on the roof deck for this board. So, it's now under the jurisdiction of of uh the planning board. Um staff has no objection to this very minor request. Again, we we believe that um the current hotel operator is extremely responsible,
has had no um noise violations um at all on that existing roof deck. Um further, there is a maximum allowable occupancy of 50 people. So, it's a small area. The applicant is also um going to restrict
all access to hotel guests and their guests. Um there is no new construction. The plan of the roof is remaining the same. Any food or beverage um at this level will be serviced via an existing
dumb waiter. Um so we do not anticipate any negative impacts. There's also um limited hours of operation that the applicant is requesting. um and would only like to stay open past 11 p.m. for the 4th of July and for New Year's Eve.
So, staff is very supportive. Um we appreciate the the longstanding uh responsible nature of the current owner and applicant. And um with that, we're recommending approval, but I am available for any questions you may have.
>> Okay, sir. Yes. Good morning. My name is Juan Pablo Donoprio. I'm the owner of the Lesley Hotel and well I think Debie made the whole uh history of the process. Uh when we applied for the redevelopment of the Leslie Hotel, it
was actually like 15 years ago bringing a pool terrace to a rooftop was something uh brandly new at that time. We accepted this restriction where we could not sell alcohol to our hotel guests in the pool. And well, here 15
years later, we're trying to remove that condition, which uh makes little sense. This is uh there's no open bar or things like that. This is a small property, 35 rooms, might have eight people, 10 people in a roof terrace. They want to have a beer. We cannot sell it to them.
They have to go to Walgreens or they have to go to a restaurant and come up through the elevator with a beer in their hand. Uh we're trying to fix that problem. that brings a lot of concerns with our customer service at the at the property. So, we do have a a residential
building to the back of the Lesie. Uh they expressed their concern when we uh presented in HPV. Uh we were able to meet with them with their condo association and we had a very nice conversation. They are uh very active in
observing our terrorists and so they've seen throughout the years that uh we did we never had an issue. We never had a complaint from them. We have a very open uh dialogue and it was I think a nice experience to meet again and we're hoping to move forward.
>> Okay. Thank you. And and again, thanks for being such a good neighbor apparently. Anybody in chamber to speak on this? >> Joseph Partardo, Partardo Law, 1205 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach. I represent the penthouse 2 owner at the Carile, which is the residential building next
door. Uh my client has spoken to other residents of the Carile and even though this is in the entertainment district, you do have to consider the residential building directly next door. My client's concern and it's narrow and specific is that there was no community outreach. The our understanding is we haven't had
the dialogue between uh hotel operator and neighbor that would give rise to their input on what other conditions might be appropriate. Uh, and in full cander, I I don't discourage the attempt to lift the condition, but the status quo is the condition. Right now, there's a prohibition on alcohol and the HPB
order, my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the only way that HPB amendment gets approved is if the planning board uh gives its approval as well. So, you do have a a consideration which is the public health general safety and welfare. And as it relates to the residents in the residential
building next door, uh there is a concern that ambient noise turns into uh live music, that code enforcement doesn't get called on time, that a person who's designated to uh be reachable isn't reachable, and that it affects clients particularly like my client on the penthouse level, uh where
the ambient music is more likely to travel. So uh we would suggest two two conditions, two two alternatives. one continue this one month and require the applicant to liaz with the residents directly next door to carile and report back so we can at least have a comprehensive discussion they can
present their opinions uh to make the consequence for non-compliant draconian so that there should be no question that strict compliance with conditions is necessary and finally have the hotel owner operator uh potentially uh provide
a benefit to the neighboring building uh fix the facade install hurricane impact back windows and make it uniform for the building which would mitigate the um noise exposure. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Just a couple of things. One is >> Give me one second. Yep.
>> Anybody else here to speak on this? Anybody on Zoom? Okay, go ahead. >> No, it's it's unfortunate that we did not have this contact before because we would have more than gladly meet the same way we did with our rear property neighbor. uh we already have uh high
impact glass windows in in in the building. We're not requesting live entertainment. We're not requesting an enhancement of the music where there there's no noise related change into our current uh situation. So, right,
>> let me just sort of respond to your point. If if we always said no because we need to make sure the operator complies with the CUP, then we'd never give a cup. So part of this up process is trusting the owners to comply with it. Um I don't see what other condition
meeting with the neighbors. I mean I don't know what other condition would be reasonable more reasonable than what staff's recommended. Um if anything they could come in and object and say we don't want to have that condition at all or that the possibility of alcohol. But um but just to respond to you, you have
to trust the owner at some point to to comply. And so the the remedy for that is if they do get several code violations, then we can resend the CUP or add conditions. So I I respect what you're saying, but it's kind of like we would never give anybody even ambient
music if if the question was, well, will they comply with it? We have to assume they'll comply. So anyway, um any questions by the board? >> Yeah, John. So, number one, I was a little confused in the staff report about the hours of operation because it
said Monday through Thursday, 7 to 9, Friday through Sunday, 7 to 11:00, and then July 4th to December 31st, 7 to 2. So, >> on those two specific dates, not from that day. >> Oh, it's and Okay. I thought it was through. Okay. So, for those two days, then then I guess so here here's the
question I have. It makes total sense. You have a a pool attendant upstairs. You don't want people bringing in outside alcohol. It makes total sense to sell the people at the pool, you know, alcohol. And I think everybody, you know, that that's fine. Actually, I think it's preferable so that people
aren't bringing in their own alcohol. Uh that's probably makes for a better atmosphere. >> I guess the concern that I have is and to the neighbors, you know, point is you have it going until 11 p.m. which is when people aren't, you know, sunbathing
anymore. Um, and then, uh, you have until 2:00 a.m. on certain on those two dates. I get it cuz the to see the fireworks. And so, you know, that I don't think is a problem. But the going till late at night and then and then one other question is, are you planning on
having I know there's a 50% capacity. Are you planning on having private events, you know, renting it out or anything? Is it or is it just for hotel guests? >> The the terrace is only exclusively for our hotel guests. So we don't bring people from outside. We run three hotels in the We don't even bring people from
our other hotels to the terrace. It's intended to be a very exclusive terrace for the uh Leslie hotel owners, Leslie hotel guests, I'm sorry. So when would uh an event an event would be uh a welcome drink for the guest if they have
there's a wedding there's 15 rooms by a wedding. They want to do a welcome drink in the afternoon prior to some activity. So this is the sort of events that can happen in a very small hotel. We we're not uh we we cannot hold large groups of
of of rooms because we don't have them. Uh so no, the 2 a.m. has to do with the possibility we have a privilege location for for the fireworks. We're basically below the fireworks. It could be 1:00 a.m. because it's a 20 minute thing
after 12. One that's over, everybody leaves. It's It's not a a big deal. We've been doing this for 10 years, but we've been doing illegally. Everybody goes upstairs, watches the fireworks, and then leaves. It doesn't make sense. We try to be on the on the right side,
but there's no there's no outside events. We don't have the parking capacity. We don't have the security capacity. We don't have the vertical circulation capacity. We wanted to bring 30 people, 50 people together to the to the roof terance. Well, I guess Okay. And that that makes sense. I mean that
that's fine. I mean, but my I guess my concern and and clearly one of the concerns of the neighbors in that penthouse and probably others in that building is if it starts with every Friday night because, you know, if there's a wedding at the hotel or nearby and they want to have, you know, their
guests come up for the, you know, the rehearsal dinner and have a drink on the rooftop at 10:00 at night and they get the microphone and give a speech, >> but they they wouldn't have a microphone because we're not allowed to. So, it's it's I I don't see that
scenario. I can understand the complaint if 10:00 p.m. We're going to 11:00 a.m. because this is the standard time frames for every single roof terrace approved in the last 10 years. So, we try to match that. It's not it's barely going
to happen that we're open at that time because we have our operation till 9. So we're just requesting that in case we have an exceptional situation where we want to have a open the terrorist I'm fine if we want to go into 10 I'm fine with that. I don't see an issue.
>> And just to ask to for the neighbors uh Mr. Partardo do you have any issues? Is there something specific in the staff report that you disagree with or you object to or is just a general concern? If the offer is to reduce the time to 10
p.m., that would be a welcome concession. The specific staff report comment is that the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood is not partially satisfied. That condition wouldn't be partially satisfied. Our condition is that by failing to uh have any meaningful conversation with the neighbors, they don't know what the
impact is going to be. And so, we believe that more investigation into the impact is warranted. at a minimum that dialogue with the neighbors, have a town hall so that we can establish rapport, build what I hope to be a very good operation and build that trust. Give us the months we can have that time and let them come back. That would be the ask.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean here, how about do you have contact with each other? >> I will in about 2 minutes. >> Right. So, I think that's going to be the sol. I mean, I don't think it for this it sounds like every all the other buildings are, you know, hotels have similar restrictions, you know, that's
correct. And so I think the better way to do it moving forward because you have to balance the interest. We want to encourage good operators who are coming here to apply for this, you know, get his cell phone number, have somebody on staff available. um whenever people are up at the roof there's a phone number to
call that that you could you don't have to go through the operator system but you know so you get a working relationship but unless you have I get you know I I want to you know give you guys an opportunity but if you don't have proposals you know or ways that you think that this is going to negatively
impact you know it's kind of hard for us to put that in. >> We welcome the concession to reduce the hours to 10 p.m. with the exception of those two holidays. Uh, and I my understanding from the staff report is that a a person is required to be on call 247. >> Okay. So, so that work for you?
>> Okay. Great. >> So, was that a an agreement to modify at 10 p.m.? I just want to put that >> if he's not opposed to it, then you opposed to that? >> I'm fine with that. >> Okay. >> Are you sure? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Jonathan, you want to move it? This is a
This is a pool terrace and I can tell you we barely have six to eight people and I don't know how long the owner of the next door penthouse has been there but we've been there for 15 years and there's no change. >> I mean you've come to the planning board before just to speak on behalf of the
neighborhood and and other applicants and I think you've been a steward of the area. So >> so you know but since you've been here before you know why we're asking these questions because we've seen some stuff. So all right great. Uh, so I'll move it with the 10. >> Hold on one second. We have one more comment. >> Go ahead.
>> Then we're gonna close comment, too. >> My name is Jonathan Plutick. I live at 1455 Ocean Drive. I'm here on another matter, but I can't help myself. I chair the Ocean Drive Association. We need 15 Leslie hotels on Ocean Drive. We should
be doing whatever we can to lift up the Leslie Hotel. Our challenge as a community for all of Miami Beach is to fix Ocean Drive. And this is one of the rare examples of progress. So, I encourage you to be supportive
with this application. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Jonathan. Go ahead. >> I'll move it forward with the 10 p.m. uh closure. >> Do you need to comment? >> And that's on Fridays and Saturdays. >> Friday. Yes.
>> Yes. Second. All right. All in favor? I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Appreciate again. >> Okay. Back to uh planning board file 257921 Ocean Drive.
>> Okay. Is the applicant ready to go? Yes. Okay. Great. Uh, an application has been filed requesting uh the review of a private or joint government private use in the GU government use zoning district. Um, this is pursuant to
chapter 7, article 2, section 7.2.16.2E 2E of the Miami Beach Resiliency Code that requires the planning board to review um the public private uses proposed within um this particular
property which is city-owned and within the GU zoning district. Um the applicant has submitted preliminary plans for the project. Um, these the uses contained within those plans include a Mediterranean concept restaurant that
includes outdoor seating, a Japanese concept restaurant which includes outdoor seating, a beachfront cafe, a beach club with pool, cabanas, outdoor dining, and a children's club. Um, alcohol beverage service, outdoor bar
counters, a fitness club, and retail are the proposed uh uses. Um, as outlined in the operational plan that has been submitted, the hours of operation will not exceed 11 p.m. Um, and no entertainment is currently
proposed uh for any of the uses. Um, as proposed, the uses um are largely commercial in nature. So staff has pointed out um there is a conflict with the future uh land use map. Uh the future land use map for this particular
property is ROS which is recreation open space. Um the allowable uses in the RO are limited to uh recreation and open space. Um and it does not provide for commercial uses. Therefore, um we um in
consultation with the city attorney's office have no objection with the planning board issuing a recommendation to the mayor and city commission with regard to the uh proposed uses. This will require an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan to change the future
land use. Um we've already been meeting with the applicant um to uh submit that application. Um with that, I'm available for any questions. >> All right. Before you start, Michael, any uh disclosures on this item?
