pool deck during the day that audio interferes with normal conversation that would be a violation another thing to comment on is that I saw a DJ although that wasn't referenced in any of the code violations the code specifically says entertainment is not allowed unless authorized by a special event permit a DJ is entertainment so by the fact of seeing a DJ on the property without a special event permit that would be a violation as well so just to clarify for for code the residents and the applicant I have to time in shely we don't know there was not a special event permit Whatever video I'm not com I'm just commenting on generally I'm not saying that that was a violation it wasn't a special event but just so everybody is aware that a DJ on the property would be considered would be considered entertainment and is only allowed during the times of a special event permit I'll just close it you you've heard a lot of comments today video things some of which are not supported by fact um for example somebody mentioned that business have spotters that identify with co- compliance there's no evidence in the record of that um and no evidence of that happening here um we just want an opportunity to be heard yes we have a some insight as to how some residents feel so we have an opportunity to address that with them individually we'd like an opportunity to come back to you for this progress report and of course you can make your decision at that time but right now there is no evidence in the record upon upon which to set a modification revocation hearing we're traveling under a cure letter that has to do with nine complaints all of which did not result in violations but further all of which the notes in the C- compliance on reports support the hotel position their one question before you go two questions had you seen those videos before today no okay I haven't seen is the special Master hearing set for the the the currently uh code violation under repeal is it scheduled um I don't know um you don't know if you have a hearing date yet I'm not 100% sure we have a hearing date yet okay typically how long do they take to get heard well we can what we can do is get that information for you and also notify any members of the public who expressed interest on this application and let them know when that special Master hearing is set all right okay go ahead yes based on the feedback and I totally understand this is the first time you've seen the videos uh so could certainly be caught off guard by that but let's not just play the kind of technical game right where maybe there's like a technical reason why it's not right or it is right whatever it is I mean clearly they have videos clearly they are impacted somehow clearly that music was above ambient so just between now and whatever it is that this board sets whether it's for Progress support or revocation please just get with them truly listen to what they're saying and work towards a solution because OB objectively we hear it so Mr chair I'd like to make a motion for to schedule a revocation modification hearing um I think that there's a lot of things that are that are that have been um a problem for quite some time a number of years actually and I think those need to be addressed so okay okay before that motion's heard do any all questions of of I wanted to jump in something that you touched on um you know you talked about a um sort of a legal exposure that the city has if we modify the cup and Nick said that I guess the best evidence is a valid noise adjudication meaning that but there's there's more Nick you know we heard that they are now I guess they they have a day Club there where there's memberships um that's obviously something that if you know whenever the cup was originally granted if it you know was on their their appli this board would have looked at it maybe put restrictions on it maybe said yes no or whatever so when they sort of change their their their operation that's something that we could look at and say well we want to we want to jump in on that we want to comment and we want to either allow it or not or allow it with certain conditions so that by itself I think allows us to to um modify is that correct I I got the same question um yesterday from one of your colleagues from from Miss l tone and and um and I'll I'll I'll give you the the same answer which is um whether a hotel restaurant pool bar operate you know whether the P whether it's open to the public or whether they charge a fee or whether they charge a membership fee um on its own would not require amending uh a board order now if there were other changes made you know physical changes to the property or um other changes to the operation itself that would have required amending the conditions then that would need to come before you um but I don't know enough about this particular establishment's private club model to to say whether any of the conditions of the order the hours are different timing is different there's a lot of there are a lot of things that are different that are not within the outlined cup so I think that speaks for itself okay maybe that's something staff we have to review and see if there are different say I don't want to be accused of invited eror so I would just implore you not to set a revocation hearing to set a progress report well my inclination is a set of progress report to give your clients the opportunity to present evidence and refute you know the the I mean that's my gut and then we would set it for revocation but we do have a motion to set it for revocation hearing on the floor so can I a second that motion can can I ask a question though like and do you have a I'm sorry do you have a date for you want to put it's got it's got to be June June okay but the the and that gives you time that gives you time to talk to people to have more people from from the neighborhoods associations to come and speak um I just think that this is I know for from being here for so long that this is just become an issue and it's not it's not anything against the mandrian per se but it's about the the resident quality of life and I think that's really important I appreciate your position but invoking a development order is Extreme and there's a question for Nick and and Michael I mean the whatever is being claimed by the suppos about the supposed error uh the error is not necessarily in setting the revocation modification hearing the error would be that if at the modification revocation hearing there's not sufficient evidence or there's not appropriate evidence or not sufficient notice and then we modif modify or revoke the cup that's where the issue is it's not there's no need to give them additional notice or sufficient uh you know sufficient time to be heard at a status report before doing a modification revocation hearing is that correct I I would agree with that yeah and and actually any decision you make on a modification or revocation is reviewable by by petition for CT just like your your but the issue isn't setting of the hearing so I'm saying correct right so the setting of the hearing that's right I'm favor of setting the hearing and largely because I think there needs to be a change in this process for residents I mean it's just this this the process that I've seen for the last two and a half years just it seems very unfair to Residents who are dealing with this day in day out who are hearing boot camp classes outside of you know their window and with their balcony doors open especially in a beautiful building like the Mirador which is right on the water I mean to not to have to listen to that every day and then to have to come to a hearing on on a status report and then have to come back to another one and then there's the summer break in the months that's extending it and then you know waiting another 60 days I mean for the hearing I it's just it's a lot and I think that we need to be uh more um receptive of neighborhood input and I think we need to you know be more accommodating for the residents who are taking their time out of every day so I think I would air in in the side of setting the revocation modification hearing now without waiting any longer and then you know we'll H if if it comes to that hearing and we need to continue that for 30 days that that I would rather that so that they can work together and everything like that but I'm glad we had this hearing today um and that's it all right so we have a motion in a second let's go ahead and vote just to clarify of doe process issue relates to the Cure letter which starts the process that leads to a modification revocation hearing and that is what we are suggesting is deficient so just leave that in the record it's not okay you got to preserve all it starts with that if it starts with that due process violation that carries over to the quas judicial hearing sorry what was the date that you want June so just slight suggestion just to hopefully help avoid whatever legal loophole there might be couldn't we and this might help it or not couldn't we set a progress report for 30 days from now and then concurrently set a revocation SL modification hearing for June you can't run those two we already have a motion on the table no I'm just curious if legally you could do both and I think this board has done that before it still get you to the same time and it hopefully helps but then what what would the benefit of a 30-day progress report be I just legal loop loophole but when we're setting the revocation modification hearing when we actually get to that hearing it doesn't need to be the basis for that modification or revocation does not necessarily need to be related to the original cure letter um you know I mean it can be part of it but if the original cure L letter was formulated off of something that was dismissed by a special Master but we do we still receive evidence from the neighbors of other violations I would think that that would still be sufficient but listen I think there's a motion there is a motion my only concern concern is I'd like I'd love this other appeal to be adjudicated but like you said Jonathan if we need to continue it from them we can do that so there's a motion on the table with a second so why don't we vote and it's this is to have a modification reification hearing scheduled in June this will be for the June 25th 24 meeting Elizabeth made the motion and I think by Mr needlman all in favor of that I any opposed no the motion passes 7 to zero can we just make sure we have some of the compliance officers for that meeting too just want to understand the other side of it a why you know just to see if it highlights a bigger problem that we have in dealing with these I'd like I I agree with that Melissa and just one other question because we have Code Compliance here and Michael you mentioned that a violation of their of the cup would be you know if if on the pool deck the music is louder um or more than ambient you can't hear yourself out I mean what we heard seemed to be the case um could we hear maybe from Code Compliance if that is how they've been um looking at the noise coming from the property and or and if not will they look at it that way in the next few months Mr Valar do you want to speak on that yes good morning Manny Valar with the co-compliance Department our officers are trained to do a a 360 view uh when we're responding to noise complaints and and ask and gauge the noise or the complaint from SE several Vantage points as you all see these are very large towers so when our officers arrive they are on the east side of the property where the tower obviously is is in front of the pool area or the pool deck they have to access the building they have to go through the lobby they have to request to go in the building so there's very there's several uh I'm not going to say security points but they have to they have to go through S veral points to enter the property and evaluate the noise we do request to meet with the complaintant uh that happens rarely most of the time the complaints do not want to meet with us they want us to just go ass assess the noise on our own sometimes they do allow us to meet with them all right uh there was something mentioned about people monitoring or or monitors Etc uh that is widely known it's it's probably almost impossible to prove though CU these these locations have several layers of security several employees people that work for them when they see a code car in the neighborhood obviously we have to drive there uh and I'm not saying this is the case for this particular establishment but there are several obstacles it's not as simple we don't have a boat where we could access it from the rear of the property the code boat so Mr can't can't the residents when they call in Code Compliance can't they have you guys show up at their building before showing up the Mandan Hotel so you can assess the noise from that point of view where there won't be any security alerts to the building yes yes absolutely absolutely and that is the preferred and what we usually uh suggest to them but often times they do not want to meet with code often times I'm not saying the complaining building the complaining person it has to be a person or the obviously we go to a building but they have to provide their name and their address legally by Florida statute 60 that that Chang a couple of years ago the governor enacted that law so that is the preferred method you guys might want to take note of that and then you know into voicing that with your residents to just have an extra layer there and and also I when I've had to your point Melissa when I've called code before on I don't even know but they came to my house first and they wanted to come into my unit and listen to the noise and all of that so I'm not quite sure how they said they wouldn't even go to the property without entering my apartment first which I thought was odd but in any event no I'm sorry that that's not correct uh I mean again the preferred method we we contact the complaintant we request if they want to meet with us we ask them the majority of the time they do not want to meet with us sometimes they do if if the complaintant uh wants to meet with us that's the first place we go and we meet with them we assess the noise from their vantage point from their unit from wherever they are and then the investigation begins right there A lot of times like I mentioned they do not want to meet with us so we have to we have to gauge it from public property public areas Etc approach the building we can't just store them in the building we have to go to the front desk ask them you know tell them what we're there for you know ask to see the manager Etc so that's the way it works and it functions in re in real life I have a question if I could so you mentioned that you have to drive there and that it's widely known you have your white SUVs that Code Compliance I have seen Code Compliance on bicycles before is it possible to help avoid some of the spotters you know maybe uh let me just finish um not undercover but you know not wearing giant shirts that clearly identify themselves uh so that you could possibly uh go to some of these establishments that you know have multiple layers of security obviously it's still have to go to the front desk but you would create less of a u you know be less obvious yes uh the the answer to that is no policy dictates that all our code officers must wear a uniform uh they can ride bicycles but depending on the day of the week Etc you know Staffing levels that may not be practical uh so typically bicycles are used for special events uh spring break Memorial Weekend things like that when we're operating in certain areas like the Entertainment District uh Etc but no our officers wear uniforms and they have to drive their City vehicles uh that's the way U policy dictates we have to respond I have a question is there any process so you know in looking at the mandre on cup it looks like there was a speaker design plan created by an engineering firm back in 2013 and then this cup that I'm looking at now is from 2019 um is there any process either from the planning department or from code enforcement to when there's when there are properties like this that are you know high impact establishments to I mean I know that they go in and verify you know right after the property is built or opened you know the speaker placement but you know five years from then or or even when we're getting this on onslaught of new complaints even if they're not validated is there anybody who does like a walkth through to make to check to see that the speakers have not been moved from those locations and you know periodically that's a good point that that's something that planning could do with an inspection we don't typically go out there and do that but if it's if we're notified that hey the speakers that are there now are not consistent what was approved we can go out there and do an inspection and see if they're you know take a look at the plans that were approved and see if the plans are consist I guess the problem is like who could possibly ever know unless you do like a a deep Gail Durham dive into the into the history of I think it makes sense as part of a progress report the Durham dive so I think for this property especially now that we have we have it scheduled it's it's you know it's um on the agenda now it has all eyes on it we can go out and do an inspection and confirm if the speakers are consistent because listen you know that to me I'd like to have a process a better process of doing that that's not really penal to do that it's really you know sometimes new staff comes in they just shift a speaker and then next thing you know the neighbors are hearing all this noise or you know and I there's an you know with the good time I know things have changed there you know there was a wall with vegetation that you know we'll me we'll talk about later but you know things change over time and operations change and I so I just think having a a more streamlined process and I guess it sounds like it's planning not necessarily code that was my question who is that a code or is that planning I think we I think we would do probably have planning go out there and do an inspection and would you go by the original sound design we would go by Bas when the cup because the cup typically references the um the speaker locations and the design right presented and then you know it could be the case where if there was a change out we would probably ask them to provide like a substantive um comparison by their sound consultant and have it reviewed by our sound consultant to see if there was an equivalent change out or not yeah and then and then the last thing I guess is um do you guys when your code officers are out there they pull up I assume on their computers they have an easy way of pulling up the cup for each property is that what they do yes sir they they uh the first thing they would do on a noise complaint is is check the the history for noise complaints review those Code records complaints and violations and then they also can access the cup obviously uh in the field on their computer on their laptops is there I assume there's not any sort of like executive summary that Code Compliance officers have uh like with just quick bullet points of what's allowed and what's not allowed on a on a particular property right there is no official uh executive summary but uh they carry a copy of the uh cup and uh the supervisors review them with them with their officers we review them during training especially uh say for the Entertainment District those officers we meet periodically and go over the cups and any obviously any hotspots or problem properties we review with them and highlight the the most important Point points that code needs to be looking out for because because I and I don't know if this is something that would be cleared with legal department but to me I mean I'm going through this I'm a lawyer you know it's taking me like time to go through this and understand you know there's ambient and then there's no band no live music and and so I guess the point being is if there's a you know five bullet points for code enforcement officers to make sure because part of the reason is you know there may be a live ban there they may show up it's not unreasonably loud or whatever the standard is um and then they they leave not having seen or recognize that there's a Prohibition on live bands as well and that would have been another you know violation I know that they did violate them on this one um in this particular case that we were talking about but I guess just making sure you know that it it's clear and easy a reference especially since I know you have new code officers starting all the time or changing locations and you know going through these uh you know in your car on on the laptop is not the easiest thing in the world so I don't know if you know there's a a way to have to add that to like especially for some properties that are you know more uh the cups are more complicated and and it's a it's a good suggestion uh the challenge is I mean as you know is that every word matters and um I you know I would want code to rely on the text of of the order and we you know our office and and planning routinely fielded questions from code we work very collaboratively um with code to interpret these orders um the best advice I can give the board and and staff is just in in in you know in your approvals is just making sure that the conditions are as as clear as possible um so that code can enforce them all right last question then we need to move on um the the code officers when there is a violation found they all go to the special magistrate hearings correct to present their evidence that's correct sir okay um can we put on the agenda not for June maybe July or August just the magistrate rules and procedures special magistrate rules and procedures just sure we can do that as a discussion yeah as a discussion item and I just just one last comment before we move on is um just out of an abundance of caution if there are additional violations or even for this tenth violation that was issued another additional cure letters May um be transmitted to this particular or any other property owner um and you know if we need to schedule another progress report before you um we'll do that you talking about generally no like for the for the last application we can send out another cure letter to the applicant and schedule a progresson for the mandre so even though you scheduled the revocation modification hearing for for June we can send another cure letter and set and set a progress report either for would I'm just saying if it's necessary legally it's necessary the got it got okay sir thank you so much we got a lot lot to cover today so appreciate your time and tell the neighbors that showed up James thanks you know what's going on it will be in June and and obviously you you're aware of that hearing and your client will be welcome to come with any evidence so all right next is uh the theme today today revocation hearing on planning board file 1675 the Goodtime Hotel so again this is planning board file number 16- 0075 this is a revocation modification hearing for the Goodtime hotel located at 601 to 685 Washington Avenue now just to note some history on this um application the planning board approved this conditional use permit back on July 26th of 2016 it did take several meetings for them to get their approv approval and on the initial application in their presentation before the planning board the planning department had recommended denial of their outdoor entertainment components so I just wanted to get that out there in terms of the history so this application was last before you as a progress report on on March of this year and since that time a new violation was issued which is noted in our staff report on page on page 36 of the board packages um and this was for audible music heard after 1:00 a.m. um two blocks west of Washington Avenue now as part of this um modification hearing we are recommend we do believe that when the cup was last modified which was February 8th of 2023 by changing the requirement that music shall not be audible anywhere west of Washington Avenue to unreasonably loud excessive unnecessary unusual that this introduced more subjectivity into the review of noise complaints um we are strongly recommending that the cup be modified to revert substantially back to the prior language which includes um plainly Audible and that plainly audible language is also used as a test for music is audible 100 ft from the structure between 11:00 p.m. and 7 7 a.m. and we believe isn't objective um testing criteria the issue with having the text unreasonably loud excessive unnecessary or unusual outside of that 11:00 p.m. to 7: a.m. there's no really um definition or um or um requirement to to qualify what what constitutes that unreasonable loud or necessary noise so by changing it to not plainly audible we think that's a more enforcable condition that's clearly understandable by the applicant code and and residents um we are also recommending that the DJ hours be modified right now the cup allows an ambient DJ between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. and also after 800m we're recommending that only during the hours when an entertainment level music is provided which is between 11:00 a.m and 8:00 p.m. only during that period should a DJ be allowed these are not um small DJs in the back corner these are headliner DJs that do create a lot of you know crowd activity so we do believe that it's warranted to have a DJ only allowed during times when the cop allows for um entertainment level noise um um let's see I did pass around and updated updated um cup modified cup highlighting in yellow some minor changes compared to the initial um draft that was sent with the board packages this is just to clarify that we're um measuring the 100 ft we're we're we're putting the standard for plainly audible at a point of 100 ft west of the subject property line versus west of Washington Avenue that's a more defensible um clarification in terms of the the code it's sub substantively the same but since the Washington Avenue RightWay is 100 ft um that um corresponds with that requirement so that we are recommending the modification in accordance with what I just noted and I'll turn it over to the applicant for their presentation thank you Michael good morning Mr chair members of the board staff Mickey morero T to South bis G Boulevard here on behalf of the good time hotel at 601 Washington Avenue um before I begin my presentation I'd like just make a couple of quick clarifications um they there have been no violations in fact there have been no complaints since the last meeting in March checked the system this morning there was not one complaint in the system um Mr Bouch unfortunately Inc correctly mentioned that there was a violation for noise at 1: a.m. I did notice in the that it was entered as 1:00 a.m. the pool deck is closed literally lights off no nothing going on at 1 a so I don't know if that's a typo or if someone entered it into the system from before or or what we that's been appealed but there was nothing going on at 1: a.m. so I don't that's that's just incorrect um but let me go into I know that you've all heard a lot of this several times but because this is a revocation modification hearing and we do have a record and several board members haven't been here all of the duration of The Saga I'm going to just go into a brief history of of how we got here um so the project as as Mr BL said was approved in 2016 that was during the Washington Avenue overlay discussion uh the revitalization of Washington Avenue uh this project is an absolutely unique project uh the goals of this project were to get the intensity and the impacts of operations that were at nighttime operations that were impacting the neighborhood and bring those to to the day so that would be relatively quiet at night uh that was successful obviously there have been challenges um the that what what this building replaced this block on Washington Avenue prior to the development of this hotel was considered one of the most blighted blocks I mean what you had was all those things that are now prohibited in the art deco and and and overlay districts were all of what was there smoke shops occult check caching just kind of like the the least wanted uses um so the hotel came in and as I'll explain more detail in a minute it the way that this hotel operates is critical for for for a success um so it opened in 2021 and right at the beginning it was clear that there were some some issues uh a lot of complaints uh from residents a lot of and these were these were you know valid complaints there there was valid noise uh the the standard as it was originally uh published in the cup was incorrect the sound studies done prior to the opening of the hotel was based on that incorrect standard all of that we we had multiple sound Engineers from our side from the city Side a lot of effort was taken to correct that uh and and ultimately that led to what you've all heard many times before the idea of putting a a a specifically sound engineered wall on the west side of the of the building to protect for some of that sound in addition the entire sound system speakers everything that was installed at the development of the hotel as a result of that prior noise was ripped out and replaced completely uh changes to the DJ booth insulating it uh all of these things were done and and frankly the impact was significant uh when no CH when those changes were implemented the amount of people impacted the amount of complaints went down drastically again we know that there are still some challenges we'll get to that in a second but but there's no question that these these changes had a very material impact on on the hotel's operation and the impact to the neighbors um I I I alluded to it before but I think it's really really important to say this hotel was developed unique for many other hotels 40% of the revenue of the hotel is from the pool deck these are very small rooms this hotel does not have the typical amenities that most hotels have as a result the pool deck operation is absolutely crucial to the success of the hotel um we've we've talked to ownership we you know going through this process and that's why so much has been invested in making this right so much has been done when it comes to Outreach when it comes to to investment when it comes to physical improvements and studies because if the if the pool dech is modified in a way that it doesn't can't operate and frankly changing the standard and I'll get to that in a second it will do that will likely lead for this hotel to close I don't know what will come after but the way this hotel is set up it it really was developed this way um so uh you'll hear from some of our employees in a second but there are 200 employees at this hotel most of them Beach residents rely on the hotel they also are very very much invested in the success and continued changes in the hotel um it's been mentioned prior hearings and in some of the uh some of the letters that we've seen that the There's issues with the retail spaces this hotel by its definition as I mentioned before wanted to replace those unwanted retail elements that were pre-existing in Washington Avenue they have set the goals of the retail on that ground floor to the highest standard they're not just taking anybody that comes in so that's why you've seen the the retail that is there is of the highest quality and there are several vacant units a big reason for the vacant units in addition to their selectivity is the fact that everyone that speaks to ownership about coming in is asking about this very process is a hotel going to survive um you know what's going on with with the planning board so what they everyone's kind of on hold uh so there are some some vacancies in the retail we hope that those vacancies are filled with the quality residents that the city deserves that the hotel is looking for um recent changes as as you can see from the history and by the way yes there were violations that were issued and were appealed and were not sustained back in November uh there was one violation issued we think incorrectly um back in March nothing has been issued in fact there hasn't been one complaint not just complaints that weren't that didn't become violations but there is not one complaint in the system since the last meeting and and as as I've said we know that the wall wasn't installed the speaker systems would changed all that made a big difference but did it solve the problem 100% no there's still there's still Pockets where the noise does does hit some folks and we know that and we have continued to make changes Mr Mr chair you in particular and I think some others in the board not only at the last meeting but the February meeting implored us go install sound monitoring system at these units um how hard can it be well we have a system in place for that unfortunately we have reached out to try to meet with the residents and that that has not been reciprocated we would like to do that we have hired a sound engineer um to come up with a plan to install sound monitoring in the specific places where the sound is being heard and we believe that that would go a long way in determining where the problem points are and fixing it um but without the cooperation of the folks in those units we really can't do that we can install it on the ground level but we know that that's not where the problem is so we have a uh we have a proposal in place we would encourage you to require that as a condition and we would absolutely spend the money time and effort