* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. TWO, [00:00:01] ONE. OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY, AND WELCOME BACK. HOPE EVERYONE HAD A GOOD AUGUST. WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 24 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF CONTINUANCES TODAY, BUT WE WILL START WITH, UH, IF [1. After Action Report – July 30, 2024 ] I COULD GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING AFTER ACTION REPORT. MOTION TO APPROVE. CAN I GET A SECOND? HANG ON ONE SECOND. I DID NOTICE ONE CORRECTION. OKAY. THAT SHE MADE TO GO FIND IT. YOU MEAN SOMETHING THAT NEEDS CORRECTING? Y YES. WELL, I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT SAID, UH, IT, IT SAID, OR I OPPOSED ONE OF THE ITEMS AND IT SAID SIX ZERO FOR THE, UH, FOR THE, THE NARRATIVE. IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE RRP S FOUR HEIGHT INCENTIVES. I'M SORRY. NO, IT'S, UH, IT'S PB 24 DASH 0 6 6 9. OKAY. AND YOU WERE A NO, I WAS A NO. OKAY. SO CAN WE CHANGE THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THIS A FIVE ONE VOTE? SURE, YES. I'LL CORRECT THAT. OR, OR MAY HAVE BEEN 6 6 1. IT SHOULD SIX ONE. IT WAS JUST SIX ONE. SORRY. SIX ONE. PUT THE ONE. YEP. YOU NEED THAT? A ONE. THANK YOU. AND I'LL SECOND IT THEN. OKAY. WITH THAT CORRECTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? OKAY, THAT'S APPROVED. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO [CITY ATTORNEY UPDATES] THE CITY ATTORNEY. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. TODAY'S MEETING AS THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID FORMAT WITH BOARD MEMBERS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL AND APPLICANT STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPEARING EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM. IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY IN TODAY'S MEETING, THE PUBLIC MAY DIAL 1-877-853-FIVE 2 5 7 AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH IS 8 6 1 4 3 4 2 6 3 2 7 POUND OR LOG INTO THE ZOOM APP AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH IS 8 6 1 4 3 4 2 6 3 2 7. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM? MUST CLICK THE RAISE HAND ICON IN THE ZOOM APP OR DIAL STAR NINE IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING BY PHONE. IF YOU'RE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS, A CORPORATION, OR ANOTHER PERSON, YOU NEED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. IF YOU HAVEN'T REGISTERED YET, YOU SHOULD REGISTER BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO THE BOARD. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ONLY ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND NOT ANY OTHER PARTY, OR IF YOU'RE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, OR OTHER SPECIALIZED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING, OR IF YOU'RE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR APPEARANCE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION. 20 ITEM EXPERT WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHALL PRIOR TO APPEARING DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK, THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND THE PRINCIPLE ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY'RE COMMUNICATING. IF YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT, ATTORNEY, OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTING AN APPLICANT OR AN OBJECTOR, YOU MUST REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST. THESE RULES APPLY WHETHER YOU'RE APPEARING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN ITEM OR ENCOURAGING OR ARGUING AGAINST ITS PASSAGE, DEFEAT, MODIFICATION, OR CONTINUANCE. LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO SWEAR IN ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND ANY STAFF WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING TODAY. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NICK. OKAY. UM, WE'LL START WITH [2. PB24-0650. Development Regulations creating the Normandy Isles Overlay District for certain CD-1 zoned properties] [3. PB24-0651. Normandy Isles Overlay District – Workforce Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment.] ALL THE REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES. THE FIRST ONE IS FILED PLANNING BOARD 24 0 6 5 OH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CREATING THE NORMANDY AISLE OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND WE CAN TAKE THE, UH, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS TOGETHER, WHICH ARE RELATED. THIS IS PB 24 DASH 0 6 5 OH. THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CREATED IN THE NORMANDY ISLES OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE COMPANION ORDINANCE, WHICH IS PB 24 DASH 0 6 51, THE WORKFORCE HOUSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS TO BE CONTINUED TO THE, UM, OCTOBER MEETING. OKAY. WE CAN DO NOVEMBER. SO WE ARE WE DOING YEAH, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER. THANK YOU. MORE TIME. . OCTOBER'S QUITE HEAVY AND WE'RE NOT GONNA BE READY. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. WHO MADE, WHO MADE THE MOTION ON THAT FOR THE CONTINUANCE? MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE. OKAY. TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING. SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? THIS IS FOR BOTH ITEMS. ALL IN FAVOR? MM-HMM? . ALL. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, SO IT'S ITEM TWO AND THREE, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SEE YOU IN OCTOBER. UH, NEXT ONE IS NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER, I'M SORRY, SORRY. PLANNING BOARD [4. PB23-0609. a.k.a. PB File No. 2279. 1716 - 1750 Alton Road. Palomar Hotel] FILED 23 0 6 0 9 17 50 ALTON ROAD, PALOMAR HOTEL. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING. THAT'S CORRECT. UH, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, THIS IS FOR THE, UH, PALMORE HOTEL AT 1750. ALTON, WHEN WE FIRST APPLIED FOR THIS, OUR CLIENT HAD, UH, PRIOR RESTAURANT TENANT. THE IDEA IS FOR THE RESTAURANT TO EXPAND TO SERVICE THE ROOFTOP. THAT RESTAURANT TENANT, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, MARINI IS NO LONGER WITH THE HOTEL. THEY'RE ON THE VERGE. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD'VE HAPPENED ALREADY. THEY WERE ON THE VERGE OF SIGNING A INCREDIBLY TOP RESTAURANT, UH, FROM NEW YORK [00:05:01] TO THE SPACE THAT WILL ALSO OPERATE THE ROOFTOP, THAT THAT CONTRACT IS NOT FINALIZED. UM, AND WHILE IT MAY BE FINALIZED THIS WEEK IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE TOLD MICHAEL WE WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER. UH, BY THEN WE'LL HAVE THE RESTAURANT IN PLACE OPERATION PLAN EVERYTHING READY FOR YOU WITH THE NEW OPERATOR. OKAY. BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION ON THAT CONTINUANCE REQUEST, IF WE CAN JUST SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NO ONE ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED. OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND IT. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, NEXT ONE. PLANNING BOARD [5. PB22-0539. 600 - 660 Washington Ave. Angler's Hotel.] FILE 22 0 5 3 9 6 60 WASHINGTON AVENUE, ANGLERS HOTEL. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE, UM, OCTOBER MEETING OR NOVEMBER, OCTOBER. UH, BUT IF IF IT'S TOO PACKED, WE CAN DO NOVEMBER. I THINK WE WILL BE READY FOR THAT ONE. UH, AGAIN, MAKING MORE, I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE NOVEMBER, SINCE WE DO HAVE A HEAVY AGENDA NOW WITH ALL THE CONTINUOUS REQUEST UNDERSTOOD. AND TO NOVEMBER, THAT'S FINE. UH, AND THAT'D BE THE NOVEMBER 26TH MEETING, AND I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET COMMUNITY REACH OUT ON SIDE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING, UH, MR. CHAIR. SO AGAIN, MICKEY MORERO TO OFFICE BOULEVARD, UH, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE ANGLERS. SO IN SUBSEQUENT TO THE JULY MEETING, WE, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL MANAGER AND OUR STAFF HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, STAKEHOLDERS. ONE OF THE THINGS REQUESTED WAS A SOUND STUDY TO BE DONE IN ADDITION TO THE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED, ACTUALLY DIRECTED TO THEIR RESIDENCES. AGAIN, THIS IS GONNA BE A MUCH LOWER SCALE SOUND THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE'VE HAD TO RETAIN A SOUND CONSULTANT. IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE LONGER THAN WE'D HOPED TO GET ALL THAT SORTED OUT. THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE THE TESTING, SO