>> Yeah, I uh received a email from two attorneys, not the applicant. I haven't talked to the applicant, but the applicant was arranged to meet with continuum master of which I recused myself of the presentation and did not
see the presentation there. I also was a part of a Selna meeting in which I walked out and recused myself. So I just want to put on the record that the first time that I saw the plan in the information was when the packet was delivered to me and I have not talked to
the applicant. >> Scott, >> no, I haven't spoken with anybody on this. >> Okay. I assume we all received the emails from the attorneys. Okay. >> Same emails. Yeah. So, I've received uh emails from I guess Sterns Weaver and the Dickman Law Firm. I spoke with
somebody from Sterns Weaver about this. Um that's it. >> Okay. And Deborah, I think you pointed it out, but I just want Nick to confirm that you don't have any The city attorney's office has no legal concerns with our ability to make a recommendation today. What what we would recommend is that as part of your
recommendation um whether your recommendation is favorable or unfavorable that if the city commission is inclined to approve the use that the commission um first or at the same time amend the future land use map designation for this property. That
amendment to the future land use map is required to come before you. So that would that would come before you at >> Right. So you have no problem with us addressing it today though prior to that. >> Correct. I would just I would recommend you include in your motion that that recommendation. Um and Mr. Chair, I would just ask anyone who was not here
in the morning when we swear in witnesses to please raise your >> If anyone's going to testify in this, please stand up. >> Raise your right hands. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> Okay. And the only other thing I'm going to say is I've I've gotten uh multiple
requests to exceed time. I'm going to be differential to that within reason. Um, so you know, if you hear the beeper go off, just keep going and if it gets ridiculous, I'll stop it. But I'm going to give everyone a forward everybody that opportunity because I know it's an important item. With that being said, Mr. Lin, go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Board members, uh, staff, Michael Larkin, 200 South Boulevard here representing the applicant. PJ, can you pull up the presentation? Great. So, we're here today representing the applicant. With us today are the
Bush brothers, Steve Bucher and Adam Sedrad. Also from Major Food Group as Will Nazar. We have Kobe Karp and Matthew Bquard from Kobe Carp Architects, Joe Goldberg, our transportation consultant. My colleagues Paul Savage and Ben Sherry. We come before you this morning seeking your
favorable recommendation for our proposed project in connection with a concession agreement awarded to the applicant for the redevelopment of Nikki Beach restaurant site and beach concession facility. Next slide. This is the team responsible for the project before you this morning. The project is a product of years of
discussions, agreements, and collaboration between these Hollywood qualified team made up of the city commission, city administration, the Bush brothers, major food group, and Kobe carp architects. Next slide. It was in 2023 that the city issued an
RFP for the management operation of a high-end beach establishment and ancillary uses at One Ocean Drive and adjacent concession areas. The respondents had 60 days to prepare bid and respond to the RFP. Next slide. In the same year 2023, the city commission
adopted a resolution authorizing the city administration negotiate an agreement with Buché Brothers and Major Food Group based upon its proposal. Next slide. Further into 2023, the city commission adopted another resolution that entered a concession agreement with the city
between the city major food group and the Buché Brothers. This concession agreement established project requirements such as project location, design and approval procedures, uses, access, operations, maintenance, and repair. Next slide. The concession agreement, as Debbie
outlined for you, basically has three distinct dining concepts. Mediterranean restaurant, Japanese restaurant, and outdoor cafe. Next slide. So, the lease for the current tenant expires in May of this year. So back in 2023, the city
commission was very forward thinking, understanding that the lease was expiring, further understanding that many neighbors in the south of Fifth neighborhood had issues with that current operator and city commission was desirous of a change. So well in advance of the lease expiration, the city
commission moved in 2023 and ultimately resulted in a concession agreement between the city of Miami Beach, the city commission, major food group, and the Buché brothers. Next slide. Bush brothers need no introduction. For as long as I've been on the beach, they've been on the beach and they have been the
premier beachfront concessionaire for all the time that I've been here. Next slide. Major food group is a major driving force in the hospitality industry in the United States right now. They brought to South Florida to Miami and Miami Beach, Carbone, Dirty French Steakhouse, Contessa, Zezies Club,
Sadels and Chateau ZZ, which I have yet to get into. Next slide. As I mentioned earlier, the existing lease is cons is expiring and this concession agreement is valid and we're moving forward under this concession agreement. Next slide.
This is Pure Park. Approximately three acres in size. It is Ocean Drive is the western boundary, Beachwalk eastern boundary, First Street on the north, and South Point Drive on the south. Next slide. The the the zoning is obviously
government use because the city owns it. Anytime the city owns any property throughout the city, it's zone GU. Next slide. Under the GU regulations, we have to come before you today and you all make a recommendation. It's very clear the scope of your review is something akin
to legislation where the city commission has the final say, but you all are certainly integral part of the process and you all make your recommendations on this as you would any type of legislation. Next slide. It also is very helpful that your professional staff is recommending
approval and asking you all to grant a favorable recommendation for this project. Next slide. I'm going to invite Kobe Karp up and he's going to walk you through some of his design. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kobe Karp. Um, which button? There we go. This is the front entrance
to the building. If you go to the next image, please. This is the arrival point open to the beach. This is uh the beachfront and you can see the connectivity to the beachwalk. This is the image looking to
the northeast and essentially what you can see is the poorness of the site allowing entry along Ocean Drive and along the beachwalk and the properties uh to the north and to the south as well. Uh on the bottom left hand side is
the Sadel's restaurant that hopefully will be open uh from sunrise to sunset. So when we come there on the beach we can get a juice or cafesito in the morning and that is you want me to go through this Michael or do you want to pick it up on the fitness center >> on the Mediterranean restaurant
location. The idea is basically to have Sadels's and the Japanese restaurant and the fitness club open to the neighborhood and to the community. um basically to be open to the public from the beachwalk to Ocean Drive. This is the point of arrival where um we have
the parking in the front which is the city public parking. Um and we also have a great landscape architect on the team which is Anna and Bishop doing the interior design. >> Um I'll let you with that. Thank you.
>> Thank you Kobe. So the hours are set forth 1 through 5. You have the beach concessions, open 1 hour after sunrise and close 1 hour prior to sunset. The Mediterranean restaurant 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The Japanese Steakhouse 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sadel's Boardwalk
Cafe 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. You have an outdoor lounge, pool, kids club, wellness, and retail 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Next slide. And of course, we have a variety of security measures. Security cameras at all access points. We have our back of house areas secure security
staff. We have reception areas and host stands, valet staff, and we particularly will have control of the parking lot at night because unfortunately South Point Drive, particularly on Washington and South Point, is where a lot of teenagers gather to do their car burnouts or their donuts. So that won't
be tolerated within our property. Next slide. And of course, we presented to Safna at the beginning of December of last year. it. Our project was wellreceived by Sophna and they adopted a resolution of support for this
project. Next slide. Again, we're here today. Your scope of review is narrow. You're to review this particular project and offer recommendations, critiques, comments to the city commission. Next slide. Just a few lasting renderings.
There's next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. So, Mr. Chairman, I know that you all have received emails, letters from the objector attorneys. I just want an opportunity to correct the record and
give you all some guidelines so you don't get caught up in some of these arguments. So, the objector attorney representing the current tenant whose lease expires about 3 months from now will invite you all to make comments about an alleged inconsistency between the project we presenting to you all
today and the concession agreement. This is a trap. I advise you all not to take the bait. The purpose of such a discussion will be to use these statements in the ongoing litigation between the city and Pinrods which came about based upon Pinrod's failure to
timely submit their response back in 2023. The goal of their litigation is under >> Michael is there pending litigation on this? >> Yes, >> there is. >> Yes. A trial court judge recently dismissed multiple counts in their complaint. They have about four counts left in their complaint.
>> Okay. And what would the impact of a of a hypothetically adverse ruling have on this whole process? >> I don't know if the city attorney's office wants to discuss that. It's not as much. >> I mean, the the litigation really has no
impact on the board's ability to hear this application. Right. The litigation is ultimately a challenge to to the to the procurement, >> correct, >> of this contract. Um, I would rather not speculate what the impact be no stay in that litigation on any plans. Okay. Just
want to make sure we're procedurally pro proceeding properly. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, but bear in mind, we would not be before you today unless the city attorney and city administration had determined that we were consistent with the concession agreement. In fact, they are the
co-licant here today. Your role here today at the plain word is to review the project and offer recommendation to the city commission. It's a very narrow role. As I suggested earlier, you all are accustomed to this role because it's just your same role that you have when legislation passes by you all and you offer recommendations to the city
commission. With regard to the letter from Mr. Dickman, Mr. Dickman submitted a letter to you all. He did not provide us with a copy, but thankfully we discovered it as we routinely check the hearing file before the hearing. With regard to the
comprehensive plan claim, the inconsistency claim is not new, nor has it been recently discovered. Back in 2023, the city was already referring to the Nikki beachside as non-conforming based upon this inconsistency. The questions are really, what do you intend
to do about it and when? So, as Nick and Debbie has told you all, we will seek a small-scale amendment that will redesate the property from recreation open space to public facilities. A smallcale amendment is an easy process. It does not require state review. It appears
before you all and you all will get a chance to review it probably in April. Um but that is our intention that will resolve the inconsistency claim. For today's purposes, you all can make as Nick has suggested to you all a condition that this property be
redesated before the city can take a final vote on this matter. Mr. prediction letter threatens a consistency challenge, but there could be no challenge based on any action today because you all are an intermediate reviewing body. There is no
final action from you all. The final action is reserved for the city commission. There is another allegation in the letter suggesting that this is technically a park that the city treats this as a park. The letter states that we are working very hard to persuade you while this is not a public park. I can
assure you that we don't have to work that hard. In our discussions with the director of the parks department and our review of the inventory of the parks that the city keeps, this one Ocean Drive is not considered a park. There are different marketing
claims that go on and marketing claims often do not comport to reality. If you all know the city of North Miami Beach, you know it's nowhere near a beach. If you know where I live on Flamingo Drive, there's never been flamingos there now or in the future. Maybe a lot of iguanas, but certainly no flamingos.
So even if you were to treat this as a park, when I have looked at this and looked at the county charter section, there are exceptions for neighborhood parks that don't have to go through and this clearly can qualify as a neighborhood park. So no matter what how you look at it, the city does not characterize this as a park. And even if
you would in a more liberal posture, it falls into an exception of a neighborhood park. And finally, like in our review of the lobbyist registration records, we see that Mr. Dickman is not registered as a lobbyist. This is a very serious thing because he has sent a letter to you all the beginning of
January, another letter the end of January and is here today to offer testimony. You all have the discretion to disallow the testimony because he's not registered lobbyist, but that is solely your choice. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reserve some time for rebuttal. I appreciate the time. Okay.
>> Are you done with your presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh who is here that wants to speak? Good morning, members of the planning board. My name is Andrew Sterns. Address is 150 West Flaggler Street, Miami,
Florida. I'm appearing before you all today on behalf of Penrod Brothers. We are an interested party uh to the location of our property, which is the subject property. So, um, sorry to say we will be venturing into that time
issue that you mentioned. Uh, believe we're entitled to the full aotment of time as our status provides, but I'll try to get through everything as quickly as possible. We have a presentation we'd like to put on the board to go through to lay out exactly what is going on here
because it's an interesting scenario. Now, your role as a planning board is important. It's to ensure compliance with all LDRs in the city of Miami Beach. And what that means is you have to take all development regulations into
consideration as part of that task. And the simple analysis here which is unavoidable is that this project does not comply with the LDRs. What happened is resolution 2023 3282 approved a
contract and that contract required development of this property to be to substantially conform with the authorized conceptual design. And what you would see if you had been provided with those underlying documents, which neither the city nor the applicant
provided to you for review, is that the their submission was for a renovation only, not a new build. And what you're going to see is the new proposal for a new build was not even presented to the
public or anyone until more than 2 years after the renovation proposal was approved. Now the comp plan issue is important because as part of the LDRs comp plan is a land development
regulation and it doesn't make a lot of strategic sense for a board whose job is to ensure compliance with the LDRs to knowingly pass something non-compliant when the correct path would be get into compliance with a comp plan amendment if the board so chooses.
>> Here let me interrupt you one second. >> Sure. But again, we're recommending, not approving. So, does that have a distinction to your argument? >> I think it it's not really a distinction because you would be recommending something out of sequence. You would be putting the cart before the horse. >> All right. But the city attorney doesn't
seem concerned with that. I I I want to be respectful, but I want to make sure your arguments are accurate. >> That's a really good point that you raised and I want to address that, which is you need to take into consideration the posture of what's before you today. You are an independent planning board of
the city. Your job is to be fully independent. Where this is before you is the city is an advocate for this project. This is a city project together with a private applicant in a matter that has pending litigation. So this is
the very purpose of an independent board to exist. The city has a motive and a bias to get this approved. You all are independent and need to take that view as an independent view irrespective of what
you may be being told by the city. Now the this LDR requires that substantial conformity and here is the language that you haven't seen. It says that the concession area shall submit to the city acting in its proprietary capacity as
owner of the concession area all of the preliminary plans and specifications for the renovations and improvements to be made to the property which shall substantially conform to the conceptual designs presented by concession with its
RFP submission. Now this distinction is very important because this project was competitively bid and if at that time of the bidding new projects had been vetted against each other the city could have selected the
best of new bids or new builds and that never happened here. What was presented was a renovation and then two years later oh by the way we're not going to renovate anymore. We're going to build a brand new project and we're asking you to approve that. That's that's that's what's happened here.
So, what they're asking you to do is ignore the LDRs without any evidence regarding their substantial compliance with the the LDR. And by the way, the LDR here is the resolution. The resolution from the city and its attachments is the zoning regulation,
the land development regulation that allows this thing to proceed. And that allowed for renovation only. But they're saying, "Ignore that LDR." Even though you're a planning board, ignore it. They're not offering any evidence to you regarding their substantial conformance with that initial plan because there
can't be because it's a completely new project and they don't even want you to look at it because they haven't even provided you with the underlying documents. We will show you that the Bushet submission was a renovation and we we provided also into the record an
architectural report which delineates all the substantial non-conformance which is obvious to see anyway and also the comprehensive plan issue just can't be avoided. Now you have two
choices you can defer or you can deny. Um that is your right as a board. Now the bait and switch what happened here is interesting because what the applicant is going to tell you is that bait and switch is a procurement issue
and it's not a planning board issue and that is a total red herring because this project is wrong in multiple ways. It is definitely wrong at the procurement level for the bait into which they did at the RFP procurement level. But what's before you today is a completely
different issue, wrong in a different way, which is the LDR compliance issue. So they're going to try to confuse you and say, "Oh, they're just complaining about procurement." This is an LDR violation, and that's what's before you today. Now, here was this is a picture from the RFP submission, which you
haven't seen from the applicant. This is what they were going to do to the existing project, and this is what was approved. Now, this is what was first shown to the public two years after the RFP was approved, which is a complete redesign, huge increase in footprint,
never competitively bid against anyone. Obviously, it's pretty easy to see there isn't substantial compliance here. The required development pursuant to the LDRs that were approved required maintenance of the existing structure. The parking format had to be maintained.
The parking had to be maintained during the 72 72 spaces had to be maintained during the entire construction process. The operational square footage was 73,600 ft and a lot coverage of 13% and a sustainability feature was to reduce
waste, hence renovation. Now what this new application is is completely different. It's obviously total demolition and new construction. It's an understory parking facility that will take the 72 spaces out of commission for
the years that this project will uh take to be built. It's an increase in the footprint. It's an increase a substantial increase in the operational square footage and traffic and impact because of that. An increase in in
impermeable lot surface and a huge increase in demolition because previously there was no demolition. Now their site plan alone looking at their proposal which is on the left and their new the one on the left was their RFP approved concept the one on the
right is their demolition footprint which is everything and their new building with a substantially increased footprint. Now when asked during the application process so by the city they asked the applicants so you're not proposing any
tear down or rebuild from scratch. the applicant's answer correct that is correct. We are looking to do is we're looking to take the existing building and basically we're going to rehab it and that what was ultimately approved based upon that representation.
