I don't know. Fire Heat. Heat. N. I am a fly. feel. You're a Best. Hey,
hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in
5 4 3 2 1. >> Okay. Good morning everybody. Hey, I'd appreciate if you take your seats and I welcome you to the June 2nd planning board meeting. Um, today we are going to be short two people temporarily and hopefully one makes it in time, but we
have a quorum, so we're okay. Um, before I turn over the city attorney, can I get someone to move to approve the minutes from the main meeting? >> I'll move them. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Meeting is approved. Turn it over
to city attorney. Swear everybody in. >> Thank you. Good morning. Today's meeting of the planning board is being conducted in a hybrid format with a quorum of the board physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicants, staff, and members of the public appearing either in person
or virtually via Zoom. Those wishing to participate via Zoom may dial the toll-free number which is 877-853-5257 and enter the webinar ID which is 861-43426327 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is
861-4342-6327. Individuals wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if they are using the Zoom app or dial star9 if participating by phone. Before I swear in those who are testifying, I'm going to read into the record the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration.
If you are appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, including as an architect, attorney, or representative of an applicant, or an objector, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office before you speak to the board. If you haven't registered yet, you should register prior to appearing. You do not have to register if you are
speaking only on behalf of yourself, you are testifying as an expert witness, providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized testimony, or you are appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without compensation for your appearance to express support for or opposition to an item. Expert witnesses and
representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they are communicating. These rules apply whether you appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or
continuence. I will now swear in everyone who is physically present in the commission chambers and intends to testify, virtual speakers will need to be sworn in one by one before addressing the board. So, if you'll be testifying, please raise your right hand. >> Do you swear or affirm that testimony we'll be giving is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Before we start, we're going to welcome the esteemed Thomas, say a few words. Thomas Mooney. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning everybody. Um, as a lot of you may be
aware, uh, starting at the July meeting, there will be a new name on the planning board memos, uh, because Debbie Tacket has been, uh, confirmed by the commission to succeed me as the the director. And that that will be effective on uh,
Jul June 29th. and I'll be with the city for the month of July, but strictly on an advisory capacity um assisting Debbie in anything additional that she needs for the transition. And so I just wanted to take a few minutes to thank everybody
here for your support. Um I mentioned to Brian before the meeting that I went into the uh drop program, which is the deferred retirement option program 5 years ago. And the main reason that I went into it was to ensure that there would be upward mobility in our
department. And so I think Debbiey's going to do an outstanding job. We have a very deep bench. We have an excellent staff. And I think that um the manager appointing from within shows his confidence in our staff and there will be an opportunity now for everybody to
move up. And this will ensure continuity. My predecessors also were promoted from within. And so I think this is a a really good thing for the department. Also, I've been here for 33 years and so at some point you definitely want to make room for people to move up. But I also wanted to say
that I think you guys do an outstanding job. I know it's not easy. Um but as the local planning agency, you do play a very very pivotal role in terms of making recommendations to the commission as well as um approving certain types of projects. And so I would encourage you
to keep up the good work. Um, and that's it. I I will be around. So, most of you have my number. Feel free um to reach out. I I won't be a stranger. >> Okay. >> Well, congrats on a stellar career. We're lucky to have you. Um you've been a pleasure to work with. I'm glad you
still be around. And uh Debbie, congrats to you. Welld deserved. >> Thank you. And thank you, Tom, for all of the support. I've worked with Tom for over 20 years. and you know, I would not be as knowledgeable or in the position I'm in now without his incredible
mentorship and um teaching. So, thank you, Tom, for everything. >> All right. Thanks. Have a good meeting. >> Thank you, Tom. Very appreciate it. Okay. Uh request for continuences. The first is planning planning board file
260838, which is the one Ocean Drive concession agreement. So, the concession agreement, the request is to continue to the July 7th meeting. Um, staff has been working with the city attorney's office. Um, and we have no objection to that request.
>> Okay. Someone want to move it to July? I'll move it. >> Okay. Keith Melissa second. All in favor? >> Yep. I >> Anyone opposed? No. Okay. 5-0. Okay. Okay. The next is planning board file 260827 North Residential Incentives LDR amendment
and I guess companion with planning board file 260828 North Residential Incentives comprehensive plan amendment. >> Um both of these um have been requested by the sponsor to be continued to the July 7th meeting. We currently have a uh
public meeting, the required public meeting in between the two planning board hearings scheduled for June um June 18th. So, that's a Thursday at 5:30 p.m. You can find all of the information how to log into the meeting via Zoom uh
on the city's website, but the the public meeting has been rescheduled to June 18th at 5:30 p.m. And again, that's on a Zoom. So, anyone listening can find the login information and join that meeting. >> Okay. I should have asked for anybody here to speak on this motion to
continue. Anyone on Zoom? >> Okay. Someone want to move both of them? >> I'll move it. Okay. The June you said the July meeting >> July. >> Okay. >> No second. >> Okay. All in favor? I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. So, move to July.
Okay. Progress reports. We have one planning board file 21448 23 23523rd Street. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is an existing uh nightclub. It initially uh received a conditional use permit for
a neighborhood impact establishment with entertainment in 2006. Uh since that time, there have been uh multiple operators um for this particular location. The most recent and current operator um took the space in 2025.
Um the last progress report heard by the planning board was in um June of 2025. Um at that point in time uh the board did not take any action. Um there were they had cured all of the violations
um at that time and it wasn't until recently um where the uh property did receive a several violations um there were in October of 2025 there was a special event um that they received two
violations for well they received one violation for the special event itself but also a written uh noise warning. Um, >> the vast majority of the new violations were issued in um, May of this year and
they are specifically related to the valet. The current CUP does require the applicant to maintain uh, valet service and provide the storage locations um to the city as part of that cup. Um what
happened was their current valet, it is my understanding that the BTR for their current valet was revoked and therefore it's not only a violation for the valet company to be operating without a BTR but also a violation of the CUP. So we
have I believe 24 violations that were issued um beginning early May um on a nearly daily basis for that one specific issue. All 24 are related to the valet service. >> Correct. >> Right. But they would get one and know
it was wrong and keep doing it. Is that okay? >> And we do have I just wanted to to note we do have our assistant director Edgar Estrada of the code compliance department here who could also if you have specific questions about you know how code is is um issuing these
violations, he would be more than happy to answer any questions you have as well. Um, we've also included a calls um a itemized calls for service from the police department and there was um a pyrochnics violation issued by the fire department.