with our sound engineer to implement that uh we think that would actually be a meaningful way to figure out exactly what decel uh points are an issue and where what we've committed to do and are already doing which is evidenced by the fact that you have not seen violations we have brought the sound level to a deciel level of between 88 and 93 we found that with those numbers numers which were done during the plainly audible standard period we're not getting complaints why we want to keep the standard as it is regardless what we learned and a lot of you saw going back a couple years plainly audible it means and it's again this unreasonably loud is the standard everywhere else plainly audible is unique to the cup and what it means is if I can hear anything and and I'm sure Mr Valar will tell you if I can hear because I've met with him on the site on this if I can hear anything at all where it might be coming from a place then it's plainly audible doesn't mean it's bothering anyone doesn't mean it's materially problematic it's just can you hear a whimper can you hear something and we found that to be incredibly challenging and impossible to comply with and frankly we believe would lead to the closure of the hotel because it would just create a lot of issues every type of possible noise and when we were dealing with that standard by the way and many of you that were at site visits saw this there was noise coming from cars that was louder than plainly audible from our hotel there was noise coming from a Latin cafe on the ground level on on Seventh Street Way louder than what you could hear from the hotel yet the violations contined to be issued to the hotel even at low volumes because it at one point you could hear something so we think that that is a recipe for you know Clos closing this hotel and killing the hotel another thing that they have done they have part you know in recent developments they've partnered with Marriott this is now a tribute portfolio policy uh property um if you go on your bonvoy app you can book the good time hotel now that's again another change another Improvement to try and diversify uh this property and and give it you know another investment that was made to make it successful and we believe will will be a positive change um we we commit to continue to keep the programming as we have done um we've learned some of the programming that was done at the very beginning was was aggressive and as a result triggered a little bit I want to say hype noise excitement that led to to noise issues we have now and and you know Mr Mr meding here Thomas meding is the new GM he's been in in place for a few months now he has done a different type of vetting of the of the acts that go on the roof these are now still DJs still entertainment but entertainment that's a little bit more probably what the city expected when this was approved and it's not creating violations uh we believe that that is another crucial step in the success of this of this partnership that we have um with the city um and finally what we would ask is that we a be that you all encourage the the neighbors if if if they're willing to help us with this monitoring we can install monitoring we' pay for all of it we would commit to following the recommendations of that monitoring study at the exact points where we have been advised there are problems then we can take that information make changes if necessary maybe the they will tell us that the way we're operating today is fine maybe they'll suggest a slightly lower decibel number we don't know until we get this in equipment installed that we now have ready and the consultant ready um we we won't know we also ask that we be given time to to for for that study to happen to come back in let's say three months with the results of that study and hopefully an agreement on how this can proceed going forward we commit to keep everything at the decibel level uh that we've been keeping it at the last over the last month again between 88 93 DB which we believe has been successful um and we also commit to keeping the programming as we have done it in the last uh over the last couple months which has been you know since Mr meding's been involved uh a material change in in the type of Acts that come that are now not generating the same type of noise complaints we understand that this property is is an enigma it comes up in all these other discussions uh we want to not only be the reason for your concern but a catalyst for doing things the right way going forward there's no questions that there have been incredible challenges here um I've never been involved with a property that has put so much effort and so much investment in fixing the problems you know I know that perspectives on this are very are varied but I can tell you that someone that has been doing this for almost 25 years no property that I've been involved with has made such a degree of commitment on on making changes some of them have worked some of them have not worked some of them have worked to different degrees but we are absolutely in a better place than we've ever been as to this issue and we want to continue to be successful we want to continue to have this hotel operate um modified from where we started but in a way that that is successful um and can continue to operate we don't want to close down we don't want to uh just go back to the way it used to be uh so with that I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal I'm sure that'll be necessary and you're here to answer any questions you may have all right thank you um someone anyone in chamers is here to speak on this item no one in here and Mr chairman since this is a quaz Judicial hearing do any board members have any disclosures to make um and this so you you don't need to state any emails that you received about this application as long as those were forwarded to staff but in addition to those emails if you've had any experte Communications you should disclose them all right well let's just start with Scott well this is an issue that's come up in front of the neighborhood you know a number of occasions so over the past few months years I mean I've spoken with a lot of people residents um surrounding residents and other people about this I mean I can start running off names but I but I I think when you ask for disclosure with the applicant right no it's with any third party and all you have to disclose are the names of any individuals uh you spoke with regarding this modification revocation hearing um about this hearing today oh about this particular hearing I know I I know um just recently I spoke with uh our former member Gail um and I I'm trying to remember it may be may have been be even before the last meeting um but I know Gail for certain um I can't think of any other right now off it's okay Matthew yeah I've had conversations with a resident nearby Charles Fischer and received an email I think most of the other my colleagues here from Andrew who also lives in that same building as Charles uh I did a site visit and I spoke with uh the manager Tomas and um there's a sound person there named David and a security person there named David it as well just the regular emails and sure that everyone else is referencing someone from the ownership group tried to reach out to me but couldn't same notice Pleasures Elizabeth just scale no I haven't been anywhere spoken to anybody I'm sorry I didn't hear just Gail yes just okay you spoke to Gail okay all right again anyone here to speak on this item okay I'm sure there's people on Zoom we do have some people on Zoom um the first one is Johan Moore good morning morning Yan do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes I do uh good morning planning board um lest anyone think uh that the echo is rather disconcerting sorry lest anyone think that we're unhappy about being an hour after hour time certain quite the contrary uh my heart bleeds for West Avenue uh and I think much of the testim given uh supports our neighborhood's position uh regarding uh profit driven noise I remain baffled by the bald-faced of the attorney's articulation of the hotel's rationale uh which basically comes down to an arrogation of public uh oral airspace for the sake of their profits without offering to share those obviously that's a rhetorical point with the fected neighbors uh I am going to urge that the cup for the rooftop entertainment be withdrawn uh we see that progress has apparently been made allegedly been made in the past month but we don't trust them to not revert to their previous practices regardless of what the board suggests uh or decides rather today uh I really want to thank West Avenue for its very thoughtful list of reforms of the special Master process and in fact we'll address that just uh briefly uh our own ongoing special Master issues with the ex yora uh slum buildings on Jefferson Avenue uh we would only be plugged into that uh we are only plugged into that by chance because we spotted the notification to the owner that was posted on the building in one instance it had fallen off of the rough brick that it was attached to once the neighborhood is involved in that process it's a little easier because then we have the dates for upcoming special Master hearings but it is not easy for residents in fact to participate in that so thank you very much for that I think we probably have some of the local affected Neighbors online if uh in fact the advanced hour has not dissed them from testifying thank you very much I've never heard the board be so critical of uh public nuisance noise and I thank you very much for your pro resident perspective thank you thank you and and just for the record Johan I'm sorry you waited but we did not have this scheduled at a time certain so my you know my apologies for your misunderstanding um if we schedule something time certain I'm pretty good about making sure it's it takes place at that time so all right next we have a mark Antoine good morning Mark do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do good morning to everyone my name is Mark antoan deido I live at 35 uclid Avenue Unit 109 I'm the president of the HOA here and um I've met with uh Thomas last week I keep a Channel of communication always open because I do think it is the greatest way of working a problem yet I've got a couple um couple issues from what I hear from West Avenue from what I hear from the good time um attorney first the I I see that the um unre reasonably loud doesn't work even if it's a standard it's a wrong standard it doesn't work what we have here is a good time Hotel who's been silent radio silent for like a month no complaint whatsoever absolutely silent perfect you want to change the programming or how you do things it's not been over the past months it's just been over the past three or four weeks since the last hearing that was a report progress we met I met with a with um Thomas I agree with Andrew Warton with Charles Fischer with all the members and uh homeowners here at 635 we still and again I'm not talking about the past four weeks we still have problems with a good time and I'm more than happy to work again after even three years working with you guys I'm more than happy to work with you furthermore to find a solution but I need we need a a consequence the consequence that we can apply is the violations being issued and not revoke U OT the the right legal word for that but uh dismissed in uh special Masters hearings and this is wrong this is just wrong because when there's a violation we need to be able to get a consequence out of that so that everyone is kept in line this is just disheartening to see how much brain power and and also time is wasted on those meetings to go nowhere to move the needle nowhere it's this cup is like again given to a newborn shooting right and left they've did that when they opened the the the the hotel and what the attorney just said is that they changed a little bit the music closer and that's what they want to do now closer to what the board expected when issuing the c 3 years ago ago well it's about damn time and and Sir if you could wrap up your two minutes this is my position there well yeah well again I'm here for an hour 42 minutes you know I'm I've got two companies I run two companies I have two four year four-year-old twins I have a husband and this is all you know on my free time you all paid to be there we do not have a way to in uh to inflict a consequence to the good time hotel and we're not paid to be here yet I keep the channel of communication open despite the very big resentment from the community against the good time Hotel thank you we have another caller um Chris reega good morning good morning Chris good morning yes I'm here go ahead we're we hear you I'm sorry Chris do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes I do thank you you have two minutes thank you so my stance is again I reside at 7:30 Pennsylvania number 702 I'm on the top floor I have a direct vantage point to the good time Hotel I could just be there I don't need to be there in person because I can hear it whether it's you know unreasonable whether it's audible whatever it is I hear it and unfortunately I wasted at least five days of work with doing the sound trials with the city with the good time trying to be a good neighbor hoping for a good outcome hoping for a positive outcome and it just hasn't happened um again also taking time off from work for these meetings at a minimum five or six of them at this point and it's really frustrating to feel that we're a hamster on a wheel doing the same thing over and over and really with no result so at this point to have somebody come here again and install whatever you know decel breeders or whatever it is it's it's a little bit kind of past that point honestly because I am not willing to put more time into this it's been three years because since day one since they open it was an issue and I have been a very I was I was really trying to be on their side and to to reach a compromise and it just hasn't happened and I don't see how it's going to because it wall did nothing but probably make it worse since I'm on the seventh floor thank you thank you our next caller is Gail Durham hi Gail do you swear the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do so my speech is really for like the three new members and maybe Melissa she's only been on there a short time too um when I served on the planning board for two years the good time Hotel was on our agenda 18 times so that's 18 times out of 24 months um it's unfair to the residents and their their complaints were fell on death ear at the planning board and that's why it kept getting delayed and delayed and on the agenda 18 times um I don't know if anybody wonders why I didn't ask to serve another term on the planning board but it's because I felt the board did not solve any problems or nor did they create any cups that prevent problems maybe today is different um I hope so uh I suggest prohibiting entertainment and ambient DJ on the roof of the good time period they can have their entertainment inside but you know what enough is enough I mean come on guys thank you thank you and that concludes our callers okay close the public hearing um questions from the board I have a couple okay um Mickey you want to we had oh I'm sorry you have someone that just that one of our employees that would want to say a few words good afternoon um my name is Shaya Miller I am the director of operations for the pool at the the good time Hotel I had the pleasure of speaking before you guys once before for those of you who do not know me I spoke a little bit about myself um and my commitment to my family and this job and what we do here but I think there's uh a few things that maybe we can elaborate on to what happens dayto day um with the decision-making process that we go through or everybody can speak on it but I'm the one who's there every day day in and day out um who feels the Stress and Anxiety between behind the decisions that we make on this property um and there are some modifications that we have made I know everybody has talked about this last month um not hearing you know or having any complaints or noise issues and that's something that we figured out along this path right we technically have our cup till 8:00 pm um but we found that we were getting more complaints later in the evening um residents or home we didn't want to impose so we made the conscious decision to program our talent from 3:30 to 530 so that is when our main Talent goes on on the pull deck hoping to alleviate without being asked to um you know the additional noise uh complaints that were coming in I don't have anything scripted here to say to you guys I just want you to know you know the amount of effort that goes into each deis Deion that is made on the property we're not we're not doing amazing um I'll be open and honest with you guys about that we're financially not doing amazing um we've made decisions just this week that you know could have brought in maybe 150 $200,000 worth a revenue that we turned away due to the restrictions that we have and due to the respect that we're trying to show for the city um as and its residents so please take that into consideration that there's always a conscious effort um in programming in operating at this venue um I have some staff testimony um so did you want to read this the testimony um that was sent through that they asked me to speak on on their behalf so I'll just read the last one that came in this morning we try not to involve them too much in this process but it is public so they follow it closely um I have a gentleman uh and this is as open I guess as anybody else can be from this property um it says this statement will not do justice to the magnitude of the Gratitude I have for this place and my place of employment with strawberry moon and the good time Hotel long story short I along with other co-workers were in a bad place working nightlife in a new city from Texas couldn't catch up on bills toxic environment illegal substances um and all all the above until I started at Strawberry Moon never have I work with such a strongly tied team like family from upper management down the ladder the word caring is too small for what I have describe this place took me out of poverty mentally and financially helped me fight homelessness I was homeless living in a car for over three months and yet nobody knew until writing the statement today so that's the first time that I've heard our story for him um and um I have a female named Julia all of these employes us since its um Inception so Julia uh stated that she's been working at the Strawberry Moon for a couple of years she couldn't be more grateful for this job firstly and most importantly this job gave her the opportunity to help her family in Ukraine not only is she able to send them financial help um but the flexibility and the schedule allows me to travel to support my loved ones when they need me the most losing this job would have a tremendous impact on me and my family I have about and others but um I'm going to leave them where they are if anybody would like to hear them please let me know and thank you for your time thank you we do before before you continue we do have some more callers now on Zoom um the first uh Troy Wright good morning Troy do you swear affirm the testimoni you give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you you have two minutes you know um the last thing that Washington Avenue or Miami Beach wants is a vacant Hotel on Sixth in Washington um the good time hotel has done everything possible to keep and to create an environment where locals tourists and politicians are happy absolutely not but they have done and exceeded what any other developer or property owner have done in a long time don't think it ever will be perfect but to be in a situation where you hear no noise from an ENT mment district is nearly impossible so we need to be reasonable about our and dedication to make it work it's simply amazing um I don't know like I said any other property owner investor or developer who would have put up or done as much as the good time has done so uh again if you look at the positive impact Nationwide that the the good time has brought to Miami Beach Washington Avenue it is exactly what we hear the the the locals the tourists and everyone else talking about what we need on the Avenue what we need on Miami Beach so if you think you know Washington Avenue or Miami Beach would be better with an abandoned Hotel building then yeah go ahead and move forward with not allowing them to to to have live music or have music in general but um it won't solve anything so I think that um to require them to reduce the amount of entertainment um is is positively a huge mistake so let's get this one right I'm I'm sorry Troy um who who do you work for I'm I'm sorry I don't know you I'm just um this is oh sorry about that I should have said something off the top I'm Troy Wright the executive director of the Washington Avenue business improvement district okay thank you our next caller is Mitch novic good morning Mitch do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes good morning Mitch sovic 36-year resident and business owner I own the sherber hotel in the Ocean Drive Entertainment District for the past decade I've appeared to speak against every conditional use permit which provided for open a entertainment uh with exception to the Goodtime Hotel knowing that we would be here again today I would urge you to revoke and let the property owner figure it out uh they they they residents need to start uh getting some relief it's it's unfortunate I feel for them and I urge you to roke today thank you with that that concludes our callers on Zoom if you want to close the public hearing well yeah I mean coule Mick's going to rebut and and then we'll close it I'll be very brief just a couple points um again Mickey morrero T at South bisc Boulevard um some it was said why wait till now to make some of the neighbors did acknowledge that what's happening now today the last month and change or so appears to be working like I'm happy to hear that because we felt the same way again the record shows that um why wait till now it's not really a wait it's been constant changes the wall was installed in February of 23 um the speaker system was uh upgraded just just before that shortly after that in the spring the sound booth was done these are changes that have been constantly happening so it's not like we waited to make a change this particular recent change was fairly recent um but since that February 23 installation of the wall and change to the speaker system there were no violations issued for the better part of a year it seems things seemed to be working we felt things were working some stuff happened later so it's not like we were getting violations every week and ignoring them that we weren't getting viol ations we made changes they seem to be working we did get violations issued November December uh two weekends two instances those six that keep getting mentioned were really just six days apart during I guess during our bosle um those were the ones that we appealed and the ones that keep getting mentioned again just because it's been mentioned so many times and I was the lawyer that handled the special magistrate hearing there were inconsistencies in the record there were inconsistencies in the standard plainly audible unreasonably loud in the Cup itself in the the violation itself and in the testimony that's why they were dismissed sometimes lawyers get lucky and the record is there's technicalities in the record now I'm not saying that there you know we don't think it was unreasonably loud that day but the record spoke for itself there were inconsistencies they were dismissed you know special magistrate hearings by the way there were hearings on this property where neighbors have come these these these a these agendas are public they're under the city clerk's website neighbors do come sometimes it's not that common most of these violations are like window permits things like that but but they are all available online and neighbors have come to Prior viol hearings for the for the good time finally as to the noise monitoring we were you know criticized for suggesting the noise monitoring that's something that came from you all at prior meetings suggestions that were we heard and we took to light we hired someone to implement those suggestions they're ready to go we have a report I think Matt handed some of that out um we we just need the cooperation of some folks to just install very very you know small little light uh antennas to to carry the noise we think that would go a long way it's something that came from this board that we responded to um so we really feel that things are in a good place right now we really don't want to lose this hotel you heard from Troy wri I didn't know he was going to be speaking but I'm glad he did um this is an important part of the business district and if it fails then other things will fail these these units will remain vacant we want this hotel to succeed and you know right now it's not doing great but we just want to get it right and we want Washington Avenue to succeed and if what happens today doesn't go that way it's hopefully you know hopefully it won't it'll be very negative uh for the area we don't want that to happen with that I I will rest quick question obviously you saw the city's proposed modified Cup right yes and you have a problem with that I do and let me tell you why that plainly that's the standard that existed before and there was repeated instances where we were getting violations and I was standing there um with Cod officer with staff I was standing there with some of you and we would it was just not problematic noise but because there was a whimper that was lower in many instances than three four other things happening at the same time on on the street violations were still being issued and it created a huge problem and we toward the site hold on but I'm but what what what what you handed out has plainly audible but I think what you want is anywhere west of Washington no no no that's that's staff's we we want it to remain unreasonably loud our our handout says maintain reasonably loud standard it does isn't that what you hand it out when it says note that's what they want yeah we we we're showing you what staff recommended that's our comment I got it okay we we as for we're we're suggesting the added language on on that page six the second page of the handout requiring us to do this noise monitoring that you all had suggested the last couple months we have that ready to go we just need cooperation and then we're suggesting that the standard stay unreasonably allowed um again we know that that you know we know we're in the principal's office uh we know it's been a long road we think we're in a good place right now and we'd like to be able to succeed in that place if it doesn't work you know we'll be back here and and we know what can happen um but we really feel that after years of tweaking and finding Solutions we're finally at a good place and to to get crushed at this point would be horrible for for the hotel and for the area did you see the city's I guess insertion of a distance of 100 ft cuz your edit doesn't include that that the 100t your language was working off of version that didn't have that cuz we got a different version from the city this morning now that they've included 100 ft is that that's the same gu operation it's essentially the same thing as what they yeah because what what what that 100 feet is the noise ordinance not just in Miami beach but in almost all the jurisdictions in South Florida if you're plainly audible after 11:00 p.m. the idea is you don't want to interrupt sleep at 100 feet it's a violation uh that standard prior to 11: p.m. is unreasonably loud so the only place that it was plainly audible prior 11: p.m. was for this hotel so and it created so it's different at night if you can hear something and people can't sleep it's different than if during the day when there's cars zooming by and other restaurants open and I don't know if you've been there I don't know if I went there with you you went with someone else but several of you were there with me and we were hearing noise from other venues louder than what you could hear at the plainly audible standard and code was said we have to issue violation and the three or four other places that had louder noise were not getting violations that was a lot went into getting the standard changed and we persuaded the board just what other venues are near the good time that could create noise that could be mistaken for the good time I give you the most extreme example um there this is almost comical because of of its absurdity there's a cafe at the corner of WA Washington and sth on the northwest side wonderful little cafe Latin food not a party not an entertainment venue they play music like Latin music we were standing multiple places their music was not a violation it was not unreasonably loud per code standards but it was louder than what we were hearing from the good time understandably that was at the ground level so we're you know the thing we're perfecting now is this elevated noise where we we we got it all figured out in the ground level it's no longer being heard in the ground level there's still this remaining concern on some of the upper units we think the the changes that we've made now address that we want to perfect that with the noise monitoring that you all suggested that we're ready to implement that our Engineers ready to to install um so that's what's left but there's there's look there's The Moxy there's the Anglers there's lots of things that have that have noise around um that aren't violating anything because they don't have this unique condition right our condition if goes back to plainly audible regardless of other places being louder we get violations it'll be almost every day and Le the hotel will probably close that's what we've been told all right all right let's do this Scott I'm gonna just kind of go around Scott want to start with you with questions that you may have yeah um I mean obviously this has been going on a long time um you know you um three years three years it's been going back and forth back and forth and you know I know what uh Mickey said but it doesn't seem like there's any prog ress being made to to mitigate the problem which is noise so you know I'm let me just tell you I'm inclined to to um change it so you know it's only ambient noise can't be heard with you know past 100 feet and also to to take away the the the um the DJ the I guess it's the entertainment like part of the cup um and again the reason being is we've seen over and over again for three years we've seen um you know Mickey mentioned it today they they're going to set up some kind of monitoring things but you know before that it was posting people on you know the residence balconies to listen to noise it was um other kind of monitoring the street putting somebody from the good time on the corner there sitting in the chair was building the wall which you know we we all appreciated we thought that would solve the problem but it seemed to exacerbate the problem you know it just seems like there's more more noise now than than before so it seems like everything that's being done there it's just it's it doesn't seem to be working and it's been three years now and you know just putting it off more and just waiting to see if this works I quite frankly I have no faith that it's going to work uh um so again I'm you know if this was a relatively new case that's that's one thing but it's three years it's been going on three years um so we I don't think that we as a board or even the residents can can rely on code compli I mean the Code Compliance special Master process to work because even if these things I mean the there were six six noise violations since um uh in November and December of last year those were valid noise violations according to code they went to the special master and they were dismissed but code initially saw them as valid um you know at what point do we as a board say enough is enough do we want to make do we want to see six noise violations and six times adjudicated you know and then what are we going to are we gonna take action then you know I just think that it it's enough and I think this board has to um pick up the slack where the Code Compliance and special Master process is uh is lacking so at this point that's why I just to be clear are you supportive of the Cities modified more that plus removing the outdoor entertainment okay so that's where I am at and um I want to hear from the rest of the board you will sure [Music] will yeah I'm I'm inclined to agree with my colleague uh however what I will say and there's a lot to unpack here is that at a minimum I think some action that we should take today if we don't choose to go further than what staff is recommending and remove the DJ and the detainment from the outdoor is is 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. at a minimum that would be the only time it could be allowed but uh you know and I I thank for for example the the owner's uh representative saying 40% of the revenue comes from outdoor entertainment I don't think that is what the intent was when this project was conceived is that they were going to put basically all the negative externalities on the public and and this kind of sheds more light on the issue of the micro units if if the indoor portion of this facility can't sustain it then uh you know we have bigger issues with micro units here and micro units proposed other places in the city um