Here's a scope of the complete demolition and here's a a zoom out of the entire footprint. Now the the parking the yellow is a new structure which will overlay what is now
existing parking. Again brand new concept which takes the parking out of commission during construction. This is the existing parking footprint and that was what was proposed and what that was what was approved. >> So can you clarify the number of spots that where we would be lo losing or
gaining with the new uh parking lot? Uh the the the preliminary proposal that's before you by the applicant says that at the end of the construction process, they will provide 72 parking spots. The original RFP submission said that those
72 parking spots will be open during the entire time of renovation. The new proposal is that that's going to be completely closed for how however many years it takes to build the project. >> But there's no change in the number of spots at the end of the project. In this preliminary plan, they have 72 spots
after and there were 72 spots before. Correct. But again, uh there was a DRB meeting about a month ago where the applicant um appeared to agree with DRB which deferred uh a decision on the project that there's going to be some
kind of redesign to the project. We're not sure what that is. This was the same plan that was submitted to the DRB. So, we need to anticipate that there's going to be a new plan, but we don't know what that is yet. Now this is the existing footprint of the project which was supposed to be
maintained and was promised to be maintained and this is the new structure footprint obviously not in substantial conformity. >> Um excuse me if if we are going to if if this is if there's going to be a different plan then why are we looking
at this one? >> That is a fantastic question. I agree with you. I don't think you should be looking at this plan. Well, >> and that's a great question to ask of the applicant. >> You're pointing out this is a whole different plan and that there's going to be another plan. >> So, >> you're you're asking the exact right
question. We have the same question, which is they've already told DRB that they're going to do a new plan. >> And so, that's >> that's in the in the past. DRB hasn't seen that new plan. It's been because it was deferred. So, we don't know what's
ultimately going to be before you. >> How much more time do you sir? How much more time do you need? >> About maybe about five more minutes. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's going to be >> and then but following that um because this is a quasi judicial hearing, we have some questions we'd like to ask of the city as well. Uh but I can either
defer that to after you guys do all your presentations or do it right after this. >> Well, go ahead and finish your presentation. >> So this illustration is the lot coverage 13% as agreed to and 41% as proposed. They they in their required development,
the one they agreed to, they said they would they would increase the jungle tree canopy. What they've really done is reduce it. They said they would do sustainable surfacing of the existing, make it more permeable. They've actually increased the the impermeability. They said they would install solar panels for
resiliency. There's no solar panels in this project. The location of the pools and amenities we would be next to the restaurants. Now those have been relocated creating a safety risk for the public. And here's an illustration of the impermanmealability issue that's been
created with this new build. Massive new structures due to this undergrounding of partially undergrounding of parking. Now I mentioned this before but this on the parking issue but there there they did include in their presentation a
little bit about the increased traffic uh flow and existing impact. Again the four times increase in traffic that they presented to you in their new proposal was not which was is not what was approved in their RFP submission. They
had 13 months of construction which was the approval. They're now picking 24 to 30 months. Their FI was 23,343. They're increasing that as well. This is the specific language in the in
the governing zoning document which is before you, which is the resolution, which says at no point during construction process will a city have less than the required 72 available parking spaces available for use. That is now also being thrown away because the new project demolishes all existing
parking. This slide shows you the trip generation um that will be a result of this increase in intensity of this new project. And here is the timeline of the construction. Again, promised to be 13 months. Now it's 24 to 30 months.
The comp plan amendment is um an issue that's been been addressed. And just to be clear, the project the the site is GU the ex the use that is there now is a legal non-conforming use.
The applicant could continue that legal non-conforming use with the existing structures without a comp plan amendment. The only reason the comp plan amendment is an issue is because of the demolition which is an issue that they've created. So, they need an amendment to the comp plan because they're violating the RFP that they
agreed to and that then requires a comp plan amendment. It's an interesting scenario. Regarding the the litigation, I want to just correct a couple things. Um there was a motion to dismiss that was heard and following the motion to dismiss all
of the applicant's core claims have survived and ultimately we're going to trial on that issue at which point the judge if we are to prevail would totally redo and require a rebid of this RFP to begin with anyway. So despite what the
applicant has told you the litigation is not over or dead in the water is proceeding full boore with all of our claims intact. It's not before you, but the applicant mentioned it, so I just had to clarify it. Now, I mentioned um
the because this is a quasi judicial hearing, there are some questions that the city should be required to answer. We've provided a list of questions which we think are very difficult to answer for your review. Um,
I'd like to ask those, but I I can do it now or I can do it later. Um, it's it's up to you guys how you'd like to handle it. >> And Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few clarifications to some of the statements Mr. Sterns has made. Um, this this is a qua judicial hearing, so he does have a
right to cross-examine witnesses. Um, if I could, I'd like to make just a few comments now to to to help guide >> Do you consider yourself a witness in this? Well, no. I mean, I certainly not >> So, are you receptive to him asking you questions? >> So, what what I would advise the board
what I would advise you as the chair and and the board is that the Mr. Cerns can ask questions of of any witnesses who uh who have testified or will testify today. Um I want to I I need to make a very clear distinction between the
regulatory staff of the city like you know the building or planning departments um and the the the staff of the city acting in its proprietary capacity as a co-licant on this application. Um none of the four of us
here are advocates for a project. Right? your professional staff reviews applications and advises you and makes a recommendation on whether something should be approved or not. Um, and our role, the attorneys who sit on this day are is to advise you on procedure and on
the rules that govern your hearings. Um, the only advocate on this application in support of this application is is uh is is is the team that presented to you uh at the beginning of this hearing. So I would so so while Mr. insurance does have a right to to to cross-examine
witnesses. Um, it would it would be witnesses who have testified today. And if you have any questions for staff who who are sitting on the deis, it would be questions about the review of the application. >> Correct. And I I want to clarify. I would not be asking Mr. Claire just any questions at all. It would be to staff. Um,
>> and then if I just have a few Do you have do you have a question about any of that? >> Well, no. No. So there was an insinuation that you're biased and you have an incentive to get this approved. Similarly, he has a bias. He's representing litigant adverse to them in litigation. So there's biases
everywhere. What I have to ask you is I'm assuming you're not biased is whether you as a city attorney agree that we have some type of jurisdictional issue here or any other issue about reviewing and making a decision on this project even if it's favorable. So,
>> we have to defer to you as a city attorney what we can and can't do. >> Well, c can I clarify that you always have the right to ask for independent counsel if you want it. >> All right. Well, >> go ahead. >> So, the the what the application that's before you is a request under the GU
district regulations to approve a private use on city property. The code requires that any such use first be reviewed and that the planning board make a recommendation before it is ultimately approved by the city commission. The GU district regulations
also say that no GU property may be used in a manner inconsistent with the comp plan. Which is why we've recommended to you if you do transmit this today that you include a recommendation that the planning board that the city commission uh uh amend the future land use category
for this property from from RO to presumably PF, >> right? And assuming that recommendation's made, you don't you don't anticipate or see any procedural issues legal legally with us proceeding with the recommendation even if it's positive.
>> Correct. >> Is his his suggestion is we can only defer deny. So I want your opinion if that's accurate or not. And if we decide to approve it, is there any procedurally legal issue or obstacle to us doing that? >> I don't see an issue with you making a
recommendation today. Okay. Um, the last clarification I'd like to make uh for now is the the the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations are are two different documents. The comprehensive plan is the city's long-term vision that establishes our
goals, policies, and objectives for each future land use category of the city. Um, everything that we do in our land development regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan acts like the city's charter or constitution on
planning matters and the land development regulations implement that. You need no reminding of any of this, but I want the record to be clear. Um, the resolutions that relate to the procurement of this contract, the resolutions of the city commission are absolutely not a land development
regulation. The land development regulations are adopted or amended by ordinance of the city commission. You have a few on your agenda today. You have all probably reviewed hundreds of them. Um, so the only LDRs that your review today has to be consistent with
are are what's in the codified land development regulations. Um, and again to for today's purposes, that's a that's a review of a proposed private use on public property pursuant to the GU uh regulations. >> Okay. >> Can I just clarify a couple points? I I
didn't mean to if I stated it, I stated it incorrectly. You can recommend and you can uh deny or defer. Obviously, we prefer that you defer or deny, but I didn't want to make you think I said you can't recommend you you can >> I thought you said your only choices were >> Well, only from from our perspective,
your only choices given the fact >> that's different, but thanks for the clarification. >> Okay. Uh, and regarding the, uh, the one issue on the LDRs, uh, it's already been stated on the record by the applicant in front of DRB that they must be in compliance with their contract in order
to be, uh, to have this project go forward because it is the authorizing regulation. So, I do have a little bit of a, by the way, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Mr. Collaris and Mr. Lark and they're the best at what they do, but reasonable people can disagree as to what these things mean. And uh the
the truth is the authorizing document for zoning for this project the LDRs is the authorization and the resolution and and its attachments to do this project. Um that's it. Can I proceed with the questions or would you like me to >> I mean do you he wants to ask you guys
question. >> So who would you like to who are your questions for I think the first question >> for I'm sorry >> for city staff. >> For city staff so my recommendation Mr. chairman is you you are you know you preside over these meetings and and and can rule on on procedural questions uh
and the board can also as a body um but my recommendation would be that if uh Mr. concerns has questions for staff. I think those questions really need to be limited to staff's review of the application, consistency with the land development regulations, consistency
with the comp plan, but not, you know, questions as to the the procurement, what the concession agreement requires. I think those questions should best be directed to uh to to to the applicant. >> Okay. So So you'll ask your questions and if you think it's inappropriate,
you'll just say that's an inappropriate question. How about that? Go ahead. >> Would you like me to proceed now? >> Sure. >> Fantastic. Okay. So, I'm not sure um who will take a stab about this, so I'll just ask it. Um so, the RFP was awarded in 2023, and the first public
presentation of a demolition and new construction concept was November 2025. This new construction proposal was not included in the RFP submission. Correct. I think m unless Debbie unless you feel comfortable answering that I think that
it really is more of a question for the applicant either the the private application team or if anyone from the administration is here with the applicant team but I think those questions are best directed to the applicant rather than staff to the board. I >> I think that the underlying assumption on that is that the underlying staff or the staff didn't take into consideration
the RFP in making a zoning recommendation. >> Okay. So the application that's before us today is limited to a very narrow question regarding the private uses proposed for the um GU property. Staff
evaluated that staff has not performed an entire evaluation of an RFP that occurred 3 years ago etc. So we have evaluated the request which again is a recommendation by this board specific to the proposed uses of the site. Um the
zoning has been reviewed um by uh city staff. There's an application that is currently pending before the design review board. Uh that particular evaluation by staff had a full zoning analysis. There were variances that were
requested for relief from certain zoning aspects as part of that application. So I did not personally review this uh the the plan that went to the DRB for the zoning but the planning department has
done that. Um so I think that I believe that answers the question >> for the purposes of the planning board meeting or materials that were prepared for the planning board or the staff's recommendation. Did anyone analyze
whether the applicant submission substantially conforms to their RFP and the resolution? >> Again, what what the task at hand was to evaluate was if the proposed uses are consistent with the planning board
review criteria. So that is what we reviewed. We did not u perform an analysis of the previously issued RFP. So there was just to be clear there was no analysis as to whether the existing or this new construction plan substantially conforms to the conceptual
designs submitted with the RFP. >> That is that was not part of the application. So staff did not perform that evaluation. >> Okay. So just to be clear on that issue, staff is recommending
that the board approve this submission. >> No, sir. Staff is recommending that the board issue a recommendation to the mayor and city commission of a favorable uh recommendation. Not that you approve anything today. >> Staff is recommending that the board recommends for the commission's approval
this project where there's been no analysis as to whether the project substantially conforms with what we contend are the underlying LDRs which is the RFP and the resolution. The land development regulations are separate and apart from any resolution
um or agreement as the city as the owner of the property. The land development regulations are contained in the resiliency code um and city staff has performed a thorough zoning analysis of that. Again, that is before the design review board in terms of the uh detailed
plans. The design review board is tasked with um reviewing the design, reviewing any uh variances from the zoning regulations that may be requested um and the physical, you know, the demolition, the physical uh built environment that
is currently being proposed. So that is separate and apart from the task of the planning board today, but nonetheless occurring um in accordance with the requirements of the land development regulations >> during has the has uh staff conducted an
analysis as to whether the 72 parking spaces will be available during construction of this new project. >> Again, that is part of an agreement um with the city as the owner. Uh the planning department is not acting as the owner.
>> Well, my question was, have you analyzed whether those spots will be or will not be available during construction? Again, that is part of a agreement between the owner of the property and the applicant. So maybe the applicant could could speak to that in terms of their negotiations with the city as the
property owner. The planning department, which is the department I work for, is a regulatory agency. So I am to provide um an independent evaluation of the specific application that is before you today, which is very limited in scope. But the the applicant has not provided
an affirmative representation that those 72 spots will be available during construction. >> Um I would suggest you ask the applicant that question. >> The applicant is taking notes of what you're asking it and he can address what he can. >> Okay. And since the um staff has not
considered the RFP or the resolution as part of its analysis, you have not provided that to the board for review. Is that correct? >> Correct. that wasn't part of the application. >> Okay. So, the the there's no way because evidence has not
been presented to this board for them to determine whether this project is indeed in substantial conformity with the underlying resolution by the city. >> Um, that's not the task at hand today. The application is specific to the
proposed uses, not whether the the RFP needs to be redone or any of that. I mean that's not appropriate to bring before this board. >> Well, thank you. That's my questions. But I just want to make it clear that what we're seeing here is that
the only reason this project project is even here is there's a resolution and an RFP and that is what governs this agreement and we already see there is substantial non-conformity with that agreement and I think you're going to hear more of that today. Thank you. Any questions for me?
Uh, not well. You want to wait for the applicant rebuttal? Yeah. >> Okay. Not right now. >> Great. Thank you. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Thank you. My name is Andrew Dickman. Uh, Dickman Law Firm. We're at 809 Walker Belt Road in Naples, Florida.