>> A what? >> A what? >> Pyrochnics. >> Yeah. >> As well as a threat. >> Um and that appears, you know, all of those do not appear to be recurring. The recurring violations are specific to the valet. All of the other violations have
not been recurring. What about the one um in April for an explosive threat? And what about the one in April for lewd conduct and overdose and disturbance
and lararsening >> and battery? So some of these if you look some of these may not be related to the nightclub itself because if you look at the times the lewd conduct for example was 8:30 in the morning may or may not be directly related to the to
the nightclub operations. The nightclub is not open at that time. Um but certainly there have been calls you know there was a the explosive threat is a you know someone using a telephone to call in a an explosive threat for the property. We
don't know if it's specifically related to the operations happening at the nightclub um with the homeless as well. Um there may be some cause and effect, but we don't have that determination. >> Explosive explosive threat was at 12:39
a.m. in April. And then there was also a code violation for alcohol disclosure for promoted event. Um there's there's another explosive event at 1:12
a.m. on May 14th. There's I mean so these are operating hours, are they not? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Deborah, you finished? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then we'll ask questions. >> Yes, of course. Uh good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Mickey Morero 2 South Pisces Boulevard here on
behalf of the Pakarata nightclub. So I obviously a lot of stuff to explain here and I will explain it because I think you'll find after you hear some of the background that unlike some of the situations we've had with other establishments. There's little here not and there's there's not nothing to blame. There are issues that that we've
worked through but a lot of the stuff on paper appears different than what's actually happening. So I'll go back chronologically to you know back up what some of Debbie has said and explain a little further. There was an event that triggered two if you look at the cure letter there were three items identified in the cure letter. uh one two of them
were related to one instance. There was a noise warning, not even a violation, a warning and a violation for using the outdoor patio which is not allowed in their CUP. That event was not So the the club did a mitzvah. They allowed uh the
women's breast cancer charity to use it wasn't even a night that they're open. They allowed them to use it as for a charity event and they they've since done other charity events and they've told the the operators not to use the patio. They it was just an oversight. They've never used the patio in
contradiction with their cup. It was the charity. It was an event that they donated food. They donated uh the whole uh venue and that's when it occurred. So the patio they know not to use it. They have never used it when it's their operation. It was a charity. They made a mistake. They should have informed the
charity. But that's two of the three. The third one, as as Miss Leone pointed out, um was for notice. And you know what the the code now requires you, as you all know, provide 96-hour notice of any celebrity, any act that's going to be at the venue. They do this whenever
they're open. They have some person be it, you know, uh, you know, performer, does a couple songs. This is kind of a what what most of these clubs do now. So they, and I'm copied on them, so I see them. They notify the police timely two or three times a week. They've never had an issue. of the 200 plus times they've
done this one of them and it did occur and it's something that they made a mistake and they paid it. We didn't appeal it because it was wrong. They got it. They didn't make the 96 hours. They they just missed it. Somebody that sends these emails from their office was a little bit late. But that's one time out of like 200 times. So again, they they
made a mistake. We didn't even appeal it because I told them, "Guys, you didn't make it within 96 hours. It's your mistake." They immediately paid $1,000 and they haven't done it since. So those are the three that were the subject of the cure letter. Then what's happened in May is a little bit you know with these
nightclubs and I've been here before you guys some always some weird stuff happens but so in May we find out now and I get a call that they got a violation you know one night they were open the code showed up and gave them a violation for violation of their cup. They didn't even understand why um and
they gave them so every time that they're open they get two violations. We have appealed every one of them and I'll explain to you why. So, these hearings are going to be later this summer at some point. The reason we appealed them was because they have had nothing to do with anything they're doing. The valet, the third party valet operator, which
they have a long-term contract with. What it's getting these valet licenses with these venues is is very complicated. They have a contract. The valet operator is functioning fine. They they they have an issue with their BTR, not the club's BTR, not anything has to do with the club. We've been in touch
with the valet company. They don't they still this is like two weeks ago. They've been they've hired an expedited. They're dealing with the city. They're not entirely sure why their BTR got uh impacted. They're trying to work it out. They have other council. They have another, you know, staff, but they're resolving it. They also have told me
that they work for like 60 70 other establishments, restaurants, venues. Not one of one of their other ones has a violation. So, this I think it's called Beachfront Valet. They get a violation within minutes. And I and I kid you not, it's not like days later. Within
minutes, Bakar gets a violation for this third party ballet company. And then we contact them and they're like scrambling to figure out why. And again, none of their other clients that use the same company has gotten a violation. >> It's very weird. So, we and we've
contacted the city, but again, I don't represent the valet company. They have their own folks. They're they're trying to solve it. Uh, but it's been pretty challenging to deal with. Now again for this club just to close because there's a technical issue with the valet company which the valet company doesn't even understand they would go out of
business. I mean they have they've paid money for for folks they they they would literally go out of business within two weeks if they just had to shut down. So we've appealed them. They've all been validly and timely appealed and the valet company is feverishly trying to solve whatever technicality with their BTR which they as of last week when I
spoke to them do not fully understand. So there's all these violations. Now, as to as to the police calls. So, look, there was a there was some lar some, you know, something happened at 8:30 a.m. They closed at 3. So, that's 5 and a half hours. I don't think anything at 8:30 a.m. had anything to do with them.
The explosive threats probably, and again, I'm I'm hearing about some of this is new, but if somebody's calling a threat, an explosive threat to a venue right at its peak opening time, it's probably a competitor. These businesses are, you know, unfortunately. So I don't
think it was I don't think they would call an explosive threat on their own club. >> You have overdoses. You have overdoses. You have one, two, three, four. >> I don't believe. >> Would you like to address um this live streamer clavicle who says that he's the
owner. He's 20 years old and there's video of him because he's live streaming inside a establishment that should be 21 and only and he's carding teenagers. you like to talk about that? >> I've never met this individual. He's not the person I deal with. Um,
>> are you aware of this or they have they kept all this secret even though it's on social media? >> Look, I I can't speak to what social media and reality sometimes is very different. I will tell you. >> Well, no, but he's there >> and then we see fights both inside and out.
>> So, as to live streaming, >> I don't believe and again, >> you think it's fake. >> No, I don't think it's fake. I'm gonna respond because so if someone is has is is is some partnership or is working at the club. I will tell you my son is 19. He's a DJ. He's at clubs DJing. Does he
drink? He's never had a drop. I'm not going to pretend he's never drank in his life. He's in college. But he's never had a drop of alcohol in any of the clubs he's worked at because he's a DJ. If this if this guy's working or someone has a partnership with the club, but he's not drinking, you can't be a patron. But I can tell you, you could be a you could work security. You could
work at a venue if you're a valid employer. I I don't know the deals of this individual. I only know his name because of my, you know, younger kids, >> but because they follow these guys, but again, I I I'll speak to them about that. I know that there was one incident, you know, outside that security handled very quickly, but it it
it, you know, there really hasn't been that many issues in the club and on paper it all these technical violations that it appears to me that again whenever these all this stuff happens, there's some sort of someone's trying to impact their business. It's happened with other with other venues that we're aware of. But any but we don't know
that. We don't know that. I would I would like to talk to the police department and find out from them. I think maybe I think hearing from the police. >> No. >> I mean if if it's possible. >> Well, let me Is anybody else in here to speak on this item? >> No. Is anyone on Zoom on this item? I
just want to get to the public hearing. Okay. So, we're going to close that. Um >> can we do before we close the public hearing? Can we do disclosures just as a >> disclosures >> on a progress? >> Not on this. >> We need that on a progress report >> because a progress report could turn
into a modification revocation hearing. I think it's a good idea. >> Okay. Any disclosures? >> No. >> Not much. >> And Mr. Chair, we do have someone on Zoom that just raised their hand. >> Okay. >> Um, a Brewster. Not >> Brewster. Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. >> You have two minutes. >> All right. Um, I'm the property manager for the residential and dormatory apartment building across the street from this establishment and I have a
resident here with me as well witnessing my uh testimony. But um, my concerns were reported to lots of city officials as well as uh some other residential emails going back and forth. Um my ma biggest overall concern here is
maintaining peace and order in a brand new apartment community that we've been open a year now. We're 100% workforce housing. Uh we're very successful. We've got a very successful running dormatory with in most cases minors living on the second floor that have full view into
what is going on on the streets and the sidewalks and inside of that active courtyard each night that that club is open. There is always activity in that courtyard. After the club is nearing close and during the startup, everyone arriving at this club is not arriving
with a valet service. They're arriving in Ubers. They're crowding into the streets. They crowd into the streets. After the club closes, they get on the Animar's property and several of them have been sneaking back behind my building and continuing to party. Those
are my concerns, especially with the Miami City Ballet School having so much sight line to that establishment and what's going on as well as my residents. >> Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else? Okay. Um questions anybody? The only question I have is if we are going to take staff recommendation to hold a hearing, can we have it in July instead of September?