the other concern that I have is while some of the members of the board did suggest uh noise monitoring and Ambi and um decel meters when I read through the report it looks like you want to maximize the amount of noise can make leaving no margin of error so even if you were able to install these remote systems elsewhere you still have the potential for having noise that could impact people if the winds change if it's a it's a quiet night and there's no clouds in the sky you know there's so many variables there um you know I understand the high threshold for us to make a change here but I think it's time that this board really look at this and and actually take action so that all being said you know I'm I'm in favor of of removing or substantially reducing the outdoor entertainment okay Jonathan um I'm not in favor of removing the outdoor entertainment but I am in favor of obviously making significant adjustments um the goal to me is not to shut down the party it's not to shut down the hotel the goal to me is to find a solution that the neighbors don't hear a peep you know they they didn't sign up for this and and they don't deserve to hear a peep um and so you know I I I did a site visit I I appreciate what they're doing and the changes that they're making um you know I hear mention about no noise complaints in the last month I don't know if that is including the DJ set from March that did get a violation um in looking at we were sent you know I think everybody on the board was sent videos from online of the parties there um there was nothing you know uh to me that was surprising I mean I we understand that they're having parties there they that's that's their business model but what was surprising to me was the the one day where they got the violation of the Martin Garrick concert uh where he's a DJ they had a new DJ booth set up which is not the normal space for it um it seemed to me like there were new external speakers there which is expressly prohibited in the cup um and that to me is a violation that's you know one of the reasons I was asking about to code about the bullet points because you know yes maybe they turned the music down by the time that code got there but it's very clear from that video that there's speakers knew that they put in just for this performance um that's a violation and so to say you know it's kind of it's difficult because I see everything that you're doing uh that's positive in the right direction and then it's like a simple thing like that that just to me just undoes a lot of the the hard work um that everybody's been doing and and it really is you know unfair to the residents who've been coming to these hearings it's unfair to the planning board who's been listening to this uh stuff 18 times it's it's unfair to the workers who are working for the Goodtime Hotel because by doing having a conert a DJ with a DJ booth that's not your normal DJ booth setup with new speakers that violate the cup you're putting all of your staff at risk that's that's on management you you you want to read us uh you know a heartfelt letter from your staff I mean you made the decision to to violate that I mean and and I hope I don't know if they know that but that's that's what bothers me I don't want to shut I don't think we should remove entertainment because it seems to me like there is a way to have entertainment that doesn't bother the neighbors um and so I would think you know in my conversations with Tomas you know we talked about the different decibel levels and I appreciate you know he showed me a WhatsApp conversation you know of like all the staff is involved in making sure the sound is is they're doing the right things and I get it the problem is is that when when the decibels are over a certain level the neighbors hear it and so I would propose something more nuanced than removing uh entertainment alog together um number one I think the standard should be plainly audible um west of uh Washington uh so to start um and then uh in addition to that I mean I think um lowering the volume I think based on the sound study that I that you guys just passed around it indicates um you know just we just got this so I'm skimming through it but it indicates you know under anything under 90 DB really is not going to be heard now I don't know you know if that adjusts for when but really it's a lot of these parties are much higher than 90 DB and so I would say that the music you know I propose that maybe the music be lower you know can't be past 90 DB um for now and look you know if there's a solution that that we can figure out moving forward come back to us and and we'll change it I mean to my whole thing is and I think you know um I'm maybe I'm in agreement with Mitch noic on this which is that I don't care what the party is as long as it's enclosed and uh nobody outside the the premises is hearing it so um so I I don't think we necessarily need to accomplish that I don't think we necessarily need to remove entertainment because it's possible to have a DJ who's playing like VI music um and they're making money and they're selling bottles and selling drinks and and cheeseburgers and whatnot uh but that the neighbors don't still don't hear it so I think that's what I would be in favor of is is um accepting staff's recommendation um you know I don't know if necessarily like I don't know how what big of a difference it makes to remove the DJ after a certain time as long as it you know the the standard is still um you know it can't be heard by the residents I mean that it seems pretty simple and and I had to say the other thing I want to say is that we're in a tough position you know you ask for the unreasonably loud then the unreasonably loud is unclear then we want then we go back back to the plainly Audible and then that's unclear and so it's you know it's it's just uh it's difficult for us so that that's my position I agree with uh most of what Jonathan said I just have a few questions for is he still here Mickey Mickey yeah so number one there was a gentleman here I think his name was Charles fiser Mr fiser he was probably the most vocal previously did you work with him in between last meeting and this meeting like why isn't he here no I I don't know why he's not here um we did reach out uh our team reached out to him to try and schedule something he did not reciprocate I don't know why he he's not here actually so since I spoke with him and I'm friends with him he had a conflict today with work wasn't able to try to but we tried and we we offered you know we'd like to install the monitoring his unit seems a problematic unit we'd love to have that opportunity main question just for context here you know what happened I guess kind of obviously we know how the good time operation started to the point where all these things had to change the good time was then viewed as you know the good apple right the ones that were proactively trying to reach out to the residents fixed a whole bunch of things invested a tremendous amount of money got things to a place where there were really no violations and then things escalated you know I think at the planning board we kind of awarded you all the uh unreasonably loud threshold and it was from that point where it was like okay they gave it to us let's see how far we could we could take things um I think the general concern not to put words in anyone's mouth is we've been here before we let you get to the unreasonably loud you ran with it and now we're back here so any type of variance from what the city is suggesting would be foolish just to be honest well so so let me backtrack a little bit just to clarify a couple points that were made we keep hearing six noise violations it was two instances um one just if it's one with Merit okay I don't if any have Merit but there were certainly weren't six there was two instances three noise violations let's say there's one sure and then so you say what happened again laws installed in February February March April May June the summer coming into there weren't violations so what happened is we thought it was working I thought I'm not going to have to be coming a planning board anymore on this issue I can move on with my life but no things started happening and these violations were issued in November again nothing after the first week of December we got through the holidays we got through uh you know all the peak times in January February so it felt like things were okay we we kept hearing about issues and we kept trying to you know speak to the folks that were affected but other than that one week at the end of November into December no violations were issued so I obviously we're now addressing new things that have come up in the last couple months but it seemed like those improvements were working you know had there been a Litany of violations this hearing would have been happening five six months ago so it's puzzling to us why we're why we're here we understand that other people are affected in different ways that weren't affected before we Now understand better and I think Jonathan I'm not sure if you meant because the report we're looking at is up to 93 but we're trying to keep it in that range we are we are keeping it in that range it's locked um as far as is uh you know the monitoring again we think that that's a real thing that if Mr fiser is willing to work with us Mr enaga other folks that are directly impacted um uniquely from others we can hopefully pinpoint that issue and solve it but it's not the issue is not what it was when this started and if we go back to plainly Audible and a violation can be issued for virtually any whimper it's the hotel will end up closing I mean that's just the reality we've talked ownership we we we know what the recommendation was a lot of time is spent getting to meeting and for all that has happened all the positive things that got have gotten us to this point we we believe it would be a horrible shame for it at end the way it might end can I ask though because in my conversation with Tas and maybe I misunderstood but I thought that he had mentioned that there's like there's a way for them to to do well or do okay between 80 and 90 I mean with DJ the numbers I I have are again this might be very scientific I have 88 to 93 which is what we're they're what they are having now and again it's not just those numbers it's also the types of Acts to Tomas has only been there a couple months but he's been doing a different vetting the act in a different way to make sure if they feel something might be problematic the type of music might travel a different way they they turn it away they turn away some of the more profitable acts because of concerns but again it it we we're at a place where we keep fixing things but now it seems to be working and for it to be taken away way at this point it seems to be hope you know in my view counterintuitive obviously but that that that's the answer so you say what happened there we weren't getting violations if you're not getting violations and you're doing okay seems things seems like things are going the right way so it's just these recent instances that we've now addressed that and we're here and we heard from some of the neighbors what's going on now is fine but we don't trust going forward but we are where we are what happened in Marge with the Martin Garrick's again I that wouldn't that was very weird to us because I first of all I was out of town but I got the information that it happened there was a there there was a noise warning not a violation and the violation that was actually issued was it issued at 1:00 a which I think was just written at that time I have to assume but it was for a cup violation you get a cup violation if you violate the noise ordinance but a noise ordinance wasn't issued obvious you know I don't a warning was issued and then the report said that if there's a warning issued that's a violation of the cup but the language changed a either way that was obviously a an isolated incident we're still trying to figure out exactly what happened but what you saw in those online videos that were sent to you those are Instagram posts the music on the video on these Instagram videos doesn't even match what's happening these are marketing videos so they're not I mean you you have to admit though that there was a new DJ booth that's not your typical DJ booth setup in the middle of the pool deck right it seemed that way to me I didn't I didn't hyper Analyze That video there were speakers around that DJ booth that were set up yeah again I I can check with them I'm not entirely sure what you saw the video so didn't you wasn't weren't there speakers set up around that DJ booth I I could I trust you I don't remember I don't recall that I'm not saying there weren't I just I trust that you saw that I I skimmed I saw these this morning I skimm very quickly so I don't want to say that I saw something I but maybe that were very what could be the case you feel anything else no okay um I don't want to be redundant I I think Jonathan um pretty much echoed my thoughts um you know I want to mention something you know Gail and some other people keep mentioning this three years and that's true but the reason is as you pointed out you the the company and the hotel has gone through Great Lengths to try and that's why it's been three years because you know the toughest part for a planning board and I always say this is balancing the business side with the quality of life for the residents we don't want the hotel to go out business this Washington was blighted and I personally thought this was a great addition that being said you know after three years if we continue to hear residents saying their quality of life is being impacted as much as you're trying and as much time as we're trying to give you to try because again we want that balance for you to succeed and yet have the residents have quality of life there gets a point where you know at some point we have to say okay we've given you you know months of of attempts and again I applaud the hotel for all the efforts they've done because I've been on the planning board a while and I and I do agree that they seemingly have done more than most venues to try to rectify their problems um that being said and again I don't want to be redund I think Jonathan echoed my feelings I am inclined to uh to go with what staff's recommending um I I have to believe Mickey and I've told you I've told you this many times there's got to be a way that people can enjoy music at the pool deck without it being blasted out to the residents so um uh I don't want to be redone that's my feeling and again I do applaud and I and I'm sensitive to the hotel staying in business and the employees having their jobs uh but it can't be at the expense of the residents so that's my feeling I'm gonna walk out you guys keep going have to deal with something can I can I say one other thing sorry um uh so when I was there I I did notice you know there was a there's a City Garage next door that previously had some sort of vegetation on the side that it appeared to be stripped down you know the vegetation was removed and so you know maybe you know in in talking to the staff there I mean it's possible that that made a change in the Acoustics of everything and so it perhaps uh and then the other thing I noticed was that there were some speakers built-in speakers that I imagine were pre-approved or part of the engineering plan that were facing uh West uh you know the direction of the neighbors and so um you know I'm not a sound engineer I don't know whether that's has anything to do with the sound that's traveled but it seems common sense that the speaker should be arrange arranged away from the neighbors and maybe now that that vegetation wall is not there the sound is bouncing in a way that is affecting the neighbors more so perhaps including a new sound study or having a new sound study with that uh you know that change structural change um might be included in the recommendations as well um so a couple comments but first I just had a question for you Mickey when you talk about the uh remote sound uh level monitoring system be set up and and make the changes necessary based on some of these results what changes are we talking about so if if you know if you have these these remote sound monitors um just clarify me like what is is going to serve well so it's at this point would be forensic trying to determine what is causing noise to be heard differently in certain locations than everywhere else um so we what we've done is we have hired the sound engineer to comp with the plan which we've shared with you to install this these this equipment in the points that we're hearing noises being heard differently and then based on that data come up with solutions to make sure that noise doesn't reach those those places in some way that's that's what this goal is all right so because the what happens is is if you guys get a level of sound that's unreasonable for for for one neighborhood or Beyond and this is you know an area where it's it's a problem um we can't go through months and months of analyzing of what new wall we got to put you know at this point it's a clear a clear fix the sound needs to go down and so the problem is is all these residents are dealing with these issues and then there's these time lapse of just trying to find a solution when at this point it it has to be a direct consequence of just bringing the sound level down um immediately so um I think you guys have been it has been incredible sort of learning experience for for us to be working with you guys because you guys have been out there trying to find Solutions um and I think it's been helpful it's going to be helpful for other business and understanding um you know how how to conduct themselves and we do want to see you guys succeed um but going through What the residents are going through for this you know is is really really an excruciating process to keep going through um um these complaints and um I don't want to see you guys close your your outdoor entertainment so I'm against you know I think we can find a solution but at this point the the the you guys have ran out of chances and so when we change the plainly audible uh um U levels to um remind me of the wording we went from plainly audible to unon all right so um I think you guys took that and ran with it and and and started you know pushing a little further um um when when what we were expecting is your behavior to continue as it was would you know plainly audible um so personally I I don't want to take away the rights of the outdoor entertainment we can we can try to modify I want to see your business succeed I think we we as a board need to really understand with the city plainly audible is is well and I think even in a neighborhood like mine where there's no businesses it's not even a reasonable request I mean I was dealing with compliance a couple weeks ago and we have a house that gets rented out for parties and at the end of the day we are told that as long if I can be in my house and hearing the noise at any time of the day I can make a complaint but stepping out of my yard is a whole different thing so so um I don't think it's reasonable for a neighborhood like this to be expecting to be any sound to be a possible complaint just like you have um some businesses that are uh well- intended and some are not you have also some residents who mostly are well- intended but you have some that will complain at anything and so we just have to be a little bit more um uh clear in what this means for us to be making these judgments so so just a little out of order but U Mr Med and the GM just came up to me um well after everyone speaks before you make a motion based on what you all have said he's like to share with me something he'd like to propose as a potential compromise if that if you can give us just a few minutes to step outside before you make a final motion and maybe something entertain maybe it isn't I still don't know what it is but I'd like to give him that chance to to share that after you all Del all right so I'm know the comments overall the recommendations of cities I agree with but I don't think we should go back to plainly uh audible okay um I mostly agree with all of you um especially you Jonathan um first of all a hotel's business model is not our responsibility um that is the hotel's responsibility it is heads and beds it's not a poolside party um that said I do recognize that we live in South Beach and there's a reasonable expectation of some sort of noise but it is not continuous to the neighbors um I also think that the the Instagram posts are posted on on the good time hotel's page I mean those are those speak for themselves I mean if you don't want to promote the poolside party and the STA Coy and and the big DJs then why is that there um I want to go back to September 21 um Larin said uh the good time Hotel will suffer great greatly if it's not able to have outdoor entertainment on our pool deck it will cause our hotel to shut down we heard that again today uh Lin said the hotel's operators are adding soundproof equipment and no longer has headlining DJs that's not accurate at all they are headlining DJs um and the evidence speaks for itself um also um I'd like to understand why when I ask about at the last meeting the speaker location if they were raised off the floor I was told absolutely not there was nothing projected out into the atmosphere and that is also not accurate um I'm I got to say that at what point it's it's sort of like you have a kid at the dinner table and they've got their phone and they're texting and all that kind of stuff and you've told them over and over again not to not to have their phone and not to text at some point you take the phone away so at what point does the phone get taken away I I don't know the answer but I know that I can't legitim I can't I don't want this hotel to close I don't think it's going to close personally um if it was going to the same argu wouldn't have been had over and over again um we're we're constantly doing the same thing it's not fair to the residents um I would vote for ambient and not any and and honestly I'll tell you one more thing I was at um cadon on Saturday that's ambient noise that is also a a good example of what this could be and and I feel like when this opened everybody had really high expectations of it having of it being a good business model and it's not um it's Extremely Loud I've heard it everybody's heard it and I don't you know at one point do we just say come on I mean I would go with ambient um no DJ uh because that was what was told in 21 but yet here we are again it's it's it's at at what point are we just I'm just it's really frustrating and I know the residents are frustrated all right Mickey yeah I asked for opportunity for to delate with my client if I could do that okay so I just want to note I think that if the board is going to make any modifications to the cup I would reference the um the neighborhood impact review guidelines for example in terms of the criteria there's several that that the board reviews in reviewing a conditional use permit including um um criteria number seven a noise attenuation plan which addresses how noise will be controlled to meet the requirements of the noise ordinance as well as it sounds like most importantly um condition number eight which is the proximity of the pro proposed establishment to residential uses it seems like that it's the residential uses that's really um driving the factor of the need to modify the um the cup because of the proximity of residential units uses and the impact on those residents let me ask you to address Melissa's comment to you about plainly audible um so for me that means is do I hear the words kind of recognize the the music um and there shouldn't be any confusion in terms of where it's coming from what would happen is code would be looking at the or listening to the noise they be going to the property as well they would be ensuring that this is the same audio that's coming from The Establishment not something confused with coming from another establishment Mr chair be some consistency perhaps in a neighborhood like this for every business business to have also two the same sort of you know because you can't have one that has plainly Audible and it has fairness to to them I think we should they're outside deliberating and so to have this conversation while they're not present I just want to make sure that well I'm just getting clarificar what you're saying I don't want that to be an issue you know that's why I can just speak a second on the uh issue of unreasonably loud or unusual noise that's only defined when it occurs after 11: p.m. so right now by having that condition in there and that being it's hard to enforce that after 11: PM there's no criteria there's no definition for how what's considered unreasonably louder unusual outside of those hours so that that's why we and that's why I believe that the prior complaints were dismissed to special Master because there is no real real standard that defines that outside of those hours so that's a separate issue so we would putting a limit on the hours for the um you could right could I don't you you could say um requirements um apply except for between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. so you could you could do that as well okay and just to go back for some prior information um when this application was first approved by the planning board the requirement was not plainly audible on the balconies of the Arcadia house which was the closest residential property you know to The Establishment however that required code to go to the balcony that really wasn't feasible and then it was later changed to plainly audible on the west side of Washington Avenue hi so what we'd like to to offer is some compromise uh reducing the hours um to something like 12:30 1 pm. to 6:30 where we can have the outdoor entertainment um on a in a probationary period again I heard everything that's been said trying to save this operation save this hotel um maybe it's a 30 or 60 days on a probationary period allowing us to keep the operation as it's been going um for this time that where we seem to have figured it out whether you all want us to do the monitoring or not we're still open to it um the hours currently allow 11: to 8:00 P.M we would reduce that to a much more narrow time of 12:31 to to 6:30 which would still allow us a good portion of of the time but a lot less than what's permitted today um if that doesn't work we'll be back and you know we can do what what I think you were inclined to do now um or but if that does work and things are okay maybe we can continue operating in a reasonable way that's something we'd like to profer if that's something you all would entertain at all we'd appreciate it thank you you're saying and that's you but you in order to agree to that you would keep the unreasonably loud standard yes yes because again we know what will happen with the other standard it's it's just not unre it it's not going to be reasonable for us to operate because of violation could be issue for virtually anything and it doesn't have to be problem but and we would keep it at the decel level that you discussed you know what the report says between 88 and 93 should not cause problems again we we're learning every couple months we learn new information we're better at doing this now than we were six months ago certainly more than we were a year three years ago so we'd like to take advantage of all that knowledge and all that time I mean I I guess what here here's the thing is that it it's I think everybody's sort of in agreement I mean I don't think anybody wants is is going to be keeping or seems to want to keep the unreasonably loud question is whether we allow you to keep the entertainment or not um you know the problem the problem is is if we do that it's the burden is more on the residents to keep calling in these no noise complaints in order to be able to notify us that it's still a problem what I think the solution should be is is cut it down for now keep it you know put it uh plainly audible that gives you know even if you have to bring it way down in the meantime but you guys need to do some a new Sound Engineering study that that was two years ago that that one was done you know environments change and figure out I mean I I've seen the these speakers you know the cup says small directional speakers I mean the ones that I I see I saw there I mean there's some speakers um and so something's got to change on that pool deck uh and I I just think that in the meantime the music needs to be I mean the I don't want to I don't listen I don't care about the party I've said that already it's more about the the volume of the music needs to be taken down until you guys figure out a way to turn it up and blast it so that the in a way that the neighbors don't hear it you know right but so why don't you take I'll I'll I'll make a motion um to accept staff's recommendations um to which is to uh replace the unreason unreasonably loud standard with well it's just you can make it easier unless you have changes to this it would be to adopt the modified cup I have changes I I I don't a motion I'm making the motion to accept staff recommendations in addition to requiring uh a new sound study or review of the current speakers um you know so that staff can make few further recommendations or sound Engineers can make further recommendations okay is there a second sorry John can you repeat please I just want to make sure I understood accepting this staff recommendation with any changes with a request and a requirement that they do a new sound study on the speakers and Jonathan just so I understand your motion if um if you're if you would require a new sound study I think that also means so that the board could impose additional conditions I think you would be modifying the cup but also continuing this hearing right to a later date to allow you to make further changes okay yeah because Len yes so the answer is yes the idea is that if there's a new sound study with a new layout of speakers where they can you know you know I guess it really doesn't matter they can do whatever they need to do as long as it's not plainly audible understood it's not reasonable I'm just I'm still really pushing for I I know I understand that uh we've had a bad experience since we changed it from plainly plainly audible where we've seen some changes that you guys took some chances that that did that didn't go down well um but I do think it's unreasonable for for for for the business to be you know given back plainly audible I just think it opens up complaints that are not necessarily um you know necessarily founded so I think that we if we're going to give them another sort of chance we got to give them something to actually what standard do you think I think we keep it to the same I think we we don't we don't we don't change it back to plainly audible I think we we modify their hours we modify some some the you know the way they do entertainment but I think if the moment you say plainly audible um you have anyone can complain about anything and then it's hard for us then to have a judgment of what is an actual true problem and so I think there's other ways of going to it where would give give us much more clarity and allow them to know the way that they're supposed to be operating Mr chair could I ask question of of Michael so how many because this is before my time on the planning board and and I didn't follow this as closely as some others how many sustained violations were there when the standard was plainly audible I don't know if I don't I don't have that record on me right now I just do believe based upon the opposite when the standard was put in for unreasonably loud and unusual I don't believe that there were any that were issued during the daytime hours but were there any issued during daytime or or nighttime hours when it was plainly audible I don't I don't have that information know but I mean we've seen from in the past you know four months or so we've seen body cam fo videos from code enforcement that shows I mean in these people's you know uh rooftop uh you know where there they have a Jacuzzi up there from their balconies inside somebody's unit you can actually even on these like little the dinky body cameras you can still hear the thumping of it and I don't think there was any dispute at that point that that was from the Goodtime Hotel at a special Master hearing for whatever reason it gets dismissed I mean I don't think that that's for us to be thinking about I I'm just thinking about trying to find strike a balance between this the business and the residents so that the residents don't lose the value of their homes but and then the business can also find ways of being creative to continue operating but I the way that I see it is that this this business are they're having new DJ parties on March 25th right before that they know they're coming up for a revocation hearing with new speakers and a new DJ booth that's like set up in the middle that it's clearly G to upset the residents so at this point like we need I just you know if there's something else that can be done I if you want to Melissa if you want to propose something in terms of the hours or the entertainment I personally think that that's handcuffing them even more by removing entertainment and removing their hours um so I don't want to do that to them I have a question is plainly audible not code standard plainly audible is the standard in our noise ordinance um for so if if if noise is plainly audible at a distance of 100 fet um after after 11:00 at night that is a it it's a primacia case of a