I represent Erica Sodto, who's at 300 South Point Drive, the Portoino. She's here with me and she'll be speaking later. I I had um this organized so that I could get through this very quickly, but Mr. Larkin has put some allegations out there that I want to cover as well.
So, I'm going to take care of that first. First and foremost, um yes, on obviously, uh January 6th, I have a stamped lobbyist registration from David Marquez. They've cashed my check for $850.
Um I don't know if he's if Mr. Lin took the time to go down and talk to them or not, but uh I in fact am a lobbyist and we can get the clerk up here if we have to, but I have registered and I have proof of that. Um with regard to um the
questioning about the relevancy of the land development regulations in the comprehensive plan. I want to point out I want to point out something that um what had what and and Mr. Chair you made a great uh you had a
great question if there is an adverse decision by the courts what would the result be well the result one of the results would be that this concession agreement is actually a lease of public property and you've even heard Mr. are going to say our property refer to it as
our property and all of their designs um which are still the same designs that the DRB was shown they say pure park on them but why is that important it's because in your code it h it does say
that the planning board has review authority over uh conveyances lease and other things of public property and that There's a list of seven criteria that you have to go through and evaluate and one of them is ironically
consistency with a comprehensive plan. So, one of the things that as a local planning agency by law, that's what you are. You should be asking the staff, okay, let's see this smallcale amendment. That's what we need to see. If this was a private development, you
would absolutely be saying, hey, we need to see a companion item so we know what we're dealing with, what we're talking about. Staff didn't even mention the smallcale amendment. That's the first time we've even heard about how they were going to handle it. it was being poised as a text
amendment, not a map amendment. So when you're dealing with that kind of a policy implication of a neighborhood park and it is a neighborhood park, it is listed as Pier Park, it's city property. If in fact that is under your
jurisdiction, the conveyance of this and it's also under the jurisdiction of the city and county charters related to parks. There are big implications not only for this board to have to review it, but there's also going to be a
requirement for additional public engagement. And that has been the problem here is that this isn't a private development. This is a p this is a public development on public lands and it needs to have greater public
engagement. Um because as you heard before, you know, what was presented uh to the city commission is entirely different than what is being presented now at the DRB. And I do want to mention um um member Marks, thank you for your text message and thank you for all the
disclosures because that that's very important to this process. Um and and just to help you, you did mention that you watched the DRB meeting, so I want to make sure that that's on the record. You texted me that you watched it. >> Is that not allowed? No, it is allowed, but it's important that No, it's
important that you disclose it. So, so no one feels prejudice. So, I appreciate you do. I just didn't hear you mention that, but thank you very much. Um, these disclosures, Mr. Attorney, are very important. You can't just stay silent. They have to disclose. Otherwise, we're uh we're prejudiced about what it what
kinds of things they did. So what I don't want to get too deep into this but in effect to answer your question if in fact the court says this is actually a lease of public property you all have jurisdiction under your code um that says that you have to review it not just
for the resiliency but for a lot of different things. Not just compliance with a comprehensive plan but is it adequate? Is it is it appropriate for the neighborhood? What's what are the impacts on the neighborhoods? the is this is there a public purpose involved? Is is there quality of life impacted?
There's a whole lot of stuff that you would and should be reviewing as the planning board under your code. Um, the reason why you need to have a companion item with you now that you know that there is going to be a comp plan amendment coming forward is because
you need to know exactly what is going to take place. If you give a recommendation and move it forward, it'll never come back to you because it'll already be approved and you'll then see a small-scale amendment. And this is the first time we've heard this
today. And I think that you should ask for that. I think you should basically table this and ask for the information because apparently they've already had conversations with staff about a small scale amendment and that should be revealed to you um right away. Um
when when you talk about the uh earlier it was talked about o load counts or seats basically what you're talking about is a a tripling of seats and what that means is cars and people in a
neighborhood park. This is a massive massive change of that area. And you're going to hear from a lot of people that are going to tell you about traffic and noise and all of that has to do with largecale um establishments. When you think about
it, Joe Stone Crab, I think that's around 500 seats. You've got Smith and Winsky maybe 600 seats. I believe that this proposal with all of those commercial um proposals are upwards of
900 seats. That is significant. That is massive. It equals cars. It equals liquor sales. It equals noise. And you talked about like the the parking the parking. Oh yeah, we don't want people on our parking. So that we're going to
patrol that. That's our property. That sounds a lot like a lease, not a concession agreement. Okay. So I would really take homage to that. And when you talk, if you had a chance to look at the DRB meeting, they clearly said we need to see a a
different design. We're not This doesn't look right. It doesn't, you know, we don't know anything about any any anything else that's been has anything been reduced. Have ha have any uses changed? I would think the planning department would want to tell you about because that's what you're looking at,
uses. Have any of the uses shrunk? H have any of them been eliminated? We haven't heard anything about that. Okay. Now, you know, I will say Mr. Lin, I did call Mr. I couldn't ask him because I got hired uh right before the
the the January 6th meeting, I believe it was, and I asked and told him, I said, "Look, I'm I'm trying to get up to speed on this." He said, "No, no deferral, whatever." He actually had the ability to know that the meeting was going to be cancelled cuz he they they weren't even here. The
rest of us were in the audience waiting for 30, 40 minutes until we were finally told that you guys weren't having a meeting. and I drove all the way over from Naples. So, you know, for him to be uh a little annoyed that I didn't give him a copy of the letter that I sent to
you, I knew he they would that staff would send him a copy. I don't have an obligation to send him a copy of the letter. And I do know Michael Larkin. He knows me. We're we we're friends. I like him a lot. Um just to wrap this up, I want you to please listen carefully to
the the neighbors. the neighbors and um with no offense to you, Mr. Marks, I know you're involved with the uh sofa or something like that. I saw the resolution with your name on it. Um I don't think you speak for everybody in that neighborhood. >> I I did not sign.
>> Well, your name's on it. >> Well, >> December 9th, there's a resolution with your name on it. >> That was a mistake by the VP. >> Okay, let's make sure that that record is correct. His name should not be on that. >> Um >> correct. So in conclusion, I think you should
stop this right now. Ask staff about the smallcale amendment because you are the LPA and also I would harm in doing the evaluation that's required of you when there is a conveyance of prop property and get all that stuff wrapped up. So if
there there aren't any questions and it shows the community that you're being transparent and you're taking the extra mile, there's no rush to finish this. put it on the table. Get the smallcale amendment in front of you so that the community can see exactly what major
that's a major policy decision to do a small a map amendment a future land use map amendment in your comprehensive plan. So I would say put it on the table, tell them to bring it back. I would pause the DRB meeting, recommend
you pause the DRB meeting until you know exactly what changes are being made to the design because you don't know what the uses are going to be now because they may go to the DRB on the 12th and show a a reduction of uses, a change of
uses, and those are all things that are relevant to you, not necessarily the design, but the uses. So, thank you very much for that. and um I would like for you to have some have a conversation with my client. She's a resident. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> 3 minutes. >> Hi, good morning. Uh my name is Erica Sto. I am the founder of the South Fifth Mom's organization where we have over a thousand active subscribers. I'm a full-time resident in South Fifth for over six years. I'm a community builder
and I'm very disappointed on what's being proposed on our local land. What is being proposed is not what we expected. What was supposed to what one approval was supposed to be a small modest renovation and now it's being proposed this super large project based
on the proposal that won the public competition. We're expecting a historic building to be preserved the existing footprint to remain and scale to rep re respect the south of his neighbors. Instead, now we're facing de total
demolution, structure that is much larger and heights that are out of character for this area. We live here in South of Fifth. We're residents of the community. We're not just a destination. Project of this size and intensity will affect our
daily quality of life from noise, congestion, access to the beach. We're already struggling with traffic and parking in this area and the original proposal indicating that parking will be remain open is not under the new plan.
We're told that construction was going to take about 13 months and that timeline makes sense for a renovation but not something of this scale. Realistically, we're looking at years of construction, druption, congestion. This part belongs to us. If
a private operator wants to pursue a project that is materially different to the proposed approval, it should return to the public through a fair process rather than move forward through an administrative approvals. At minimum, we are asking that this project be paused
so the city can fully review whether it aligns with what is promised and what the community wants. We res we deserve a meaningful voice and we appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else in chambers
speak on this? >> Good morning. Um, my name is Gerald. I leave Sasop and um I review this uh application and I urge the board to approve it. I think it's a meaningful improvement of uh what
is existing and um that will be. Thank you. Thank you. >> Just anyone speaking, just introduce yourself and where you live. >> Good morning. I'm Bruce Taylor. I'm a resident of Miami Beach. I just have a prepared statement that's about 2 minutes long, please. Uh, dear members
of the planning department. I'm speaking as a resident of Miami Beach to express my strong support for the proposed redevelopment of the former Nikki Beach location in the south of Fifth neighborhood by Buché Brothers, a major food group into a luxury beach club with public access. As a member of this
community, I believe this project represents a significant upgrade from the previous use and will provide substantial benefits to both residents and visitors of Miami Beach. Major Food Group has established an exceptional rep reputation for creating and operating worldclass hospitality venues, and I'm
confident they will bring the same level of quality and professionalism to this beachfront location. Most importantly, I want to emphasize my strong support for the project's commitment to maintaining public beach access. In an area as desirable as south of Fifth, ensuring that our beaches remain accessible to
all members of the community is paramount. This project demonstrates a balanced approach that allows for quality development while preserving the public's right to enjoy our beautiful coastline. The proposed luxury beach club will provide quality and amenities that will enhance the experience for
both Miami Beach residents and visitors. Such facilities contribute to our city's reputation as a premier destination while serving the needs of our local community. The upgrade from the previous establishment will elevate the south of hit neighborhood and continue contribute positively to the area's continued
evolution. I believe this redevelopment under the stewardship of experienced developers like Buché Brothers and a renown operator like Major Food Group represents responsible and thoughtful development that aligns with Miami Beach's vision for the future. Thank you for considering my support for this project. I encourage the planning
department to approve the application. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Next. >> Good morning. I see a lot of familiar faces. Thank you for your service. Uh my name is Brett Benza. I've lived in Miami Beach for the last 20 years. I currently
reside at 650 West Avenue where the I'm the president of the board of a 334 unit condominium. But I'm here today in a capacity as a local, a very cold local. >> I eat, sleep, and I work in Miami Beach. I'm here because I want Miami Beach to
be what it was 20 years ago. A vibrant electric electric community, a mix of interesting people from everywhere in the world with spaces that were globally known like the Art Deco District in Lincoln Road. Ladies and gentlemen, Miami Beach has
lost his mojo. That's not a secret. We need worldclass projects like Nikki Beach site to bring the luster back. I have heard a few objections today, but nobody has mentioned the failed business that is there today. The property has been un underserving the local community
for years. And in fact, many of us haven't been there in a very long time. And I'm betting that includes many of you that live across the street. That said, we do need local input to make sure it serves the local community
and not just the visitors. There is no vendor that is more local than the Buchet brothers. They have been outstanding partners with the city for more than 30 years. You know this already. We have all seen them serve the city and their clients with the utmost
professionalism and quality. I trust their choice of partners who all have shown a long history of excellence in their various fields. I have known the entire family for a very long time. They live here. They grow up here. Their families are growing
up here. They are literally the home team. And while this may just be another project to the planning board, it's their family's legacy. Whatever concerns locals have, I can assure you there is no better group to hear them, address them, and work with
them. They have a 30-year track record to show this. This project is a big step in helping Miami Beach get back get the luster back, and I and many others are excited to use and support this space, and you can bet there are many of us locals rooting for the home team. Thank
you. >> Thank you. >> Hello. Hi, my name is Natalie Lasano and I have been a Miami Beach resident for over 17 years. I live in South of Fifth at Portfino Towers which from my balcony I can see Nikki Beach. Um I take issues
with the effect this project of this magnitude is going to have on our daily lives with traffic congestion um and just construction two years which they say two years. years. I feel like construction in Miami especially, you
have to add at least double the time. And I just don't think it's going to happen in two years. And two years is a long time to to go through that construction. Um unlike my previous my other the neighbor that just spoke earlier, I have seen since I've had my
daughter 7 years ago, I've seen a lot of changes in the South of Fifth neighborhood, but I see them as positive changes. Um, the neighborhood went from like a party destination and now I see a lot of young families with young kids
there and I I love it. I love it. It's quiet. We walk the boardwalk every single morning with my daughter. Um, and I get to enjoy the ocean views. It's just the reason why I haven't moved out of the beach in 17 years is because of South Point Park and that boardwalk.
I just think it's stunning and it just brings joy to me and I just wouldn't want um the integrity of that neighborhood to be tarnished with such a big project. And um I'm asking the board
to reconsider the changes and maybe to hear from the residents um what is it that the locals want. Um thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Hi, my name is Andrew Morlli. I am a Miami Beach resident for over 50 years.
I live south of Fifth. I own five units. Two at the Yacht, three at the Yach Club and two at Portoino Tower. 2011, 708, and 710 at the Yach Club and 1901 and 1902 at Portoino Tower. I just jumped through hoops to uh
renovate a home at 1210 Michigan Avenue that was falling apart that required something that never happened, full demolition. So, I understand what's going on in this project and I could say that I know the Buché brothers. I know Perry, Michael, and Steven very well. I
could promise you that if this project is moving forward differently, it's for a very good reason. for something that Miami Beach needs to compete against the cities of Miami and uh Windwood. Miami Beach is suffering. I own property on Ocean Drive that is dying right now.