>> Um July is going to be extremely challenging because this does require a a 31-day notice which includes a mail notice that is entirely um the responsibility of staff to do that in in >> but can it be done is what he's asking. >> Yeah. Can it be done? there might be
>> and I don't honestly physically potentially yes but it's I mean we would have to send the mail notice out within the next day or two and we don't even have the list of the property owners yet. We would have to you know typically the applicant would be submitting that and in the case of a revocation hearing
we would have to compile that. >> Yeah. I wouldn't have it fixed up when >> I would not want to try and notice it and miss the deadline by a day or two and then have to renotice it again. Um, so I would feel more comfortable with bringing this back for a revocation hearing in September.
Um, but we could certainly attempt to bring it back in July. We just may be in front of you in July requesting um a a different date if the notices aren't completed in the in >> so if people agree the the rest um we
could have a motion to attempt to do this. The worst case is it's this has to happen for September, right? We could try best effort. >> Correct. >> Okay. Well, I'd like to make that motion. >> I would second that. And I'd also like
to have the police department present because I have serious questions about a lot of these things because they are during operating hours and they all are within the last not even 30 days. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second to ask staff to do it for July.
Uh, all in favor of that. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. So, those are marching orders. >> Very good. >> All right. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. Okay, we're on to comprehensive plan and code amendments. First is planning board
file PB 260815 1775 Collins Avenue LDR amendment with a companion comprehensive plan amendment. Planning board file 260816. >> Okay. Um thank you Mr. Chair. So, this is um the Raleigh Hotel. Um before I get
into the specifics of our recommendation, um I just wanted to point out that this is uh the LDR amendment does in include a uh increase in the floor area ratio that's currently permitted for this property. As such,
the um process for this request is extended. It is actually a six-step process. This is step number one which is the initial hearing before the planning board. Um after today, if the board uh continues this application to a
future date, the um planning department will coordinate with the applicant the scheduling of a community meeting. That community meeting will be noticed um and held prior to the second planning board hearing. After the planning board transmits a recommendation, it it also
requires uh two readings at the city commission. and uh final approval by a six sevens vote and we would also have an intervening public meeting during that commission uh process. Um so I just wanted to point that out. Um the
applicant is currently requesting an F of 2.5 um specific to oceanfront lots within the architectural district that exceed 100,000 square ft as of January 1st of this year. Um staff would note
that um while um they have crafted the um ordinance to to include not just this specific property. Currently it appears um after looking at the entire
architectural district that this is the only particular property um that would be able to take advantage of the uh increase in F. um it would result in uh the existing F is 2.0. So an increase of
0.5 F for this particular property would result in an additional 66,418 square ft. Um the applicant has submitted um plans that is part of the uh development project for the Raleigh Hotel and the neighboring South Seas and
Richmond properties. this has been uh combined into a unified development site. Um we would also note that um currently in the architectural district there are different FS. Um there are F
there is an increase in F of up to 3.0 for properties that exceed the 100,000 square feet that were aggregated prior to 1998. So this is for example the Ritz Carlton property. Um there are several properties within this this district
that do have a higher F. Um the Lowe's Hotel is another one. Um but this particular property because it was aggregated after 1998 is is required to stay with the existing 2.0. So again, they're asking for 2.5 um
given the size of this property, given the importance of um the historic contributing buildings on the site and it's uh their their restoration staff is generally supportive of the proposal. Um but we uh would recommend that this be
continued to the July meeting um so that we can schedule the public hearing and hear more from from the surrounding neighbors. >> All right. Thanks. And before you start, Alfredo, I just want to point out I inadvertently passed over a um a matter
regarding the base camp 305 school. So if anyone is here for that, it'll be next. Go ahead, Alfredo. >> Good morning, chairman, board. Um my name is Alfred Gonzalez with office at 323 Southeast Second Avenue at Greenberg. Uh
here today on behalf of the applicant, Nala Rally LLC. With me today is uh David Butter from my office, one of my colleagues from ownership Nala Capital, Genghis Hadi, and architect Kobe Karp. Um Nala Capital acquired the Raleigh
project and it's his fifth owner in the last 14 years at the end of 2025. I would like at this time to have Genghask Hadid just come in and talk to you about his company and the projects he's worked on. So as an introduction of the the developer who's acquired the site. Um
>> thanks. Thank you, Alfredo. Good morning uh chair and members of the board. Uh my name is Jenga and I am the managing principal of Nala Capital and co-founder as well. Nala Capital is a privately held privatelyowned real estate and development company uh based out of New
York focused on creating exceptional properties that stand the test of time. We invest with a long-term ownership mindset emphasizing quality stewardship lasting value for the communities in which we build. Our projects include
developments in historically significant markets and landmark districts, including in New York and Beverly Hills, as well as in the Gold Coast of Chicago. Our projects include groundup development and the repositioning of existing buildings in all of our markets. Today, I'm here to discuss our
project that is far more than a development opportunity for us. The Raleigh is one of Miami Beach's most iconic landmarks and one of the defining properties in the history of this city. When we acquired the Raleigh, we understood that we were taking on both
an opportunity and a significant responsibility. You want me to wait? Um, we inherited a property that had been closed for years and required substantial and requires today
substantial investment, restoration, and structural rehabilitation before it can once again become an active contributor to Miami Beach. Since closing, we have moved forward aggressively with our commitment to reinvest into this property. We have completed the
enclosure of the Raleigh and the through the installation of scaffolding and other protective systems. We've completed the structural shoring of the entire hotel. We've completed the new dune crossover connecting the beachwalk to the beach. We've completed the demolition of the non-historic penthouse
additions that were done after the original construction. We have commenced facade restoration and stucco remediation. We have commenced strengthening of the existing structural columns and we have commenced a significant concrete restoration work throughout the historic structure. We
obviously invite everybody from the planning board to come and visit to see the amount of work that is actively taking place today. Um these reflect these are not future commitments. These are investments that we've already made in the sums of millions of dollars. They reflect our belief in the Raleigh, our
confidence in Miami Beach, and our commitment to bringing this landmark back to life. We do not view our request as additional development capacity simply for the sake of development capacity. We view it as a critical component that allows the comprehensive
restoration and long-term viability of the Raleigh Hotel and the campus. Historic restoration at this scale, as all of you are well aware, is extraordinarily complex. It's extraordinarily expensive. And the reality is is that preservation,
rehabilitation, and activation of an iconic property such as the Raleigh require a thoughtful balance between preservation goals and economic sustainability. Our requested modifications allow us for create allow us to create that exact
balance. It provides the flexibility to complete the restoration, deliver a world-class hospitality destination, create lasting economic activity, and ensure that the Raleigh remains a vibrant and thriving part of Miami Beach for decades to come.