violation of our of our noise ordinance so in essence what the board is is discussing is is ex you know is adopting that standard Around the Clock okay I just wanted to make sure that is code standard it's not it's in the code okay thank so right but but plainly audible here in this this revised is not just for after 11 correct no no my point was just to say clarification that this is a a a measurable standard that code is you know used to enforcing I was just so what do you think of Melissa's concerns do you think this is just going to create a situation where there's complaints every day because it's I mean it's a really I mean I I I I couldn't answer that I I you know I think ultimately reducing hours I would be for reducing hours as well to have it during what what was it you suggested something about during from like 1 in the afternoon to 4 5 in the afternoon something like that what I said was 12:30 or 1 we have 11 to eight now okay yeah that's and I'm suggesting again a probationary period because I want to offer something something meaningful as well tradition we've already offered 12:30 to to 6:30 if you want to modify that we're open for discussion You' come back within 3 months to for a progress report or something of course that would be I mean I'm just we're trying listen we're trying so hard here and it's just unfair to the residents it's awful but to answer your question and to follow on what Nick said plainly audible you know is is the standard after 11: p.m things are generally quieter in the environment at night so usually you can tell that no listen I've called noise complaint I live in a very residential neighborhood there's no commercial stuff in my neighborhood when I hear noise at 12:30 my kids can't sleep I've made I've made a phone call and it's you know you know where it's coming from do you agree that plainly audible should be the standard after 11 yeah I think so absolutely that's that's what it is in Miami and in Miami dead County and in Miami Beach the problem is during the day there's a lot of environmental noise but that's why Mickey that's why we have it's not that's the problem with a deci deciel system is that that can identify the noise but with a person a person can identify where the noise is coming from well the sound monitor we're proposing will you know it's going to try pinpoint it first I would caution I would caution on it's fine that they submitted a report but I would say that that should be reviewed as part of what was suggested um by continuing this for that to be reviewed by our peer reviewer and the speaker we would be happy to do that Mr chair also we've request just face your thought so I wouldn't I wouldn't include reference to that sound stud or decb until that's been reviewed by our peer reviewer that's fair and and just to to your point sorry sorry I interrupted Melissa I'm sorry I just these are things that we requested over the years and we keep getting the same types of reports and I'm not quite sure why we keep having to go back and and do this over and over again it seems that you know solve the problem find the volume control turn it down and just come on I mean this is like I said I'm going to take the phone away I it's just it's just not it's just and to answer your question I appreciate that I know you're being sincere I appreciate it I the problem used to be a wave it was everywhere we've think we solve it and then it's like you know a little bit of wacka but I think we we've won wacka almost right now have you ever heard of acous Defense acous Defence I have not heard of it acous Defence is a noise baffling system that is used in a lot of um uh tennis courts and things like that and and it actually it actually reverbs the the but the speakers are up I mean we've got so I think we're happy to look into that further I think our sound wall does that it does Reverb the sound that's what it you know I'm telling you and it was way worse before but we're open to reducing hours okay there's there's there's two things we need the hours we need the hours reduced it has to be like a a a a end to this for for for for for the residents in the neighborhood and the hours that you guys are allowed it has to be um not disturbing to the resident so it's not that complicated of a problem we have two issues here it has to end at some point and and it has to be while it's while it's going and it has to be much lower and much more tame so it's not that complicated if you guys can't accomplish that then we're moving on and we can't keep doing this yes well I I I can commit to that I mean the hours we suggested something if you guys have something else we're open to it and we can commit again I I know that decb are not an absolutely exact thing but we have a number that has been being used for the last four weeks that seems to be working 88 to 993 we're commit to keep it I think it's important to find out which we can do by doing field testing is go to establish on the west side of Washington Avenue at that level what decel level is created what de what what reduction in deciel levels is needed to have it not plainly audible on the west side of Washington Avenue what does that equate to on the pool deck so we can have an we can have a we're happy to do that as well and I think is that what are you telling me you want to jump in yeah Matt I'm started the same firm um the 93 deel level was done exactly that way with monitoring at just ground level in the neighborhood when uh playing music at different levels on the pool deck like and that was where the 93 was determined so that the same will happen and if we can do it you know uh ground level is one aspect but this rooftop um area is the extra piece that needs to be addressed so but it would definitely happen that same way we would get the monitoring propose you know write up a report with our data and suggestions submit it for the peer review and then come back to you all and I think did you say the hours yeah one what's the time what would be the timeline on that have to be two months we we we need two months for it to be reviewed and I think we just got confirmation I just wanted to make it you know very meaningful one to six not off one to six would be the entertainment would be the unreasonably loud not that that takes away two hours from 6 to8 that takes away 11 to1 so really it's a lot less time and again we don't think we're going to get complaints because we think we figured it out we really feel that way and that's why we're really trying here but if the hours are meaningful I I would commit to that as well the the problem is I mean early on when this first kind of got rebr up again I I think it was it Mr Fisher was saying that it's not the hours are the hours but it's the fact that it's like every single Saturday and you know he wouldn't mind like one Saturday a month or something like that but that's why I have an issue with the hours CU yes thank you for offer you know shortening the hours that's a start but having it every single day and certainly every Saturday for the residents in the meantime while we figure this stuff out I would just propose and and you know it's not a to me like if we can cut down the noise I don't care if you have it the standard is unreasonably loud and we come up with a solution it's not about finding a way to violate you guys or have a noise violation so you know if we want if it's about doing another sound study uh coming back in 30 or 60 days I'm fine with that and I don't need to change this the the unreasonably loud however I do think in the meantime the resident shouldn't have to wait another 60 days before the music is turned down you know what I'm saying so as long as the music is turned down and for the next 60 days you know the the residents aren't hearing it you know I don't we can we can kick the can down the road a little bit more and we commit to keep again what you've had for for the last month at least because there again it's not like why wait till now the changes are always happening we feel we're in a good place now we're commit to keep it at that level that we've had it for these 60 days but you're not you haven't been at a good at a good level I mean there have been complaints there hasn't been one complaint since the last planning board meeting not one well March 25th I know but I'm just telling you days but since that day there has not been one complaint we're we're getting back into where we've been the past 3 years sound studies deciel levels and all these and I said it last time it's like playing games it's just in my opinion it's a delaying tactic that's all it is I understand we're probably not going to get to the point point today we're going to take away the entertainment license um I I count numbers I see that um plainly audible is you know if if that's the best we can do today as a board um I i' make that motion um but you know I I don't we're doing what we've done the past three years I guess last 18 meetings sound studies posting people talking about what the the level should be decel levels it's just it's just round and round and round and meanwhile residents are are complaining I don't think that if we changed it to plainly audible we're going to have a lot of unnecessary uh um or or invalid Code Compliance complaints we may have more but that's where Code Compliance comes in if they go out there could be 100 ft from the building the closest building which I think would be should be anywhere west of on the west side of Washington Avenue um was it better for sorry I was just going to say if if Code Compliance goes out there and they hear noise they'll have to determine where it's coming from if it's not coming from the good time they won't get a a violation but what I will tell you and again I think some of you that were there recognize this there were during the time that we were plainly audible there were times where we were out there with I don't know if you were there Manny but with code I was there with code officers myself on the weekends I went multiple times we would hear a noise two or three places discernably louder than anything heard from our hotel yet we were the one getting the violation and you were there code at that point yes and they determined it was coming from your your property and not the other place they said I can hear and again I'm not I'm just telling you what what I was there I don't think it was you but I there was other that I was with and and our man manager at the time I was told multiple times that because your standard is different even though I'm hearing that that and that louder than you don't they're not in violation you are I have no choice I know it's not fair but I have to give you a violation you're using de level right you're using decb this was not decible this was a plainly audible standard we were we were given violations when other people were louder during these hours I would suggest that we modify as we suggested and continue the revocation modification hearing for 30 days to allow some comment in the meantime time we're planning on having the um the sound study submitted peer-reviewed and then reviewed further in two months but it would allow you and the board to review any sort of complaints that that come in in the meantime if the board changes the standard of plainly audible between now and the next month's meeting would you be able to have a speaker study as well to see that it that it well that's that's what they'd be doing as part of the no that it conforms to the same layout that was originally submitted in that's going to be all done as part of the sounds all right all right we're going to move on Jonathan will you restate your motion which I think is in line with what Mr B suggests and we're going to vote U it's a motion to accept staff's recommendation and to leave the uh the modification revocation hearing open for 60 days I I would suggest um 30 days to allow us to hear input on any sort of complaints that occur between now and next month due to the change in the um audio standard okay for 30 days um and do I need to mention the sound St yes so in addition there will be a sound study and peer review of that sound study with recommendations right and then the board could make any modifications as they deem or necessary next month or the following month okay all right do we have a second just real quick remember that study can happen in 30 days there's no way no we're saying we're right we're not saying that we're saying that that the board is going to review any noise complaint that happen between now and next month sure so they can see how this standard is working but in the meantime the idea is planning on having the sound study submitted peer-reviewed the recommendations in 60 days and you are modifying hours is that correct no that not based upon are you modifying hours Jonathan no well in the staff's recommendation it's just after 800m is is ambient only right we're we're modifying only as we had recommended which is the um the DJ's only permitted between 11 11: a.m. and 8:00 p.m. but we're keeping the standard we're changing the standard to plainly audible all right that that that's the motion let's move on do we have a second I'll second it good okay let's vote well let's just do a one we vote roll call no Mr no Mr no no Mr Alli yes Mr freed yes Mr yes wait hang on I want to change I miss well it needs five votes doesn't it yes it needs five votes okay that's fine so the motion fails four to three okay so um please articulate your opposition or do you want to make a new motion my opposition is due to the fact that while I agree on merit with with what Jonathan said I think we're going to end up in the same place in a month from now right but what unless we can get to a place where code city agrees we can objectively identify that it's coming from the good time or not we're just going to end up in the same place that's my issue with it in my opinion the motion as as stated right is essentially just saying okay you're going to get another what could the motion add that would satisfy you sounds to me like we're not going to pass any motion today and it's going to sit the where so again I don't I don't know if if there's an appetite from the board from this but I would like to see a major restriction on hours and possibly frequency for their DJ you know time slots while still keeping the sound level uh to being unreasonably loud why don't you make a motion and we'll see if it passes because I know that's Melissa's concern so well just to get some additional input I think you also had the same type of feedback so what would you suggest and I can include I would support that I would support um the 1:00 to what was it Melissa 5 530 they were suggesting 1 to you guys suggested 1 to six I would go to 5:30 since it's dinner time and people are trying to come home but it is I mean are you are restricting it only on the weekends is it during every day I mean what are you so so so what what I would like to see and again this is I I want you please make a motion no I'm serious we got it we got it all right pretty big deal I know but I want him to make a motion and then we'll we'll Ash it out all right uh I I just want to say that the reason this took so long to come back is because the good time Hotel couldn't agree on what unreasonably loud meant so do you want do you can you tell us that if a resident can hear the music from the Goodtime hotel at any time from their balcony that's that's from the Arcadia house or any of the other complainants from their balcony if they can hear that is that unreasonably loud is that a that's also plainly audible too a I think I think if they can hear it inside their unit with the windows closed Pro that's probably un reasonably loud that you know that's up to code to decide but probably yes but if someone's outside and they're a block away you know that that that kind of goes towards playing the audible if I'm outside and I can hear a little bit that's probably not un reasonably loud if it if it's blooming in you're outside I mean and that's the problem you're never going to have another violation again with them again and there's there's nothing residents are going to call they're going to say I want to have my windows open I hear Thea constantly it's only 1 to six now but it's every single day and like we're going to get it again it's but but isn't that the whole like the whole noise level isn't that part what we're dealing with right now with all this decel stuff is to to make sure that it's not that kind of loud you know they should be able to hear you know to to put on some music and I should be able to go on my balcony out there and it not be disturbing I could maybe hear in the background but not be disturbing and I'm not a a sound technician but there's somewhere between these that there's not an exaggeration I believe and I think the last month has shown because that's when we've you know found this sweet spot with the decibel levels that we are now at and you know again the hours I I recognize that that really hasn't been the issue but we're willing to do just to to limit potential exposure with the decel and the hours I think it goes it's going to go incredibly long that's also not true the hours have been the issue and I think the frequency has been the issue understood I mean but but but I was just saying you know he was saying that that's not been the main problem but we think combination of it is part of the problem and a combination of all those things will go a long way to addressing this and getting it where it should be all right so I'll I'll take a crack at it um actually before I do that I have an operational question how often do these parties happen I know Mr fiser was saying is that it's it's every I'm just using him because he was he's got he had the videos he was incredibly thoughtful about this I wish he was here how often were they happening Friday Saturday Sunday is when is when they every Friday Saturday Sunday basically yeah Saturday seems to be when whatever reason most the violations happen um Friday and Sunday it's a little bit less Saturday I think he said Saturday that's when we see have SE more violations that's what Mr F referencing I think it was every Saturday but these these events do happen Friday Saturday Sunday there is music there is music during the week but it there's less people so it's less problematic go ahead all right so I'd make a motion to uh accept what staff recommended except for modifying the following hours what section are you in uh section 103 okay so number one the level um for audible it should be not unreasonably loud with hour restrictions 1: to 6:30 p.m. instead of Friday Saturday Sunday I would say that it should be it should be uh Saturday and Sunday and it should happen no more than twice a month and that's what I would try and profer now the the applicant said um one to six are you okay with that or you want to because you said 1 to 6:30 oh sorry originally I think they said 1 to 6:30 yes one 1 to 6 so 1 to 6 I was allowed for the DJ and entertainment level Saturdays and Sundays two times a month two week two weekends a month correct and and specifically the volume shall not exceed was it the 9 90 or 93 debes you can't that's impossible to do that they just said it impossible we shouldn't place any dis all right all right and the sound study that we previously and the sound study that we previously suggested do we have a second can I can I make an amendment can I offer an amendment um we were going to come back in 30 days but I would also include in there a 90 days as well like a 90day uh leaving it open for 90 days because I I agree okay and this is plainly audible or it's plainly a this is this is unreasonably loud so we're cutting down the frequency we're cutting down the hours and again I don't even know if if it's okay with the applicant but just trying to find some middle ground for everybody all right is there a second can I ask a question before you I know we're going back and forth again I believe Michael stated that that plainly audible means that you can understand the exact song you can hear words you can hear words you should you can recognize that it's that it's not just some sort of fuzziness in the background um it's recognizable yes so it's not just hearing the bass in the background that's not plainly audible that that could be something that if it's if it's something that's really thumping that could I believe is plain is plainly audible also conversational conversational or I mean I'm sorry to do keep doing this but I understand but the last we just tried to do plainly Audible and it didn't pass conversational that's ambient versus entertainment so ambient it noise is low music in the background that doesn't interfere interfere with a normal conversation entertainment is louder than that I think I think going this Direction I mean it allows us it gives them some room for to to again Improvement and it allows for the neighborhood to have some expectations of things getting better but I mean there's always a chance of if you guys you know discuss this to death there's a motion do we have a second I'll secondly motion no we have a lot more to do today we got to move on okay I'll do a roll call um Miss Laton yes Mr goldof yes Mr elas yes Mr freden yes Mr needleman just because I don't think it goes far enough I'm voting no and Mr cement yes the motion passes uh six to one okay where's Mickey and now if we can have Matt you got all the you all the oh there I just have one clarification so appreciate everyone trying to find a solution here so it's unreasonably loud two weekends per month only um only on Saturday Sundays I understand that but and one and one to six and don't come back we don't want to do this again because honestly we separate motion just hold on the only I want to clarify now we need a separate motion what on the so it's two weekends per month but on the other weekends we can still have it just it's ambient is that my understanding on the other weekends it's it's loud correct okay so it's not like it's closed corre okay correct understood you and I'll I get a motion to continue Melissa Melissa wait Elizabeth we we need you for a second motion sorry a second motion bring them back a motion right a motion to continue the revocation modification hearing to the May 28th meeting uh I thought we said it with 90 days so I thought you were doing both sorry all right so moved we do them both had one motion we might as well all right second all right we have a second anyone oose all in favor yes anyone okay okay thank you I just rest no no no problem we're going to take a half an hour break for lunch anyway no don't worry 30 and 90 309 [Music] [Music] [Music] he [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] is [Music] High oh [Music] [Music] [Music] take [Music] [Music] High [Music] take [Music] it [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] la [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] he he [Music] [Music] Che [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] my [Music] High [Music] [Music] take [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] High [Music] [Music] me me take me me [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to [Music] begin please stand by we are going on air in 5 5 4 3 two one the okay everybody welcome back to the continuation of the April 25 2024 planning board meeting um I have a question the is the people that are here for the lot split are they here that's you yeah all right okay we're going to go forward I was going to move it out of line but um but we'll go forward so we're on planning board file 23647 single family home lot split subdivision on 920 South Bay actually 9910 920 Southshore Drive and this should hopefully be much quicker than the items earlier this morning can you promise yes the promise I promise to um so this application that filed requesting a division of land lot split to divide the existing site comprised of three pled Lots into three individual um buildable parcels and the staff report begins on page 83 of the board packages as noted in the report this site comprises three pled Lots with a total area of 33,3 67 Square ft the property zoned RS3 the minimum lot size for the RS3 zoning district is um a lot area of 10,000 square ft and a lot width of 50 ft after divided each lot will consist of between between 10,954 Ft to 11,38 Ft for the corner lot and they will each exceed the minimum lot width um of 50 ft by between 68 ft to um 69 ft so if you look at the um the analysis provided on page 90 of the board packages you can see how this lot really is an anomaly and that all the other lots that we looked at between and this area consist of individual platted Lots this is the largest lot which is comprised of three lots so as split is proposed it would be actually be consistent with the remainder of the Lots along this area so actually more consistent more consistent yes right now it is it is out of character as is too large so we do an analysis of the um square footage of the surrounding neighborhood in this case these Waterfront Parcels we noted the average unit size is about 30% now the planning board as part of their discretion in approving a lot split they can place restrictions on on the on the sites or future development on the sites typically the board will place a condition saying that the um um um the homes do require going to the drb design R viw board for approval and the board will typically say that they should not requ need variances or waivers you also the board can take a look at the size of the home and lot coverage and can recommend um changes to the unit size and lot coverage compared to what the code allows if this was not a lot split application so as part of our recommendation in review and Analysis of the surrounding area we are recommending that um that the unit size be capped at 45% versus the 50% that's normally allowed we don't have an objection to them going to the maximum 30% for lot coverage for two story home but we are recommending that they reduce the overall unit size for each of the new homes um down to 45% that's included in our conditions and is that for consistency with the other that's that's typically what the board has done in the past if um the neighborhood character has a unit size of around 30% which is typical there are some instances for example on pal or hibiscus islands where we have had cases where the drb in the past allowed a unit size up to 70% we do analysis of C neighborhoods you'll find that that the established character is more towards that 50% requirement in that case staff and the board has not recommended you know lowering the the um unit size but we feel in this case um a unit size clap of 45% would be more consistent it's still much larger than what's there right now but when you're factoring you know additions to the existing homes got we feel it's appropriate to cap the unit size at 45% that I'll turn it over to the applicant for their presentation it's all yours good afternoon Mr chair members of the board staff Michael and Nick um happy to be here and cozy with you all in this uh tighter room uh Nicholas Rodriguez Burke cell Fernandez Len and tapz 200 southb g Boulevard representing the Luis Jose Moya revocable trust uh that's Mr moya's property and I'm joined by Julian legard he's our designer uh Mr Moya should be on Zoom if he made it through this morning's uh hearings and my colleague Mickey morero uh we do have a digital presentation if we could just call call that up so I think staff summarized the the area and the lot split pretty well Al so we'll just get into it as you can see from the area the lot is completely in congruent with what's surrounding it we're a waterfront lot on the north side of Normandy aisle and we're a corner lot uh at the intersection of Jon street so we don't have a neighbor on our east side and we have a neighbor on our West Side that home's currently under construction and you'll see the plans for that shortly uh so just to summarize the proposed lot split the current lot is 33,300 67 Square ft um it's by far the largest lot in this neighborhood I think it's the largest lot on all of the Normandy aisles we've done a few other lot splits in the area this is bigger than those um the three proposed lots are around 11,000 square ft two of them are 10,954 the one at the corner is slightly larger um and what I call the standard lot in this area is 10,200 sare ft and it's basically what a typical one square lot would be some of them are a little bit larger cuz they're along the curve uh but a typical lot is ,200 ft so we're slightly over that um actually pretty significantly over the minimum um in the neighborhood so getting into the proposed homes and Julian will give a a brief design presentation shortly but there's just a couple things I wanted to point out um that they're highquality designed homes they're unique and that they're not designed exactly the same each one and uh the front setback which we're looking at the rear of the property here but the front setback of the Second Story we're providing a 40ft setback rather than than a 35t setback to try to mitigate any adverse impacts of the larger sized homes um we are proposing homes that are at the 50% unit size consistent with the underlying zoning District regulations and what the code says is that we try to mitigate any adverse impacts we're trying to mitigate any adverse impacts by setting back that second story and not looming over the street um you can also see from the design that the massing of the home is kind of broken up uh consistent with what the code requires and the homes are currently designed in a manner that does not request any variances or waivers are these spec homes so one of the homes is for the owner to live in and then he was plans to sell the other two yes so they're spec they're not custom homes for buyers they're specul you know well these have been we're prep we're presenting a design that has actually been pretty you know pretty well flushed out uh eventually a buyer will come and they could propose to change things got it go ahead um so the we did do neighborhood Outreach we prepared a letter uh Julian actually lives in the house he hand delivered the letter to the neighbors um with plans and our proposal uh so far we we did not receive any objections uh we didn't receive any response at all uh so we're interpreting that as uh we're not aware of any objections to this lot size or our proposed unit size of 50% uh as staff mentioned they did conduct an area analysis I think it's pretty clear it jumps out at you from the aerial how in congruent this lot is uh compared to the rest of them and this neighborhood in particular most of the lots are single Lots some neighborhoods they're you know double Lots along the Waterfront or one and a half times Lots along the Waterfront most of the Lots here are single platted Lots consistent with what we're doing we're following the existing underlying ploted lot lines so we're really restoring uh what the condition should be and what the condition is in the rest of the neighborhood with respect to unit size um we are uh pushing back on staff's recommendation of 45% um when you look at the raw numbers of what the unit sizes in the neighborhood are uh you see that any home that's been built in the last 60 years has been built over 45% unit size uh typically people aren't building uh newer Homes at below 45% unit size and that's because the the needs uh for new homes has changed uh T modern homes are typically larger it's possibly because uh kids are staying in their homes longer living with their parents longer uh things are less affordable uh so they need more space to accommodate sometimes uh adult roommates as I like to call them um but we are proposing Homes at 50% and we wanted to point out that there are three homes uh just within the same neighborhood that are at 50% and another home that's at 47% and we're going to go uh one kind of go through those so the home that's right to our East our immediately adjacent neighbor just is finishing or completing a renovation um and this property was noted as vacant on staff's analysis uh because it's under construction it's not complet completed it's about to be completed the unit size is actually 54% it's greater than the 50% our immediate adjacent neighbor um so we can't impact them with a 50% unit size home if they've actually got a bigger home than what we're proposing um I believe they got that 54% because it was a renovation of an existing home when you look at the plans it's essentially a new home um similarly the home at 860 Southshore Drive it's a modern style home proposed at 47% unit size it's actually the second largest lot in the neighborhood less than half the size of our lot um so the unit size isn't all the way at 50% but still greater than the 45% that staff is proposing to limit our property um and just down the street at 770 Southshore Drive it's a 10,200 ft lot one of those standard lot sizes that I mentioned earlier and they're at exactly their 50% limit these are all within you know within the area analysis and within the same street of the property and they're all homes that have been developed since 2021 in the recent Trend any other Home in the area has not it is I think the last home was from 1960 uh so more than 60 years old so with that I will turn it over to Julian to give a brief design presentation and here you can see the renderings of the homes in context I just wanted to point out the home at 930 Southshore Drive our immediate neighbor that's at 54% you see the photo there and then you see 860 Southshore Drive at the top of the screen at the top of the image um so these homes really even at their 50% proposed