Please uh move this forward and uh approve the project as it's being presented. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> sir. Thank you for your service. My name is Gabriel Kger. I live at 2201 Collins Avenue. Um, I would just like to confirm
my support for the project. Um, what I love most about, as you can probably tell from the accent, I'm not originally from here. What I love most about Miami Beach is its accessibility. Um, it's wildass venues and, um, its lifestyle. I think this project supports that in
absolute compliance and totality. This is a place where I look forward to taking my elderly parents when they come visit me and also my niece and nephew. I trust the operators because of their reputation and what they've accomplished and what they do. and I trust the words they say because of how well they operate. Um, and I trust that everything
that they've showed us will be in compliance with, you know, the laws and regulations that you stipulate on them. Um, that's all I'd like to add. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Ma'am. >> Um, good morning everyone. My name is
Sonia Velasquez. Um, I'm a home owner. I'm a homeowner and I live in South of Fifth. Uh, let me be clear. From the start, we recognize that change is coming to this site and we understand
why the facility needed attention and we've seen what the butcher brothers and major food group have accomplished with their projects. We acknowledge their strong reputation and track record. But this conversation isn't about whether we
want improvement. We do want it. It's about whether we deserve an honest and transparent process when our public land is being redeveloped. What we were told versus what we are getting in 2003 the city commission
approved well what you heard before now we are facing some major changes. Um that's why what's now before the planning board is fundamentally different
and we went through that with my friends here. Um this is about fair process. Some might characterize our concern as resistance to progress. That's not what it is. We want progress. We are not
asking you to reject this project. We're asking you to acknowledge that when a proposal changes this substantially, it deserves to return to the public for proper review. What the project offers, let me be clear about what we understand. This project includes
upscaling dining concepts from Mayor Food Group, quality restaurant that are a significant upgrade in terms of type of destination being created. New poolool, wellness center and retail pavlon. significant revenue for the
city, jobs and economic activity from unestablished well- reggarded operator. We can see the potential benefits here. The butcher brothers have been providing beach services in Miami Beach for over three decades. Mayor Food Groups has created successful well-run
establishments. We admire that. So, we cannot upset is a process where a modest renovation becomes total demolition. Promised parkings availability disappears. realistic construction timelines are in clearly communicated. Questions remain about whether proper
procedures were followed. This is about oppose. This is not about opposing development. This is about main maintaining integrity and how we make decisions about public land. Our request is simple and resable. You're asking the
planning board to pause this application until the next amendment to the comprehensive plan is completed so we can properly evaluate whether this is this use is appropriate under our city's uh master plan of full public review process of course that evaluates this
project for what is actually is a new construction project not a renovation realistic timelines the variance variance requests are properly just justified not simply granted the benefits uh that everyone here's
what's important to understand a proper process will likely benefit the developer too. If this project is as strong as it appears to be then it should be able to withstand public scrutin scrutinity. Transparent reviews buildings community support and trust
rushing through approvals creates resentment opposition and potential legal changes challenges down the road. The Butcher Brothers and Mayor Food Group have an opportunity here to be true partners with this neighborhood, not just another developer that bypasses
the community to get approvals. Thank you very much. >> Okay, just to respond to you again, we're not approving anything today. We're making a recommendation. So I that needs to be clear. Next. >> Good afternoon. My name is Jonathan Plutzik. I live with my wife and son at
1455 Ocean Drive. I own the Betsy Hotel at 1440 Ocean Drive. I chair the Ocean Drive Association, which is the business community of Ocean Drive. I'm on the board of Soie Safe, which is a resident organization, almost the north end of
Ocean Drive, focused on quality of life and public safety. For the last 20 years, frankly, I've been preoccupied with elevating Ocean Drive. And we have moved forward, but very, very slowly.
It's important that we elevate Ocean Drive while actually being welcoming to all, and I want to repeat, welcoming to all on Ocean Drive. So, being a luxury enterprise or an elevated enterprise doesn't mean it needs to be exclusionary
in any way. For 20 years, we've employed the the Bush brothers to run our beach. And as someone who's in the hospitality business who has to revel in or suffer from all the public scrutiny we get because people get to post online our
performance. Think about the Bush brothers who operate up and down Ocean Drive. And every single person who takes advantage of their services gets to comment on whether or not they're doing a good job, much less the owners of the properties that employ them. And yet
they continue to be successful. What I'm struck by in having conversations with them over time is how one deeply committed they are to the community. It is everything to them. How family centric they are, how family ccentric they are, how welcoming they are of
everybody. So again, luxury does not mean in any way exclusionary. I want to refer quickly to my comments about the Leslie earlier because I was struck by this was a successful renovation and enterprise trying to be
able to serve perhaps 10 or 15 of their guests on the roof and I saw the hoops they had to jump through again to make progress. I'll wrap up. >> We must make progress on Ocean Drive. We have in some respects about safety,
but the work is slow and slogging. It's why I spoke up unexpectedly about the Leslie. We are simply doomed as a street. As famous as we are, we are doomed as a street. We're never going to fulfill our potential unless we move forward on projects like this that
deserve I'm going to say approval, Mr. Chairman, even though you're approving. Without the approval of projects like this to continue to move forward, we'll find ourselves back here year again years from now having achieved nothing. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Ma'am, >> good morning. My name is Lee Lent. I've lived in South Beach for about 23 years. I live south of Fifth now for about 5 years. And I just came to take up a little bit of your time this morning because I think that I've heard a lot about Bouchet Brothers and how much they
brought to their community. And I've been here long enough, so I've seen a lot of that. But I think there's a right way to do things and there's a wrong way to do things. And if you know, you have an a company that presented a bid for a project and that project now as
presented 2 years later is significantly different. Um there were also efforts to characterize it as a concession agreement versus a lease in order to avoid public comment and public vote. So if you are planning to do this project, it should have been presented before. If
you want to do this project, then do the right things. Look at the text amendment. Look at all the different things. Have it before this board the way that they want to present it. And then you have a way to make a choice. For me, it's if they do want to bring all this to the community, then don't do
it all these different ways. Put it together. Show us what you have. If that was going to be your plan to do a complete different overall, then that should have been presented two years ago. If it's something that you kind of came up with like, hey, those other guys had a good idea, then it should go to a different way. But, you know, we're not
trying to stop progress. We are trying to move forward. I love the community. I love South Beach. I like We need to make improvements in Nikki Beach. I agree. I haven't been there as often, but I don't think this is the way to do it. And so, my hope is that you would recommend to pause the project, get more information,
and so that you have all the information that you need before you can make an informed decision. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Matthew. Good morning, chair. Good morning, board members. My name is Matthew Golanoff. I live at 125 Jefferson Avenue. It's less
than 1,000 ft from this uh proposed uh project that you all are giving a recommendation on today. Um I want to start by um talking about the uh the
impacts. Usually when um when a project of this size would come before your board in this neighborhood, it would be so as a neighborhood impact establishment seeking a conditional use permit. And there would be criteria that you would review and those criteria help
uh understand the impact that this could have on the neighborhood. We've heard from people who live in this neighborhood uh some of their concerns, many of which revolve around traffic and uh there was 150 plus page traffic study attached to there. I went through the
whole thing um but the thing that really stood out for me and I'm going to hold it up here was page 12 of that traffic study and what it shows is that there is almost a four times increase in the projected peak hour traffic. And to
understand why this is a high-end destination dining establishment with proposed over 900 seats, um we heard earlier that that the largest restaurant I believe is is Joe Stone Crab with about 500 seats. So, we're talking about
if this place is successful, and that's always a big if because we've seen many restaurants come and go in the South of Fifth neighborhood in the last 5 years. Um, and they have not all been successful. Um, but if it is, it's going to have a major impact on traffic in the South of
Fifth neighborhood. And we've heard the lack of community kind of like discourse about this. And Mr. Chair, could I one more minute, please? Thank you. uh a lack of community discourse about this and like Mr. Dickman, I have concerns too about uh board member Keith Marx's
name on on that resolution. Um whether there is or there is not a conflict of interest, there certainly appears to be an appearance of a conflict and I'm surprised that he hasn't recused himself from this. uh but notwithstanding there
has been uh not much discussion amongst the community members and we've heard that from there's been uh between five and 10 today what I would suggest is uh and this is nothing against the applicants the applicants the the Buché brothers and their partners and the community uh they have a great
reputation and I don't think anyone here is speaking against him but what they're saying is this project is just too intense there are too many seats there's going to be too much of an impact to the neighborhood ood if it's successful during the busiest times. Traffic is the number one um concern. So why don't we
go back? Let's meet. Let's have real engagement with the community. Let's meet and perhaps we find a middle ground. Instead of being 80,000 square feet of operational space, perhaps there's a way to rightsize this so that this project can move forward so that um
the neighbors feel like their voices were heard and the actual the real legitimate issues are um actually addressed and that we don't have uh potential impacts that could negatively impact quality of life in this neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. With respect to Keith, he
said that he did not sign it and that was an error. I did not sign it. I did not. >> No need for you to recuse yourself. >> So, >> okay. Next. Anybody else in chambers on this? >> All right. Anybody on Zoom? >> Yes. Um, we have several members of the public on Zoom. Our first speaker is
Allison's iPhone. >> Allison, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. Thank you. >> My name is My name is Allison Herman. I am the uh current VP of Safna as well as the president of Portofino towers and
Portofino South Point master. I am the signatory on the resolution the Safna resolution of December 10th. Someone had mentioned the date but that was incorrect. Um on December 10th um Safna held an open meeting of the membership where the peer park new design was
expressly on the agenda. It was presented by Mr. um Larkin, Mr. Karp and um you know their team the new design as as before you today and after there was only support in that meeting for um for
the presentation. All the questions were answered. The height um the difference in they explained how why they had to have a new building. The difference in the height was very minimal. Um it wasn't going to there was no residential there's no hotel and the community firmly supported it the at at a very
well attended Safna meeting. And after that meeting, um, the Safna board with me as a signatory signed the resolution. It literally has my initials. It's an A and an H. Um, Keith was not the signatory and he's just on there as a member of the board. Uh, so I just, you
know, I just want to reiterate that Safna did see the new presentation. The members saw the new presentation and we support the project. We believe that it will elevate the neighborhood um with the high-end restaurants, the community, a pool, a beach club, um a a kids area.
I mean, these are all community. It is all in the in the interest of the community. It's it's meant to be a community oriented place. Um you know, Nikki Beach has been neglected of late and it is it is not does not represent the community. Um and you know, we think
this will be an asset and and um I hope you you know, move forward with your recommendations. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Erica Durst. >> Erica, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I I I do.
>> Thank you. You have two minutes. >> Uh, good morning. I'm Eric Durst. I'm a South Fifth resident for the last 16 years. Um, I have thoughts on the latest design proposed not being the proper aesthetic or scale for that iconic corner of our neighborhood, but I also
don't think we should even be opining on planning and design at this point and we should be remain focused on this process. There were lots of initial concerns that this was not a fair or transparent process. the other RFP participants felt sandbagged, not just
the penrods. And it appears those concerns were valid now that there's been significant changes to the terms that were promised in order to get approval back in 2023. This feels very much like a bait and switch. And whether that's been intentional or not, it's not the impression our city should be making
upon its residents and stakeholders. I just heard a few members of our community speak to the character of the Buché brothers this morning. I've never met them. I'm sure they're perfectly lovely people, but that has nothing to do with the process and this process has been violated. There has not been enough
public notice about the changes post RFP approval. I do get the Sofna emails and there was an item on there saying they would discuss the new building, but anyone who's reading that is not going to understand that means there's been a new change to what was approved back in
2023. uh new building could just mean a renovation to many people glancing at a few items in an email. I respectfully urge you to recommend that the city recommmit to a fully open, transparent RFP process, one that's clearly communicated, fairly administered, and
deserving of public trust. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker, >> let let me just People keep talking about this RFP process that that's completely outside of our purview. Correct. All right. All right. Go to the next speaker. >> Um, next speaker, Jay Caprio.
>> Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. You have two minutes. >> Yes. Hi, my name is John Caprio. I reside at 1000 South Point Drive. I am president of the Morano at Portoino HOA
and I'm also a director on South Fifth Neighborhood Association. First of all, I want to mirror what Allison said. I am on the board with her at South Fifth Neighborhood Association. We've had had many meetings uh lots of community outreach and we are very active with our
buildings and the neighborhood and I think we have our thumb on the pulse of what is best for the neighborhood from a few years ago um advocating to get um to change the hours for story nightclub and
other businesses helping and uh enhancing the neighborhood. I've been a resident here for over 20 years. I own two unit I own two apartments south of Fifth and I just want to say I strongly advise the planning board to move
forward with the recommendation to pass this new design of um of the Nikki the Nikki Beach Club uh parcel as it is right now. It is an eyes saw. It's a bad run business. It's bad for the neighborhood. what they what they want
to do I think would be a great enhancement to the neighborhood. Um I know our residents are excited about it. I think it's going to be a great operation. Um everything I heard about parking traffic. We don't really have
those issues. As you see when a state when a citywide vote goes um to enhance anything on Ocean Drive like it was the Marriott, it passes. Um this is very important for our neighborhood that this gets uh recommended and it gets passed
by the city and it gets done. It is a a vital piece of our community and we all look forward for um Buché Brothers, Major Food Groups um businesses to to uh join our neighborhood. They major food group has been a great operator in our
neighborhood and we are very happy in their operations. South of Fifth and then also Buché Brothers I think their record speaks for themselves. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next, >> our next speaker is Lewis Salom. >> Lewis, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? >> I do. >> You have two minutes. >> Uh Lewis Salom and Gloria Salom, lifelong resident of Miami Beach, 800 Northshore Drive. I'm representing about 30 people in my family. We fully support
the Buchche and we commend them on the great community partner that they've been and we fully support this project. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker is Ken Capel. >> Ken, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Um, Ken. Okay. >> Thank you. You have two minutes. >> Okay. Uh I'm on the board of Soie Safe as is Jonathan who you heard from uh before. Uh and we're weighing in uh because of our commitment to continuously elevating South Beach and
we believe this project will have farreaching effects uh positive effects on our our community. We're very impressed uh because ne neighbors have the most important stake around and here is the board of SNA uh that is uh
approving of this and they've they've held uh meetings uh on this. What more do you need to hear when a uh a neighborhood association uh blesses a uh a project? I'm also told that individual buildings surrounding this uh this
project have have uh voted their support uh to it. So in addition to that, this project satisfies requirements we deem essential. An 11 p.m. closing time for restaurants, no external speakers or ambient music, provision for local
families to utilize open areas, and more. We've looked at the plans. Uh they're attractive. they will elevate the uh the area and they will resolve problems that are inherent in the current structure. So for these reasons we advocate the passage of uh of this
without delay. Thinking back to the firehouse debacle, we've seen what happens in this city uh when things are uh delayed. The costs go up and opportunities are lost. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Um our next speaker is great iPhone. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? Truth. >> I do. This is Steve Krennic. I'm resident, year round resident at 1500 Ocean Drive. Just start out by saying, we don't say it enough. Miami Beach is a
is a great place, great place to live, great place to visit. And uh but I think we all agree, whatever side we're on for this proposal, that we need to continue to elevate it. And and we've lacked doing that to some extent over the last 25 years. And so this project I'm fully
supportive of. It elevates, you know, the the area, South Beach, all Miami Beach in both the short term and the long term. Um, as as and just want to go back, I'm speaking individually, not not for any organization that I'm a part of.