Most most importantly, this request allows us to continue moving forward with certainty and momentum as we have started. The rally has sat dormant for way too long. Our goal is very simple. restore it, reopen it, reactivate it,
and once again make it a source of pride for Miami Beach. We respectfully ask for your recommendation and support for this proposal as we move forward to city commission. And I thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Could we get the PowerPoint
up at this point? Thank you. So um well my client actually gave a great overview of the what he's been doing. He acquired the site uh as the fifth owner on this on the at the Raleigh over the last 14 years in end of
October. So as he said he immediately started looking at the conditions of the building and saw that the Raleigh and we had started meeting with city officials with Debbie planning manager's office commissioners everyone had the same echo the same concern everyone was concerned
about the condition of the Raleigh that's been in a give you a little um history of it the Raleigh for the last 14 years has been flipped from one owner to the next uh several entitlements act 9 years ago when it was under the Tommy
Hilfinger group. They they secured the building permit in 2017 that stripped down the Raleigh and it's been that way ever since. So the concerns that were echoed by the administration and seen by my client, he immediately started working on how to get this shoring. So
as of May 1st actually before hurricane season 100% the shoring bracing um has been completed foundation to support the building um in addition to the fact that he started taking other steps actively working on the
construction as he outlined but to be not to one of the ones that I wanted to note was that and I'll show you if you could see it these are some of the projects like the Rosewood Beverly Hills that they worked on his projects But if you look at the historic build uh
picture of the Raleigh for decades since 1996, the Raleigh had a penthouse edition added. Administration I've had numerous talks and Debbie I know was asked everyone who's owned this property to
strip back that addition. Well, it was finally agreed to and it's Nala Capital who actually finished doing if you drive by now, you'll see the historic crown back the way it was with stripped out the the penthouse. So, he started that
work already and he's done that work. Um, so it it's important that and and one more thing that he did on top of that uh we got there were complaints ongoing complaints on the property prior to his ownership of there was a dune
crossing behind the Richmond uh a wood crossing that crosses between uh get you to the beach public access uh it's been in disrepair since a previous storm destroyed it and Genghask being discovering that we went through FB FDP
and got their permits and were required before turtle season would it would impact turtle season um by before May 1st that was completed and given and opened back up to the public. So they had that use as well. So where are we here today? We're here today asking for
a to start the process for a modification an increase of F of.5. So, it's a modest increase that's being requested really to allow this project to stabilize and be and be able to finally
be brought back on to the uh the the public and the use. Everyone's looked at this property for over nine years on as a construction site and my client has been committed to and has already started working on the site. But I wanted to go over uh and Debbie had
mentioned this before. When you look at the there's a unique characteristic when you're in the Miami Beach Architectural District RM3 oceanfront lots typically have 3.0 but when you're in this area which is about you'll see in pink uh you're limited to 2.0 except some of the
large scale projects that were grandfathered. So that's a tie over 6.0 F. Um the Ritz Carlton and the short club that are at actually 3.15 because there's a 3.0 know as a right and and
there's a 0.15 bonus for hotel amenities. So we're asking we're we're actually the same size and larger than than the Ritz and the uh at over 135,000 square ft to
increase not any not to 3.5 or 3.15. We're asking to get to 2.5 to make the project. And I'll walk you through some of the the the uses of 66,000 square feet of F would go through. Um these are some of the exhibit of the
projects in the area. And this is kind of renderings of what the project would look like. These are the old renderings. We are, just for the record, we are in the midst of um redesigning and and and strategizing how that FR would actually be used.
That's going to be a process that'll go to the historic preservation board if the F is approved ultimately by the commission. So, we haven't submitted any plans to at this point to HPB. We're still in development of the plans, but it would be roughly um this is the
historic character you'll see that's that will be done. And if you look here, the interesting part is that both the Richmond and South Seas is part of the the permanent plans is being restored to its original condition in 1940s. The facade was covered up in the just like
the penthouse edition in the '9s at the Raleigh had its alterations. The South Seas Enrichment had their facades altered in the in the mid-50s. So that will be returned. The there was also a fourth floor that's being removed. So you end up with three floors and the
original facade that quite frankly we when we were going through the original process a lot of people thought why are you changing it? No we're not changing we're bringing it back to the El Oh all three buildings are El Murray Dixon buildings. So you have a collection of three buildings of an iconic architect. Um and
in addition to that what wanted to show you is that with a 2.5 FR the only we're not asking for additional density. We're not asking for any zoning changes. Everything else is a matter of right. This project before it even went under construction under the
last entitlement had over 300 hotel rooms when you combine the Raleigh, Richmond, South Seas. That's what was existing. Under the provinity in the RM3, you could have well over 450 residential units. Don't worry, that's not nothing
where nowhere near what they're asking for. Right now there's entitlements of 86 hotel rooms and 84 apartments. We're probably looking if the F is is increased at 2.5 of being somewhere in the range of 52 residential units. So
substantially less density than we the project could have. Um and quite frankly at the end um I just wanted to highlight we did go because as a requirement of the of the F process we
do have to show where potentially the massing would go. So we did go through you in your package you'll see exhibits that we alloc tried to allocate preliminarily the massing into different areas which includes uh the new tower
but also includes the Richmond southeast that had um been voided of Face. There were mechanical equipment in the Richmond above the first floor. The uh the South Seas was double height space so they they took out all the F. We're reintroducing F. you have an active
Richmond South Seas thought the ownership thought it was important to activate these historic buildings along Collins Avenue. Um you'll see also that the pavilion structure which is open currently open air would be enclosed
so that allows for more usage and weather. And you'll see also a walkway that was just a uh trellis, open air trellis for people to walk from the historic structure to the residential tower. That's going to be enclosed as well. So th those are the areas that
we're looking to allocate the 66,000 square foot. We haven't finalized those plans, but those are where we're at. Um so we would we would highly, you know, recommend that the planning board continue this item per staff recommendation so we go off to a community meeting and come back to you.
uh evolve as well in July with a formal recommendation and and continue the process and here to answer any questions if there's any public comments. I'm happy to any rebuttals if needed. >> So when you're looking at uh what the F increase is doing for height, we're only
looking at those two extra floors on the on the building >> because the building currently right now sits at 175. Code allows it to be at 200. Before we engage, let me Is anybody else in chambers to speak on this?