size are not out of context with what existing and in fact staff's report expressly said that the homes were not incompatible um so we were a little bit surprised to see the 45% uh proposed unit size restriction so jul thank you can good afternoon um I'm Julian lard from L studio and I'm the designer for the three uh three house um so as Nick mentioned this is the second time actually we live on the island uh we are currently actually with my wife we just moved to 900 Health Shore we love the island and um we fell in love actually with a lot because there is a lot it's a noasis um so our goals for the design was to really respect the Integrity of the lot and capture um the vegetation and the landscape so for us you know our approach was focusing on designing homes and that also resonates with human scale U because as you know we have one like gigantic cl to right now it could be built you know at like a 15,000 square fet but now we prefer something that is more human scale uh Jose the owner is going to live on the right hand side and we want to have three different house that um respect the environment but are not the same even it's you know it's like we going to design it we have three different approach for each of these house um so we can break you know kind of this repeat process where you always see the same type of house so our goal and our approach is to have a lot of vegetation create a no Isis and have different type of architecture for each of those lot so our goal is I'm sorry um our goal is to create um something as I've said that is human scale each of these house will receive personal attention to ensure that every square footage um is purposeful and conductive to comfortable living um and our aim is to create residencies that se seamlessly blend with the natural surrounding utilizing a lot of natural materials and preserving as much Greenery as currently present um on the rout these are the two renderings of the homes from the front and from the rear um and then this would be our proposed modified condition of approval and one thing we just wanted to point out is just you know previously the maximum unit size was 70% it was brought down to 50% uh some years ago so there are homes in the city you know larger much larger than 50% um and what we're asking for here is just to be able to develop the Lots consistent with any what anybody else would be able to do with a vacant lot um this property owner actually owned two of the Lots purchased the third lot it's a vacant lot uh centrally next to the house you can see it on the aerial um and if he would have never unified the site he would never have be facing a potential limitation on the the unit size and if we just think about the logical outcome of a future uh homeowner here what we're going to do is limit the value of someone's future home that they will eventually sell or or you know maybe multiple own owners down the road uh their value is going to be limited over a 5% difference in unit size which really amounts to 500 or so square feet which is imperceptible from the street and actually makes a big difference for an architect who's trying to design a home that's an extra bedroom that's larger closet sizes these are things that are valuable to homeowners and have zero impact to anybody who's standing on the street they cannot tell whether a home is 500 ft larger or 500 ft smaller um so with that we' respectfully request approval of the Lots split with this modified condition to allow for a 50% unit size and we're available for any questions thank you okay thank you anyone else in Chambers speak on this anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom there's actually one person on Zoom David um aler hi David do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth I do thank you you have two minutes uh thank you I live at 95 Southshore Drive across the street couple houses over I've actually lived in Miami Beach since 1971 I've live in my current residence um since 1991 um I'm not opposed to the splitting of the lot into three lots I do have some quality of life concerns the first is that there's not supposed to be any demolition or construction before 8 a.m. I walk my dog between 6:45 and 7:30 every morning and just about every project the construction and demolition starts way before that I hope the city is going to um enforce the 8 o00 Rule and I hope the owner will too um every construction project on this island causes ridiculous parking problems there every the trucks Vehicles all park in the street there's a lot of speeding stop sign running um there's no enforcement by the police um and the that parking situation is is a little bit of a curve is going to cause a hazard a dangerous condition I hope that the city and the owner and the the Builder is going to take the proper precautions to prevent any accidents um the building department has caused unnecessary flooding in the 800 block by the way they allow driveways to be built and I certainly hope that on the 900 block where I live the city is not going to allow the driveways to be built in a way that will cause flooding and last thing I want to say is that there's a project next door to this proposed development and it's taken at least four years it's still under construction it appears that every time um they run out of money they stop working on the house it's taking forever and I hope that this project the no 9009 10 920 will be um done in a a you know sufficient amount of time and not go on and on and on forever that's what I wanted to say and I hope the city's going to enforce their rules thank you Charles is there any do we need to put a condition about the time of uh of construction no because that's that's regulated by the building department okay as well as there there's a requirement for a construction and parking management plan that's something that's added as a condition of the deer be approval as well as it's required by the be addressed right okay and if I there's no other speakers if I could just um provide some comments to what's been stated in terms of there are no other speakers no other speakers oh great then I'm going to close the public hearing go ahead thanks so just to clarify the city's never had an as of right increase of 70% unit size the code was 50% it did allow um through design review board approval you could make an application to drb and have the drb could approve up to 70% unit size that ended about 10 years ago and from my recollection no properties on this island received approval to go above 50% they were all approved um for areas and on the um the islands the Venetian um Venetian Islands Palm hibiscus those are the areas where um the Deb did Grant a higher unit size um regards to the property next door um they could not go above there's been no approval to goove 50% I'm not sure where the numbers come from it's from the building permit plans Michael that's so above 50% building it's an architecturally significant home I think they they that's that's so there is a provision where for the renovation of architecture significant home as a incentive to retain that home then administratively staff can improve a unit size of up to 60% and lot coverage of up to 40% and then lastly regarding the but as a matter of right Michael they can go to 50% who the um the applicant so you're recommending for 4% they want 50 there's no as of right because it's a lot split so the board can the board can Institute any um additional requirements they wish in terms of the right but remind me why if if existing homes were allowed to go up to 50% why you're suggesting 45 because that's to be more in line with the established character of the neighborhood so some one of the criteria that the board looks at in terms of reviewing um lotpot applications is to review the Ming studies and review the that's why we provide the we provide the overall average mean unit size for the neighborhood so we can so the board can determine whether or not the applicant's proposal is in line or maybe out of character with with the neighborhood and our typical recommendation is if it is if the average unit size in in the context area is the typical average city wi which is 30% then we feel a 50% bump in that is appropriate up to 45% okay and then lastly just to clarify in the setbacks you mentioned that there was an additional setback provided for the second floor that's a code requirement so the code allows you to have a garage or a single story structure at a setback of 20 feet and then any second floor portion has to be set back 40 feet so that's something that is a code requirement okay and Mr chair just on that one issue we we agree with everything Michael said essentially that 70% again it wasn't as of right you had to go to drb but before Nick was a lawyer I had to do that many many times for drb applications and often times we would get 68 67% U maybe not in this neighbor Hood but everywhere um and what the city commission did in 2014 said okay no more of these increases we want everything at 50% I recognize when you do these analysis to see if there's a compatibility issue but really what we found is that every home that's been built in the 2000s is more consistent with the 50% if you look at the average yeah there's homes from the 50s and 60s in this neighborhood that are in the 30 35% range but that's not the current Trend so these these lots are actually slightly bigger than the average lot size in the neighborhood so we really see no reason why these three lots should be different from everybody El but I think what Michael is saying is that you may be right that the more current homes are but there he's saying in the context of the existing neighborhood yeah but this is these are going to be every new home that's been built is is in the 50% range and there's one that's more we just want there's really no reason I don't that I see for these three lots to be different every new home that's been built when people come to build a brand new house they're pushing the limit going the maximum yeah so there wasn't a lot ofl isue if someone just bought a lot in there right would they be able to go to 50% they can go to 50% all right so it's only because they're seeking a split that we can okay can I can I ask the designer what what would be the impact of that 5% so like from your opinion um it's really about the usage of the house because you know we're always struggling upstairs you know to put like an extra bigger closet like you know the size of the rooms and what we realize we're always short by you know couple hundred square feet so while from the outside these 500 square feet are not really noticeable I guarantee when I meet with MS and I tell her hey you have to shower your closet she's tell me like no no no I want a bigger closet so I have a smaller room so it's more about the the the pragmatic approach of the interior of the architecture so as those 500 square fet for the usage of the house are very important so I guess I guess for from the outside perspective it's like 500 square feet yeah it's barely noticeable and that's why you know I I I I agree with Michael it's it's the code we respect the code uh so all the setbacks are respected we're going to enclose that with a lot of landscape so really from the neighborhood perspective you're not going to notice it but living inside the house with when you arrive to a staircase you have a nice hallway a good size closet it's it's not only just a resale value it's about like living in the house where those 500 square feet you can enjoy them uh and and so the loot flip procedure does give you the ability to restrict certain things one of the restrictions with lot splits every home that's a subject of a lot split like these three will have to go to the design review board so it's an extra layer of design requirements and and and eyes on this on these buildings that wouldn't exist for everyone else but basically you would have three lots in this whole neighborhood that 45% and every other lot of the same size is at 50 and we just don't think that makes sense but it's not every other lot at that time theity recently built but when they get redeveloped you know that's what they have they're all permitted to go to 50% except these three only it doesn't make sense I get it I I I totally sympathize with it my the whole I guess my catchup is I mean I guess 's a lot of homes in that neighborhood where people have been living there since the 90s since probably the 80s and maybe even before that doing three monster houses not monster houses but big houses at once with at the 50s that's my I guess hold up um and I guess by doing and I guess my just talking out out loud here uh or thinking out loud you know the pro that 5% does that really make a huge difference I don't know maybe to the neighborhood if you're adding three at the same time it does U so I mean I'm I'm wondering whether there I guess I'll hear from everybody else what they're thinking I think it's we had a case similar to this a few months ago right where there's a a lot split three and same thing and they they uh same same thing where it was recommended 45% they wanted 50 and we ended up approving 50 so with consistency what we've done before and based on what you just said and What U Mickey was explaining is at the end of the day it doesn't really change much as far is it change nothing as far as setbacks or visual for people in the neighborhood right it's a difference of 5 600 square feet for the people living in the house um and I'm I mean to me I mean as a personal taste I much rather see Big Lots with you know smaller proportion being occupied by house and having big green space but but at this point when we're looking at something like this it really doesn't do much of a difference in the visual of the impact in neighborhood you're still going to have as much construction and as much going on um it's really just for the living space of the people and if they're not asking for something that's not allowed it's what it's what people are doing right now that's my point if every other home just because they weren't split is entitled to 50% you know and and if I have to accept the architect's statement that from the outside you don't notice it it's really inside that's kind of where I'm leaning but yeah and then the other one there were neighbors who were having issues with it this one doesn't seem like we have that issue um I have a question are are all of these houses going to be constructed at the same time currently that's not the plan the plan would be to construct the owners first and like I said the other two would be for sale do you know the timing of that jul do we have a timeline I mean I I don't want to subject them to you know the neighbors to like was saying you know 10 years of I would just say look they all have to go to drb first so after we get through today the first one I my my guess is Julian is going to focus on Mr Mo's home that's going to get drb first and I can't tell you today exactly the timeline but there definitely will be one first then he'll have to focus his efforts on after the building perimet plans and the building perimeter is submitted for that one home the second one will go to drb so we're probably talking about a good year year and a half between them so they won't be exactly at the same drb at the same time no that's not the plan okay um one more question your side setbacks in between the the homes tell me about those no I don't I'm not interested in your I'm interested in the lot line I think it's 10 feet Cod require 10t the code requirement yeah that's and there's some ofs side yards too that would to apply as well right there's some and then the not a lot the corner lot has larger setbacks because it's a corner lot right and but there's the notch cut out of the home right so only a portion of the home is set back 10 ft do we have I know in the past we've talked about it but and I know we just mentioned that's about enforcement for the time of construction but is there any way for us to include in our approval like an either a stipulation or agreement that they will not start construction until 800 a. you know I don't know if that's part of this sort of that's what I asfor I think that's really subject to the the hours of the building code so I wouldn't I wouldn't get involved in that okay line if if if look I I understand that the neighbor had no concerns with our application but just things in the neighborhood if they violate if anybody building a home violates those times a code can come in and give a violation sure but but I'm just in the last one where that you were talking about Melissa we I didn't we require like high vegetation on one side and so that so that it would block The View for the neighbor I think we kind of discussed with them at the time the parking plan their situation was different as there was one lot that was left wide open that they were going to use that to be you know putting all their construction workers and in this case I'm assuming they have a side street that might be part of the way they're going to solving it or or I see in our neighborhood happens all the time there's a construction site they and if there's somewhere nearby where there's an open uh lot they will rent out that lot for it to to so but but again to to the to Michael's point that's not for us necessarily to be woring so much it's for the Code Compliance already has rules in place for that where there's parking plans that are to be followed when they're when they apply for all these license for these houses right I guess if there's a way to make it easier for the resident who's got an issue to not be chasing after the the are you demoing the houses at the same time there's only one there now oh there's only one so they can use that other lot to park and whatever construction you're going to fence that off and nobody's going to hear anything we'll submit a construction manager plan a public I just want to reiterate it's very important because that's not we had last time we did reach out to all of our immediate neighbors we did mention 50% in that reach out and not one person objected think that's that was my wait that may ask one more question why haven't you have you only reached out to your neighbors once and you've only and you didn't get any response but did you try again or we sent a letter to them and and yeah you got to speak in the mic you got to speak in the mic sorry yeah we live in the neighborhood we meet actually our neighbors all the time and we tell them the plan we told them we brought a letter so I mean I don't know if there is anything else more and they get notice of this hearing right corre I justb Scott I understand where the city's coming from um terms of trying to limit it to keep the you know the the the design of the neighborhood all to together I mean but we see all around the city that you know the homes going that are just seem out of place but but you know as you mentioned you can take every home around them and if they decided to tear their home down and rebuild they'll go to 50% so I'm I don't have an issue with that um but because of that I I know you mentioned that um uh right now there's no variances proposed in the design I would put it add to this uh approval no variances at all are permitted we have we have that as a condition so okay that okay Matthew we're good okay okay Jonathan go ahead move it I would make a motion to approve pass recommendation with the exception of the 45 to bump it to 50 second okay all in favor yes all in favor anyone opposed okay motion passes 7 I never know when we can do a I think as long as long as we have a a sense that there's no opposition I don't do a thank you very much you're welcome and Mr chair you can you can always request a roll call but otherwise The Voice vote should be fine okay all right all right uh next is planing board file PB 23625 1515 Washington Avenue and 1500 Washington Avenue New I'm sorry was 1500 Collins Avenue new hotel this application is requesting a conditional use approval for a neighborhood impact structure for a new sstory hotel exceeding 50,000 Square ft and a neighborhood impact establishment that includes an alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant located on the top floor of a building which is located with within 200 ft of a property containing a residential unit now if you note on page um7 of the board packages staff has outlined the uses including the um hours of operation and occupancy and number of seats um for each use staff is supportive of the application however um as indicated in a report the app applicant has indicated they are not proposing any outdoor entertainment or entertainment on the property however their sound study mentions decel level for ambient music which our our peer reviewer believes is too high that's something that will be evaluated at the time of a onsite sound study so we just wanted to note that based upon the applicants um sound study they they that they prepared we believe they're going to have to lower the volume slightly to make sure they comply with the the requirement that that um that music not interfere with normal conversation and that's something that will be will be um reviewed at the time of of the sound study where the applicant their consultant our PE our peer reviewer and staff will be reviewing with that we are supportive of the application I'll turn it over to the applicant for the presentation good afternoon Emily Balter Burk hardel Fernandez Laren and tapenz offices at 200 South biscane Boulevard I'm here today on behalf of the developer of 1509 and 15115 Washington Avenue uh with me is ownership Mr Jimmy Resnik as well as the developers uh Zer CR bomb and Gavin creno who is a resident just down the street at tenth and Meridian uh our project Architects St starchitects uh from architectonica Bernardo for brasia and LU and Ulisses isiro uh we have our traffic engineer wien Vargas as well as our sound engineer Andy sordo um who's on Zoom uh some preliminary stuff to get out of the way we can put up our our presentation uh so this project is part of a unified development site with the property located at 1500 Collins Avenue uh We've included and and my colleague Nicholas passed out a letter of support uh for our our half of the development site and we've submitted into the record a disclosure of support uh pursuant to section 2.1.1 of the resiliency code we're here today respectfully requesting uh consistent with staff's recommendations approval of a conditional use use permit for new construction greater than 50,000 sare ft as well as a neighborhood impact establishment for a project uh based on the number of seats as well as our rooftop restaurant um proximity to residential uses uh the flag for this project is cloud 1 it's a European operator uh they're not a party operator and we're also going before the uh historic preservation board for a special certificate of appropriateness uh which includes a waiver for on Street loading in this historic district um and a variance for a architectural projection uh the rest of the project is consistent with the resiliency code I will now pass the presentation to Bernardo for brasia to go over the site the context and just briefly walk you through the project and then I will go through some of the operational conditions and conclude thank you right before you start in my bad um any disclosures to make Scott um I think in that same conversation I spoke with Gail about this as well okay no disclosures I think just the emails emails and spoke with ownership sorry spoke with ownership previously about the project okay I spoke with the owner of the property okay thank you go ahead Bernardo nice to see you yeah good to see you everybody good afternoon um you see on the image the location of the site I think you described the bero if you don't mind we you pull the mic up yeah oh sorry there you go yeah the site is a red L-shaped parcel that you see there it's um one of the unusual aspects it doesn't have an alley in the back so it has to be serviced from the front but there are other properties in South Beach that have that condition um we are part of a larger piece of property but this has been already settled on the legal side um you see the existing building today you um the existing building has been tampered with because as you see that turquoise band is over what used to be the original building had travertin um and there's a second building that you see on the lower left that is also travertine um and U one of the issues on this site is that this uh site is the road is going to be raised so is the sidewalk so in light of that um we have we're going to rebuild those two facades as they are and the uh the second one not as they are because we're going to build it as the original you know without that um inter that um unfortunate um aspect of adding that turquoise band in front um it is uh um we you can see here um the the original building and uh and here you can see the proposed plan in yellow is the the public spaces of the hotel that are um corresponding to the smaller building that you saw there that sort of articulated in and out angular building that is in in the um in the travertina as well and um everything you see in pink is the second building the linear building that uh will be part of the restaurant and uh uh you see uh whoops yeah there we go you can see here the upper levels of the building they follow quite strictly the rules of uh how the building is um has a planer breake um has all the components that are required in their setback uh so that the original buildings are remaining looking like one story they were so it's not just a facade and then something rising from top of it it's actually a second building somewhere in the distance in the back um with a pool on the south side of course where we want to catch the Sun and uh you can see here the rest of the levels until you get to the top floor where you see the all day restaurant of the hotel there's breakfast lunch and dinner in that restaurant with a Terrace Facing East and has Terra facing south and Views in all directions um and uh I think that's uh in essence the arrangement of the plants uh these are the loading requirement this is the loading the designated loading the city has assigned for this area where how we would load into the building and uh uh these are some of the um aspects of where pedestrians will be able to enter into the building and all of them have been discussed with the planning department and um and are workable uh and if there's anything that is important here that I need to point out is that at the first part of the building at the beginning of the building there will be these steps that you see there and ramps we because uh uh because we had to prepare for the eventual raising of the sidewalk another 18 Ines and eventually the road Rises and the building will be as it used to be at the level of the of the new sidewalk um you saw the difference between the previous and then you see how the gray Rises and mat and meets the building itself um the building has um this sort of feature of these series of frames that are in the stone and we pick up on that and create a more modern version of it that you will see in a second as I'm going to uh take you through the renderings because they show you the three-dimensional aspect of the building but you see the facade wraps equally front and back is seen equally from all directions from the garden from the front from the back is all like a front facade and U but but I'll take you here there we go you can see here the building you see how we picked up on the frames that are part of the original design below and actually floated them and intersected them in all 90 degrees to each other and they crossed path past each other to create the sort of G play of the of the different frames and U uh but you see there of course the original building restra restored with active use the entire length of the block everything is the restaurant the Galler the lobby everything is activated along the street um you can see here when it raises of course we have the renderings both ways you can see here the low and then the high uh once um once the building is elevated and it is here you can see the view of the restored building and the same Limestone with the same zigzagging facade that it has and that is the entrance to the hotel that it marks the entrance that is different than the entrance to the the front edge of the restaurant so it's truthful to the original boundary of the two buildings and uh um I think that uh gives you a summary you can see it from a little bit further away and uh um and I think that's um right thank you thank you Bernardo so I will try to use the rest of the four minutes to briefly walk you through the operations of this site uh one unique aspect of this European operator is that they've focused on non-entertainment amenities for their guests uh here you can see they've included in their Lobby which is not very large um they've included co-working space and lounge space uh they've also included a theater and a library and further um to the east of the site cut off from this photo there's also a yoga laon amenity space for for the guests um the the lounge lobby area connects internally and from from Washington Avenue to the ground floor restaurant uh the ground floor restaurant operator has not will be it will be a third party operator that has not been selected but we are building into this cup uh their maximum seat count their hours of operation as well as the agreement that we are not proposing any entertainment so when they do go to find a third party operator we will have those uh conditions already in place with this approval the the significance of this support is that because he's he's the property owner that's part of this parcel correct okay and and the consideration I know it was for him for his support correct what was the what was like the background of that so these two uh property owners are unified by a covenant in lie of unity of title as well as an easement agreement uh the easan agreement has certain conditions such as um uh over views over the property which is part of the reason why our pool is located on the south side of the property um our project also includes certain floor area from what would be available floor area for their project so for all those reasons in an abundance of caution we included the disclosure consistent with uh the resiliency code so you're I guess you're getting extra ra uh f for this because you're taking it from that side of the property correct well it's it's they're for zoning purposes they're all considered one property right so if the properties were separated then it would be considered a transfer but Miami Beach doesn't have a mechanism for transfer it's viewed as one property and that's how we achieve the floor area were they unified before correct they were unified in 2017 okay and and we're complying with those agreements and because we've had negotiations and conversations and we received a letter of support in an abundance of caution there is that disclosure of support requirement in the code and we just wanted to comply that's that's what I thought I just wanted to make sure I understood thank you yeah covering all our bases just in case um pool deck is only open to uh Hotel guests um as well as the uh seating area on the pool deck uh the rooftop restaurant is what floor is the pool deck on above the ground floor it's on the second floor okay and it's how many how many What's the total stores how many stories uh seven stories okay so on the seventh story there are additional uh Hotel units as well as a restaurant that will be operated by the hotel this is meant for their breakfast um accommodations it will be closed to the public until 5:00 p.m. for after 5:00 p.m. for dinner service it will be open to the public again we're not proposing any entertainment at all um quickly I wanted to add uh because I think it's important we do not have on-site parking we do anticipate 65 employees uh the applicant has agreed to provide every employee a county um public transit pass uh and we also have ample bicycle parking within the project uh the trigger for our neighborhood impact establishment portion of our request is also because of the number of seats uh for this project the way that the project is analyzed although we have two separate venues that will be operated separately uh the number of seats are the combined number of seats so we do trigger the ni um above for a non-entertainment establishment that concludes our presentation our whole team is available either here or on Zoom to answer any questions and I'll Reserve time for rebuttal thank you okay anyone in Chambers to speak on this Alfredo good afternoon Alfredo Gonzalez off the Record uh I represent interama USA which is the property owner you you've been asking about uh as part of this UniFi development site there are partiel one two and three Haden Hall and the old Campton Apartments so we do have an agreement where f aror is transferred uh there is nothing being proposed at this hotel the hall that's currently operating your proposal today is just for the Washington site that uh Emily went through so and if I can just also add a clarification that I discussed with alfredo because um our our draft cop includes the entire property we want to amend that to exclude the Hayden Hall and the parcel that Alfredo has mentioned since that's not part of the development so we would modify um on page 113 the board packages to remove in in Verma USA Corporation from the cup and then in the legal description on page 118 and 18 119 we're going to remove the legal description that applies to the parcel that um