Um, I do agree the the hours, you know, which Ken just mentioned, I believe in previous, you know, are important. Almost every establishment in the area stays open at least to 11, if not later. So, I mean these these hours are are very uh you know very appropriate and
you know I think we've seen it many times in our city. you know, we hamstring, we water down projects to try to get them through and then they're not the quality of the project that we want. And so, you know, kind of, you know, again, fully support the project as is.
And hopefully we don't do that with this project. And we should keep this project moving forward and not have a hole in our important neighborhood for many years if we if we go down these rabbit holes. So, again, fully supportive. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is uh
Jordan's iPhone. >> Jordan, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Jordan, you can unmute yourself if you'd like to speak. >> Okay, I'm I'm unmuted. Thank you. Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> My name is Jordan Levy. I I live at the
Morano Grand 400 Alton Road for the last 14 years. I'm also one of the owners of South Point Tavern which is right on the Kitty Corner right directly across from where Nikki Beach located and I'm the commercial director of SNA. I just want to make sure that you all understand
that we've been deeply involved this open in this project going back to 2021 when we met with the Penrods expressing our concerns about the quality of what's happened to Nikki Beach over the previous 15 years and our desire to help
them to get back to what it was when it first opened. We engaged them. We met with them. We had a community meeting there. We had an event there and we got them to offer benefits to the people in the neighborhood. Still didn't change what happened at Nikki Beach in 2003 23.
We were extremely involved in listening to every single presenter who wanted to take participate in the RFP. We engaged with them. We met with them. We gave them our feedback and comments. After that process was completed, we
unanimously supported the proposal that was submitted by by Buché Brothers and Major Food Group. Um uh back in November when they came back to us to tell us that they'd made changes to the plant. Um they came and showed us the new their
new vision which we thought was a major upgrade to what was originally presented. As a matter of fact, when original proposals were made, we asked them why they were taking a really poorly built building that was very old
and and just remodeling it. And they had told us that because they couldn't get more than a 10-year lease, it was almost impossible financially for them to build a new building, but that would have been their choice. Well, lo and behold, few months ago, they've come back. The math
now works. We we as a community met. We had an open meeting. We listened to the proposal. This is so far superior to what was presented originally. It's the same project. It's just much better and we unanimously supported it and we hope that you guys will as well. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Jordan. >> Um I believe our final speaker is Wayne. >> Wayne, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> Um I just wanted to call in to say what I said.
>> Sorry, Wayne. What's your full name and your address? >> Wayne Roberts, South of 5th. >> Thank you. >> Um I I just wanted to call in and repeat what I said to the HPB. Um that I support this project and I I
wasn't thinking I was going to, but the design or the size relative to the uh to the to the lot and the improvement to uh the neighborhood south of Fifth. uh
certainly um makes me uh uh uh for the project and not against and uh I congratulate the uh the partners in this project uh in putting forward a project that makes sense to me that's balanced
that looks at the interest of the neighborhood, the city, the business community, uh the tourism business and uh residents in general. general. So, I want to applaud uh this project. You know, it it
really was uh a really uh successful plan. Thank you. >> Thank you, Wayne. No one else on Zoom. All right. So, the only thing I'm going to do is uh Michael, you want to >> I have a minute. Mr. Chair, just a point of order. I just want to mention that the the member from the clerk's office
did come up and confirm with me that I am properly registered as a lobbyist. I asked him to tell Mr. Larkin that and he did. So, we accept that. I want to say that on the record to be very clear. Thank you. And and also I think I heard someone say that some of the board members live in the area and I think
that they should disclose that >> as well as the fact that I think Mr. Marks was on the RFP selection committee process. >> That's fine. I think I think he's the only one that lives south and fifth on the board. Is that correct? >> That is correct.
>> Okay. which means I understand. >> So there's your disclosure. He lives south of the >> Sure. Um yeah, I want you to just rebut what you've heard and then we're going to close a public hearing. >> Sure. Um a lot was said, but with regard to what Mr. Stern said, 90% of his
testimony involved a concession agreement. That is not before you today. That is not your role today. Your role is very narrow. It's to offer recommendations to the city commission with regard to this project. We would not be here today as I told you all unless the city attorney, the city
manager had determined that we are consistent with this concession agreement. We have spent many months working with them. This was not a surprise to them. These plans, our program, everything is utterly consistent with the wording of the concession agreement.
Bear in mind who Mr. Sterns is. He is an attorney with a firm representing the current tenant of the project. I hope that doesn't it's not lost on you all. This tenant failed to timely submit their response to the RFP in 2023
resulting in this litigation. The goal of this litigation is to undo the results of the RFP. They are not an unbiased party here. That is their driving goal. Their lease expires three months from now along with any standing they may have to challenge this process.
Now with regard to Mr. predictment. He mentioned seven criteria, one of which is determined consistency with the comprehensive plan. Those criteria relate to conveyances of property, leases of property, concession agreements that extend past 10 years.
Our concession agreement is less than 10 years. Therefore, those criteria do not apply. Again, it is worth mentioning that this property, One Ocean Drive, is not in the inventory of city parks. It is simply not. No matter how much Andrew might
want to wish it in, it is simply not in the inventory of city parks. The alternative argument that if you want to characterize it a park, it is certainly a neighborhood park and a neighborhood park is exempt from the de from the requirements set forth in the county charter regarding parks. The
public facilities land use designation, that is what will be before you all in April at the latest, maybe in March. That is what we're going to redesate to. If you look at the text of the public facilities land use designation, it encourages commercial uses within government-owned property that perfectly
matches what we are proposing to do at this property. With regard to Erica Sto, in April 2023, she appeared at the city commission of Sutnau along with Lucia Pinrod advocating for the Pinrods to remain in place as the tenant. I do not think she
is an impartial neighbor. I think that she has a relationship with the Pinrod family and it's important to understand that in the last week I've been approached by several people who have told me in fact that the Pinrod family is paying the attorney's fees for Mr. Dickman. I cannot prove that one way or
the other. I am not going to cross-examine Erica. I think that would be in poor form. But there are situations that you need to know about. What you are considering today is a pivotal moment. The way that Pinrods look now is run down and is shabby. The
city commission, the neighbors south of Fifth Soften all agree that what we're proposing is a superb improvement over what exists right now. Worldass restaurants, beautiful pools where people relax during the day. It is it is a vast improvement from what we have
there. Now in closing, you all have a very narrow scope today. In spite of what has been told to you, in spite of process, your scope is to review and make recommendations upon the project that we presented you all today, which is
consistent with the concession agreement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Can I ask can I speak? >> Uh yeah, I'm going to give you Hold on, Keith. One second. Just because you mentioned your name on a on a late on some Go ahead and respond that, but don't reargue your case.
>> Hold on. I just wanted to go back to Mr. Lark. We are we we get along well. Don't don't worry. >> Uh we are we are both advocates and that's what we are doing here. >> Correct. We understand that. We understand your role and who you're representing and we we get it. >> And I wanted to circle back that I did
mention that what you would hear is this is just an RFP dispute and and don't worry about it. And what I tried to convey to you during my presentation was that the core reason you are here is because of the underlying documents that need to be complied with substantially.
And I don't think you've heard anything that they have been. In fact, I think everybody has advocated for the exact opposite, that they are complete change. And obviously, we take issue with everything that Mr. Larkin said about what's going on in court because that is factually incorrect, but that's why
we're in court. So, with that, any questions that I can answer? >> Yeah, actually, I'll ask you and I want Mr. Larkin to reply. I keep hearing bait and switch. >> By the way, I'm closing the public hearing now and now it's time for interaction with people on the board were asking.
>> So, I'm bear with me for a second. >> The old RFP proposed a completely new look of the building. The new is proposing a completely new look for the building. Is that true?
>> Yes or no? >> You go first, Andrew. The original RFP was a renovation of the existing. >> Did it fundamentally change the look and structure or did it leave it in place? >> The answer to the question is the
original RFP >> yes >> is a renovation of an existing structure. >> Okay. You're going to answer >> the the new proposal again as of November is complete demolition basically property line or property line and brand new construction. >> Okay. You are aware that for 30 years
that all the other biders had complete demolition in their bids. So you had indicated that it's bait and switch that that it and implying that perhaps the RFP didn't even allow for such a
concept. The concept was allowed in the RFP. Is that correct? >> That that's absolutely right. And there were other uh new construction proposals. Yes, >> that were rejected affirmatively because the commission through however it it proceeded decided to affirmatively
reject new construction and to approve renovation only >> and those new constructions were only for the 30-year option, which is what they rejected. >> I I can't make that assumption that because that's too many baked in assumptions on that.
>> The original RFP had three restaurants. How many does the current one have? It depends on how you refootprint it. U and we don't really know what the redesign will look like, but as it was presented, it looks like that the the number of
restaurants appears to be similar, but you'd have to ask Mr. Larkin that >> was similar or identical. >> You have to ask ask Mr. Larkin that. >> Can I go? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um yeah, it's the same amount of restaurants. It hasn't changed. It won't change. >> The original had swimming pools. Any change?
>> We have swimming pools. >> Okay. The original had a kids daycare. Any change? We'll have those kids there. >> Okay. The original had uh dayb beds and lounge chairs with some even located in the pool. Any change?
>> No, sir. That stays. >> Okay. Any change in parking spaces from beginning to uh current to when it's finally done. I think the only change is that under the current scheme, there's
an understory and we're actually able to increase the number of private parking spaces, >> more spaces, right? Uh the original plan had extensive new landscaping. What about the new plan? >> Same. Okay. Uh the original plan was a
short-term lease of less than 10 years. What is the new thing financial to the city? Uh have they changed in the concession agreement since this uh plan is I assume
very expensive compared to the original for the applicant. Have they asked for any better terms? >> No. No. The same same plan. >> And and so can I ask >> Mr. Max? I'm sorry. I just have want to make one clarification. You asked whether it was a a short-term lease.
This is this is a concession agreement. >> Concession agreement less than 10 years versus 30. >> Bad art of term. Um financials are the same. Um okay, now he caught me off guard.
The um estimated extra cost to the applicant is what for doing it this way? >> It has increased. I think the investment amount is just below 30 million
extra. Okay. And when it's done for 9 years and whatever, does the applicant own the building or does the city own the building? >> City. So, the city is getting all the same features, all the same functions as
original with a building that's $30 million more not paid by the city on the same financial terms. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay, I'm done. C >> can I address some of your questions and where they're going, which is >> Yeah, you can ask me a question.
>> Mr. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. You want to do what? I just want to address some of his questions because some directed to me. Yeah, >> I I think that all of your questions are great questions. >> Thank you. >> And the the issue is not whether new
construction is appropriate for this particular property. The question is whether there should have been a competition of competing possible designs vetted through committees that are ultimately selected. And the problem with what's happened in this process is
that you're being presented from the first time to make a decision on something that was vetted by nobody with no community input. And although there may be some consistency with some attributes between the new construction and the promised and the contractually
agreed proposal, the new construction process for this public park should have been a competition between the best possible options and that never happened here and that's why this is incorrect.
>> Okay, skip. I just want to because it was mentioned I was on the RFP committee so I do have some knowledge uh and it's public record uh Buché actually tied and there was a new construction we actually
preferred uh on 30 years we we looked at what Boucher was doing for 30 years and another vendor and they proposed an entirely new look an entirely new building and some of us liked that and
some of us didn't. So they ended up tied. So it isn't I would just want to clarify the record that it was considered completely this particular >> the whole the whole new building concept for that space. >> Well, but this particular new build >> No, not this not this building. You're
correct, sir. >> All right, >> Scott. Uh um two quick questions first for staff. Um this obvious it I think we heard from one of the speakers this is not going to
come back to us at any time for a cup. >> Correct. This does not require a CP. >> So basically normally I mean this is the kind of project though that uh you know if this came to us and it was a private applicant on a private property a project of this size I'm sure we would we would probably scrutinize the project
and look at like things we normally do deliveries and and and parking and things like that. So basically everything is going to be left up to the commission for this >> because it's in the GU zoning district. It is it is the commission's ultimate um
decision what types of uses and the intensity of the uses. Now, that being said, the applicant did provide an operational plan um for your consideration for the currently proposed uses >> and and I and and I would say the board
while the city commission um through through its agreement with the concessionaire um has set parameters for the proposed use. The board holds an independent role here and you you can make recommendations
um as part of your motion for the city commission to consider as it relates again as it relates to the use. That's what's before you today is the use. Issues of of design will be resolved um when this when the application uh is is is when when the application is
presented to the DRB and the DRB uh makes a decision on that. >> Uh one more question. um has the I think we've had this situation before. Maybe it wasn't a a lease or concession agreement, but where a project came in front of us and they
needed an LDR amendment um and we I guess approved the project and made the recommendation for the LDR change at the same time >> that um that may have happened. It it it it comes up often with more complex
projects. It's not unusual for projects uh especially projects that require multiple hearings before different boards um to to be approved sort of you know one step at a time. The important thing uh for for today's purposes is the
GU district regulations say that no use on GU property can be used in a manner in consistent with the comp plan. Well, you're not granting final approval today. The the the applicant is aware that there are other steps required in this process. designer review board approval, final approval by the city
commission as it relates to the use. So, um it's, you know, especially for a more complicated project that requires multiple hearings, it's not unusual for for it to be approved in a in a in a more peacemail approach. >> Okay. Um if I was looking at this as a a
new project, um yeah, I mean, I'm in favor of it. I'd be in favor of something happening there, whether it be all new construction or renovating the existing building. I think we'd look at it or I'd look at it the same way I'd look at any other project and look at all the different aspects of it and and
decide on it then. So, I mean, I I don't I'm not opposed to this um as far as the the the idea that um you know, it doesn't um it's different from what the RFP put out. Honestly, that's
I don't think that's going to be determined here. It's probably going to be determined in another venue. Um it may be determined here but not by this board or maybe at another like I said another venue. Um I don't know if that's really our our purview. Um let the commission look at
that and you know obviously it may go somewhere after the commission but I'm not going to look at that. Um um I personally yeah I mean it seems like there were things that were not in the original um proposal but again I it's
that's going to be a call for the commission to make and you know wherever it goes after that it goes. Um but we did say that that that nor you know normally we would have a a better opportunity to look at all
the the operational impacts of this and and we could make recommendations but quite honestly we heard that the DRB is going to they they um deferred it and it's going to come back somewhere someone said that it's going to be a different design. It's hard for us, at
least hard for me, to make recommendations now without knowing what that design is. >> Um, >> just to clarify, at the last, >> Mr. Chairman, I object. The public hearing is closed. He he can sit down because he is not a party to this proceeding. We are the applicant. We are
the party. He is representing the tenant whose lease expires in 3 months. He shouldn't be up at the podium still because the public hearing is closed. >> You have the discretion to let anybody speak. >> All right. He He's right, but I'm going to let you respond to this and then we're going to stop with the back and forth.