Come on >> and just uh introduce yourself and your address. >> Good morning everybody. My name is Mitchell Cohen. I'm one of the owners and president of the Shaburn Hotel, 1801
Collins. What did Yogi Bear say? I have deja vu all over again. Five years ago, as the new owner of the Shelurn Hotel, a previous applicant came forward and um
wanted to build a 200 ft tower, which we felt was not consistent with good planning. Um we didn't think it was consistent with saving Miami Beach's heritage stock. We felt it was
completely out of place. But let me just go back a little bit. First of all, I've met the the owner and the applicant um for about 30 seconds and I think that we can work a fair bit out. I know his council. I know his architect. But
nonetheless, um I'm here today to um to say that we need to get together and do some more work because the the additional two floors is out of character. As um a lot of us know here,
the heritage planning board worked very hard and very long at reducing the previous applicants program down from 200 to approximately 175 ft. Um the present planning report does say
there are difficulties with light with air and I personally as a planner who has been licensed for 40 going on 45 years think that adding the two additional stories at this time is totally out of context and out of
character with >> South Beach. I I know it's a long and drawn out process. I'm not against development. I'm prodevelopment. I'm the chief operating officer of a North Americanwide real estate company. We
have projects all through the US and Canada. We also have a a a portfolio of heritage buildings, Toronto, Ottawa, Dallas, Miami, Miami Beach. So, I'm I'm familiar with heritage. I'm familiar
with the difficulty in in getting heritage done, but I worked handinhand with the city of Miami Beach, the heritage preservation board. And Mr. Needleman, I know you were on on the board at that time, Miss Tacket, I know you were also on it at that time, and
congratulations on your on your promotion. But I spent $100 million on a complete heritage renovation of the Shelurn Hotel. And I didn't come back. I didn't come back for a floor. I didn't
come back for for a square footage. I didn't come back for a variance. I worked well within the established guidelines. And I just don't think it's appropriate that two additional floors be added. I'm I'm not I'm not against
the F. I'm not against numbers. I'm not against math, but math is not always about context. So, I am going to leave it with everyone here that that right now we are against the additional F uh
unless it's put in a place that doesn't impact the heritage stock of Miami Beach and doesn't have an impact on the Shelurn Hotel. Um, at that point, um, thank you very much for the time. Have any questions? Yeah. Well, Mitchell just
they they have questions, but thanks for your articulate uh commentary and as you know, as you probably heard, we're going to continue this um and there's going to be a process, a public meeting. So, obviously, I encourage you to attend those and and share your thoughts there.
I flew down here for this because I want to set the table. And again, I I want to work with the applicant >> and obviously with with staff and yourselves >> to um make Miami Beach better and I welcome all you to come tour the Shelurn
Hotel. I mean, $100 million renovation and it worked out perfectly. And thank you very much for that. >> And just so you know, we always encourage neighbor communication. So, um you know, hopefully it can all be worked out. But regardless, please participate and then come back to this hearing and
in uh when will be July. You asked to move it to July. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You add it, sir. I'll book my flight. >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions of uh Mr. Cohen or up here? No. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers to speak? >> Thank you. >> Anyone on Zoom?
>> Okay. Melissa, sorry I didn't want to interrupt you, but you have questions or anybody else have questions? >> All right. I'll just say that he was right. I was on the HPV when this went came in front of us and I mean it it took a few meetings and you know my I
remember my concern was was the height and we didn't crank a little higher but the top few floors were pushed back a little bit stepped back. Um, so just we spoke, you know, I'm not against the F. You have a big site to put it on, but I too would be very lerary of of
recommending uh additional floors because it would just be kind of going against everything the HPB worked for uh five, six years ago. So, I'm just letting you know that it's good work out, you know, talk to the neighbor. Um
maybe you can work something out. Again, it's a big site. Um, there's room on there to add the additional square footage, but maybe not at the top of the building. >> Thank you. And and I know and we talked
we we bumped into each other at an event and and you expressed that um that's why we're in the midst of developing exactly how the FR would be used and we'll come back. We're meeting with the neighbors, both sides, uh, uh, and administration
and try to bring something back. >> So, and we have a very long, many multiple hearing process. >> So, all right. >> I just have first of all, thank you for um, bringing back Raleigh. It's been
painful to see on driving by. Um, but I So you're just so I'm just trying to get a little bit of history. The previous F was for for through or Hilfiger or how did that I I just
want to make sure I have my numbers right. >> No, sure. Okay. So I could give you a what what happened is um this even predates I think Debbie weren't here. This was back in the 90s. Um and you might have been here. No.
Sorry, >> comedian. >> All right, you got to have fun. Um, no. What happened in the 90s? There was uh downzoning and changes and they created the Miami Beach Architectural District. When they created the Miami Beach Architecture on the National Register,
um they put a restriction that the RM3 properties that are oceanfront that typically have at over 45,000 ft are 3.0, they'd be limited to 2.0 and there were some exceptions. So that's how the uh and this was the the
Satai was done prior to that. So that was at the old F at 6 plus and then the Ritz Carlton site and the Shore Club site which were over 100,000 square foot existing sites when this uh was done were grandfathered at 3.0 plus the bonus
of 0.15 for accessories. So that's how those sites ended up. Uh the Raleigh site wasn't combined in the 90s. Uh that's more recent than 2019, which is why. And then I know that there was a mention of the Lowe's. The Lowe's was
the first commercial hotel in the '90s also. Actually, half of it sits on the RM3 Oceanfront. The other half sits on the MXC. Um but those were the only properties that >> it escaped the the down zoning to 2.0. So,
and you and the F is being requested because >> the F is being requested and good question. Um, >> I mean, >> and I don't want to rehash what has been out in the media, but obviously this is a very difficult acquisition for the
current owner. Uh, it wasn't your typical seller want to sell and buyer buy. I'll leave it at that. But once the the the buyer who the current owner acquired the site and started investigating the site in the actual conditions uh in order to make the
project work it was it was actually much worse like he called me immediately and said they're pigeons in the Raleigh. There's you know the the building itself is having major issues. I just acquired this I want I need to protect it. So in analyzing the the perform of the
project, it makes it very difficult >> to keep with the original approvals that that that's basically why there's that.5 F request. It was the minimal to try to make the project viable and not turn this into a six, seventh, you know, continue the
saga that's been going on for 14 years. But Alfredo, you're asking what it looks like is you want two extra floors just to have two extra floors. But if you haven't decided where the F is going to be used, then I I guess I feel like I
feel like we're seeing a lot of these LDRs and comp plan amendments and things like that. And I don't know if it's to avoid um seeking a variance or or whatever the whatever I I feel like
if there's so the answer is just because they want it. >> Well, the answer is to make the project viable. I mean to be honest with you there are a lot of there were a lot more additional pitfalls including the condition of the existing structure >> that did not that they weren't aware or
able to they they were very limited due diligence in acquisition. So in instead of having this project trying to figure out how to rework it or look at other options um just sorry my mother's call um
>> that's very important but anyway um in order to make the project viable the applicant went in to see how he could salvage this project and not turn it into something else. >> And why isn't it applied to the original building as opposed to the new
construction portion? is being applied right now. We were proposing when we started looking at and how we're analyzing it is to propose it spread around all three built uh not just some of it would go to the new tower. You know how we if ultimately we work
out something on the height I mean code does allow 200 and just for the record when we went for the HPB staff recommendation was for a 200t building. I mean, and if ultimately we I understand the concerns I'm getting here at the beginning of the process, and
we're going to work with the neighbors, and we still have to not just get through this F, we have to get to HPB and work out with that board. >> Um, but over a third of it, the F was going into the Richmond South Seas. So, this 66,000 ft² is trying to make the
project, the whole site more viable. So instead of having just open air exterior bars and restaurants at the ocean pavilion, a lot of that's going to be covered. So it actually creates a benefit because it captures more of any impact it may have on the neighboring
properties. So it also helps with the weather. So it it's what we've been done with the 0.5 F the analysis up to this point that the architect and the and the ownership are doing is trying to figure out where it could go where it would help the project make make it a viable
project and he wants to get started. I mean when I explained to him the F process he's like what do you mean I can't get this approved in a month? I I go anything you know unfortunately that's the process we have. So, the best this project could look at >> I feel like you should know where the F
goes before I mean I'm just trying to >> I have a question for Debbie. So, so um because I think the resistance from the public and from the neighbors and from some of the um board members is going to be the height, right? And so, um can a F
be granted with us um you know dictating that it where it it can go or or limiting where it can go? So, well, there's a few things that that you know in terms of the height. So, the existing allowable height zoning wise is 200 feet
for the site. >> Um, the approved project is 175 ft. Any change in that increasing the height up to the 200 feet would be subject entirely to historic preservation board review and approval. Now, because
they're coming before you today with an LDR request, um the planning board could certainly make a recommendation to the mayor and commission. um as part of you know if you're favorable to some increase square
footage up to that 0.5 you could make a recommendation to the mayor and commission that that the condition be put in place that would not allow that additional F to exceed 175 ft >> because I think right because I think
there's um you know without micromanaging I think there's an importance in the way bring these three buildings together for a project to be like a sustainable project and it has you know the improve improvements for it to make it work and having covered areas just as they suggested. Uh whether the height or not, people will be on board.