Alfredo is representing and only apply it to 1509 and 1515 Washington Avenue which is where the subject new development is proposed to take place okay any issue with that no we're in BR okay great thanks Alfredo thank anyone else in Chambers anyone on Zoom real quick Alfredo uh what so tell what's in the alar space now um it's a hotel the axis Axel Hotel oh okay I got it so thanks anybody on Zoom Michael yes we have a couple speakers on Zoom the first is um Steph V hi Steph do you swear that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you you have two minutes okay um I've been a restaurant owner there for 24 years Sor can you just can you say where you're located where your your residence is or your business well I'm I'm actually a business owner it's 1505 Washington Avenue okay thanks and we've been there 24 years um and I just am trying to get some clarity because as a restaurant owner you know you look to selling your business one day to retire and I haven't been able to do that because I haven't been able to get a lease since 2013 so since then I've been trying to grow my business on my own to see where else we can go and there's just been no Clarity like are we getting picked out you know recently I heard the tenants like the the new landlord wants to know who the better tenants are and our name was given because our our section of our of that building is only being remodeled it's not being demolished you know so there's just a lot of I just need to know you know this is my livelihood and my employees Liv hood and I just need some clarity like is 1505 getting torn down or are we are we able to stay in there are we able to get a new lease can we have first right of refusal because we've been a tent there for so long like I want Clarity I think it's fair all right um that's a question for the applicant okay ma'am did you hear that question uh would you like us to respond during robotto or you'd like me to respond now yeah I want you to respond now while she's on the zoom call of course so the and speaking of the mic if you don't mind thanks thank you the structure of this uh application is that we represent the developer um the owner is here today at the after the approval of these applications my understanding is that is when the property the applicant will close on the property and become the owner and you know they're available and willing to speak with her about a future lease agreement okay but it will be sold at the conclusion yeah I don't know how you have guarantees I guess to the extent you can tell her that she'll be considered correct for the space okay all right we have another caller uh Troy Wright hi Troy you remain under you have two minutes yeah thank you uh Troy Wright executive director of the Washington Avenue business improvement district um I guess it goes without saying that U Washington Avenue is in need of beautification um although we've made tremendous strides over the last many years we still have a long ways to go um but it also goes without saying that in order to do what we need and to go where we want to go we need something like this we need an amazing new hotel um that can help reshape the look and the feel of the Avenue um so if you look very carefully uh at the location intended for this hotel um I believe or we believe it would immediately enhance the Avenue and add um physical and mental transformation that the community um and I would dare say politicians and tourists have been waiting for for some time to attract new clientele to the area so the urban infield project with the I believe 268 hotel rooms will keep Washington Avenue and Miami Beach active and equally important and and really difficult to find in in common times is um an eager developer that really wants to support um the district and do what's best for Miami Beach Washington Avenue so uh we 100% Advocate U for this project thank you thank you next that concludes our callers on Zoom okay all right we'll close the public hearing any questions from the board if not someone want to move it I have questions I'm sorry discuss sorry um me questions discussion discussion okay um I have I feel like and I feel like I'm looking at a future good time Hotel 200 foot rooms rooftop no no entertainment now could come back want rooftop entertainment I I I I'm I'm uncomfortable and I don't know how to get comfortable with that I don't know how to get comfortable with 200 foot micro units I don't I okay Scott Scott we'll start Le we'll do an orderly fashion go ahead um I um I have property down the block from this this property so um I know kind of what the condition Washington Avenue is in there and and I would tell you that any development there is is or I don't want to say any development but um any kind of progress there is a good direction um I'm not so convinced that another we need another hotel in the city um I'd love to see something else go there but I you know I understand they they can you know it's own for hotel they can put a hotel there however looking and knowing the neighborhood and looking at the um you know what they're proposing I see two two rather um large issues with that that you know it may take some maneuvering but I think they can be addressed um one is something that Elizabeth just mentioned noise um yeah I mean when I first looked at this that's that's the first thing that came to my mind I understand you're there's no entertainment but there's still speakers on a pool deck and as we know you can turn the volume up on speakers um so to me entertainment just a DJ um but speakers is it's it's it's crazy it's just it's something that you know obviously we've seen today city has a lot of trouble um uh controlling so I I I don't know what you can do other than agree not to have speakers on that pool deck um maybe you could suggest something else but but I I be I would not want to see that happening there um you know right next door to you or I guess it's technically part of the parcel in Haden Hall they have an outdoor C Courtyard there they're not loud a lot but when they are that could be heard blocks away it happens but not often um and I just I my fear is that's going to be the new Norm so that's that's a huge concern of mine um the other one is that you have no and this is where it gets a little tricky no um off Street loading facilities um it's not a small hotel um and you have a lot of uses in there um you know I drive down Washington Avenue quite a bit and I'd say nine times out of 10 going south on Washington um I make a right turn on 15th street but I have to get in the left lane and then kind of go back in the right toward the end of the block because the hotel across the street has their their valet there and there are constantly cars being loading unloading people being dropped off um I see that same thing happening on for this hotel um also you have you have again it's not a small hotel you have deliveries you have um uh you know people coming and going trash and I see all that happening on Washington Avenue so that's something that you to get my support needs to be addressed you have again it's it's technically one development site I know City doesn't like doing this but you know maybe maybe a curb cut there would would um alleviate some of that and you work something out with that little Courtyard there and maybe you can have a little sort of an Alleyway off of Washington Avenue to take some of that traffic off the street um so you know other than those two issues I you know I I'm somewhat torn I'd like to see something happened there because that's a a a rough stretch of Washington Avenue um but but I don't want to trade one negative for another um so those are my my two two issues that I think you know can be resolved but to get my my my full support I they need to be through the chair would you like me to respond sure for board member so uh one thing I will add about the unit sizes um in order to make these projects viable we're we're actually not going down to what we could at one 75 we are keeping it at 200 and we're Max we're using as much square footage as we can to maximize the amenity space uh we hope that this is going to attract a more laid-back older European crowd who will hopefully spend their time in the theater in the library in the yoga lawn um and they we can't offer those spaces if we make their rooms larger uh so there is a give and take in that aspect I will also add that um we are including a no entertain no special events condition in our order and I think that responds to both in perpetuity it is recorded and we'll run with the land if it ever has to change we would have to come before this board it would have to be why can't you go shorter why can't you go smaller shorter and have larger rooms shorter I'm sorry I'm a smaller building taller tall um shorter in height so in order to make the the poror fora work to have a viable product for this site but the land well we're not maximizing our square footage actually we're we're actually leaving about 10,000 square feet of floor area um we are keeping our South setback set in where our pool is proposed over the ground floor to make sure there is light and air through to the Haden Hall site um so we we've actually made it somewhat thinner and and more towards the north of our property so that the hat and Hall our neighbor gets us as much breathing room as possible so that is some of the give and take with with our massing um I mean I'm again I'm I'm all for seeing Washington Avenue Bloom and Blossom and do really great things I'm just I have you've been burned no you you you you you feel like you've been burned and I'm another project uh this is I earlier you mentioned beds and Heads This is a beds and heads operator um Cloud 1 is is a European flag they've never been right there's one in New York they're all good reviews okay well hopefully the Miami one will be better as the developers living down the street um as far as the loading goes uh we understand your concern this is a concern throughout Washington Avenue uh we worked closely with the parking Department uh where we're proposing our on Street loading was actually three parking spaces uh three loading spaces my apologies and we uh through reviewing of the site and a site visit uh and timing of how long the loading trucks are there they've agreed to increase the loading from three spaces to four SP spaces which will hopefully accommodate much larger trucks and keep trucks out of the rideway and into that space uh that's one of the things we worked you know very hard to get the parking Department to agree to um it is a condition of this street we do not have uh rear access ACC to the site uh that's a it's how it operates today uh what we have done is strategically located our FPL our trash area all of our internal back of house areas where they would be all as the name States back of house we've located them to the southern property line so they're concentrated away from as far away as from possible as the lobby um and that's just as the district is um and as I said our conditions include no entertainment no special events there is nothing more strict that we can do from to make you all more comfortable from that perspective Matthew okay thank you Mr chair just a suggestion I think when we have the back and forth between us and and the applicant it kind of makes that discussion that we're having amongst ourselves difficult uh so obviously it's your meeting here but I just want to share my my feelings you'd rather her not address each I'd rather her not address uh each individual comment then just because we can't really have a conversation amongst ourselves uh that all being said I mean I mean I agree this is a nice looking project and something is needed there uh you know so it's over 50,000 square feet I'm looking at at the front page of the packet we have here I think that's why they're here it's a conditional use so they they yes they can build a hotel there by right but not over 50,000 Square ft so we shouldn't be under that necessarily that presumption that it could be done and that we're just a you know merely a pit stop on the way um I went by this morning and perhaps I should have disclosed that so I'll disclose that now I went by this morning paid a site visit because I reviewed the criteria that that we're all supposed to do and one of the comments that were made uh was about the sidewalk WID in front and I'm going to find that exact well let's see okay it's page 115 actually that's the that's the I'm sorry that's the order let me see here I can't find it so I'm sorry unless you I think you're referring to condition n on page one or one okay the The Pedestrian friendliness on the on the sidewalk yes the the encroachment of the stairs onto the sidewalk so I measured of my feet which are roughly about one foot per per foot and it's about 8T wide the clear path today and on the plans here I think is what the staff we referencing to it's it's at most 5T I think is what the clear pedestrian path would be uh I have concerns when I was there it was it was 9:00 in the morning and and a group of people could barely walk by you know 2 by two um this is a busy urban area of our city a lot of people are walking and um while the street may be raised in the future I think we've all seen the difficulty with all these projects around our city it may be decades from now so we should we be uh looking at what it is today so my point that I'm trying to make here is that uh rather than waiting for HP board to maybe or maybe not consider this we as the planning board need to look at it and and see if the sidewalk clear path uh should be wider than it is today so that's that's Point number one uh number two I mean I I Echo what what my colleague um Miss Leone said about the size U I was just having flashbacks to the Goodtime hotel and while there may not be entertainment proposed here It's seems like a very similar uh program in terms of small micro units uh 270 rooms that's a lot of people every single night the goal is obviously the goal is to maximize the number of of uh people in the room so that's going to tax our infrastructure our water system our sewers our streets there's just a lot of things here that that um you know a hotel on this location may not be the most appropriate so I have concerns with even just the use as proposed and then to the Loading and the transportation part uh you know I Echo concerns Scott raised here the trucks the trucks on Washington have they're double parked so if this does proceed you know I would suggest a condition that uh similar to I've seen in others that the size of the trucks be limited to the su3 and what that basically means is it's a single axle truck it's not a tractor trailer it's not super long it will fit in these loading zone spaces that they've identified on our site plan and then um you know lastly is the usage on the ground level the person didn't identify thems but I'm just I'm guessing since I went there and I saw the the places that are on the ground level there's a cheeseburger baby I think that might have been Cheeseburger Baby the owner that was speaking this morning there's a bakery there there's an Italian restaurant uh there's a cell phone shop and a smoke shop that I saw there and also a food market well a food market but my point is that there's a diversity of retail uses along there and what's proposed is a really large again a really large restaurant and uh you know we've seen a lot of those approved by the board in recent years we've seen how they come and go uh it's not an easy business to succeed in and what that means is that uh we might have a space for some time if the business doesn't succeed it may not be active during the day uh so I have concerns there as well and uh you know I I would raise these to my colleagues here you know uh and see where we all land here but but I'm not inclined to support 200 square foot Hotel units 20 I think it was 278 units I I have some concerns there I uh I equally have concerns uh you know where the planning board were responsible for planning the future of our our city uh I don't think that in my opinion micro units in this location with no parking uh you know and very little other contributions to the to the nearby neighboring area I don't think that that's what I think this the future of this area should look like I know that we received an email from uh the art deco neighborhood association they're against this um you know and in talking to the good time people I'm not worried about the entertainment or the noise I I I don't see that as part of the business model but I see uh these rooms are actually smaller than the rooms that the same hotel has in New York City and that's I don't you know I don't know if there's really an appetite from the local from the the residents here for that and in talking to the good time Hotel you know they mentioned to me the biggest complaint by their hotel guest is not the noise it's the size of the rooms I mean they're tiny and so um I just I have I share all of your concerns as well the no parking the micro units um the neighbor the neighbors don't seem to support this and so that's my concerns um driving down Washington Avenue I think hopefully everyone can agree that any type of progress is progress um I thought something similar about the Goodtime hotel in terms of the size of their rooms before I actually went inside and looked at the rooms and when you compare a lot of the issues that we've seen in the entertainment districts it's these very large rooms where people are packing the rooms with a lot of people way more than they should be uh which kind of creates I I think just an issue with uh with just generally the hotel kind of quality of rooms so I I like the smaller rooms uh on the residential side like we've been involved with building against smaller units uh which has been very helpful for getting people into buildings um and kind of getting them out into the city really experiencing the city so hopefully if anything that could help with activating the street um my only comment is instead of having that that very large kind of restaurant on the ground floor I wish it could be split up into different uh retail base they're trying to accommodate a more diverse uh offering but yeah I don't know what's feasible for the project and what they they can or cannot do but generally I'm supportive for any type of progress because right now Washington Avenue can really use as much help as it can get I'm good um not to repeat but the same thing I just seeing projects coming on to Washington as a bonus at this point we just need some some some attraction to to some better businesses coming on Washington um I the biggest concern is the logistics working around it with the parking and and and as my colleagues have voiced um um those concerns I just the question becomes how is there anything Washington can be attracting that we won't have those kinds of issues and so I just uh you know in part of the planning of the city if we're looking for a neighborhood like this to be um you know revamped you know what is it we're trying to attract and obviously you know tends to be sometimes some big projects that change the neighborhood I'm not saying this this project is perfect but I just am curious so if not this what is it that we're looking to do to make big changes to that neighborhood residential full-time residential non Waterfront housing could you be could you consider increasing the room size or converting the business model to residential so one thing I will through the chair now is a good time now is a good time through the chair um we are following the city's Vision they had a blue ribbon a mayor's Blue Ribbon panel before they implemented the Washington Avenue overlay which allowed the 175 foot rooms were not at the minimum were we're keeping it to 200 this is a European flag in these European hotels they're even smaller um we're trying to incentivize not having you know parties in the room or a lot of people in the room we want people heads in beds to sleep and and maximize the amenity space um if we make the rooms bigger it's a give and take then now we're going to have four to six people in a room where really we would have maybe one or two coming in um and and and then being able to use uh the remaining floor area uh I don't think it makes sense for their their brand it's not consistent um and it's also not consistent with the vision of Washington Avenue um I I will also add as far as the uh sidewalk width um 5T is a normal sidewalk width in an urban environment um we are keeping you know the the sidewalk width as as proposed in our plans we met I would say four to five times with the public works department before submitting this proposal to you all today to make sure that this would work and that the harmonization that we're proposing between the current uh elevation and our proposed elevation um we don't want people coming up to a wall uh we have to balance the current street level with our minimum design flood elevation and including the steps um although you know maybe not some preferences it does create that walkable environment um people can go up and and and take advantage of the active frontages um if there is you know we're leaving the the ground floor uh space open if there is an appetite where two Tenants come in they can split the space we don't have to come before you all what we're doing right now is locking in the seat count and the fact that any future tenant cannot do entertainment here uh that's what we're proposing with this how deep is the retail space how deep um I didn't see that I tell you that it's 4,000 square feet and the depth from the street to the to the back well we include the the kitchen area the bathrooms and all so the depth for seating I don't know that I have a dimension for that but the property is approximately I'm trying to determine if it's actually usable space because we see a lot of that that's actually not right well the the property is about 100 ft in depth um we have 6 ft of the um the frontage porch area and then another 6 feet of the the rear strip in the back so 20 ft if you just subtract 20 ft from 100 ft okay it's about that much um but but we're keeping it um as part of this application we're trying to keep the occupancy to 200 two okay 294 and the square footage to 442 at 4 4,420 and we're open to multiple tenants that wouldn't be an issue Nick was there wasn't there something just recently passed by the commission that was something about a Washington overlay that eliminated is it co living I think you're referring to what we have on the agenda today is for C living unit it was it was something else it was Washington there the um there was the the Washington Avenue overlay um before the co- living amendments is that we were referring to that it was a height it was a height increase for some it was the result of the master plan right Michael something talking about very recently yeah it was I think it was or maybe it's an F bonus wasn't it5 incentive but didn't we discuss that last month no no no this is this is the commission it's okay I I'm just I'll figure it out okay my sure okay forgive me I I have like an near infection I'm a little drugged up so I'm just going to say my my name is Jimmy Resnick uh I've been to the city uh you know we came from Cuba in 1960 so I've been here approximately 64 64 years um I remember I remember my favorite my favorite place as I was growing up here Miami Beach was hey Jimmy hold on one second I'm sorry and just raise it a little bit for him PJ raise it a little bit was the area where the Sagamore the national Surf Club surf Comer that area the Delano that those places were shut down for how many years 10 years 11 years now the rally they're all coming back right now over 10 or 11 years those places were shut down why because anybody tried to develop it was HP board planning board design review board this project I tried you know I had it sold we had it sold to a prospective buyer with smaller units before co co came and that backed out and then we had it sold for even smaller units this is a beautiful project if you walk down with these retail places are cheeseburger this it's it's dumpy it's seedy it's they're old they're falling apart um of course I can't give leases because you know a new a new buyer needs to empty out the building and even I I spoke to Stephanie was me my my my 10 for 24 years if they have retail they'd be glad to talk to her about maybe coming back whatever they'll talk about that but if you turn this down this this is going to stay the same way it's look I mean you you can't this is some beautiful project that's going to really make it nice and you you're always going to find faults with it I mean but overall it's a beautiful project there's no opposition there's nobody that spoke against it the whole City's looking forward Washington n is looking forward I mean just let let it go let it let it let it happen and then if you have to make some minor changes with the HP board do it but don't stop this because this might be another 10 12 20 years before nothing happens here this building is falling apart I mean it's really I mean you the and these tenants a smoke shop and a these are not the type of tenants that you want there but I have to rent it out to somebody that'll pay me rent what whatever while while while you know while they're you know so while I'm trying to to to sell the property of course you're got to find fults of course it's going to be but the project is available this is what that you can build there they're not doing something that they're asking for variances or anything like that they can build that now if you don't like it the size of it that's your opinion I understand that but you know this is this is going to beautify this that it's ugly over there it's going to beautify that that place all right thank you Jimmy if I can add one not so this so this is scheduled to reviewed by the historic preservation board on May 14th I believe and that's when the board is going to discuss the um the variants for the um on Street loading and the long Frontage standards and the sidewalk widths so as long as the planning board has reviewed the project today which they have the applicant can move forward with the stor preservation board application I don't know if the board wants to review provide comments and continue this application to the next month's meeting to allow the to go to the storic preservation board come back with the input from the historic preservation board since this does include sort of the recreation of an historic you know facade along the frontage um and as has been mentioned you know there is unfortunately this this property does not have an alley so um we feel that by putting a curb cut in and all the area needed to provide loading facilities that in itself could also provide more disruption onto Washington Avenue because you're looking at you're going to have to back in or back out there's no way unless you take out the entire ground floor to provide loading on the property so we do think that sorry go ahead I was just going to again can we find out how Haden Hall does there deliveries trash and again it's a it's a unified development site maybe part of the deal they have to make is with them to maybe share that or or possibly use part of their property um but you know I just think I I see that problem coming with with backups on Washington Avenue a lot of deliveries and and not only the deliveries but people being dropped off that's what I see with the hotel across the street so it's something that can be figured out it may take a little bit of effort but it can be can be figured out so Michael if we had approved today with them to come back after design review board we would get to to uh make our suggestions today and they would come back with some proposal I mean you can make any recommendations and ask them to come back and look at some information and they can review that and come back next month in the meantime they still can go forward with their application to the his stor preservation board I I would make that motion to continue this hearing till after the the historic preservation board has considered those issues the recommendations of what we would like to and you know I was going to say if you guys want to be specific in terms of um what issues what issues or what what changes you would like to see them to explore or come back with so why can't can we can we try I mean for whatever concerns people have we can make a motion at the historic preservation board I guess I mean a lot of those items are out of our purview MH so if there's a concern about loading or whatever it is first of all did you make was there a second on yours if I'll try for it could I say something I'm sorry I mean it's a all due of respect but I feel like we're being blackmailed by the landlord he's telling us that he owns the building and that it's a dump and then if we don't approve it today it's going to be a dump for another 10 years I mean well but that's I mean take it I did though oh but at the end of the day it's it's economics hey hold on hold on Jimmy Jimmy don't worry no hold on hold on Jimmy Jimmy just one second just no but it costs money to do these things right like the developers the real estate owners aren't always the big bad guys for holding City's hostages I mean everything costs money so it's not easy to just say hey you know an owner developer is going to put in a ton of money to fix something up if the rents that people are commanding on the street don't warrant that or if there could be a million different things but and I don't think that you know Jimmy made his comments and stuff but I think before that even came up I mean we all recognize that Washington is in a you know dire state that something needs to happen so speak you speak to 50 landlord but I think listen I think we have I have my motion part of it is the neighboring neighborhood association is against this they've they've sent us all an email saying they're against this so we have it's incumbent upon us to consider it carefully thinking about these issues that came before that were raised by different people and so I think the best thing to do part of those issues may be add rest at the historic preservation hearing uh or review so I think we should continue it um until after that review I would second that they want to let it go to HPB see their thoughts and and comments and bring it back um through the chair are there any other additional specific recommendations from this board that we can go through well I'm of it was some minor revisions but um I think Scott told you that the primary concern is loading correct I'll let you speak good but what noise are you talking about I think that's a simple removal of any outdoor speaker speakers or even timing the sorry go I was going to say rather than having the speakers you know um turn down at all hours that the that whatever the venue is open you can limit the speakers to certain hours or Li Orin outdo speakers at all wasn't the pool area CL well you you you got to talk to the operator and see what compromises they can make um right I just if the recommendation is everyone wait stop stop stop everyone's got to stop talking one at a time sorry go ahead they answer my question all right what what I was saying is we're g to you've heard communication from the board what some of their concerns are um obviously you're going to have to go back to the operator corre and tell them what the concerns are and see what modifications are sacrifices of any they want to make go to HPB and then it'll come back um but I think he he his concern is noise and the and the and the deliveries um I know Matt's kind of against the whole project U but but I will say that the sidewalk part is really important and 5T is not a standard sidewalk with in an urban area so that would be the number one concern okay room size parking uh Ingress egress with Ubers and whatnot and just uh yeah those are my concerns as well so I I would suggest that the the board continue this till May to get an update from what happened at the historic preservation board that's not going to allow maybe in the meantime they can you can also provide some suggested modifications but we're going to need those by next Monday if the board is going to take action on those on May 28th so I think if you want to wait till after historic preservation board come back to the planning board on on May 28th with sort of a verbal update and have the board then continue it to the June meeting to give you time to make any tangible changes to the application for the board to review and for us to provide a staff report for the June meeting I think that may be the best course of action I guess just a question of process for us what would HPB tell us that would change I guess what we incorporate here meaning if there's a concern about sound then we can include that in our I see the St preservation is not going to come out on the sound they're going to comment more on the loading um loading operations sure my point is that I guess we could give guidance to HB we could say we're generally or we're in support but we want to see that loading occurs you know we can ask what you're asking will will the HPB will they be briefed on our concerns yes I'll brief of Debbie T our St preservation officer let her know the concerns that were expressed by the planning board she can relay that to the historic preservation board members when this application comes up on May 14th okay so I'll second Jonathan's motion okay Elizabeth already um seconded it oh so miss that we get a motion this is to continue to the May 20th meeting so just so everyone understands we are we've made