>> Okay. Uh I made a representation during my presentation that at DRB DRB asked for some changes to be made and the applicant at that time the DRB then deferred and then the applicant said they would take that into consideration or do something and that there would be
another DRB meeting. >> So Mr. Newman, so you're not confused, the DRB asked for some changes to the exterior, right? You are rep you are considering the uses not anything and the changes to the exterior are not going to change the uses.
>> Mhm. >> Andrew please sit now. You're it is a public hearing. I've closed it. But I appreciate all your comments and your submission. >> No. >> I understand. Well, yeah. If they have a question of you, then I'll be by all means. >> It it seems like pretty much everything
is going to be determined at a later date at a different venue. Um, ideally I'd like it to come back to us. It's not going to happen though. Um, you're not coming back for a for a cup. Um, so I I mean I'm >> right. So Scott, so anything you're concerned about, then you got to make
we've got to make that a recommendation. >> I mean, correct. >> You know, it's hard to come up with things when we, you know, we don't really have a whole um an actual Well, I would say we have the we have a lot of information here, but
um I mean, we normally when a when an application comes in front of us like this, they're going to come in front of us and they're going to talk about their their traffic, their operations, and everything. and we're, you know, we haven't really heard any of that today. I'm not, it doesn't mean I'm not I mean,
honestly, I'm going to move to recommend we go forward. We go forward. >> Um I just, you know, I I don't know if there's another way we could look at this down the line. Um >> but you bring up a good point. I think that's an important thing to look at is
at the end of the day, if we're delaying this project and for other reviews, only circle back and end up at the same point where we're going to approve the current project. and and I understand there's a frustration with part of the process and I think there's different parties involved who own some responsibility and
I think early on the city should have assessed the current building and realized that that building was not really workable and that was most likely that was going to get a demo and I think some of that clarity to the public would have helped and I think the public needs to realize that we're having here in front of the planning board more and more cases where there's private
property commercial properties that get bought and the moment that these structures are evaluated we realize that it is not it is not feasible to be renovating or it doesn't make any economic sense when there's different codes now in place and we're going to see this going on in the city over and over. So, I think originally it would
have been just more realistic to the public to realize that the building that was there was not really a building that was sustainable to be working with on this new project and especially with currently with the real estate um uh cost of of of of renovating. Um, but
your point is right is is that if this project was presented as such today, we would probably be all on board. We were just a little bit a little bit um taken off guard that the original proposal is not quite the same. But Keith made some very important facts is that the usage
is the same and and and and the benefits to the public is the same. And yes, for the residents that are dealing with um two to three years of construction over one year, it's significant. But um but again we we we kind of failed and and and to being completely clear about uh
what was going to be realistic in a project like this. But again, if we're going to delay it to have a very different outcome, it makes sense to re request what what what the process is. But to end up at the same same place and months and months of delays and and a project that's just going to sit in a a
lot that's going to be vacant is not very >> to delay. And I just what I thought about was it coming back to us so we could look at more of the operational things. But in le of that in l of that I know that's not going to perhaps part of our recommendation could be that the city because this is going to be a process. This is not going to happen overnight. It's going to be a process.
during that process. Maybe our recommendation could be our recommendation could be during that process that the city require maybe the applicant to go out to the neighborhood and talk about their operations and get some feedback from them and maybe tweak the the the the process or tweak your
operations as you move forward to try to get more people on board. Uh just I mean maybe >> right that's a recommendation we'll make. >> Okay. >> So Jonathan >> Yeah. I mean, I'm I think the concepts
in general are wonderful. I think the the partnership is great. I mean, the Bouchets, major food groups, all been a huge, you know, both have been huge assets to to our community uh over many years uh longer for the Buchets. But the
the I understand where the neighbors are upset with the process. I I'm I'm still having sort of Yeah, some neighbors. I I still have questions about exactly. So, we are just
uh approving the concepts of of Mediterranean restaurant. >> Recommending >> recommending. Yes. Thank you. Uh a Japanese restaurant, beachfront cafe, a pool, kids club. That that's a that's what we're saying is in accordance with what our vision for the city is.
>> Your role is to review the proposed uses. not not really as specific as whether it's a Japanese restaurant, for example, but but what types of uses are are proposed on the property and you can make whatever recommendations
the board sees fit with regard to those uses. >> Okay. Yeah. So, I'm I'm in favor of all the uses. And I think, you know, I don't understand, you know, looking at them, I I haven't really heard much about, you know, any opposition to those specific
uses. What I've heard opposition to is the the building and the, you know, the size of it, the plans that were submitted, the parking. >> Those are all valid concerns, but unfortunately, that's not something that we're really considering right now. Um,
I would like to see there be a process for, you know, you know, you know, figuring out similar to a cup. And I'm I'm curious how the city is going to handle it in the future when there's a violation of something in the concession
agreement. It is that a you know, do they get a violation or are they do they does the city have to file a lawsuit in order to get them to change their ways? How does that work? I mean, I think if there were a if there were a use on the
property that was not reviewed by this board or approved by the city commission, that could be that could be a zoning violation. I I think if there is uh a violation of the terms of the
concession agreement that the city would avail itself of whatever contract remedies we have, >> right? And I I guess what I'm sort of thinking is I I mean I would like to see there be some sort of approval process in front of the planning board when you know similar to a cup. I understand may
not be specifically a cup but how do we make sure that the loading docks you know are in a place that's not going to disturb the neighboring building? you know, how are we going to make sure that the, you know, um, you know, that there are sufficient parking spaces that's not
that's open to the public, you know, how are we going to make sure that the sound isn't traveling to the neighboring units and and you know, you know, so so on so forth just in terms of enforcement, >> there's nothing preventing you from making any of those recommendations
today. So are those specific recommendations regarding parking, sound, all that is that something we have to do today or can we make a general recommendation to the to the commission that there should be a separate you know approval process for
the typical elements of a you know cup. >> I would recommend that any any motions you make on this application relate to this application. if you want to take up after this hearing um a a discussion or maybe bring back at a subsequent date a discussion on what requirements the
board thinks should apply to uses on on city property. I think that you know that's that's a more legislative policy discussion that the board is you know is is is well equipped to to engage in but I think that's really separate from uh from this application. >> So just just a question from what
Jonathan asked I wasn't clear on the answer. So if there's like a sanitation or there's a noise violation, what's the process that it would be how would this be treated? >> Those violations would be would be issued to the to the cons if if the violation arises from the
concessionire's operation of the property, the violation would be issued to the concession. >> No, but I think what her question is, Nick, is typically if there's multiple violations, it comes back to us and we can address in the cup. What happens in this situation where there's no CUP? I think that's what she said. Well,
remember remember that in most cases, development doesn't require a conditional use permit from this board. It's only certain it's uses that are listed as conditional uses that the board is requ like like any other uh business, they would be subject to enforcement by the
code compliance department. >> Okay. >> And that's not so unusual, Melissa. Like for instance, the hotel being built right across the street was not done with a 50,000 foot rule was not an NIE because that doesn't it's not required in this particular zoning district that we're in. So when there will be noise
violations, they have a huge pool deck there. I'm sure you all remember with restaurants that surround it. So if there are noise violations, it's what Nick described. It was simply go to a special magistrate. >> Okay. Uh >> I am definitely sympathetic to many of
the comments you know from from the crowd but the vast majority of them are really centered around the process which is not within our purview right there was an RFP that went out it was awarded uh to the applicant that's in front of us today and that is not what we're
weighing on right now. Uh I think you know that we have an opportunity as part of the planning board which comes along not too often to actually uh be a part of projects that help to reestablish Miami Beach as a destination. I think this is one of them. the Bush brothers,
uh, major food group are names that are synonymous with great experiences and, uh, I think joining them together really gives us a great opportunity to ideally propel the city forward, uh, in ways that we've really been trying to do for quite some time. And just to the
comments that we've heard on Ocean Drive, the city has been trying to diversify the entertainment and the offering on Ocean Drive for quite some time. Uh so I further think that this is uh just a way to really establish it as a destination with great positive uh
programming. So for that I'm supportive and hopefully it's something that that will uh really propel the city to new heights. Just a couple of questions. Number one, when does a lease actually start? So does a lease start once it's awarded once they get TCO? How does that
work? starts at the at the expiration of the right >> starts at the expiration of the current lease >> and again the the the concession agreement would start your question is to the new concession agreement right okay >> got it okay so uh the applicant's
willingness to go through a new construction process I guess dips into otherwise operational time that they otherwise would have had >> correct >> correct okay >> correct >> just just know that within three months the property is going to be vacant.
>> Understood. >> So those that want to pause, they're not realizing that. >> In terms of recommendations, would the applicant be again because we we obviously are not really weighing in on usage, but we would like to have some type of comfort for neighbors, would they be okay with things such as no
queuing from valet on Ocean Drive, things that we would otherwise typically put in uh to things that are in front of us? >> I don't see an issue with that. And I think what happens is like each of you all are going to make recommendations that will be in one omnibus motion at the very end. But I can see your point
there and there's no objection to that. >> I' I'd like to make a motion once we get through the rest of the comments. So I want to make sure you're okay with that. Okay. >> Uh that was it. >> Another public hearing is closed, Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're not going to keep going because public hearing is closed. You should not make any more comments.
>> Discretion 10 seconds. >> No, Mr. Chairman, it's closed. >> Let him go. Right. >> The way the concession agreement is structured is that the 10 years does not begin until construction is complete. That is the actual fact and you can ask the city attorney. >> Okay.
>> Fine. >> Any opposite? Okay. >> Just please the public hearing. >> So I don't want to be too redundant. The one you know I always tell everybody that listen to these hearings that you know we have a very difficult position as a planning board to encourage great development and good operations with
quality of life for the residents. Um, the one thing I'm happy to hear universally and and you know, as Andrew said earlier, reasonable minds can differ and obviously we heard a ton of residents in favor. We heard several in oppose. So, and I everyone has Miami Beach's best interest at heart. So,
obviously reasonable minds can differ, but the one thing that I don't think was in dispute was the quality of the Buché Brothers operation, uh, the major food group. I think universally everybody feels very highly about their competence um their uh desire to make the
neighborhood a better place and um I think that at least for me that's very important. I think the operator is critical and and and I think everyone is in agreement that the Boucher brothers are uh elite in that in that uh area. Um
addressing the the the procedural problems based upon what I'm hearing from the city attorney. I don't think we have a jurisdictional issue. I do appreciate all of your arguments. I think they were wellcraftrafted. I read every one of your letters. Um, and I understand that. I do think that the pending litigation, which we have no
involvement in, could throw a wrench into all this, but you know, that's for another day. Um, but based on the totality of the evidence that I've heard, and I do give a lot of weight to SOFNA and homeowners associations, um, that this was very clearly vetted by them. They said that under oath. the new
project. Um, uh, I am sympathetic to some of the concerns by the other residents, which hopefully in some motions to, uh, to ask the commission to think about those things that those can be addressed. But generally, I am, uh, in favor of this project moving forward.
I think, um, it's it's a beautiful development. I think it has languished, sadly, and I think uh, it could be kind of a jewel to to Ocean Drive. I think the Betsy Jonathan was here earlier. I think that's another jewel to the to the neighborhood. Um so, uh with uh with the
thought that we will make recommendations that the commission think about, I'm I'm very supportive of the project. >> Melissa, >> um so keeping it short. So, I'm um basically echoing what my uh what Brian said and so in support of the project as
well. I think uh we've attracted not only we keep we keep mentioning the Bush brothers and major food group but we also have a an important architect that's doing the the design of the building too. So um so I think uh it's a win for for the beach area um typical of any project. The concerns from the
residents are valid. It's noise, traffic and parking. So it's for the commission for I think we need to make recommendations to make sure the commission is sensitive to that. Um but uh I think overall it's a positive project for the neighborhood and for other businesses around there too to
increase foot traffic and to be uh um patronage of the the other businesses around. Thank you. >> Um so everyone's sentiments here. Um I think that we need to address the LGRs
that we need to change. Does that have to be addressed in the recommendation? Um, >> yes, we have recommend our what we're recommending is whatever the board uh determines as to your recommendation on the on the proposed use that you include
a recommendation that the city commission amend the comprehensive plan. Um, uh, because currently the use is not consistent with the comp plan. >> I think we should address parking, how the project is being built and when it's
being built. I think we need to talk about I'm going to support this because I'll listen to the neighbors. Um, and we can't have this sitting here. Um, and I know that there's all sorts of processes and things that are
objectionable, but that's not in my purview. Um, and I do think that we need to have something good in the south the fifth. Um, I'd like to talk about all these other things if we could >> the other.