Um we'll see. But um I definitely think that allowing them some F so that they can make some of the improvements an important part of this project success. >> And also appreciate I also appreciate the owner >> you're saying is comments. >> Hold on one second. >> That we can recommend
>> we're not doing anything today. >> Yeah. Okay. But but when you were talking about >> the what I think you're saying is before we move it to the commission before it gets to any kind of approval we absolutely need to know where they're
planning to utilize that space because you're saying it's for economic gain. If it is, you know, normally developers come to us and say, "We're going to add it here. We're going to put it there." They need to set that that down and it needs to be
defined. >> Well, I think we can say that we're >> we're not going to micromanage it, but they need to come to some conclusion other than the F, but wanting to have more clarity on how the F is going to be used >> because and I understand what you're saying performer wise, you're looking at
the extra square feet and somehow you're economically utilizing that space to generate more revenue. We just want to know where >> and and Mr. works. Um I understand and we will come when we come back for the
formal recommendation, we'll have a more solidified I mean we have our preliminary that you saw and it's in the package but we'll allocate where we plan on putting the F so it's it's a clear >> um >> and just one one last thing um
>> uh the the concern on the HPB um if you look at this building this of all the buildings on that part of uh Collins this is the furthest to the east. This really gets close to the beach. The concern was it would be overwhelming for people walking on the on the um the
boardwalk or the hard pack there. So that was the the concern over the height and kind of setting back or stepping back the the top few floors. >> So just moving forward just you know that's that that's the concern that was the concern of the HPV. still my concern
>> and I and I and I and I understand and um we'll evaluate the everyone's concerns including the neighbors. We'll evaluate everything that's been approved to the HP because you have both the shore club and the rich uh the rich Carlton have 200 foot towers about the
same distance that we do. Uh they follow the same code amendment uh that we were required to do. set back actually greater at 100 and over 100 ft. But but anyway, we'll we understand we we hear the board. They want to have a clear understanding where we intend to have
the F. >> So, I think it's important that we don't slow you guys down and that you know that we distinguish between the two things that we're we're supporting and the ones that we're hesitant about. So, I don't want us to say no on the F when it's, you know, and it's not just um it's just one portion that we're
hesitant about. So, I think it's important that we move it forward in our recommendation. I agree. I agree. >> Yeah. We want you to succeed. Thank you. >> Obviously. >> All right. Someone want to move it to July. >> I will. I'll make motion. >> Okay. >> I'll second.
>> Second. All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? Okay. Thanks again. And Mitch, thanks for your comments and please stay involved. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Before you leave, Mr. Before I leave, Mr. Chair, quick question. Um, well, as my client invited anyone on the planning board, I'll send out emails. We do have
a sales center with a model that shows what was previously approved. So you get a really perspective of how the project was envisioned if anyone's interested uh before between before the July meeting. >> You're more than welcome to set up a meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Um Keith, are you able to sit for the uh
the >> No. Do I need to like leave the >> Well, no. Then we're going to wait because we need to wait for you to shield. We won't have a quorum. So you you have to recuse yourself. I understand on the uh >> that's the recommendation of council. >> Okay. >> All right. Then we're going to have to pass on that. We're going to
>> or we have to move it for >> Yeah. Let me >> We have to delay it. >> Yeah. Let me ask if uh let me see when Shield's going to be here. We need you for an item. comes. Yes. >> All right, we're going to move forward. Um,
>> that was due to Mr. M. >> Otherwise, I wouldn't >> Are you Are you all here for the school? Yeah. So I have to because he has to recuse himself. Yil is supposed to be coming in. He had an emergency at one of his buildings. So I'm hoping he comes in,
but I can't have it until we have five people here. >> And M Mr. Chairman Yel advised me he should be here around 10:20. >> Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. I just wrote them. Okay. He just wrote me. Yep. 15 minutes. So we'll be good in about 15 minutes. All right. So we'll move on to um item
nine, planning board file 260819. Modify the composition of the planning board. Hm. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The code currently has specific membership categories for appointment to the planning board. The proposed ordinance, in addition to the existing criteria, adds a new
requirement that at least one board member reside in each of the city's three major geographic areas, South Beach, Mid Beach, and North Beach. This is intended to ensure representation of unique perspectives and issues of each neighborhood. The ordinance also allows
the city commission to wave the geographic requirement by a 57th vote when considering an exceptionally qualified applicant consistent with the existing residency waiver and staff recommends that the board transmit the ordinance to the commission with a favorable recommendation.