recommendations for the HPB to consider you're going to go to HPB and then you're going to come back correct okay that's the motion um all in favor yes I any opposed okay motion passes it's continued to the May 28th meeting thank you okay thank you okay next is planning board file 23636 1100 fth Street new office project oh yeah I would suggest um keep your packages or if you want to leave them here for us when you when you walk away so we can send them to you um next month all sorry one question also about process so why would it have come to us prior to HPV versus HPV prior to so the code the code does require for 50,000 plus square foot projects that the first review has to be at the planning board got it so we've reviewed it it could now go to HPB and then it comes back to us that's all nor it cannot it cannot go directly to the historic preservation board without the planning board having a substantive discussion um Alejandra is going to read into the record the the next application this application has been filed requesting a conditional use approval for a neighborhood impact structure for a new five story mixed use development exceeding 50,000 Square ft and a neighborhood impact establishment a restaurant including a mechanical parking garage so staff noted that um this is largely um a more more simpler project it's largely an office use mechanical parking and a ground floor restaurant due to the size of the ground floor restaurant it does constitute a neighborhood impact establishment however since the applicant has not provided a tenant and operational conditions regarding that that operation we are recommending that the Board review and approve the office component along with the um conditions we've included in our staff report and that the applicant come back to the planning board when they do have a tenant and can outline all the operational details for that tenant um the applicant is going to be providing some suggesting modifications to the conditions we had indicated in our um draft um draft final order for approval I believe um the latest update we are supportive of all their changes um Paul is going to pass them out and go over those changes sorry Michael staff is supportive we are supportive yes okay of their suggested changes right with the understanding that the um that the um ground Flo restaurant is going to come back to the board fure are those in a in a revised order I think um yes Paul's going to um pass them out shortly great thank you and you so staff has reviewed all these okay that's correct yes and it's just for our edification the differences of the highlights in yellow correct okay so sorry before they like who suggested these this is from the applicant so you had a concern they came back with these suggestions no they were concerned with some of our conditions we've gotone there's been some back and forth regarding what they saying I feel like detail for the previous one would have you know something like this would have helped also we didn't yeah we didn't have that um back and forth that the applicant the that's why they they've done this to sort of shorten the time time of review no it's helpful you finished uh yes okay thank you so much Michael and good afternoon um chair and Madame Vice chair and the rest of the board members my name is Paul Savage with Law Offices at 200 South biscane Boulevard with uh the burkhow Rell Law Firm I'm here proudly and ex and with a a lot of excitement really uh with a large team we've been working for months and months on a beautiful project it's item number nine on your agenda and it is a five-story office building at 11 00 Alton Road uh also on the corner I'm sorry at 1100 Fifth Street on the corner of Alton Road uh a site that we all know very well uh we have a very large team and a presentation I'm going to do my very best to go through it very quickly uh and so first I'd like to introduce our team uh the applicant itself is the Alton Venture LLC it's my client uh the principles are here Amit Corona and Saif sumida is here uh also zenyi Wang from their uh firm is also here the ownership uh co- applicant is with us today the nieces family and the Weiss properties uh family uh personally is Robert Weiss Miriam Weiss uh his wife and their two sons Alex and Mark are also in attendance um I'm pleasure it's my pleasure to be joined by the covic Architecture Firm suria yafar is our our architect who's going to go through the site with you and the and the the plans uh she's joined by Daniel Bush uh who's also an excellent member of the covic team finally I have uh the urban robot landscape architect Justine valz together with Adrien Dam uh debowski who's our um who's our traffic engineer you all know very well a kimley horn together with Carlos Florian who's also at kimley horn on zoom in case there's any civil engineering drainage questions um now with that I'm going to give a quick intro to the site uh and then turn it over to aitt and then sua will go through the plant sheets very quickly thank you so much so um uh well the the first the first is uh our beautiful elevation uh fronting fifth um the entrance is to the left with an open courtyard uh with ample landscaping and then also an open area uh on the corner as you can see it's a fivestory structure with um if and if you look carefully at the uh at the floor plates and the columns they they narrow uh as they go up to to to give sort of this elevation light and that feel and ample glazing also gives this this beautiful feel it will be an entrance to our city uh this is the location you know well when you come over the bridge it's on the right uh the existing condition has the uh the now defunct Pier One retail site uh on the one end and then to the east is the Burger King site that's still in operation on the other end um at the corner of Fifth Street and Linux um just to give you a quick overview of the building this is a uh an aerial rendering looking at the icon condominium on the right hand side looking toward the East you can see that the uh that the structure is nestled on the corner uh with with a setback and and Landscaping uh the roof is landscaped as well well um also I want to point out that the uh the principal height in commercial activity is fronting fifth and then with a step down appropriately to the residential and Civic uses to the South um it's 100,000 foot building um we do have a uh uh we do have a proposed restaurant in the bottom but as Michael balouch uh you know instructed you and he instructed me at the time that we just don't we don't have a tenant so we were not technically competent at that time to provide the details that necessary so we agree with staff's recommendation we are not seeking the neighborhood impact establishment that's being continued but we are seeking the uh together with a favorable staff recommendation on the neighborhood impact structure the the structure itself and the office component um and with that uh I'd like to turn it over quickly to AIT who has a comment about our vision for the site and then sua will go through the uh the the some of the renderings and the plans thank you thank you um good afternoon chair Vice chair and members of the planning board my name is Amit kurana and alongside my partner safe sumeda and our colleague Sy Wang our firm sua and kurana is the developer of of of this project in partnership with Roslin and nordon nus Robert and Miriam Weiss of Weiss properties and Aaron Butler of Avenue real estate Partners due to our site location we are fortunate to have a singular opportunity to develop a Gateway building the first to be seen driving into the city the Mandate here is simply to develop one of the most architecturally significant buildings in the United States given this requirement we commissioned the pritsker prize winning Master architect Eduardo Soto Deora to design the building Eduardo is largely viewed is one of the most important architects of Our Generation and will be his first building in the Americas the building is being designed in collaboration with renowned Architects Bernard Z zovich and suria yaer of zovich and distinguish landscape architect Justine bz of urban robot the architecture reflects an objective to create a Timeless and elegant building that stands the test of time the type of building defined by subtlety detailing and craft with a similar intention in mind we are also developing the fifth and office building currently under construction at Fifth Street and Michigan Avenue designed by Master architect Alberto Campo bayaza with both projects our goals have been to make a profound impact on the built environment and to create architecture that is aligned with the sophistication that defines Miami Beach in the south of fifth neighborhood we do hope that you will appreciate the thought and care that has gone into the design of this building and we would be very grateful for your support and consideration thank you so much I'm Seria yafar with Cisco which Architects um youve I'll try to go as fast as I can um this is the view you as it was mentioned just now um it's a modest building but its presence in the way that the building is articulated you will see that is trying to really be the Gateway entrance into South Beach um the way is nested is a good neighbor it also it doesn't need to come down uh from five stories to to two stories as it approaches forth in the South neighborhood uh but it is done as a attempt to be um you know a design statement but also a good neighbor the the design is really um a a play on a harmonious um a briol facade that we have it's kind of almost musical in nature and the building um when it gets to the corner it is sculpts that corner in order to make that statement as you approach the city from the highway um there is a beautiful play at the ground floor uh where landscape is introduced so there's this dialogue going on back and forth with the architecture and the landscape throughout the entirety of the building you can see this is the view on the corner where the um play of the volumes and the slabs uh begin to create that um modularity and sculpture to um really make the point of arrival the arrival sequence of the project as you can see uh in this view the briolet wraps the entirety of the building and on the ground floor it opens up in order to make a statement of entrance at the corner of fif and lenx uh this view shows the facade stepping down into a two-story um and you can see the second floor has uh proposed us to have mechanical parking lifts so that we could reduce the volumetric of the parking and emphasize the other elements that our office and the ground floor uses the plan here indicates um we are actually removing two out of the three curve cuts that exist and we are keeping and relocating one on lenux as the main entrance you can see the corner the building doesn't touch the edge of Fifth and lenux to make an entrance Plaza into the lobby space um from the main um arrival sequence of the port kocher you also have a garden entrance into the restaurant from that um other side so all the basically all the frontages of the building are rightly uh frontages treated as such and activated um on the south we have a proposed a Mobility bike Hub so that we can continue to support the efforts that um the city has uh been building for uh for bike circulation throughout you have both long-term and short-term parking in that corner this is a typical parking um office floor you can see the cores but also that wraparound Terrace that is part of the brolay that at this point are decorative elements not structural elements we'll be happy to take any questions you might have thank you sua and uh through the chair if I could just have a small extension just to conclude the presentation um uh I wanted to just uh make sure that um let's see where did my I wanted to make sure and and again reiterate that uh we're here with a favorable staff recommendation I do want to thank uh Michael his entire off office and the staff for working with us we've had many meetings uh to go over this over the last few months uh there's a favorable staff recommendation and again uh we're only seeking uh the approval of the office as a neighborhood impact structure and we are continuing and not seeking the restaurant at this time the conditions that were handed out you know reflect that no well there's no entertainment allowed south of 5ifth there's no uh there's nothing will be permitted under this uh in under this um entitlement or vote today it will be continued anything with the restaurant or its impacts will be continued to be totally fleshed out uh by the board at that time um I did also want to emphasize the the mobility uh Hub which is over 1600 square feet um that is uh dedicated to bicycle parking um encouraging pedestrian experience encouraging bicycle uh use and to uh to keep the uh to keep the cars off the road to the maximum extent possible we think that this is a fantastic transition and fits uh in this spot just right uh the office use is a less intense use than other uses uh we think this is going to be a beautiful high-end Pro uh product for people to work near where they live and lastly um I wanted to also say that we have been diligently reaching out to our neighbors and Community groups um we've uh met with sopna we've met with the icon um condominium across the street who had a lot of uh strong input on our uh Landscaping plans and this slide here I wanted to quickly show uh they wanted us to um be sure and match their Landscaping which is a Brazilian beauty leaf tree that looks very beautiful with a with a dark leaf and so we're going to we're going to match what they have and also uh we were we're going to try and work with the city of Miami Parking Department and close some of the on street parking that is not used on Alton to make a wider landscaped pedestrian friendly and Greener area that will match what they have on the icon side and also um you know support the beauty on on our side and then make sort of a unified beautiful entrance so with that um we respectfully request your favorable action uh together with your favorable staff recommendation on this beautiful Pro project and we're here I have a huge team here of any particular questions uh we thank you again and uh i' Reserve time for any rebuttal or any questions all right thanks Paul before we continue any disclosures to be made anyone have communications xart Communications yes I met with the applicant and their team okay anybody else okay all right so yeah you could have a softball team here but um is anyone in here not part of the team that wants to speak nobody okay anybody on Zoom no sir no one on Zoom all right we'll close the public hearing um Scott yeah I mean I I think it's nice looking building um I don't see really don't see any issues with with anything proposed as far as operations um things like that just one question because the the one condition you put in about the removing the three three parking spaces um the neighbors were asking for that well our friends at The Icon condominium uh wanted that they were telling us that uh only they notice some repair trucks once in a while we'll park there and uh it doesn't make a nice visual and and so um they would like for us to beautify that lane to the maximum extent possible we are not in control of that activity this board is not in control of that activity so that last term is for us to use good faith best efforts to our best to facilitate that which we will do you know it Costa did it for their V it happens so you got to seek approval from the city yes sir no I would just say again I don't if they're not that used that often I just wonder of because you have parking in your building is your parking open to the public or or let's say someone's visiting an office in your your building well the um by regulation and whenever you have the mechanical parking it's 100% valet so it's so uh it it is uh it's not you know open for anyone to come and park for but the the tenants and their visitors their invitees could certainly come and and use that okay all right good Matthew I love this project I I oh my God you're in good shape we do have sorry we do have we do have one speaker now um Matthew Pender okay all right I closed it but I'm going to reopen it for one speaker go ahead thank appreciate that go ahead Matthew I guess you gotta be sworn in hold on one sec okay Matthew do you swear affirm the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth yes I do thank you you have two minutes okay so first of all re really quickly let me just say thank you to everybody I know these are long days and I appreciate everything everyone's doing here for the city um it's very important um I know some of you um you may know me uh my name is Matt Pender I live south the 5th I've been the president of the friends of South Point Elementary um known as fby I'm now um a board member um not the president anymore but um I just wanted to acknowledge you know this building is right across the street from the school and we've we've built a lot of relationships over the years with um developers who have helped the school knowing that um you know Miami day County Public Schools it's one of the um lower funding districts in the country in terms of public school um funding per student and so the developers that have been in the neighborhood have been um good partners to us in especially this one here um we worked with them um on their Michigan a project and they they helped us um put in a field put in a theater and we've they've been one of the biggest currencies that that we see as good neighbors is transparency and they they let us know that this is coming for a long time showed us plans um and have shown a real willingness to um help the school not just build a building there that's going to help class a space but help the students at the school um which 50% roughly 50% of the kids at South Point Elementary are are in the free or reduced lunch program and one of the things that we discuss with the developers they have a keen interest in potentially um building teacher housing um that's there's a teacher shortage it's tough being a teacher these days in terms of finding affordable housing on Miami Beach like any other resident but given their salaries um it becomes particularly tricky um so that's something that that we're we're actively talking to the developer about but um I just wanted to lend um my support and we we've in the past seen some people move into the into the neighborhood like um FPL who's done it quietly and hasn't necessarily been so um in terms of of plans but this has been incredibly transparent we've had open discussions not only about the Michigan a project but this one and this relationship has has been over the course of a couple years they've been excellent neighbors to us great to the kids in the community um and we're fully supportive of having them um as a long-term neighbor um in sou fth so thank you thank you Matt all right and thank you Matt as well my my children also attend South Point Elementary which which is right across the street from this project so the sensitivity to the site is also appreciated um kind of lost my train of thought there for a moment but you said you love the project oh yes I still love it uh in fact this is one of those things where you talked about being the gateway to the city right now you come across the MacArthur Causeway and you see a different Gateway it's 519 ft tall uh this is one of those buildings though where an extra floor or two uh you know would would even enhance it even more perhaps um but that all being said um you know uh I agree with the neighbors across the street who mentioned expanding that landscape area it's important not just for the visual appeal but the sidewalk that goes along Alton Road is 8 to 10 feet the entire the entire length in Fifth Street down to South Point Drive except for where those three parking spaces are and it's you know there are a lot of bus stops nearby a lot of people who work south of fifth live south of it walk on those sidewalks to get towards Fifth Street and the Publix and whatnot so it's extremely important anything this board can do to to support that whether it's you know a condition in there that they'll do everything possible to work with the city and we you know we make a motion supporting this as well I think it's really important for the for the project uh one one um question I have though is the short-term bike parking so I think the mobility Hub that you mentioned is really great uh there's extensive long-term parking and short-term parking and I saw on the plans a little bit of short-term parking along lenux the question the ask the concern a lot of times short-term parking uh best practice is to put it as close as possible to the entrance so if it's possible to put some short-term parking by the entrance the lobby of the office building I know there's a really extensive like Plaza area in the front because because of the geometry of the roadway I'm sure you can find some way to do that but um that would be the only ask there and then lastly I'll mention um I did when I met with the applicant and their team we talked about the the um like the driveway width for their loading area along lenux and they're going to do everything possible to minimize what the effective Crossing distance is for people walking along the site on lenux Avenue so very supportive thanks Matt John beautiful project love it I think it's great looking forward to it I uh do you have a picture of how the the valet the car entry area is going to look like because I I didn't see a lot of that and I guess that's my concern is the backup of traffic when cars are queuing in the morning I don't know if there are photos of that because I saw there's a lot of the other sides but right so we have a we have a few depictions of this um uh let's see this is a you know this is an artistic rendering okay so this has a maybe a beautiful Porsche or Maserati with no traffic um but but that but that is that is the elevation right so to get more into details um this is a site plan that shows uh the uh the entrance and the valet will which will all be internal to the site all of this activity uh the valet drop off there comes um off of Linux uh and will be handled in that uh in that curb cut in that area that's there um and then we we we'll have to you know we we part of our traffic analysis is a valet study and um we have also put a condition I think Michael Bouch put a condition that um there's verbiage in those in those conditions that the uh the stacking that is generated from valet must be contained uh W within the site um yeah I guess so I guess one concern I have is when people are getting dropped off by Uber are they really going to be going around to Lennox and is there a pull in Easy pull in on Lennox um perfect okay that's what I didn't see in the in the the drawing so that's what I was okay good that's answers my question um the other thing about the the valet um I see in the mornings there's a minimum of seven valet Runners and then in the evenings uh the peak hours in the evenings 11 valet Runners it seems like a lot to me but I imagine you know you need that to make sure that there's no backup with the with the robots but uh the robots the mechanical list um but then there's the provision that you're looking to add in terms of basically removing that requirement if you feel the need that there's not as much uh need for that for seven and 11 and I guess my only question is more for staff is there a way that they can just submit a request to you you confirm that there hasn't been any issues and you approve that yeah because I think the the concern the um the primary concern has been mentioned um they need to have the appropriate valet Runners so there's no backup onto or queuing onto the street so if as long as they're satisfying that condition this this amendment addresses that because otherwise they have to have that those minimum number of valet runners or if they're addressing it by a lower number and not and not having queuing on the street then that also satisfies the condition but where did the seven and 11 numbers come from that came from their study okay the traffic study okay we we've had we have we've had I've I've seen cases where it's indicated you know dozens of valet Runners and then we come back to the planning board and find out that they don't need near that number it's just put in at the very beginning and I think as part of the progress report so I think 90 days after operation they're going to come back to the board for progress report at that time we'll they'll update the board in terms of the um how the operation has been working and the actual number of attendance that they've needed yeah I mean I guess just the sentence that they're looking to put in sort of just guts the seven and 11 and leaves it to their discretion I mean it's for the right reason I mean if they don't need it they shouldn't have to have it my only concern is that in 90 days um you know if they don't H if they have half capacity U or occupancy that 90 days isn't going to be a real uh that's true but but I I mean I'm I guess as long as you're not it was the seven and 11 was proposed by them I think as long as we're saying that they're sufficient ballet then I think it's fine um so Adrien decowski with kimley horn offices at to alra Plaza and Coral Gables the the when we start off with the valet analysis we prepare trip generation calculations and those trip generation calculations take into account multimodal so in this part of the city the multimodal rate is actually 54% but the city Only only allows us to to cap that at 20% so the calculations are are conservative um so then it feeds into needing x amount of valet attendance which then we always caveat with if the actual trip generation is less you're not going to need all of those Val attendance to to be on the site okay and is Staff okay with the the change in the delivery hours see yeah our concern was to make sure that since they're using the same area for ballet that they use the area for loading sorry our concern was that as long as they're um not using the ballet area during times of peak Peak operation which is the peak hours and afternoon hours the before um 8 or after um 7 works with an occasional you know midday loading as long as it do not disrupt the um the the valet operation well I guess in terms of neighborhood because it's going to be in within that area I don't think it's not going to impact the neighbors yeah I think on on this side is okay there altim be a different case okay thanks beautiful project thank you everyone a few questions uh will there be enough on-site parking to service all the tenants yeah so uh there's while you're at that just as a followup sir is a tenant is GNA are these oneoff units or is it like one company like just to kind of give a background about the office tenants well so brco Rell is moving there yes that that that would be fantastic would isn't it what a beautiful building uh yes so I it is not going to be a a single it's not going to be apple that takes all five floors that's not contemplated yeah however as you can see this is a very very high-end product so we are going to have uh we are going to have uh you know there could be family offices there could be Financial Services uh things like that that we anticipate to have a very high degree of finishing and a low degree of impacts you know the opposite of a lot of small units with a lot of impacts that were discussed in other matters today this is going to be um a a very high-end product with with with not a lot of um a lot of not a lot of numbers right in terms of the population of the tenants and their employees uh and we're under a very rigorous parking calculation uh you know that Adrian and Michael work through under the code that we have to have a a certain amount of enough to service all tenants and guests and the interior buildout will be after you determine what tenants are coming in is that how it works okay um all right so that was one two the only thing that's being removed are on street parking spots correct that's correct got it that's correct the actual curb cut isn't being removed it's not like you're removing a turn Lan or anything like that it's just parking spots no now now there are existing curb cuts that we are proudly uh that we think are are not uh well the site right now is not well circulated um we are happy to to discontinue some of these curb cuts and have this one entry with all of this regulation and then last question for the development team just for my own curiosity because it's something that we've spoken about here we have really nice floor plate what led you to kind of consider this office use versus residential use or sure so you know we came to uh to south of fifth in Miami Beach a couple of years ago and we're very active developers actually in Manhattan in New York and um what what had happened was we started to get a lot of calls from our clients and people who had purchased in our in our buildings in New York and you know Investment Partners and so on and so forth and the complaint was there was a lack of uh office product here I think we had a number of of uh of people that we knew quite well that had moved here during covid and they just they didn't want to be at 8:30 Brickle uh they wanted to be able to you know very easily get to to the office and and I think we we kind of our our strategy was to really focus in on on buildings that met that need um and I think we've found that it's it's been quite effective and I think it fills kind of a gap and and I think it also allows for a very high-profile type of tenant base which I think is is certainly of great benefit um we've had success on our other project thank God and uh and and hopefully we'll have the same here thank you thank you anything else right I think all my I think it's a beautiful project what really got my support is when I saw Aaron Butler on your team he's a he a superstar old friend old friend uh and you know it's a great project so congrats go ahead wonderful project congratulations that's it there's nothing to say it's it's it's stunning um congratulations it's beautiful um I just had one question tell me about the mechanical parking I know we have two that are in South Beach now and they're not functional because of the salt how do are you going to how will you remedy that so so they um I think we have the vendor in our in our listed in our operations plan we've used them in other projects uh and those are highly regulated mechanisms the public are not allowed to operate them your mechanical parking is just stackers it's stackers not automated parking that's what okay than that's all I was that thank you beautiful congratulations if I could add one more comment we forgot to include as a condition I just want to add that 24-hour on-site security shall be required now is that going to be a numerical addition or we're going to add that as a condition yeah okay okay and staff is okay with the applicants recommendations with generally okay motion go ahead you oh I'd like to move it but I'd like to I'd like to add I'd like to add uh one condition which is the short-term some short-term bike parking will be located near the lobby and then the other is on number 40 just to add in there not just the U wider swell but also the wider sidewalk as well in there because it will be also slightly widened you can sure Michael can get the verbage corre can have those y okay yep all right so that's the motion all right with second excuse me along with staff and applicant U draft order changes as the applicant okay I think Elizabeth got the second first all sorry all in favor I anyone oppose oppos thank you all congratulations thank you so much I do appreciate this board a lot thank you we're going to be really lonely now yes right okay uh moving on to comprehensive plan code amendments planning board file PB 24650 10 and 11 companion Michael yes we're going to take um the next two items together all right so the first is development regulations creating the Normandy aisle overlay district for certain city1 Zone properties and Normandy aisle overlay District workfor house in comprehensive plann Amendment sure we're going to discuss um I guess we'll just give a minute for the room to clear yeah I'm going to get some water too actually all right we're going to take a two-minute break okay e e e e e e e please take your seats the meeting is about to [Music] begin please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 one okay welcome back everyone we are on to comprehensive plan code Amendment M ments as I mentioned before we're going to move on to items 10 and 11 which are companion items planning board file 24650 development regulations creating the Normandy aisle overlay district for certain cd1 Zone properties and planning board file 24651 Normandy Isle overlay District Workforce housing comprehensive plan Amendment thank you Mr chairman I'll give an overview of the applications and outline the um the process that the applicant is going to go for go through in terms of um the required steps so the applicant is proposing amendments to the comprehensive plan and Land Development regulations in order to enable the construction of an 8-story 120 unit Workforce Housing Development including approximately 5,000 ft of ground floor retail space located at 1960 Normandy Drive under the current city code requirements for this cd1 Zone parcel the maximum height is 40 ft and the maximum f is 1.25 the applicant previously received design review board approval for the construction of a new four-story building with 60 Workforce housing units on the subject site on September 