>> Okay. So, um, sorry, >> motion. >> Yeah, I was going to say we can make a motion and then we can have a second discussion with motions uh, as to what we'd like the commission to consider. >> So, should the motion meaning two separate things or should >> For now, it's it should be either you
want to make a motion of favorable recommendation or an unfavorable recommendation. >> Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve with a favorable recommendation. >> I'll second. >> Okay. You want to do roll call, please? >> And just to just to clarify, it's a
motion to transmit a favorable recommendation. >> Yeah. >> Uh, Mr. Needleman. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Miss Leone. >> Yes. >> Mr. Frerieden? >> Yes. >> Mr. Cement? >> Yes. >> Miss Bey? >> Yes. >> Mr. Marks? >> Yes. >> Mr. Elias? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, that passes now. Um, uh, Scott, Jonathan, who >> can I make a motion? >> Sure. >> Um, and it relates to what Elizabeth said, uh, knowing the area. If there I would, um, like to to put a motion in
that we recommend that the city look at alternative places during the period that 72 spaces are gone. uh whether it's paying for private areas like Joe's that may have spaces or
garages, but somehow find a way that those in that community that use those 72 spaces can continue to even though they may have to walk a little bit. >> Yeah. So, what I want to do, I want to we want to put all these recommendations into one motion. >> Into one. Yeah. So, that is my re that
is my parking recommendation. Is there is there a a public parking lot owned by the city nearby? Do we have something? Cuz now this is a city project. So >> there's a private parking lot cuz I used it the other day. >> Yeah, there there's very few
public >> public parking lots nearby. >> I mean there's South Point Park is probably the closest to walk to. Um, but the closest that is available perhaps for the city to pay for during that period or the applicant would be in in
Joe's parking lot >> which is Oh, yeah. Joe's parking lot >> huge area that was going to be a firehouse. >> Okay. If you could um somebody on staff just memorialize each Okay. Um I would >> and then I'd like to also talk about um
that we recommend to the city that um there be a process for future land uses and how we address those kinds of things if there are violations if there's you know things like that that you had mentioned before that we could >> Are you talking about separate from this
application because I think right this motion is is specific to this I think that this >> that'll be a second disc that will be a separate discussion item. >> All right. You want to do that? >> Yeah. But hold on, let me just go down the road. I would add to the motion that there be down the line either one or multiple meetings with the applicant
with city staff where the applicant presents all the operational aspects of the project like the valet, loading, um the cars are going to cue um to the public, public meetings and and also give which give the public an
opportunity to comment on that and um hopefully maybe incorporate some of those suggestions into whatever they final um I guess would be the concession agreement. >> It would be the the it would be the city
I think what you're saying is prior to the city commission's final approval of the use because remember this recommendation will go to the city commission and then the city commission will have to vote on whether to approve the use. >> So Scott, I think >> and by the way agreved residents or interested residents have the right to
go to that hearing. Correct. And then correct their same concerns. >> That will also be a public hearing. before the before the final approval by the commission that there be a public meeting as I described. >> Not really sure.
>> So you your recommendation, Scott, is just for an additional public meeting to dis with the applicant and city staff to discuss the operations including but not limited to parking, noise. Yeah, maybe the city staff could actually um um head the meeting and talk about or
the applica the applicant presents and you talk about the the the all the operations and basically take the comment and kind of try to I want to say incorporate anything that you find uh valid into the concession agreement or at least you make that
recommendation to the commission. >> You remember the agreement is is is is executed. So So Any recommendations that you make today are for the city commission to consider um when it reviews the use for >> approval.
>> Can we address noise? >> You can make recommendations on this. >> We can Okay. Um is can may I speak? Yeah. >> Okay. Um I'd like to talk about how you're going to address the noise mitigation and things like that because
I don't know exactly what the plan is. This is very odd. >> So, um, can we talk about that a little bit? >> Sure. So, you know, the concession agreement does not in any way wipe out the city's noise regulations. There's
one regulation that says at no time can any property owner make noise that's unreasonably loud. That remains in place. >> Are you going to have speakers on the beach and things like that or >> nothing on the beach? No. >> Nothing on the beach. >> No. Then the second noise regulation
which is really almost not relevant because our venue shut down at 11 p.m. but like after 11 p.m. you can't make noises plainly audible with 100 ft of your property and that's almost it's irrelevant because we're not going to be open that late.
>> Hey, >> can you guarantee on entertainment as long as we're thinking out of the box? Are you absolute? Can we I mean my recommendation is to that that is a a
given not a maybe. Um I'm not a lawyer but you kind of hedged a little bit on that. Is there going to be live entertainment inside or out? >> No. >> Including DJs >> under the concession. We can't. >> Okay.
>> I'm just asking these questions because this is >> but I just want to do it right. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm just trying to think of a word to Scott's point. I mean, there's so many things that the city >> exactly >> planning department normally reviews as part of a CU piece. I'm not saying that they necessarily need to do every single
thing, >> but, >> you know, it's just something I think >> we're never going to be here to, you know, we'll be here all day if we're talking about every individual element. What I'm saying is maybe just have a recommendation to or you know a memo to
the to the commission that the planning board has concerns about different various elements uh in terms of the operations including loading valet operations uh noise you know what are so on so
forth and you know we hope that you know the city the commission will come up with some way to address those issues. >> I mean, Deborah, isn't it a given that the city's going to go through this exercise? Am I am I missing something? >> Um, yes. Typically, that would be a requirement. And during the building
permit process as well, we have an additional transportation review. So, right now there's also a transportation review which includes loading and deliveries at the design review board level discussion. So, um, you know, some of that will be incorporated into the
design review board order because that will actually be an approval, right? So, um I believe the traffic queuing and parking and loading are are being looked at by the design review board through our transportation. >> I just feel like we're making recommendations that are kind of a
given. But but if they're not, then that's when I want them to be in a in a memorialized motion. Do you understand what I'm saying? >> You I I absolutely do. And I think for the the two recommendations that we've heard so far, which are the parking the 72 parking spaces and the public
meeting, you know, would not be normal course of of business for us. So >> that's a recommendation. Um, in terms of, you know, the no entertainment, they're not proposing entertainment, but you could certainly make a recommendation to for to the city commission to
>> Well, I'd like to make a recommendation to me memorialize that they have to follow >> the code of south of Fifth. >> Um, >> right. >> Because Nikki's Beach, without getting into any history, was grandfathered. And
just like we got rid of story, it is immensely popular amongst the residents not to have live entertainment out on the beach in that area, which we've lived with for 20 plus years. So, >> I'd like to make a recommendation that
that is a a firm >> all right >> commitment. Okay. >> Going forward. >> Anything else? just my previous comment about no queuing on Ocean Drive um to the best of
their ability and also that they offer programming for community members similar to what I think one of the community members mentioned Nikki Beach offered. Was it the Mommy and Me? I don't know >> what's >> I think there was a Mommy and Me that that was being offered by Nikki Beach. Whatever programming community members
seem to love, I'm sure there's going to be some outreach from the Bouchet Brothers and Major Food Group to just incorporate them into whatever new offering they have. We can talk to that group. I think it's great that PINRA's offered to have them meet there once a week and we can continue that tradition.
>> That's all I have. >> All right. Anything else or can we move it? >> All right. So, Chief, go ahead and make a motion that in I'm sorry. >> Sorry. I think Nick was >> the um >> Yes, I can read back the recommendations if that's helpful. Um Okay. with a recommendation that alternative
locations um be explored by the city to provide 72 parking spaces to the public within the general neighborhood um which could include parking private parking uh lots. >> Yes. Uh the second recommendation was that an additional public meeting be
held with city staff present, the applicant president present and um specifically to discuss with the public oper the operational plans including not limited to valet loading parking uh noise and other types of operational
issues. Um the next recommendation is to reaffirm that the uh no entertainment provision in the agreement will be maintained um by the city commission. >> Mhm. >> Um and another recommendation that no
vehicle queuing shall occur on Ocean Drive. And finally that the applicant provide programming for community members. >> Good. All right. >> Sorry. Um, last thing I would suggest is to I want to make sure it's in your motion that >> Oh, the LDR, right?
>> Correct. That that this that the city commission uh amend the comprehensive plan uh either prior to or at the same time or concurrently with the with the review of the final of the um of the >> which Nick is required, right? >> Is required. Yes. >> Yeah. So, okay. We're going to recommend
they do what's required. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve those. Well, no, it's a send on those recommendations. >> To send on those recommendations along with the affirmative. >> Okay, we get a second. >> I'll second.
>> Okay, that I'll ask all in favor. >> I >> Anyone opposed? All right. So, I want to thank all of you for your presentations and whoever is listening again, this will come to a public noticed hearing by the commission and feel free to attend that hearing to voice any support or concerns you have.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll be back in April, as I said, for our small scale amendment. By the way, I was wrong. I'm not the transactional attorney. The commencement date of the concession agreement is when we our operations are fully open to the public. It's not when Penrod's lease ends, which is May 6.
>> Just for a point of clarification. >> All right. Thank you all again. All right. Um, we're on to comprehensive plan code amendments. Item 16, planning board file 2550804,
administrative review of temporary surface parking lots. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently, the design of temporary parking lots requires the review and approval of either the design review board or historic preservation board. This ordinance establishes procedures for
staff level design or certificate of appropriateness review of temporary parking lots in accordance with the regulations in chapter 4 and 5 code as outlined in the proposed ordinance. A temporary parking lot shall only be permitted for 5 years and the DRB or HPB
may allow for an additional 5 years for a total of 10 years maximum. Additionally, the property owner will be required to provide a restrictive covenant agreeing not to invoke or utilize any state preeemptions that could allow for the usage of the temporary parking lot for more than 10 years. Although surface parking lots are
not the most desirable use of a property, this proposal applies the same time frames and design standards for temporary lots that currently exist for surface lots that require land use board review. As such, staff recommends the board transmit a favorable recommendation to the mayor and city commission, and we're available for any
questions. Thank you. Uh, anyone in chambers on this item? >> Anyone on Zoom? >> No one on Zoom. >> No on Zoom. Okay. Close the public hearing. Any questions or someone want to move it? >> I'll move the item. I think it's a great
idea and I really appreciate it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Great. All in favor? >> I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Passes unanimously. Favorable recommendation. Wow. We're almost finished. Looks like
last item. Um, uh, and by the way, um, Elizabeth, do you want to articulate what you want to schedule as a discussion item per your prior discussion? >> So, um, there are a lot of city properties, um, number one being
the west lots that we really don't know what's going to be taking place there. I think that there should be something that the city commission um, takes into consideration. And I'm sure that they do. I don't that's didn't come out right. that that there's some sort of I
don't know how we address or how the city addresses what takes place on these properties and how if there's a violation if there's this you know because it is it is city property and how I mean we we experience I mean I've asked before does the city issue violations to themselves for sanitation
and for for um for uh not mowing the grass and things like that unckempt properties I just like something memorialized that they adhere to and how to >> so basing the discussion item on potential uses of public property.
>> Yeah. I just don't I don't know how we it just there's >> All right. We'll make a discussion item. >> Yeah. Just like to like to do that >> whenever we have our least busy >> upcoming meeting. No, I mean that so we have time for it and then and then we'll
get to the last item. I have one question for you, Nick. Um, so a lot of people, I live in Sunset Harbor, a lot of people are complaining about the fact that the landlords um are letting properties just stay vacant for an indefinite amount of time, not being reasonable with their rent. Is there
anything that the city can do um in a punitive way if someone leaves a an open space for in order amount of time or is that just private property and they can do whatever they want? So some of the issues that like come with vacancy we
have authority to enforce. You know property maintenance violations um we require vacant storefronts to be uh to be to be you know appropriately covered. Um the challenge is
we we've gotten this question before about like a vacancy tax. some cities, larger cities across the country have have explored um a vacancy tax. And the practicality of that aside, whether a financial penalty is really going to, you know, encourage someone to lease property out is a separate question. Uh
we don't have in in Florida, local governments do not have authority to levy taxes um unless it's expressly authorized under state law and there is no authority for a vacancy tax. um the you the best thing that we can do is to focus our efforts on, you know, on
code enforcement, on making sure there isn't a nuisance or public safety issue. Um >> Right. So, as long as they're properly maintained, they could leave them empty for years. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'd also like just kind of the little retail 101 kind of thing. Sometimes there are
leases that are already in place. Like for instance, um on Lincoln Road, Amazon Go was going to open up on Lincoln Road. Well, if you've got a tenant that and and this is just kind of just off off topic a little bit, but if you have a
tenant that's already signed a lease that say it's 20 years and they decide not to open, they're still on the lease. You can't double lease it. So, they're already the landlord's already collecting rent and they can't go back and and lease it to somebody else. And I
certainly wouldn't let Amazon off the hook if I if I you know, but those are just that's just how retail is. I mean, everybody seems to see that that we have all these vacant, excuse me, spaces, but they don't realize that a lot of them are already leased and they can't just
can't just go lease it to somebody else. So, I just thought I'd >> yeah curious because there's just a lot of open, you know, vacancies that have been there forever and I didn't know if there's anything the city could do to incentivize that not happening. it. All right, let's finish with the last uh
item. It's um planning board file 2560806 20 240 comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal report. >> Right, Mr. Chair, thank you. This is pretty simple um application. This is um an ordinance that that is required uh
for the city to be in compliance with Florida statutes. Um the state is now requiring uh the city to apply a secondary 20-year planning horizon to its comprehensive plan. So the proposal would be have the comprehensive plan be
updated to 2050. Currently it's 2040 um which would satisfy that uh recommendation that requirement. Um, there's also some minor uh amendments to remove obsolete, outdated terminology like the South Point redevelopment area
which no longer um exists that has sunsetted um and to add the North Beach CRA which is a new CRA. It's not currently in the comprehensive plan. So, um with that staff is recommending approval and happy to answer any questions you may. >> Sounds like we have to, right? I mean it
is yes this is to be in compliance with state law and then the other changes are just minor to to remove some obsolete language >> right but the other okay the other statuto okay anyone in chambers I doubt you're here for this okay >> anyone on Zoom okay
>> motion to approve >> motion to approve do we have a second >> second >> okay all in favor I >> all opposed all right it passes your lunch is here guys >> and ladies >> sorry I was so hungry >> that commission I love, you know, how there's all these
hidden agendas like that. The bouches are I mean that Oh, here. What's that?