>> Um, oh here it is. I was wondering which street. So South Beach is south of 23rd midbe. Okay. Do we have any background on why where this this is motivated from? >> I don't. Uh, Commissioner Alex Fernandez
is the sponsor and I don't I don't know if it was a particular board that that wasn't well represented of the different areas or not. I I don't >> I think right now we we satisfy that requirement. I'm pretty sure >> I'll give my two. >> Yeah. I think I think you know part of
it is it's you're kind of restricting you know. >> Hold on before you get in. Is anybody here to speak on this? Anybody on Zoom? >> Okay, go. >> All right. So, um, so you're kind of restricting to to who you can reach out. And I think it's important if you want someone from North Beach to be on the board, then you should be making sure
someone from North Beach in your neighborhood is applying. So, I just think we're putting some limitations here that uh we're a city that doesn't have districts that are like represented like commissions don't represent specific districts where we work as a whole. So, I don't know how why we're piecing it all of a sudden for the
boards. And so I just unless there's a real justification, I don't understand why we're doing this. That's my two cents. >> I I probably a good idea, you know, just I understand what you're saying. I mean, yeah, I don't hear the the I don't see
the the justification or why this is why if it wasn't uh if we didn't have that representation, it would be a detriment, but you know, >> looking at looking at the other way. Yeah. I mean, you you'd want to, you know, something could come up in North Beach and if there's no representation
here, you know, it just it seems better. I need to have somebody on the board that maybe is more familiar with certain area of the city, >> but they can speak. >> I mean, we we we meet that. >> The question is, do you mandate it or do you leave it to the commission who makes
appointments to do their best to do that if they can't find someone? The only problem I I agree Melissa could handcuff them. Um, obviously if that's what they want, they can make that happen just by their selection and appointments, right? Agree. >> That I agree with Brian. If they really
wanted, they can be they can that way they're not handcuffed and trying to find somebody. >> Correct. And and >> the qualifications to even be on the plain board are very stringent. I mean, it's it's it's
pretty it's hard to get people to No, it's a well-intentioned ordinance. I just don't know that you have to mandate it versus let the commission try to effectuate it >> and that way if they can't then they're not stuck. >> So, all right. Well, unless people have
other comments, someone can move it unfavorably. >> I just recommend no. >> I think it's silly. >> You want to move it unfavorably? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can I get a second? Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. Um,
>> they passed whatever they want. >> Next is planning board file 2680841 updates the temporary fencing requirements for vacant lots and construction sites. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So currently
the city has uh regulations that are similar but different for a construction fence meaning you have a building permit um or a vacant lot fence meaning uh the property is either you know vacant or um
about to be vacant. So if you for example if you are submitting for a total demolition permit that equals the property will soon become vacant. As part of that process, we require a vacant property fence, which is a higher design standard in terms of the quality
of the fence. For example, uh construction fences may be chain link with the graphics coating them. Um a vacant property fence is required to be an aluminum picket fence. Um, so what this current ordinance does, it is a it
allows for a bit more flexibility in the types of scenarios where someone has a demolition permit um, but doesn't have a building permit to rebuild yet because they may be in that process. So, this would allow that person that when the property becomes
vacant to introduce a construction fence and give them about a one-year grace period, for lack of a better term, to get that construction permit to maintain their construction fence instead of having to invest in an aluminum picket fence in that intermediate time between
the time the the property becomes vacant and the time they obtain their building permit. I thought that the uh picket fence, not picket fence, excuse me, the chain link fence was only allowed in um in between properties, not on not on uh
beach park. >> For for construction fence, we allow the chain link, but we do require the the graphics. And so that's the second part of this ordinance which would actually uh make the graphics a little bit more
flexible in terms of um introducing a rendering of the property. Um I think we've all seen those currently a a rendering of the of a bu of a project that's proposed for a particular site what we would consider
more of a commercial graphic and part of the signage because it's really advertising, right? What's going to be there? um this modification would allow that rendering to not be um taken away from the signage allowance that would this would be an addition to the signage
and it would be allowed at 50% of the graphic area. So, um, basically it's just providing a little bit more flexibility. And while, you know, the the renderings of projects do have a slight commercial connotation, it is actually something that people really
like to see, right? Because everyone's always interested in what's coming here and and what is the project going to look like. So, staff is very supportive of this, which I think does just provide more flexibility. Can Can we So, North Beach obviously is
in a tremendous construction zone for for all intents and purposes. Um, can we I don't I don't think anybody really likes the green screen that tears and allows you to see
the property behind it. Can we how can we what can we do there since this is >> Yeah. And we can take a look at that because the the requirement does for a construction fence does require some type of artistic graphics. So if there's a particular property that um is not in
compliance with that. We can certainly take a look at that. >> Okay. >> We have this I think this issue came up in the property in the Palm View neighborhood that came they came in front of us. Yes. think they they kept getting a violation cuz they didn't have
a fence or it wasn't an aluminum picket fence. Um so yeah, it makes sense if somebody's going to do a project. Um why spend a lot of money on a on a aluminum picket fence when it's probably going to be taken out later and maybe a
nicer fence, more permanent wall or whatever is going to be will then be installed when the when the prop when the when the house or whatever it is gets built. So yeah, this makes sense. I agree. >> No. >> Okay. Y want to move? >> I'll move it. >> Okay. >> I'll second it.
>> Second. All in favor? I. >> All opposed? None. Okay. All right. Last on the comprehensive plan code amendments, planning board file 260842, veterary clinics and performance standard districts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are very very few areas
within the south of Fifth Neighborhood where veterary clinics are currently permitted. The proposed ordinance provides for a limited expansion of allowable class 2 medical uses specific to veterinary clinics within the RMPS1 and CPS1 zoning districts. This is
roughly the area between South Point Drive and Second Street from Alton Road to Collins Avenue. Since no veterinary clinics currently exist in the south of south of Fifth neighborhood, this amendment would create new opportunities to introduce an an essential neighborhood service in this area of the
city. And staff recommends that the board transmit the ordinance to the commission with a favorable recommendation. >> Well, >> I'll move it. >> I uh love my dogs and I would love to have >> any Wait, hold on. Anyone here and speak on this? No. Anyone on Zoom? Okay. I
think it's marvelous idea. >> All right, move it. >> I'll move it. >> It's supported by my puppies. >> All right, so we have a we have a a motion, right? Elizabeth and a second, Keith. Okay, all in favor. >> Okay, all opposed. Okay, that passes.
Um, you should be here any minute and your items up and then we're finished. So, we'll take a five minute break. >> You said 2 10:15. It's 10:14s building. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4
>> 5 minutes. Good easy item. >> One. >> Okay. Welcome back everybody and welcome my esteemed colleague Ishiel Cement. >> Great to see you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um one second Keith. So, we're moving on to our last item, which is planning board file.
>> Where are we? Uh, let's see. Planning board file 260821, which is 251 Washington Avenue, base camp 305 private school. Uh, before we proceed, I'll turn it over to Keith. Yes, I uh just would need to um on
advisor council I will recuse from this and see you all in July and Elvis has left the building. >> All right. >> Thank you Deborah. >> Um thank you Mr. Chair. So this is um an existing school located at 251
Washington Avenue. It's a small private school. Um it did uh this property received a conditional use permit for the educational institution um in 2019. >> Um in 2019 they had a um a temporary
structure because it was really important to to enroll students and and get um the the school open. In 2022, the CUP was modified for the permanent structure, which you see is currently um under
construction. Now, it is almost um I believe it's almost complete. Um since that time, the owner has acquired the property to the south, which was originally a hostel. Um actually, historically, it was too, which is kind
of fascinating. Um, so since that time that business obviously with a new owner has been vacated and an application has been submitted and approved by the to the historic preservation board to reconfigure that particular property to
the south including the uh demolition of the existing structure and some partial reconstruction. So that has been approved. Um because the current owner would like to incorporate this um which will be primarily open space lot with the exception of a a small portion of
the reconstructed building toward the front of the property. They are expanding the area of their existing conditional use permit that does trigger a need to modify the existing conditional use permit to include this particular property. Um the property is
proposed to be used as a recreation open area for students which is you know very challenging with these small urban schools. So staff is very supportive of that um use as an amenity for these students. Um we are recommending that the planning board approve the
modification with um one additional uh condition that we are recommending uh specific to the hours of operation for this open recreation space. We are just asking um for it to be consistent with the um recreation open space at an
elevated level to the north of the existing improved project um so that we don't have you know large events or a lot of noise um toward the uh adjacent residential buildings after 5:00 p.m. >> Okay. Thank you, counselor.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chair, board members and staff. And special congratulations to Miss Tacket on the new role. Truly welld deserved. Um >> I missed the first you missed the whole >> It was a loud round of applause. >> Rob Alvarez with the law firm Burkow
Redell Fernandez Larkin and Tapin offices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard. I'm joined by architect Ryan Alderman and my esteemed colleague Paul Savage behind me. We are here on behalf of Base Camp 305, the applicant. And now that the board has taken care of puppies,
we're here to talk about a playground. So, uh, happy to conclude the agenda this way. Um, we are here requesting a modification to the base camp 305 CUP to incorporate the adjacent 235 Washington Avenue property into the
school campus to allow the recreational field. And please, if um yeah, the presentation um as I'm sure you folks are aware, the properties are located between Second and Third Street on Washington Avenue with the Collins Court Alley to the
rear. The um the 251 property, as Debbie mentioned, is currently under construction. Uh we visited the site last week actually and um construction activity should be wrapping up this year
and the school um activities will start in the 2027. The 235 property as staff mentioned has a two-story existing building built in the 30s that has been approved for demolition by the historic preservation board. Uh to the south
there is a satellite office of the Miami Beach PD internal affairs division as well as the Washington dog park to the south of that. And then across the street on second uh across second street is another uh base cam 305 property uh
and an elementary school. Um here are beautiful renderings of the base camp 305 school that's going to be at the 251 property that's under construction. These renderings uh may appear familiar to to several of you all because you were on the board when it was approved
in 2022. In 2022, here you could see the the modified CUP. The board approved a a modified cup for the permanent educational facility on the site. The base camp 305 project was also approved
by the HPB. So, Basec Camp 305, the school is an extremely unique educational provider. It's it's meant to provide personalized uh learning environments for for
students. It has a strong steam focus and um you know seeks to have innovative project-based learning. The the leadership at Base Camp 305 really wants it to be a place where students love to learn and hopefully look forward to coming to school every single day.