6th of 2022 I'm going to just go through briefly the proposed amendments that are part of this overlay district one is to increase the floor a ratio and this is also can be found on the handout that we provided that was emailed you um uh last week um the applicant proposing as part of the ldr amendments to increase the floor error ratio from 1.2 25 to 3.5 increase the height from 40t to 75 ft reduce the parking requirements to zero for ground floor commercial uses and increase the density allowed under the comp plan in order to allow for the construction of up to 120 um work force housing units as part of the um f increase the applicant has included um some impact analysis including for the proposed F increase which would raise the maximum square footage from approximately 32,000 ft to 90,000 ft they provided an infrastructure analysis as well as massing studies um we did also provide a u Memo from the transportation and mobility department as part of this review as well as um a memo from Hazen and Syer who reviewed the impacts and the additional demands to the city and water uh the Water the city's water and sewer system now as noted in our in our zoning map um the subjects site is within the cd1 portion at the Western end of Normandy aisle now although the cd1 does limit the height to 40 ft this is surrounded by the rm1 district which allows a height of 55 ft so really in comparison this request is for an additional 20 ft beyond what would be allowed for the rm1 district now in terms of the process this is the first step in a six-part process um any sort of f increase which this includes requires first a preliminary review by by the planning board after this meeting there's a public Workshop before the the third meeting which would be at the planning board potentially now for June or the planning board would transmit the recommendation to the city commission at the S at the city commission level the same process happens the city commission reviews this preliminarily with the planning board's recommendation there's a public workshop and then a final um final um public hearing meeting on the application so we are recommending that the Board review this application and in accordance with the requirements outlined for f increases continue this application to the June 25th meeting in order to allow the um the workshop to happen between now and the June meeting I'll turn it over to the applicant good afternoon Mr chair Madame Vice chair and members of the board Nicholas Rodriguez from Burke how Del Fernandez Laren and tapinis representing Jackel LLC I'm joined by architect Aden Fon um our traffic engineer Tom Hall our civil engineer Max cap and the principal Alan waserstein are available via Zoom not quite as large of a team as the last application um but we still have our team as well and they're present virtually um so this proposal uh is contrary to kind of what's been reported it's not a live local act project we wouldn't need to be here if it was a live local act project and what it is it's a realistic proposal to create feasible Workforce housing in north beach um many proposals and legislation have been proposed uh some have gone forward a couple of examples of incentives for Workforce housing that exist in the code today are the unit size of 400 square ft and an 80% density bonus when you propose Workforce housing despite those incentives we don't see many many Workforce housing projects going forward let alone almost no projects that are 100% Workforce housing projects like this one is um the issue has really reached a boiling point recently when the state took this extraordinary step of preempting local government zoning uh through the live local act to create uh more affordable and Workforce housing we're not proceeding that way we're proceeding with another version uh of a proposal that should bring a 100% Workforce housing project to North Beach um and we're excited to share that with you so with that we'll pull up our presentation and uh so this is just a road map of what we'll be seeing today I know Michael just went through it but it's a pretty complicated new F amendment process so we'll go through it again uh the proposed legislation which is a comprehensive plan text Amendment and map Amendment and resiliency code Amendment because we're touching density and floor area we have to have a companion comprehensive plan Amendment item we'll go through the proposed project plans which are pretty well-developed um and we'll show you the infrastructure analysis that we've done to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure to support the larger project um and then at the end we'll talk a little bit about the affordability so just to touch on the F amendment process Michael called it a six-step process kind of combined some of the steps here um but we are in step one and one of the good things of the new process even though it's very long uh is that the planning board is involved in this process very early on this is the first hearing the legislation was drafted we're getting feedback from you we're going to get feedback from the community and then we're going to come back to you U potentially with modifications uh you know depending on the feedback that we receive and then come back for a transmitt to the city commission we'll then review it have another community meeting and then uh consider adoption so we're we're kind of the sausage is being made and we're very very early on in the sausage making process uh so to speak uh so just to summarize the proposed legislation it's only applies to the cd1 district for projects that apply all of the units 100% of the units as Workforce housing I don't believe there's any other project other than maybe the Miami City Ballet project that's providing housing for the ballet dancers um that provides 100% Workforce housing definitely not on private land um so we're increasing the density from 60 units to 12 units an acre and we're preserving the ability to seek that 80% density bonus that already exists in the code uh we're increasing the height from 40t to 75 ft we're increasing the floor area from 1.25 to 3. 3.5 which amounts to from 32,000 square feet to about 92,000 or 99,100 sare ft uh we're eliminating the parking requirement for ground floor commercial uses and we're prohibiting based on staff's recommendation nuisance retail which is something that's happened pretty much City wide in commercial Districts The Occult science establishments smoke and vape shops uh the type of commercial that the city really doesn't want to see uh proliferating I'm G to ask you one question because it's like really curious um why wouldn't I'm happy to see this but why wouldn't you be going under uh live live local why wouldn't we in order since you're doing 100% that only requires 40% I'm just I'm really happy you are but I'm just curious like so we could uh pivot to that to the live local under the live local we' be permitted to highest density in the jurisdiction which is 150 units an acre but we wouldn't get the bonus so that would yield probably less than what we're proposing I think probably like 90 units so we're proposing more units than what the lip um so this is the appleo map it's I'm sure you've seen it in your package it's the cd1 district at the western edge of Normandy Isles it's a small cd1 district and then within that the overlay would apply to the property at 1960 Normandy Drive um as staff pointed out we're surrounded by an RM one District so although our height limit is 40t we're surrounded by a district that permits 55 ft and in fact we're across the street and next door not directly next door but one uh property over there are five-story buildings so we're asking for as two more stories a seven story building for a project that provides 100% Workforce affordable housing so this is the actual text I know it's quite dense uh just to show you what the actual text looks like um but it's six you know density 60 units an acre uh it was provided in the the summary Workforce housing 3.5 floor for uh F ratio and Commercial uses listed there that are being prohibited um again this is the zoning code text uh we added the red text in this version uh from what what staff has seen uh in response to the next item that was continued because we we received the item which I call the live local act down zoning it's it's proposing modified setbacks for projects that would be proposing residential commercial or industrial districts at this point we're going to have to work with staff to figure out how to reconcile conflicts between this ordinance and that ordinance because if they had if both of these move forward at the same time we won't be able to build this project uh applying the setbacks that's being proposed in the new ordinance I know that ordinance was deferred so you know as that gets developed we'll have to work with staff and again we're very early on in the process so we're happy to do that and try to figure out a way to reconcile both of them um for now this is what we came up with as as to do that remind me and I know we've been through this in my apologies but Workforce versus affordable remind me the workforce has what's to qualify to be Workforce so Workforce housing is defined in Chapter 58 of the code as anything between 65% and 140% of area media income an area median income in Miami day county is $77,900 all right so 65 and 100 what did you say so 140 is the max okay currently it's 70,000 yeah 77,500 M Mr chair could I ask a question now okay uh can you explain the bonus because I didn't understand your your answer to his question about why you're not doing live local which I also was thinking the same thing okay so you're already asking to go from 60 to 120 dwelling units per acre right right and you're maxing out your new proposed f with that but you still want to reserve the right for an 80% bonus on top of 120 so to we're proposing 120 units the site is a little over half an acre so we couldn't get 120 units on live on the on the the property uh with the current zoning with the bonus or the live local act uh just the density you get to the live local the way we achieve the density is with the 120 units per acre plus the 80% bonus um which is quite a it's a significant density bump um but it is for a one only applicable for 100% Workforce housing project and then just one followup question the uh the Ami at 140% I mean that's a pretty high uh say pretty high level right you're getting like a I think um fact sheet was sent to us you're getting at like $140,000 for a family of four is that is that in the right ball I I have the chart in in our slides and we can review it um it's at the end but no it's fine it it's it's just that the answer to the question is that the workforce housing is defined in the code right so that's that's we're and that and if you wanted to to fill it entirely up with the 140% you could right there's no re right the under the definition of Workforce housing in the code today we could fill it with 140 right everybody 14 I could just add one point though under the under the workforce housing ordinance it does require the city commission to set the rental rates each year which they haven't done yet because we haven't had any projects but my question is you know could you allot a percentage to lower income as opposed to all at the top but anyway certainly feedback that you know we we're not not expecting um but it it's but if if you did that that would might make the project kind of financially unfeasible because they're not doing this I assume not doing this any type of tax credits right we don't get the adalum uh tax credits that the local La gets and we don't get tax so you're saying they the commission would set the rental rates and then whoever applies at those rates apply right based upon and imagine those rates will be set based upon the size of the units not going right okay sorry go ahead you know since we're on the topic I was going to get to it later but I'll get to it now is um one of the benefits of the workforce housing is we're under uh a declaration of restrictive covenants and it's set at those amounts for 30 years right so no matter what happens in North Beach when all this development in town center happens when the buildings around us are redeveloped rent Skyrocket for whatever reason there's consistency and what a lot of people experience uh in when in a housing crisis is rents going up from one year to the next a significant amount and that can't happen with Workforce so it's not just the initial amount it's the future amount it's the amount that it can increase per year which is really one of the strong benefits um so and on that note aren't there also like very significant restrictions on short-term rentals right we're not proposing any short-term rentals I know but just in terms of like future use I believe well you can't do short-term rentals as part of Workforce housing right no that's what I'm saying there's right correct they're mutually exclusive I believe that's correct I hadn't read that exactly but thanks Michael for the clarification so um all right so just back to the site context it's 1960 Normandy Drive I'll turn it over to Adon to show you the project that we're proposing uh and so the sites on uh on Normandy I'm sorry I know it's a formality but just introduce yourself and your affiliation thank you for having me here uh Aden fwn architect uh design architecture Consultants The Firm um so our site is uh like mentioned a little bit more than half an acre uh we're on Normandy and we have veram court and then the alley on the U on the opposite side um we're looking at the idea of the project is obviously the workforce housing is the uh the main point but we also want to activate the street we want to make it a pedestrian friendly uh uh area and uh what we've done here is that we we've uh uh lined the the bottom floor with the retail and um that that would also hide the garage structure and the idea is to have wider straights uh wider sidewalks uh to promote uh activity on the outside um the workforce housing we've included balconies uh which Overlook the street we think that's also part of the uh you know the the trends for For Eyes on the street which makes it for more pedestrian friendly as well um this is the corner of vernham Court which uh enters the the Walgreen uh area and then also on Normandy so we want to align the entire uh Street we also our retail is also structured so it's a smaller spaces it's 5,000 ft but they're broken up into about six seven units um that also we think it'll promote uh growth for for uh small Shops and and uh uh and for the neighborhood uh more entrepreneurial we think um here you can see an elevation or a 3D perspective from the from the rear uh we wanted the building to make sure um it is uh uh 75 ft high so we wanted to make sure um all sides had uh a facade that that you know uh had a presence so you could see it um and we wanted and we articulated the facade with uh stule lines and white and we we enter the colors the pallet on the upper floors it's a little bit more neutral and uh and more with the uh The Deco and the the pallet the lighter tone and then we we wanted the bottom floor to kind of uh pop out a little bit so that that's kind of more of the Active Space um we also uh looked at the uh the traffic and and the parking and we wanted to be sensitive to that so what we ended up doing is off Normandy we have one entrance which is to our second floor garage and then uh off the garage we have the other entrance which is to our first floor uh parking spaces that way we would have like a kind of the traffic a little bit more spread out um we have 30 plus spaces on the second floor and 30 plus spaces on the first floor so there shouldn't be that uh there shouldn't be a lot of traffic and our exit's off verant Court which is also where where kind of Walgreens uh entrance is so sorry what's happening in Everglades court is that just parking spots ground floor parking yeah those are ground floor and that's off of the alley yeah the uh the Everglades Court alley um and then we have additional parking space uh on the inside so you kind of coming full Normandy Frontage or retail spots yeah all uh we we line the the Normandy side with all the retail and then we wrapped it around at ver and Court uh cuz Walgreens kind of has their entrance also their parking side on that side so we wanted to kind of promote like at least the activity for walking uh on the ground floor thank you um second floor uh We've also introduced bicycle storage we think that uh the workforce housing benefits from uh um local uh local trips that's also part of the retail while it was structured uh to be a little bit smaller um so by having uh bicycle storage you want to introduce some scooter storage uh we think that the uh the users of the workforce housing will be able to go by mass transit or or by public transit let's say uh and then use the uh bikes and and scooters which is also trans for sustainable designs um here we have two of the three of the units we have a an A and A B which is the reverse and we have uh We've also introduced two bedroom units uh which we think is part of uh natural progression if you're in a one-bedroom you're young professional or you're one of the uh you know in the service industry service staff like uh waiters U you kind of if you have a small family you can uh go to the two-bedroom we think that that's kind of a also a need um and then I'll I'll turn it over to here for for the rest thank you so we we do have Tom Hall if any traffic questions come up uh he's on Zoom but just want to summarize we did submit a complete traffic analysis for the project we did get comments back from the Transportation mobility department we're you know again early on in the process we know what we need to do revise our study look at the plans and and make sure um that we are meeting addressing those comments uh the traffic study did find that we're not impacting the roadway links around the projects any more than uh typical development that's permitted today would be allowed um and the existing Transit routes will service the project and we're proposing TDM measures um like ample bike parking posting transit information within the site and given it's on Normandy Drive we have access to Transit uh we also did an infrastructure analysis of our water and sewer demand for the commercial the residential fire and the sewer demand for all of it uh we did get feedback from the I think it's Hazen and Sawyer as the consultant uh that the water demand can be met uh and upgrades may be required for the sewer system they didn't really elaborate much on what those uh upgrades would be so between now and the next planning board meeting we plan to try to meet with them and figure out what those upgrades would need to be uh in order to make the project possible uh and make sure we don't bust our our sh demand um and with that we I did I was going to touch on the affordability we talked about it already so I'm sure we'll talk about it some more now we're asking to be continued to June so that we could come back and move this forward okay uh anyone in here to speak other than whoever okay anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom with their hand raised okay close the public hearing questions any questions uh oh go ahead no you please order please left or right uh so look we don't discuss design really here and we're like way early in the process but I just I saw some of the renderings that are in here and the what sticks out to me um oh by the way first I mean I think Workforce housing greatly needed in this city uh I'm supportive of this uh moving forward of course we're the first step in a really long process here and thank you for explaining why the Miami Herald article was not correct I was a little perplexed reading it uh like I didn't know there was you know why are we reviewing this I didn't know there was even a project it's a little confusing um but my comment though again I'm getting ahead of ourselves here but to see the garage like open to the like an open air garage Courtyard where people are going to be living and have Windows and Doors it just it again way ahead of myself here but that that concerns me the noise of cars coming and going and and whatnot um the other kind of Transportation related question is again we're way ahead of ourselves here but I didn't see any short-term bike parking on the ground level near the retail and I would suggest that you know as you as you kind of bake this further in if it moves forward um the again we kind of talked about this briefly but the big range in in Amis that are allowed for this again I think you mentioned that that you don't set the rate or or the the uh the rent um I guess the city sets the maximum rent that you can charge and so again you know that's 140% of Ami um is is a really big number and uh maybe that does capture some of the workforce but it but if it was only tell or to that at one point it would leave out a lot of other people who are in need thank you for your comments we take them into heart and we'll come back in a couple months with with hopefully some changes um I know that we'll be able to discuss this once we have more Community feedback but in the meantime I love to see if there was some capability from the developer to introduce or include micro Mobility uh whether that you know just electric scooters or even offering kind of bikes on site uh kind of on demand um I think that would be really helpful especially for that you know Normandy area kind of like hotels offer their own City bike type thing exact yeah okay understood but love the project love Workforce housing think there should be a model for the rest of the city great I I I had the same concern but go ahead just again the project is very welcome so thank you thank you I had a question about unit sizes what is the one-bedroom two bedroom the one-bedrooms are 412 Square ft and the two bedrooms I think are what 799 under 700 one bedroom at 412 or studio um and the we don't have Studios we're just one bedroom 400 412 yeah and a two bedroom is what 700 it's 69 would you consider um reducing the number of units and increasing the sizes I feel like for a family in 600 square ft is sort is a little tight maybe I'm I mean I think I'm I think it's tight um yeah we got we're getting the feedback today it's a little bit weird we're not going to agree today right and then um um but are are those Je balconies or are they fullsize balconies no we had full siiz fulls siiz balconies okay I mean I'm I like the project so I mean and I live around there so we can we can look at theore footes and see how we can adjust okay we were um just in response to that comment we were looking at kind of what's available in the area and there are similarly sized 400 420 foot unit in this is different it's Workforce it's not really developed in the 1960s which we have a lot of around and know that we have a lot of shortterm rentals that I'm um well let's just say we have a lot and I really want this to work I think anyway got it I understand so the the request is that it get toer till June right so we need a a motion to continue this for the June 25th meeting Mo motion to continue to the June yeah to continue both so just for the record this is to continue both pb2 p 24- 0650 pb 4- 0651 to the June meeting first second Alissa second all in favor I all opposed okay thank you thank you all have a great afternoon okay planning board file uh item 12 planning board file 24666 3 repeal of cd2 co- living incentives and reduction of TCC co-living maximum units and this report can be found on page um starting on page 181 of the board packages So currently cold living units are only permitted along limited portions of Washington Avenue and in the north beach um Town Center um TCC District um Co living units are only permitted on the west side of Washington Avenue between 6th Street and 15th Street and in North Beach Co living is only permitted in the TC in the TCC district with a cap of 550 co- living units now the only previously approved project that received approval for Co living units is a project that was reviewed by the planning board um several years ago at 1234 um Washington Avenue now um although a demolition permit was issued and demolition demolition commenced they have not received a full building permit for that application however their approvals are still active under the um allowance for State extensions in the north beach toown Center area the total number of units that have been um permitted compared to the maximum is 529 so the proposed ordinance removes the ability for any future co- living units along Washington Avenue and repeals all references to co- living within the Washington Avenue cordor and within the the TCC District in North Beach it lowers the cap to um from 550 to 529 so recommending that the planning board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation anyone on Zoom there's nobody on Zoom I our audience is empty can can you clarify the mam to speak anything to say um can you clarify you said there was there was an application previously filed there was something approved for 1234 Washington that was that was the project that initiated the code amendments to allow cold living units so on the slight chance that it's I heard read somewhere it's going to auction whoever buys that wants to continue with the project as it can be approved in accordance with with the code at that time yes yes okay it hasn't expired what was the uh sorry Matthew any other questions Jonathan not no question question what was the like impetus for removing the co- living allowance I think the idea is that um wanting to create more um long-term housing instead of sort of facilitating these um smaller units that are really you know more like hotel rooms versus you know permanent living the living facilities actually I do have a question what is the size of a co- living unit um the average or minimum I think it it can be down to as little as 200 It's a combination of it does require that you have shared spaces so typically you would have a common a common kitchen area a living area and then have a separate bedroom that's part of that and also requires a certain percentage of um amenity spaces within the building so sort of like a hotel the size room right but you would have you would have a a shared within typically what we've seen is you would have two or three like bedrooms sharing a common living and kitchen area imagine we work for for housing like dorm room there's some entrepreneur right now watching this thing that's a good idea we have in down Miami here he is that's what we're doing had we had any other applications I'm just trying to understand why we're we're we're well there was was some talk about the application we saw earlier for 1509 Washington initially when that came to us there was an uncertainty whether not they were going to propose co- living units um ultimately they did not in the end so y you you said that you have a project a co- living project can you tell us about that sure so the idea is let's just take Winwood as an example so in Winwood we have Co living so we'll have a three-bedroom apartment and they can rent you know by the bedroom essentially so instead of you know the price point for Windwood being $2,000 right now it's $1,700 so it it allows people who might otherwise not be able to afford moving into a community to allow them to move in um and then you have more common areas within the building so we have we have incredible amenities we give them a sizable kind of living area um so that they don't feel like you know they're stuck in their room um but then you know if if they want to run by the bedroom they have the option and what we've seen actually is is it's a great entry into each of the neighborhoods so people you know kind of come into the neighborhood for 1700 they love the neighborhood um then they'll maybe spend a little more to be in a studio or one bedro and they kind of graduate throughout and they're long-term rentals they're not short-term rentals so all long-term rentals yeah I should I should before I forget I should just mention that the um the land use and sustainability committee did review this on February 5th and they did recommend that the planning board transmit this with a favorable recommendation okay someone want to move it yeah I'll move it and I think that you know if perhaps they see in other parts of the the region that it's a successful um model that you know they could they could come back to the city commission and and look for another change in the future but right now I think it's a good idea for us to repeal this I'll second it okay so the motion is with a favorable recommendation great okay all in favor I any okay okay all right last but not least planning board File 13 planning board 24664 sexually transmitted infection testing regulations and this uh report can be found starting on page 195 of the board packages and um just to update the the land use on and sustainability committee did review this on February 26th and did recommend that the board transmit this to the city commission with a favorable recommendation So currently um STI testing is considered a class one medical use as only as part of a retail clinic or medical office and a class two medical use as part of a lab or Healthcare Clinic um these types of class one medical uses are allowed in all zoning districts except um I'm sorry class one medical uses are allowed in all zoning districts except residential single family town home rm1 which is residential multif family rps1 rms1 and rps2 districts um south of this street also as a class one medical use STI testing can only permit as part of a medical clinic or office um our Land Development regulations designate uses that are exempt from regulation as a medical office this would include for example a home health agency um homaker and companion services home H home Hospice Services um massage therapist these are not these are not designated as medical uses this ordinance would add that to a list to allow more expansive testing facilities within a place of residence as as well as within multif family commercial and mixed use districts can I ask a question about that I marked this when I was reviewing staff reports what exactly does that mean as well as within multif family commercial and mixed use districts so it means that someone could offer they could come in and offer testing services in that District without being classified as a medical use and under this under and have to meet the requirements of a um um a medical facility or a healthcare clinic but what's the problem do we don't have enough of them the problem is is we don't we don't have enough testing and it's been indicated as referenced in the um the actual ordinance that um by rate of transmission mday County ranks 17 nationally you know I get that but it's the problem we don't have enough testing cilities because they're zoned out right well they're Limited in area so this this would expand the availability of testing services okay but but so just to F follow up a little bit my question is are would a STI testing facility be allowed to open up like a storefront in these other uh districts that you mentioned yes well but this is for in their home though well no that that's separate so that would allow that would allow someone to be to have to have someone come to your residents and do testing individually or for example it it would allow testing at um at um out of the closet they could provide testing services there which otherwise they could not provide my understanding also is because I had i' asked the question of the sponsor um what health regulations would that would be covered under that and this is just a zoning ordinance so anything that that would come after that would be up to the state and how they regulate that so that was that was my question so I I had I too had had questions so Michael just to clarify um class one medical uses are allowed in all zoning uh districts except the ones you you stayed here so this ordinance basically allows um STI testing specific whereas they they don't need to do it at they don't need to be part of a clinic clinic that's one but would it which are limited and where they can be which are limited but would it allow it in the in these districts this in other words if someone's going to do it on his own he's got to um out of his house no not out of not out of a house it have to be a commercial area it would still be a commercial area so it wouldn't allow ow it in the rm1 RPS we can we can we can put together language to clarify that before this goes to the commission so it basically it's just allowing it whereas it doesn't have to be part of a clinic correct correct correct but it's not changing the zoning areas where it could be okay seems to be a trend in the country I was one of those things you search and you just hope no one looks at your search history right he was typing in but it seems to be like an ongoing thing and a lot of the states are doing more of that kind of think important that you do that clarifying because it's a little with that understanding someone to move it make a motion to approve second with a favorable recommendation who was the second on that Jonathan favor I I'll opposed okay and I guess we're deferring the last item corre um discussion on resiliencies code updates all right guys Michael you wanted the copies of bless 15099 if you want to leave those here and we'll send them to you meeting adjourned yeah Michael good job on your first meeting back thank you Nick back it was a long day it's like you never left yeah yes if you want to leave the the 1509 e e e for