How many kids are in the school? >> Um it's it's approved for 40 and we're not seeking an increase to that. >> And what grades is it? >> It's going to be from um ages 8 through through 13. So upper elementary and middle. >> So through 8th grade.
>> Yeah. Through eighth grade. Correct. >> So one thing >> that's a great student teacher ratio. >> Yes. >> Tuition must be pricey. Well, you know that whatever price they pay, it's going to be worth it because in looking at the facilities and the curriculum, it's truly extraordinary.
Beautiful. >> Yeah. And you know, our um base camp, you know, part of it its genesis is that there are few schools as we know here on on Miami Beach. Um you know, folks have have traditionally had to go to the mainland for um schools and and that's
part of the of the void that Base Camp is trying to fill. So, one thing that Basec Camp 305 was missing was uh open air recreational space. You know, there's academic consensus about the importance of physical education and uh
you know, outdoor time. I I'm sure I don't need to convince you all of that. It's been showed to, you know, improve emotional regulation and overall student well-being. So, you know, we're we're thrilled uh about the potential of adding this uh this playground area.
Here is the demolition site plan. You could see at at the 251 property, the approved base camp 305 school at the 235 property. You see the existing um the existing building that has been approved for demolition. It was approved
on May 12th by the historic preservation board and its demolition will allow for the creation of this recreational open space and having, you know, an an integrated setup. Here is the recreational plan that's in in your packets. There is, uh, you know,
there are two striped mini soccer fields. Um, you know, uh, very applicable now that we have the World Cup coming up. Maybe we have a future Christian Pisic or Geo Raina, uh, training on those fields. We also have seating. We have, uh, fencing and
landscaping as well. You know, overall the goal is to for is for kids to be able to have a place to, you know, have fun and enjoy um you know, their PE class time with their friends. Um and as mentioned earlier, there's only 40 students, so it's not like one of these
large high schools where there are hundreds of of students um you know, out on the field. And uh you know, we're thrilled to to be able to provide this amenity to the students. in, you know, in an urban area, it's it's you don't usually have the ability to provide um
open space to to new educational facilities like this. The, you know, base camp 305 look looked at all the details. We have a state-of-the-art artificial turf that we're proposing, extremely permeable, as as Paul and I have researched, extremely
permeable with high levels of drainage. Um, as well as it's meant to facilitate continuous use. the colors um that they really focus on this multi-tone blend to make it look natural. You could see even some of the brown fibers. It's it's meant to, you know, look natural, not
like what you'll see in some of these old uh sports arenas that um you could, you know, really tell that it's artificial turf. This is meant to be beautiful and and uh sustained uh use by the students of the school. So, as staff eloquently explained, the
HPB approved demolition of the existing building. As part of that approval, the applicant is to replicate the existing primary facade um on the western part of the site. You could see here on on this
drawing, the the replicated facade is to the left. And here a view from the south, you can see the replicated facade. It extends about 7 and 1/2 ft to the east. And then you have the fence, the proposed
aluminum fence and the school to the north. Here we also see the, you know, the facade reconstruction, the the western elevation. Um, not only will it serve to, you know, remember the the existing building on
the site and maintain the historic urban fabric along Washington Avenue, but we think it'll be excellent to, you know, also provide a sense of privacy for the students that are that are playing on the field. And we're also going to be working with HPB staff on the clo on on
the openings at the bottom and make sure they have uh proper, you know, closing mechanisms. Um, so, uh, we look forward to working with HPB staff on that. Um, in terms of operations, there are no requested there's no requested increase
in student enrollment. As I mentioned, it's going to be at 40 students. Um, we agree with staff's condition. You know, the hours of operations for the school campus will close at 5:00 p.m. consistently. um emphasis on local student access via walking and biking
for the um you know for the project. And the primary connection between the 251 and 235 parcels is provided by a gate on the northeast corner of the shared property line. We are pleased to have uh staff's
favorable support for the project and as I mentioned, you know, we approve of staff's conditions. >> Regarding that condition, Deborah, you said with one additional, but are we talking about item six? >> Like when you say additional because that's in there. >> Yeah, the that is the staff recommended
condition. Correct. >> Okay. I thought you said with one addition to what's in here. Okay. No. >> Okay. So, it's the 8:30 to 5. That's item six. >> Yes. I must have misspoke. Got it. Go ahead. >> No problem. Uh, we also have community support. The South of Fifth Neighborhood
Association notably supported the HPB application for demolition of the existing structure as well as design of the of the playground. Also, throughout the course of our hearings, we've had dozens of Miami Beach residents call in in support of this project. And you
know, we're we're truly excited to be able to provide this amenity to the students of the school and you know, have something, you know, a beautiful product for the residents of Miami Beach. So, with that, um, we respectfully request approval of this application. We
want to note that this is a very narrow application. We're modifying an existing CUP to incorporate this parcel into the school campus. Um, there's going to be no operational changes. And as I mentioned, we we you know support all of
staff's conditions. And uh with that, um I close. I welcome any questions and respectfully request any time for rebuttal if necessary. >> Yeah. First of all, any disclosures that need to be made on this? >> Yeah. Um I just had an email exchange with Rob. >> Okay. Anybody else?
>> Site tour. >> I did a site tour. >> Oh, you did a tour. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Um anybody here to speak on this item in chambers? Anybody on Zoom? No. Okay. Close the public hearing. Any questions? >> Wish
>> I wish everything that we heard was this pleasant. >> I'm all for it. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, >> to approve. >> Can we get a second? >> Second it. >> Okay, Melissa. All in favor? >> Opposed? >> Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. Nice job. All
right, we're adjourned. >> Thank you. Thanks.