WE, YEAH, AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT, I KNOW WHO THE OPERATOR IS AND HE'S FABULOUS. I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU GET COMMITTEE OUTREACH AND EDUCATE THEM WHO IT IS WHAT, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE, THESE, ALL THESE ISSUES NOW ARE OKAY. ABSOLUTELY. AND WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. UM, JOHAN MOORE ON THE CONTINUANCE? YES. OKAY. JOHANN? YES. GOOD MORNING. UH, BOARD MEMBERS AND, AND STAFF. UM, I ACTUALLY ATTENDED AN EVENT, UH, A FUNDRAISING EVENT LAST NIGHT AT THE ANGLERS. UM, AND I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THE COMMUNITY, UH, I THINK, UH, FEELS VERY SUPPORTED BY THE ANGLERS, BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS THERE SCOPING OUT THE, UH, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL 'EM, THE SPEAKERS ON THE WALL. AND I NOTICED THAT THEY ALL FACE WEST AND THAT THERE ARE, UM, UH, SIGNS OF THE EAST FACING SPEAKERS HAVING BEEN REMOVED NOW SINCE WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET ARE, UH, I BELIEVE THE ROOMS OF THE GOODTIME HOTEL. UH, THAT MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS THAT EVEN THESE RATHER SMALL SPEAKERS THERE, UH, DO NOT IN FACT, UH, CONVEY NOISE INTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A REQUEST TO DEFER THIS TILL LATER IN THE SEASON. UM, I THINK THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. IF IN FACT, UH, OUR VOICES AND MORE DIRECTLY THE MORE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR'S VOICES WILL BE HEARD. I ALSO HEARD FROM A NEIGHBOR WHO LIVES IN THE FRONT UNIT ON JEFFERSON AVENUE, AGAIN, NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ANGLERS THAT HE HAS, IN FACT IN THE PAST HEARD NOISE FROM THE GOOD TIME. UH, I URGE THE CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE WITH THE COMMISSION, UH, TO IN FACT INSTITUTE A BAN ON ALL FUTURE ROOFTOP ENTERTAINMENT, CS CERTAINLY IN THE AREAS OF TOWN WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE RESIDENTIAL. I'LL LEAVE MY COMMENTS AT THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY ELSE ON ZOOM. ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION TO CONTINUE AT TWO NOVEMBER? WE SAID NOVEMBER 26TH. MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING. SECOND, SOMEONE I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER. UH, NEXT ITEM PLANNING BOARD [6. PB24-0670 a.k.a. PB22-0519, a.k.a. PB0416-0008, f.k.a. File No. 2136. 4041 Collins Avenue Hotel.] FILE 24 0 6 7 2 2 0 5 1 9 AND 16 EIGHT AND 2136 COLLINS 40 41 COLLINS AVENUE HOTEL. AND THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A, UM, MODIFICATION TO A PRIOR COP, WHICH INCLUDED A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ESTABLISHMENT. UM, THE CITY IS STILL ADDRESSING THE APPLICANT'S, STILL ADDRESSING SOME, SOME TRANSPORTATION, UM, COMMENTS. SO WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE APPLICATION BE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 29TH MEETING. OKAY. ANYONE ON ZOOM? UH, THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM. DO WE CHAMBER? THE APPLICANT HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE APPLICATION'S NOT HERE. SO, AND WHICH ONE ARE WE MOVING IT TO? NOVEMBER AS WELL TO, UM, OCTOBER 29TH. OCTOBER. OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? I, OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, PASSES. NEXT [7. PB24-0661. Commercial / Industrial/ Residential Height and Setback Regulation Modifications Citywide.] ONE. PLANNING BOARD FILE 24 0 6 6 1. COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATION MODIFICATION CITYWIDE. AND WE CAN ACTUALLY TAKE THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE COMPANION ITEMS AS WELL. SEVEN AND EIGHT, WHICH SEVEN AND EIGHT PB 24 DASH 0 6 61 AND PB 24 DASH 0 6 9 5. OKAY. UM, THE COMMISSION SPONSORS REQUESTING THAT THESE ITEMS, UM, BE CONTINUED. [00:10:02] I'M SORRY, UM, NUMBER SEVEN IS NOT RELATED TO NUMBER EIGHT THEN. I DIDN'T THINK SO. OKAY, SEPARATE. YEAH, SORRY, I GOT, GET CONFUSED. SO, UH, YEAH, PB 24 DASH 0 6 6 1 IS FOR, UM, COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS. CITYWIDE THE COMMISSION SPONSOR IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF THAT TO THE OCTOBER 29TH MEETING. WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CONTINUANCE? UM, HE'S LOOKING AT, UM, ADDITIONAL UPDATES TO THAT. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BEEN CONTINUED FOR SOME TIME NOW. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO ZOOM? WELL, I HAVE ONE MORE, ONE MORE QUESTION AS WELL. CAN YOU, UH, CAN YOU SHARE WITH US WHAT THIS ITEM IS? IT, UH, IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE, YOU KNOW, IN OUR PACKET IT DIDN'T HAVE DESCRIPTION. SO, UM, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, MAYBE, I'M NOT SURE WHEN YOU WERE, UM, PUT BACK ON, PUT ON THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, MATTHEW, BUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVELY DOWN OWNING THE HEIGHT FOR, UM, THE SOUTH BEACH AREA, SOUTH OF 23RD STREET. AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE LAND USE COMMITTEE WAS LOOKING AT, UM, AMENDING THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS NORTH OF THAT AREA. SO THIS ORDINANCE WOULD AMEND THE HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS FOR AREAS NORTH OF 23RD STREET. THANK YOU. ANYONE ON ZOOM? UM, THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM. ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE CONTINUANCE. SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. SEVEN ZERO. NEXT ONE. NUMBER EIGHT. PLANNING BOARD FILE. [8. PB24-0695, Washington Avenue Residential Use Incentive – Comprehensive Plan Amendment.] [9. PB24-0696, Washington Avenue Residential Use Incentives – Land Development Regulations Amendments.] 24 0 6 9 5 WASHINGTON AVENUE RESIDENTIAL USE INCENTIVE. YES. SO, UM, THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE RELATED NINE, WHICH IS PB 24 DASH 0 6 9 5 AND PB 24 DASH 0 9 0 6 9 6. THE COMMISSION SPONSOR IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE OCTOBER MEETING TO MAKE SOME FURTHER AMENDMENTS, UM, TO THE ORDINANCES. OKAY. ANYONE ON ZOOM? ACTUALLY? YEAH, WE HAVE, UH, ONE PERSON WITH HER HAND RAISED, UM, JOHAN MOORE. UH, YES, GOOD MORNING AGAIN, I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS VERY BRIEF. UH, THE ONLY OBJECTIONS, UH, TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVIZATION ARE IN FACT EXCESS HEIGHT. UH, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH, UH, RE OF HOMELESSNESS SERVICES LAST NIGHT, WHO IS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF, OF THE PROPOSAL, UH, IN GENERAL AND, UH, AS IS THE COMMUNITY. AND I HEAR THAT THERE MAY BE SOME IDEAS OUT THERE FOR REDUCING THAT HEIGHT. UH, AND WE HOPE THAT EVERYONE WILL EXPLORE THOSE. THANK YOU. OKAY. YO HONOR, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CONTINUANCE. SO YOU KNOW, THE, IT'LL BE, UH, MOVED TO, IT LOOKS LIKE THE OCTOBER. SO ANY SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS YOU'LL WANT TO, UH, MAKE AT THAT HEARING. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL, THANK YOU. YEAH. ANYONE IN CHAMBERS? OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION TO MOTION TO APPROVE? THERE'S BOTH OF THEM, RIGHT? CORRECT. BOTH OF THEM. OKAY. CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND, MELISSA. ALL IN FAVOR? HANG ON. MR. UH, MR. CHAIR. I WANNA MAKE ONE COMMENT THOUGH MYSELF ON THIS ONE. UM, I WAS ACTUALLY SURPRISED TO SEE THAT IT WAS CONTINUED, UH, CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS HEARD AT LAND USE, THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC MEETING AS WELL. UH, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. AND ONE COMMENT THAT I'LL MAKE SINCE YOU MENTIONED ABOUT, UH, PERHAPS ADJUSTMENTS TO THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS. IN FACT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE PARKING, UH, MAXIMUMS. THE, THE ACTUAL VOLUME NEEDED PERHAPS TO, TO SATISFY THE INCREASE FAR WON'T REQUIRE SUCH GREAT HEIGHTS. SO I HOPE THAT THE SPONSOR, UM, OR STAFF MAY BE LISTENING, UH, TO THESE COMMENTS AND, AND THEY'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN THEIR ANALYSIS AT A HUNDRED FEET MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE CONTEMPLATED FAR CONSIDERING THOSE, UM, THOSE STIPULATIONS TO THAT INCENTIVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. WE SO ALL DID ALL, DID EVERYBODY VOTE IN THAT? UM, ALL IN FAVOR? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND, AND BY THE WAY, PART OF THE REASON THE SPONSOR IS REQUESTING THE CONTINUANCE IS BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A SPECIAL LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING TO REVIEW ALL OF THESE RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVES THAT VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS ARE SPONSORING, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. UH, TO THAT POINT, NICK, UH, I WAS, I ATTENDED THE LAND USE MEETING LAST MONTH, OR I GUESS EARLIER THIS MONTH. AND, UH, I DIDN'T SPEAK ON THE ITEM BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS COMING TO, TO PLANNING BOARD, BUT I THOUGHT THE, THE SPONSOR, UM, ASKED THAT THIS ITEM, SINCE IT ALREADY WAS HEARD AT LAND USE, NOT, DIDN'T HE ASK THAT IT BASICALLY NOT GO TO THAT SPECIAL MEETING? I DON'T, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT, BUT I OKAY. BUT I KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSED GOING SPECIAL MEETING. YEAH. OKAY. IT'S GOING BACK TO LAND USE, BUT IT WAS HEARD PREVIOUSLY AT THE USE. YES, YES. BUT IT'S NOT COMPLETE. THANK YOU. OKAY, ITEM [10. PB24-0662, Conditional Use Regulations for Grocery and Convenience Stores in CD-3 zoning on Lincoln Road.] 10, PLANNING. WERE FILED 24 0 6 6 2 CONDI CONDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS FOR GROCERY AND CONVENIENCE STORES IN CD THREE ZONING ON LINCOLN ROAD. AND THE APPLICANT'S HERE IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE, UM, OCTOBER MEETING NEESON. YES. AND THE OCTOBER [00:15:01] MEETING, NEESON CASON REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT LIKE TO BE BACK IN OCTOBER. WE EXPECT TO HAVE FULL NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AS WELL. THANK YOU. LISA. WHO, WHO'S THE APPLICANT? THE APPLICANT? IT'S, UH, UH, UH, FOUR 20 LINCOLN ROAD ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AMBASSADOR PAUL SAJA IS THE, WHERE THE TIMEOUT MARKET WAS, RIGHT? WELL, IT'S THE, ACTUALLY THE ENTIRETY OF THE 400 BLOCK, RIGHT? THE, OKAY. AMBASSADOR SAJA OWNS FROM LINCOLN ROADS 16TH FROM DREXEL TO, UH, WASHINGTON. AND WHAT DO THEY, WHAT DO THEY WANT TO DO? UH, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS BE ABLE TO HAVE, UH, GROCERY STORES AS A USE IN THAT, UH, UH, IN THAT, UH, ON THAT BLOCK, UH, PARTICULARLY TO SERVE, UH, THE NEEDS OF, UH, RESIDENTS AS WELL. UH, AND UH, SO THAT'S THE MAIN, THE MAIN THOUGHT BEHIND IT. AND LIKE, WHAT'S THEIR INTENTION? IS IT, IS IT, I GUESS WHAT WOULD GO IN THERE IDEALLY FOR YOU? EXCUSE ME. WHAT WOULD IDEALLY GO IN THERE FOR THEM? UH, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TENANT IN MIND, BUT IDEALLY IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A HIGH-END GROCER, UH, SUCH AS PICK ONE FROM SUCH AS, UH, THE UNIVERSE, DEAN AND DELUCAS OUT OF NEW YORK, LET'S SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH WOULD BE VERY, YOU KNOW, GOOD ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE, IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? UH, IT COULD BE , UH, DON'T, DON'T TAKE THAT AS AN ACTUAL, UH, LEAD, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST. UH, THEY HAVE SOME VERY BIG SPACES, NOT, NOT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS 'CAUSE WE'RE ONLY ON A CONTINUANCE, UH, BUT THE, UH, THE BUILDING WHICH IS BUILT IN 1939 HAD ENORMOUS FLOOR PLATES. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE, WHERE THE TIMEOUT MARKET SPACE WAS. AND THOSE OF YOU, I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN THIS ROOM IS OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THIS, BUT THERE WAS A WOOLWORTH THAT OCCUPIED MOST OF THE GROUND FLOOR AT FOUR 20 LINCOLN. UH, SO THE BUILDING WAS LIKE DESIGNED FOR THESE VERY LARGE, LARGE SPACES. UH, SO IT'S ACTUALLY, UH, APPROPRIATE PLACE TO ACCOMMODATE USES LIKE THIS, WHICH ARE ALSO VERY MUCH NEEDED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE STREET. AND NISSAN, LEMME JUST SAY THAT, UM, IT IS IMPORTANT TO GET COMMUNITY, UM, INPUT BECAUSE, UH, I'M A BLOCK AWAY FROM THERE. AND I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAIN THAT SINCE OUR DECO MARKET IS NOT THERE ANYMORE, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A, A GROCERY, NOT SO MUCH A HIGH END, BUT JUST FOR, FOR EVERYDAY, UM, RIGHT. UM, NECESSITIES. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THAT COMES IN, I, I DON'T, AT LEAST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I DON'T THINK YOU'D HAVE A PROBLEM GETTING, GETTING AN APPROVAL. UM, BUT, UM, I'M SURE YOU'RE LOOKING AROUND AND HOPEFULLY SOMETHING WILL GO THERE THAT'LL SERVE THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, THAT'S OUR, THAT'S THE INTENTION. THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU IN OCTOBER. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ON ZOOM SPEAK ON THIS? THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED. ANYONE ELSE IN CHAMBERS? OKAY, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. UH, MY NAME IS ANNABEL YPI. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE LINCOLN ROAD BID. UM, I JUST WANNA SAY WE, WE ARE GONNA BE WORKING WITH THE LANDLORD ON THIS BECAUSE THE BOARD ITSELF IS REALLY ABLY AGAINST THE GROCERY STORE ON LINCOLN ROAD OR ANYWHERE IN THE VICINITY. SO WE WILL BE MEETING WITH THEM ON, ON OUR BOARD MEETING IN OCTOBER PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING. SO WE JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT IT'S GROCERY STORE IS NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON LINCOLN ROAD OR ON DREXEL. OKAY. I, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS CONTINUED, SO YOU'LL WANT TO MAKE ANY ABSOLUTE COMMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW OUR OPINION AS WELL. I SUPPORT THANK, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, CAN WE GET A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT? MOTION TO CONTINUE. SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, CAN WE TAKE A LUNCH BREAK, ? NO, WE'RE ALL RIGHT. ON TO ACTUAL [11. PB24-0678, a.k.a. PB0616-0034. 1100 West Avenue – Mondrian Hotel.] ITEMS, PREVIOUSLY CONTINUED ITEMS. THE FIRST IS REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING PLANNING BOARD FILE 24 0 6 7 8, THE MONDRIAN HOTEL. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REVOCATION MODIFICATION OR IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS TO PREVIOUSLY ISSUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ESTABLISHMENT. NOW, IN TERMS OF THE HISTORY OF THE, THE, THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE THE BOARD ON MARCH 28TH OF THIS YEAR, THE PLAN DEPARTMENT SENT A TRUE LETTER TO THE APPLICANT 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS LLC IN RESPONSE TO NINE NINE NOISE COMPLAINTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FOR THE POLL AREA BETWEEN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, I'M SORRY, JANUARY 1ST AND MARCH 24TH OF THIS YEAR. THE APPLICANT WAS ADVISED THAT A PROGRESS REPORT WOULD BE SCHEDULED FOR THE APRIL 25TH MEETING ON APRIL 25TH. ON APRIL 25TH OF THIS YEAR. THE APPLICANT APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A PROGRESS REPORT AND THE BOARD SCHEDULED A REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING FOR JUNE 25TH. ON JUNE 25TH. THE APPLICANT APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD AND THERE WERE SOME OUTSTANDING, UM, CODE CASES THAT WERE PENDING BEFORE THE SPECIAL MASTER. BECAUSE OF THAT, THE BOARD CONTINUED THE A THE REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING TO DATE CERTAIN OF TODAY IN ORDER TO GET THE OUTCOME OF [00:20:01] THE SPECIAL MASTER CASE. AS NOTED IN OUR REPORT, UM, UNLESS ASSOCIATED WITH AN APPROVED SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT ENTERTAINMENT, WHICH INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, UM, DJS AS WELL AS MUSIC PLATED OF VOLUME THAT INTERFERES WITH NORMAL CONVERSATION IS PROHIBITED. WE NOTED IN OUR REPORT SOME, SOME FLAGRANT FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE COP AND THESE WERE THE ONES THAT WERE APPEALED TO THE, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON APRIL. ON APRIL 6TH, THE VIOLATION WAS ISSUED FOR HAVING A LIVE BAND WITHOUT A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT. CONDITION SEVEN J OF THE CP PROHIBITS THE USE OF PERCUSSION INSTRUMENTS, WHICH WERE PART OF THE LIVE BAND. ON APRIL 27TH OF THIS YEAR, UH, A VIOLATION WAS ISSUED FOR THE PRESENCE OF A DJ DJ ON THE PROPERTY ALSO WITHOUT A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. UM, NOW THESE CASES WERE HEARD BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON SEPTEMBER 5TH OF THIS YEAR, AND THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DID DISMISS BOTH CASES DUE TO TECHNICALITIES. THESE ARE FURTHER DETAILED ON PAGE, UM, 10 AND 11 OF THE STAFF REPORT. I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE THE, THE TECHNICALITY, THE TECHNICAL ISSUES. SO WHEN THE CUP WAS ISSUED INITIALLY TO THE APPLICANT, IT WAS OCTOBER 28TH, 2008. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CHANGES TO THAT CUP, YOU KNOW, UM, SINCE THAT TIME WHEN THE VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE CUP FILE NUMBER THAT WAS REFERENCED ON THE VIOLATION WAS THE ONE DATED ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 2014, NOT THE CURRENT CUP. SO THAT CUP BACK IN 2014 WAS ISSUED TO 1100 WEST PROPERTIES LLC AND THE APPLICANT ARGUED THAT THAT CUP DID NOT APPLY TO THEM AS IT DID NOT REFLECT THEIR ENTITY, WHICH IS 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS LLC. ALTHOUGH THE CAP WAS MODIFIED IN AUGUST 23RD, 2016 TO REFLECT THIS CHANGE IN OWNER OPERATOR, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AGREED THAT THE APPLICANT, WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THE MORE RECENT CUP SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED, UM, IN THE WRITING OF THE VIOLATION. THE SECOND TECHNICALITY IS THAT THE CODE SECTIONS REFERENCED IN THE VIOLATION WERE BASED UPON THE PRIOR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AS YOU KNOW, WE ADOPTED A NEW RESILIENCY CODE, UM, ABOUT JUNE OF LAST YEAR. AND SO, ALTHOUGH THE, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE, THE CODE, UM, DID NOT CHANGE THIS, THE NUMBERS CHANGED. SO THE APPLICANT ARGUED THAT THE CODE REFERENCES WERE INCORRECT AND THE SPECIAL MAS MAGISTRATE DISMISSED THE VIOLATIONS. UM, FOR THAT REASON, UM, STAFF DID, UM, ARGUE WITH THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO INDICATE THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE, UM, THE CODE HAD NOT CHANGED AND THAT THE ACTUAL CCOP CONDITIONS ALSO DID NOT CHANGE. AND THE, THE CONDITIONS WERE THE SAME FROM 2014 TO 2016, UM, JUST THE, UM, THE OWNERSHIP HAD CHANGED. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING TODAY THAT, UM, IN ORDER TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR IN THE COP, THAT THE BOARD AT LEAST MODIFY THE COP TODAY TO, UM, UPDATE THE REFERENCE CODE SECTIONS. CURRENTLY, THE COP HAS ALL THE PRIOR CODE SECTIONS, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD UPDATE THE, THE COP WITH A A CORRECT, UH, CODE SECTIONS. UM, WE'RE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD DISCUSS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE VIOLATION. UM, THE, THE APPLICANT DIDN'T ARGUE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RESOLVED BASED UPON TECHNICALITIES. WE'RE ALL RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD, UM, DISCUSS IT, UM, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS AS I MENTIONED. AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THIS REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING TO THE NOVEMBER 26TH MEETING. BUT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY? OKAY. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. HONORABLE BOARD MEMBERS, CITY STAFF AND AND BOARD ATTORNEY JAMES RAUL WITH GREENSVILLE MARTER, OFFICE OF 600 BRICKELL AVENUE HERE WITH TODAY WITH MY ASSOCIATE ADRIAN NOTTO. UM, AND ALSO SOME OWNERSHIP REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HOTEL AND THE HOTEL GENERAL MANAGER. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRINCIPALS, UH, OWNERS COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY, BUT, UM, THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES HERE TO THE EXTENT THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS. UM, A FEW THINGS. I TRY TO KEEP THIS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE AND FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE. UM, BUT I DO HAVE A, A BRIEF STATEMENT TO READ INTO THE RECORD, UM, REGARDING SOME LEGAL ISSUES. I'LL JUST START WITH THAT AND THEN I'LL EXPLAIN THE REST OF OUR PRESENT. OUR SHORT PRESENTATION. UH, THIS PROCEEDING IS BASED ON NINE ALLEGED NOISE COMPLAINTS, WHICH WERE ALL DEEMED INVALID BY THE CITY'S CO COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT. AS RECITED IN THE STAFF PLAN ACCEPTS SECURE LETTER. UH, THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS OF RECORD AS A MATTER OF LAW, AS YOU SAW ON THIS, THE STAFF REPORTS SPECIAL MASTER RATE DISMISSED THE ONLY TWO VIOLATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED. AND IN THOSE CASES, THE CITY DID PUT ON ITS CASE IN CHIEF AND SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DISMISSED. SO THERE WAS SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION. ALL THAT BEING SAID, UM, THE HOTEL IS NOT WAVERED AND IF IN ITS EFFORTS [00:25:02] TO, UM, MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CEP SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE LAST, UM, THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY SUPERVISED THEIR STAFF IN A WAY TO ENSURE THERE'S STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CEP. THERE HASN'T EVEN BEEN, UM, A COMPLAINT, LET ALONE A VIOLATION SINCE MAY. IN ADDITION, UM, THEY'VE ENGAGED IN SOME NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH. UM, MY ASSOCIATE'S GONNA HAND OUT SOME EMAILS OF SUPPORT THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK. UM, THEY WERE MENTIONED AT THE LAST HEARING, BUT THE BOARD WASN'T PROVIDED WITH COPIES. UM, IN ADDITION, UH, THEY RECENTLY HAD A GATHERING. THEY INVITED THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS OVER TO THE HOTEL. THEY HAD ABOUT 75 PEOPLE THERE. THE GENERAL MANAGER IS HERE TODAY AND CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU, UM, WHAT THAT WAS. UM, AND SO FAR THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED, UH, ANY COMPLAINTS. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE IS NO, DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANYONE HERE IN THE PUBLIC TODAY, UM, TO SPEAK AGAINST THE HOTEL. SO, AND THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT THERE. NO NEW PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE RECORD EXCEPT FOR WE'RE HANDING OUT THESE, UH, EMAIL LETTERS SUPPORT, BUT THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE RECORD. UM, IN OBJECTION. IN ADDITION, UM, WE HEARD THE BOARD'S COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AT THE LAST HEARING. SO, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, AND FURTHER ENGAGED THEIR SOUND CONSULTANT, UM, TO SUBMIT A REVISED REPORT AND TO GIVE YOU THE, THE SOUND CONSULTANT IS HERE. IT'S ACTUALLY TWO, UH, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SOUND CONSULTANT HERE. UM, TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, UM, THEY WENT THROUGH AND, AND REVISED WHAT THEY LOOKED AT PREVIOUSLY. SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THAT REPORT AND WHAT IT DID TO CONFIRM THAT THE HOTELS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CUP. SO THIS IS A SECOND, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT SINCE, UH, SINCE THIS HEARING STARTED. UM, IN ADDITION, WHAT THEY DID WAS PUT OUT SOME LONG TERM, UH, MEASUREMENT DATA FOR ABOUT FIVE DAYS JUST TO MEASURE THE, THE SOUND IN THE AREA AND, AND ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM THE HOTEL. AND AGAIN, THE SOUND CONSULTANT CAN GIVE YOU THE DETAILS ON THAT, BUT IN SHORT, UM, WHAT THEY DETERMINED WAS THAT THE SOUND COMING FROM THE HOTEL NEVER ROSE ABOVE A LEVEL THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH NORMAL CONVERSATION, WHICH IS THE STANDARD THE STAFF IS TELLING YOU THE HOTEL HAS TO ABIDE BY ONE SECOND. UH, WITH REGARD TO THE A SUGGESTED, UH, MODIFICATION BY THE STAFF, I LIKE ONE, I THINK THIS BOARD'S PROCESS HAS WORKED, UM, FOR WHAT IT'S DESIGNED FOR. YOU HAD SOME COMPLAINTS, UM, THEY WERE ADDRESSED. THE HOTEL'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CEP, THE RECORD REFLECTS THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS AND THEY MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUP. UM, AND SO WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU, UH, TERMINATE THIS HEARING. UH, TODAY, WE DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED TO MODIFY THE CUP, NOR DO WE THINK THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORDS TO SUPPORT A MODIFICATION OF THE CUP. UM, IT'S A VERY DETAILED ORDER. IT'S WORKED FOR MANY YEARS. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE OLDEST CS FROM 2008. UM, RIGHT NOW, UH, BASED ON WHAT'S BEFORE YOU, THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY CURRENT PROBLEMS. UM, AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OF COURSE, IF IN THE FUTURE THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM, UM, YOU ALWAYS HAVE A RIGHT TO CALL THE OP THE APPLICANT BACK. UM, YOU SAW IN THIS CASE WE'RE CALLED BACK HERE AND BEEN TO TWO OR THREE HEARINGS OVER NINE NOISE COM UH, COMPLAINTS. SO, UM, IT DOES, THE BOARD DOESN'T LOSE ANYTHING BY NOT MODIFYING THE CUP AND ENDING THIS HEARING TODAY. AND NATURALLY, YOU'VE SENT A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE HOTEL. THEY WILL MAKE, THEY WILL REMAIN VIGILANT AND DESPITE WHAT HAPPENS WITH VIOLATIONS OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS, UM, WE HAVEN'T CHANGED OUR PLAN IN TERMS OF RESPONDING TO THE BOARD AND MAINTAINING COMPLIANCE. THEY, THEY PROCEEDED WITH, UM, UPDATES TO THEIR SOUND REPORT. UM, THEY CONTINUE TO MANAGE THE HOTEL IN A WAY THAT'S COMPLIANT. SO WE'RE ASKING THAT THE BOARD, UM, CLOSE THIS MATTER OUT TODAY DUE TO THE FACT THAT, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS, THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A PROBLEM AS WE SIT HERE TODAY. AND, UM, WE WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, MICHAEL, REAL QUICK, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY CAN, SORRY, CAN YOU GO THROUGH THAT ONE MORE TIME WHAT YOU'RE YES. WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE, THE ORIGINAL COP INCLUDES REFERENCE TO THE, THE CODE SECTIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THE CP WAS ADOPTED. SO REFERENCING, WE'RE AT, AT RECOMMENDING THAT THOSE CODE SECTIONS BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT CODE SECTIONS. RIGHT. WHY WOULD, WHY WOULD THAT, WHY WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO SIMPLY UPDATING IT TO REFLECT THE CURRENT CODE SECTIONS? LIKE HOW IS THAT DETRIMENTAL TO YOU? WELL, I QUITE SIMPLY, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S [00:30:01] NECESSARY. UM, WE'VE NEVER SUGGESTED THE CODE SECTIONS IN THE CEP ARE NOT VALID. UM, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THEM. OKAY. LET ME ASK MICHAEL THEN, WHAT WILL THAT DO TO THEIR CURRENT CEP? IT'LL, NO, IT'LL JUST, UM, REFERENCE, SO IN CASE THIS DOES BECOME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, AGAIN, WE HAVE THE CORRECT CODE SECTIONS IN THE CP. SO THAT'S NOT USED AS AN ARGUMENT FOR ALRIGHT, FOR, UM, HAVING, SO IT'S SIMPLY BRINGING IT UP TO THE CURRENT CODE. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'VE NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE CP THAT'S NOT VALID. UM, AND ALSO JUST TO NOTE THERE, THERE ARE MORE CHANGES IN THE DRAFT ORDER THAN JUST CHANGES TO THE CODE SECTIONS. THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE THOSE MICHAEL? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S MORE THAN JUST THAT? WELL, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT. SO, SO WE DID RECOMMEND, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE, WE DO THIS, WHENEVER WE HAVE A CASE WHERE, UM, THERE'S BEEN A PROGRESS REPORT OR A RAMIFICATION MODIFICATION HEARING ATTACHED. SO, YOU KNOW, RECENTLY WHENEVER THE BOARD, UM, A CHANGE OF NAME OR OWNERSHIP COMES BEFORE THE BOARD, OLDER APPLICATIONS REQUIRED APPLICANT COME BEFORE THE BOARD, RIGHT? FOR THAT CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OPERATOR. AND AT THE TIME, TYPICALLY THE BOARD MODIFIES THE CONDITIONS SAYING YOU CAN JUST SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT WHEN WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH AN OPERATOR THAT HAS HAD VIOLATIONS, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT CONDITION BE MODIFIED TO ACTUALLY REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OPERATOR AND NOT JUST DO THE STANDARD AFFIDAVIT. SO THAT'S ONE THING WE'RE RECOMMENDING. OKAY. THAT'S TO BE MODIFIED. ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY SUBSTANCE. SO WHAT SUBSTAN, WELL, TWO THINGS WITH, WITH TWO COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE, WITH REGARD TO THAT ISSUE RIGHT NOW, THE CUP SAYS SUBSEQUENT OPERATORS HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD. UM, WHAT STAFF IS SUGGESTING IS THAT CONDITION BE CHANGED SO THAT YOU HAVE TO FILE A PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION AND GO TO A FORMAL HEARING. AND I THINK YOU'RE DOING THAT WITH ALL, ALL NO, WE'RE DOING IT. EVERY OTHER HOTEL, THEY SUGGEST A CONDITION THAT SAYS IF THERE'S A CHANGE OF MORE THAN A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE INTEREST, THEY HAVE TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THEY'RE GONNA COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS AND THEN APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD AFTER THAT, UM, FOR A PROGRESS REPORT, WHICH IS, WHICH IS NOT A PROBLEM, BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT SAYS. NOW, UM, THEY HAVE TO, WHOEVER, IF SOMEONE WAS TO BUY THE HOTEL, THEY'D HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS AND THEY HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE PROGRESS REPORT. THE CHANGE IS NOW YOU HAVE TO FILE A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE BOARD GETS PUT IN A POSITION WHERE IT'S TASKED TO VOTE ON WHETHER A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION CAN OCCUR. THAT WAS KIND OF THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS AFFIDAVIT CONDITION WAS TO AVOID CREATING THAT SCENARIO. AND AGAIN, THIS BOARD DOESN'T LOSE ANY JURISDICTION OVER ANYTHING WITH THE WAY IT IS NOW OR THE AFFIDAVIT CONDITION. CHANGING IT IN THE MANNER THAT IT'S CHANGED IS ESSENTIALLY A PUNITIVE MEASURE. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT? BECAUSE THEN I HAVE A QUESTION. WELL, I, I THINK ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THIS THAT COME BEFORE THE BOARD IN ADVANCE, BEFORE, BEFORE SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. RIGHT. UM, BUT HE'S GOT A POINT THAT, THAT, LIKE, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE POLICY BEHIND IT, BUT I MEAN, DOES THIS BOARD HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO BLOCK A SALE OF REAL ABOVE? NO, NO, NO, NO. AND THAT, AND THAT'S NOT, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PRACTICE OF THIS BOARD FOR, FOR DECADES HAS BEEN THAT THE BOARD HAS TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN OWNER OR OPERATOR. THE CONDITIONS OF YOUR ORDER IS RUN WITH THE LAND AND, AND THE APPLICANT IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDER REGARDLESS OF WHO THE ENTITY CORRECT. AND A NEW ORDER WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IT AS WELL. RIGHT. SO THE, THE PRACTICE OF REQUIRING A NEW OWNER OR OPERATOR TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD IS TO GIVE THE BOARD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM A NEW OWNER OR OPERATOR, UH, HAVE THE OWNER OPERATOR, YOU KNOW, STATE ON THE RECORD THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, GONNA BE COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER AND ALSO TO PRESENT ANY, UH, CHANGES TO THE OPERATION THAT THEY MAY, THAT THEY MAY BE PROPOSING. BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION, LET THERE BE NO QUESTION THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THE ORDER RUN WITH THE LAND. RIGHT? I I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I AGREE. I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO THINK OUT LOUD IS IF THEY'RE NOT MAKING CHANGES AND IT'S JUST SIMPLY A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, AND I WOULDN'T AN AFFIDAVIT TESTIFYING UNDER OATH THAT THEY WILL ADHERE TO THE CONDITIONS, SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT. I GET IT. IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE OPERATION, BUT I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEN REALLY WE COULD BE VOTING ON WHETHER THE SALE SHOULD BE APPROVED OR NOT, LIKE A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. HE'S RIGHT ABOUT THAT. I WHAT I MEAN, AM I MISSING SOMETHING? IT IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA VOTE TO APPROVE THE, THE, UM, TRANSACTION. SO RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS, WELL, WE'RE VOTING ON A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, RIGHT? SO WE, WE, WE CAN APPROVE THAT IN ADVANCE. SO LET, LET'S SAY THAT, THAT THE BOARD CHANGES THIS, THIS APPLICATION TO REQUIRE A NEW OPERATOR TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AS PART OF A, A NEW, A NEW CERTIFICATE OF USE APPLICATION BEFORE WE CAN APPROVE WITH THE CITY THE CHANGE OF THE OWNERSHIP OPERATOR, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO FI AT LEAST FILE THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. SO AS LONG AS THEY FILE THE APPLICATION, PAY THE FEES, HAVE IT SCHEDULED BEFORE THE BOARD, RIGHT, THEN THE CITY CAN APPROVE THAT WILL APPROVE THE CHANGE. BUT JUST IT'S SORT OF, UM, [00:35:01] TO FORCE THEM TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD. YOU KNOW, THE BOARD CAN ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF THE, OF THE APPLICANT. WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS AT THAT TIME AND MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THE BOARD, I GET ALL THAT, BUT WHAT WOULD WE ACTUALLY BE VOTING ON THEN? USAGE, RIGHT? NO, LIKE, LIKE SERIOUSLY, BASICALLY YOU'RE, YOU'RE VOTING, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE VOTING ON CONFORMING THE ORDER TO, TO WHOMEVER THE CURRENT OWNER OPERATORS. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE BASIC. WE CAN'T REJECT THE, WE CAN'T REJECT THE PROPOSED OWNER. IT, IT, LET, LET ME GIVE YOU THE PRACTICAL SIDE. SORRY. I, I THINK SECOND. YEAH, JUST TO, JUST TO REITERATE, I MEAN THIS WAS, THIS WAS THE PRACTICE, RIGHT? WAS THAT THE BOARD VOTED ON ANY CHANGE OWNER OPERATOR. WE ONLY CHANGED THAT, UH, IN THE INTEREST OF, OF EFFICIENCY SINCE THE BOARD'S DOCKETS WERE HEAVY. AND, AND ALSO IT CREATES, IT CREATES A HURDLE, UH, FOR, FOR FOR CERTAIN APPLICANTS. BUT IN THIS CASE, STAFF IS TELLING YOU THAT, THAT BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT THE BOARD MAY WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM A NEW OWNER OR OPERATOR. NOW IT'S YOUR CALL WHETHER YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THAT CONDITION OR NOT, BUT THAT'S NO, NO, I, I GET THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. I'M ASKING WHAT WOULD WE BE VOTING ON THEN? BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE THAT WE CAN REJECT THE NEW OWNER, RIGHT? I CAN'T IMAGINE WE CAN DO THAT. SO WHAT WOULD WE BE VOTING ON IF THEY CAME BACK WITH A PROPOSED NEW ORDER JUST SAYING, PLEASE CONFORM TO THE CUP, RIGHT? YEAH, YOU'RE VOTE, YOU'RE VOTING ON CONFORMING THE CUP TO THE CHANGE IN OWNER AND OPERATOR AND YOU'RE ALSO, UM, YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM AND, AND POTENTIALLY IMPOSE CONDITIONS. BUT I, AGAIN, I GET WE CAN HEAR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, I'M JUST ASKING WHAT WOULD WE ACTUALLY BE VOTING ON IN THAT SCENARIO? I MEAN, I'M NOT GONNA SAY ANYTHING NOW THAT'S GONNA LIMIT YOU ON A FUTURE APPLICATION. SO I THINK IF, IF, IF SOMEONE'S BEFORE YOU ON A CHANGE, AN OWNER OPERATOR, YOU DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY TO, TO MAKE OTHER CHANGES. AND IT LOOKS LIKE NUMBER 26. ALRIGHT, MR. SHERIFF, I MIGHT JUST HAVE 10 SECONDS. WHAT'S THAT? IF I MIGHT JUST HAVE 10 SECONDS TO EXPLAIN SURE. PRACTICAL PROBLEMS AND THEN WE'RE GONNA OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC. GO AHEAD. SO NUMBER ONE, THERE'S NO HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS IN THIS PROPERTY. SO THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES. THAT'S A VERY AMBIGUOUS WAY TO SECOND OF ALL THE, THE, THE POLICY, UM, THAT MICHAEL EXPLAINED, THERE'S NOWHERE THAT'S IN WRITING THAT'S CHANGED AT LEAST FIVE TIMES IN THE LAST 20 YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE WORKING ON LICENSING ON MIAMI BEACH. THEY'RE NOT GONNA APPROVE THE LICENSE BEFORE JUST BECAUSE YOU FILE AN APPLICATION. MAYBE THEY WILL RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT IS, THAT IS OUR, THAT'S THE POLICY SINCE I'VE EVER SEEN IT. WE DON'T REQUIRE SOMEBODY, IF YOU HAVE, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A, AN ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT OR A RESTAURANT THAT IS ENTERTAINMENT, WE DON'T REQUIRE YOU TO SHUT DOWN FROM THE TIME YOU, UM, CHANGE OWNERSHIP BEFORE YOU COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS PROCESS WHERE AS LONG AS YOU FILE AN APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD, PAY THE FEES, WE CAN APPROVE THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ADMINISTRATIVELY, IT JUST FORCES THE APPLICANT TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD. IT MAKES IT A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC CAN COME OUT AND SPEAK ON THE APPLICATION. THAT'S THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS. THAT, THAT'S NOT BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. AND I'VE BEEN DOING LICENSING HERE FOR 20 YEARS. ON OCCASION IT HAS, BUT IT'S CHANGED BACK AND FORTH AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU LEAVE TOMORROW, SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. HE, HERE'S THE REAL PRACTICAL PROBLEM WITH THAT THOUGH. AND I'M IN THESE MEETINGS ALL THE TIME. I'M ON THE PHONE IN A CONFERENCE WITH 10 LAWYERS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ON ONE PROPERTY. LET'S JUST SAY IT'S A $300 MILLION DEAL FOR THE HOTEL. NOBODY'S GONNA SPEND $300 MILLION ON THE CHANCE THAT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS GONNA GO THE RIGHT WAY. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP THAT THAT'S AGREE WITH AND OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S REALLY NOT A PROBLEM. BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM. WELL, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. THAT'S WHY I SAID WHAT WE, HOW DO YOU TELL, HOW DO YOU TELL A SELLER? WELL, I WANT WELL'S WAIT SIX MONTHS BEFORE, WELL, THAT'S WHY I ASKED WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. WE CAN'T BE VOTING ON WHETHER TO REJECT OR APPROVE THE NEW BUYER. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT TRANSACTION ISSUE. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING, THE ISSUE IS THAT WE'RE HERE TO LET THEM JUST KIND OF TELL US ABOUT WHO THEY ARE, WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE, AND THAT WE KIND OF MAKE THEM CONFIRM THEY'LL ADHERE TO THE I IBEL, TRUST ME, I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE DONE IN AN AFFIDAVIT, BUT I, WHICH DO WITH THE, I WANTING TO HEAR FROM A NEW OWNER, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN REJECT THE OWNER. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE POWER TO JEOPARDIZE THE 300. YOU CANNOT REJECT. YOU CANNOT REJECT. I CAN ASSURE YOU, THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU WHEN YOU SAID ADMINISTRATIVELY YOU CAN APPROVE IT, THEN WE'RE REALLY NOT VOTING ON THE NEW OWNER. WE'RE JUST KIND OF HAVING THEM COME HERE TO TELL US THEIR PLANS AND WE KIND OF SAY, OKAY, MAKE SURE YOU ABIDE BY THE CUP. THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE'RE NOT VOTING ON APPROVING THE NEW ORDER, BUT THEN THERE IS NO VOTE. SO WHAT WOULD THE VOTE BE? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. THAT'S WHY I ASKED HIM THREE TIMES. IT'S JUST MAKING IT MORE OF A PUBLIC PROCESS SO IT'S OUT, IT'S OUT IN THE OPEN VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT THAT, SO THAT THE, THE, THE APPLICANT OR THE NEIGHBORS ARE AWARE OF THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AS WELL. OTHERWISE NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW THERE'S A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP WRITTEN IN THIS TRANSACTION. RIGHT. I JUST DON'T THINK THE CUP SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE ARE, WE ARE VOTING ON TO APPROVE THE NEW OWNER. WELL, I ALSO AM A CONCERNED THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE ISSUING THE AFFIDAVIT, I DON'T THINK WE'RE UPDATING THE CUP TO REFLECT THE NEW OWNERSHIP. THAT I THINK IS A, IS A FLAW THAT SOMEBODY COULD USE AS AN ARGUMENT TO, UM, LIKE THE APPLICANT DID TO, UM, GET OUT OF A VIOLATION BECAUSE THE, WELL, I DIDN'T USE THAT ARGUMENT NUMBER TWO. YOU ONE SECOND, PETE. ONE SECOND. ELIZABETH. ELIZABETH, THAT WAS ALSO MY QUESTION I HAD WRITTEN DOWN JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO. UM, [00:40:01] IS IT POSSIBLE THERE ARE OTHER CCPS COULD BE, UM, REFERENCED BY OLD CODE COMPLIANCE? OH YES. INFORMATION OF AS WELL AS CP NUMBERS. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A A SHOULD BE A CITYWIDE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF UPDATE SEEMS LIKE. 'CAUSE IF THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT CAN SLIDE IN UNDER THAT WAY, THEN THERE'RE GONNA BE OTHERS. SO WE, WE DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S OR ORDERS IN THIS CASE. UM, BECAUSE THE, THE SPECIFIC CODE SECTIONS, THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE CODE SECTIONS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED IS THAT THEY WERE RENUMBERED. SO IT'S VERY CONVENIENT FOR COUNSEL, FOR THE APPLICANT TO TELL YOU THAT THERE'S NO NEED TO CHANGE THE ORDER. WHEN THEY JUST MADE THAT ARGUMENT TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DISMISS ON HOLD ON, DISMISSED THE CASE ON THAT BASIS, IT'S NOT CORRECT. I WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU THAT YOU CON WHILE WE, WHILE WE DISAGREE WITH THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES RULING, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU UPDATE THIS ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE NEW CODE SECTIONS. AND IS THAT AND ARE THE NEW CODE SECTIONS WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE NEW OWNERS TO COME IN? OR IS THAT SEPARATE? NO. OKAY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT, TWO SEPARATE THINGS. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. I'M JUST GETTING BACK TO THIS, WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AND I JUST THINK THAT IT SOMEHOW SHOULD BE REFLECTED THAT WE'RE NOT VOTING ON WHETHER TO APPROVE THE KNOWN OR SINCE YOU WILL HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY. AND THAT REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST HAVING THEM COME IN AND INTRODUCING THEMSELVES AND TELLING US, A, THEY'LL COMPLY AND B, IF THEY HAVE ANY CHANGE PLANS OF CHANGE OF OPERATION. SO IT'S MORE INFORMATIVE THAN A VOTE. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. BUT THAT, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THERE. RIGHT. THEY SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE A PEER BEFORE THE BOARD, WHICH IS BEING STRUCK. AND THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING INTRODUCED IS TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE COP. SO IF THEY, IF ANY SUBSEQUENT OWNER WOULD BE FILING AN APPLICATION FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE COP, TECHNICALLY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE, REJECT IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON WHETHER A, A BUYER OF A $300 MILLION HOTEL SHOULD BE APPROVED OR NOT. YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT, AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT VOTING ON A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. THAT'S WHAT THE WING SAYS. YOU'RE ME VOTING ON, ON WHEN YOU DO VOTE TO APPROVE A CHANGE OF OWNER OPERATOR, YOU'RE VOTING TO CONFORM AN ORDER. YOU'RE NOT APPROVING A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. OKAY. SO I I WOULD, I WOULD WANNA MISREPRESENT THE WORDING WOULD SUGGEST OTHERWISE, BUT THERE IS NO BUYER OR LENDER IN THE WORLD THAT'S GOING TO SPEND $300 MILLION ON THE CHANCE THAT THE HEARING IS NOT GOING GO THE WRONG WAY. WELL, HET HE SAID THAT WE WOULDN'T BE APPROVING OR REJECTING THE BUT IN PRACTICALITY, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO. I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO OR WHAT THE STAFF WANTS TO DO. WE COULD PICK THE WORDING WE HAVE. I MEAN THE LANGUAGE DE THE REAL WORLD THAT'S HAPPENS. LET'S CHANGE THE WORDING LANGUAGE DEFINITELY SUPPORTS THAT SUBSEQUENT BUYER. WE HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND THEN IT COULD BE REJECTED. COULD BE REJECTED, CAN WE? AMEN. CAN WE AMEND THE, BECAUSE THAT CAME UP WITH A W RECENTLY MM-HMM. THAT IT REALLY ALMOST JEOPARDIZED A MA MASSIVE SALE. AND I, I KNOW THAT AS A FACT. SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE YEAH, REWORDED. I WOULD SUGGEST IF THE BOARD WANTS TO, UM, DON'T AMEND THAT SECTION RIGHT NOW, AMEND EVERYTHING ELSE. OKAY. CONTINUE THE REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING TO NEXT MONTH, WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OR OKAY. MODIFICATIONS OF THAT. ALL RIGHT. LAST FINISH THE ANSWER MY QUESTION. PUBLIC. GO AHEAD. SO THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED TOO, ALSO, LOOK THERE, WHEN I SAY THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE ORDER, THERE'S, IT'S NOT JUST CHANGING THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE. ALRIGHT? THERE ARE FACTUAL STATEMENTS IN HERE. THERE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT. THERE'S TH THEY'RE THEY'RE ASKING THE BOARD, UM, TO MAKE CERTAIN, UH, FINDINGS OF FACT THAT A MODIFICATION IS WARRANTED BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE RECORD, WHICH IT'S NOT. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN HERE THAT HAVE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. I I DON'T WANNA BORE YOU ALL WITH EVERY DETAIL, BUT BOTTOM LINE IS, ASIDE FROM CHANGING THE CODE SECTIONS, THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES TO THE ORDER IN THIS DRAFT ORDER THAT HAVE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT ARE, THAT ARE WELL FRANKLY. OKAY, THAT MICHAEL, TELL ME WHAT YOU BRING UP. YEAH, WHAT I WANT TO KNOW, WHAT THEY ARE IS I DO WANT YOU TO GO INTO DETAIL FROM WHAT EXACTLY DO, DO YOU OBJECT TO WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY? I MEAN, ARE YOU OBJECTING TO WELL, THE FIRST OBJECTION IS TO MODIFYING THE CP. OKAY. BUT, BUT WHERE THERE'S NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT DESPITE WHAT THE BOARD ATTORNEY AND THE STAFF SAYS. THIS IS NOT A REHEARING, THIS IS NOT THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF CIRCUIT COURT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULED THE CITY PRESENTED ITS CASE IN CHIEF. THE STANDARD IS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHICH IS THE SAME STANDARD IN THIS HEARING AND THE VIOLATIONS WERE DISMISSED. THAT'S WHERE THAT ENDS. SO, SO YOU'RE OBJECTING TO UPDATING THE CODE INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE, THE THE CURRENT CUPI MEAN, WHAT DO YOU WHAT IN THE CUP WHAT ARE YOU OBJECTING TO? I'M OBJECTING. ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE CUP? THERE'S NO. OKAY. WHAT IN, WHAT IN THE CUP ARE YOU OBJECTING TO WHAT? MODIFICATIONS SPECIFICALLY? WELL, YOU'RE OBJECTING TO ALL OF IT, BUT, BUT THE REASON SHE'S ASKING YOU THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO AGREE TO MODIFY PARTS OF IT AND NOT ALL OF IT. SO CORRECT. OKAY. WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT, CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. DID YOU [00:45:01] CHANGE FACTUAL FINDINGS? EVERYTHING UNDERLINED THESE CHANGES? SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S UPDATES THAT ARE BEING MADE. UH, WHERE DO YOU SEE UNDERLINE? I DON'T SEE ANY UNDERLINE HERE. GO DOWN ANOTHER, KEEP GOING. UM, BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE EVIDENCE, INFORMATION TESTIMONY AND MATERIALS PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING, WHICH ARE PART OF THE RECORD AND THE STAFF ORDER ANALYSIS WAS ADOPTED, INCLUDING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMME. SORRY, CAN YOU GUYS, WHICH PAGE YOU'RE READING? WHICH NUMBER? WHAT YOU READING OFF? I'M JUST READING IT FROM THE, UM, PAGE TWO OF EIGHT THAT SAYS IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED. OKAY. OKAY. AND THESE ARE STANDARD TERMS JUST FOR THE RECORD. I, I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE STANDARD, BUT THEY HAVE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING HAPPENED HERE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. AND I, I'M NOT TRYING TO DIFFICULT AND NITPICK THIS HAPPEN. THERE, THERE WAS WITNESS SWORN WITNESS TESTIMONY WHO CAME IN TO TALK ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS. WE RECEIVED THE CODE VIOLATIONS, WE SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OF A DJ ON THE PREMISES WITHOUT A SPECIAL PERMIT. WE SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OF A PERCUSSION BAN, WHICH WAS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED IN YOUR, UH, IN THE CUP. AND IN FACT, THE MANAGER AGREED, WHEN WE ASKED THE MANAGER, I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THEY CONCEDED THAT THERE WERE DJS AND THERE WERE PERCUSSIONS ON THAT NIGHT. THEY HAD EXPLANATIONS. BUT THAT, THAT'S ALL IN THE RECORD. SO I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THESE THINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN, THEY DID HAPPEN. I UNDERSTAND THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND, YOU KNOW, AGAINST FOR YOU ON TECHNICALITIES, BUT WE'RE NOT THE SPECIAL MASTER. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THAT IS, IF A SPECIAL MASTER WERE TO FIND VIOLATIONS, THAT'S HELPFUL TO US. 'CAUSE IT'S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS. BUT WE'RE NOT BOUND BY WHAT THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT WE'VE, WE HEARD SWORN TESTIMONY. IN ADDITION TO ALL THAT, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR COP HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO JUST BRING IT UP, BRING IT UPDATED, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME TWEAKS TO IT TO BRING IT TO THE NEW AGE. WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE DEALING WITH TECHNICALITIES IN THE FUTURE SINCE THAT CLEARLY CAN HAPPEN, UH, SINCE IT DID HAPPEN. AND SO I DON'T, I I MEAN WE CAN I JUST, THE, THE WORD TECHNICALITIES IS BEING USED WRONG IN THIS DISCUSSION. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT, I KNOW IT'S NOT INTENTIONAL, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S CALLED THE LAW. I MEAN, IT'S NOT TECHNICALITY. OKAY? SO, SO, AND IT WAS SUBSTANTIVE, NOT JUST , RIGHT? SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR CUP IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF IT AND COMPLIES WITH THE LAW. SO THAT, SO I THINK THAT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA GET TO PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THESE THINGS DID IT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MODIFYING THE CP THAT'S OUR POSITION. UM, I, YOU KNOW, WITH REGARD TO CHANGING THE CODE SECTIONS, I, I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT AFFECTS IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I MEAN, NO, WE'VE NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT. I WOULDN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. I THINK THE CP HAS ENOUGH IN IT TO SUPPORT THE FACT OF WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE WITHOUT CHANGING THE PARTICULAR CODE SECTIONS. BUT THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN THAT IN HERE. MICHAEL. IS IT YOUR RECOMMEND IS, COULD IT BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ONLY MODIFICATION WE DO TODAY IS TO UPDATE THE CODE AND NOTHING ELSE AND WAIT TILL THE SUBSTANTIVE HEARING? SURE. YOU COULD DO THAT FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. IS THAT OKAY? AND I JUST WANNA MAKE ONE CORRECTION TOO. 'CAUSE IT WAS INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY REGARDING POSING THE APPLICATION. THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL, UM, TESTIMONY, PRIOR HEARINGS, UM, FROM THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING PLAYING OF VIDEOS THAT WAS MENTIONED. UM, AND WE HAVE ALSO EMAIL TESTIMONY THAT WAS NOT PASSED OUT, BUT IT WAS PART OF THE RECORD PREVIOUSLY. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA STOP RIGHT NOW AND OPEN PUBLIC. NONE OF THE CONFIDENCE. IS THERE ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO. OKAY. ANYONE ON ZOOM? WE DID HAVE SOMEONE WITH HER HAND RAISED, UM, PREVIOUSLY, BUT THEIR, THEIR HAND IS LOWERED NOW, SO WE HAVE NO, ACTUALLY, YES, SHE'S BACK. UM, SARAH'S IPHONE 12. AND, AND BEFORE SARAH, DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY DISCLOSURES TO MAKE SINCE THE LAST TIME THIS WAS HEARD? NO, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE ON A, ON A MODIFICATION. THIS IS QUAIA JUDICIAL HEARING. OKAY. AND YOU DISCLOSE YOUR, SAY TALK TO ANYBODY. ANYBODY. OKAY. I GOT A, I GOT A, UH, A WHATSAPP FROM RUSSELL GALT, BUT I DIDN'T RESPOND TO IT. I DIDN'T OKAY. UM, GO AHEAD SARAH. SARAH, DO YOU SWEAR THAT I DO THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. UM, I'M, I'M TALKING IN ON BEHALF OF ALMOST ALL THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE HOTELS THAT ARE RESIDE ON RESIDENTIAL AREA. THIS LAWYER HAVE SAID THERE IS NO INFRACTIONS, THERE WERE NO, NO INPUT FROM, FROM THE PUBLIC. I'M GLAD THAT YOU CLARIFIED THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE MAN DRAIN HOTEL. THEY, THEY, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. DO SARAH? SARAH, TO BE SARAH? TO BE SARAH, TO BE FAIR, JUST, UH, IDENTIFY YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. OH, 1800 SUNSET HARBOR DRIVE. OKAY, THANK YOU. MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 3 3 1 3 9. [00:50:01] THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. ANYTHING ELSE? NOPE. SO IT, IT, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT THE, THIS, THIS HOTEL HAS HAD SO MANY PROBLEMS. WE'VE BEEN LISTENING, ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BEEN LISTENING TO ALL THE PROBLEMS, SEEING ALL THE ISSUES, ALL THE CO COMPLIANCE STUFF. EVEN THOUGH HE CAN SAY THAT THERE WERE NONE, OR THEY WENT IN FRONT OF, IN FRONT OF THE MASTER, THEY WERE IN FRONT OF, THE MASTER WAS DISMISSED AND IT WAS NOT LIKED BY PLANNING, THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. THAT SHOULD DEFINITELY, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. I AM SURPRISED THAT TIM IS NOT ON TODAY BECAUSE, OR EITHER THAT OR HE'S ON VACATION WHEN THEY DID THIS. BECAUSE THEY DO THIS MOST OF THE TIME IN THE SUMMER WHEN NOBODY'S AROUND. SO I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I, I HAVE A VOICE TO THEM TO HELP 'EM OUT BECAUSE THE RE HOTEL CREATES A LOT OF PROBLEM. THEY, SHE ABIDE BY THE RULES. THEY LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY SHALL ABIDE BY THAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANOTHER, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT FROM JOHANN. WE LOST TIMELY HEARSAY. OBJECTION TO THAT JOHANN. GO AHEAD, JOHANN. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO. UH, I WAS NOT INTENDING TO COMMENT ON THIS. IT'S NOT MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M GOING TO BACK UP SARAH AND NEIGHBORS GENERALLY, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE TWO BLUNT COMMENTS. THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF ARROGANCE FROM HOTELS CLAIMING A RIGHT TO INFLICT NUISANCE NOISE ON NEIGHBORS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THEIR BOTTOM LINE. AND THERE IS, IF YOU WILL, A BIT OF A FICTION INVOLVED IN CLAIMING THAT THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMISSED. IT SEEMS TO BE AN ARGUMENT IN BAD FAITH AND THE PUBLIC DISAPPROVES OF IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WITH THAT INCLUDES OUR, UM, ZOOM CALLERS. SAY, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, QUESTION. SCOTT, GO AHEAD. YEAH, JUST JUMP, UH, FIRST A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. UM, WHEN IT COMES TO A, UM, MODIFICATION REVOCATION HEARING THAT WE'RE IN NOW, ARE THERE ANY GUIDELINES THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW TO, TO, IF WE WANNA MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS OR, I THINK THE, THE BOARD CAN TAKE ALL EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED ALL EVIDENCE, BUT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO BLACK AND WHITE TYPE. IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VALID OR YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VALID, UM, UM, NOISE COMPLAINT. THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. WE, WE COULDN'T, I MEAN, WE COULD MODIFY, EVEN IF THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS, WE COULD MODIFY IT. SO MAYBE I I, I I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD DO THAT IF THERE WAS NO COMPLAINTS. NO, BUT I MEAN, I MEAN, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE MAIN REASON, BUT TECHNICALLY WE CAN, IF YOU TAKE THE EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE, IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE VOLUME OF NOISE HERE. THAT THAT COULD BE LIKE MORE SUBJECTIVE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THERE EVIDENCE OF, OF A VIOLATION. AND YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE. AS PART OF THE RECORD, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHEN, WHEN YOU ARE REVIEWING, UH, A PROPERTY IN A MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION HEARING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BOUND BY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BOUND BY THE, THE CODE. YOU'RE BOUND BY THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCEDURE IN THE CODE, BY THE CONDITIONAL USE, UH, REVIEW CRITERIA. UM, AND SPECIFICALLY WHEN YOU'RE SITTING IN A MODIFICATION OR VERIFICATION HEARING, UM, YOU, YOU ARE LOOKING AT EVIDENCE OF, UH, OF VIOLATIONS OR, OR, OR NON-COMPLIANCE. OKAY. UH, ANOTHER QUESTION, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT, UM, AS WE DO FOR MOST, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT IS IF THERE'S A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, UM, THAT MOST APPLICATION, MOST APPLICANTS CAN SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT, AND I KNOW FOR THIS ONE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING AGAINST THAT, UM, JUST BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY. UM, IF, IF AN AFFIDAVIT IS FILED, UM, DOES THAT AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE THE, THE WORDING OF THE CUP TO REFLECT THE NEW OWNER? OR DO THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO A, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AND HER AND HEARD, BE HEARD BY THE BOARD? SO, UM, BOTH HAVE TO BE, EXCUSE ME. BOTH HAVE TO BE TAKEN TOGETHER. SO IF, UM, IF THE STAFF OR THE CITY'S NOT AWARE, OR COURT OF COMPLIANCE IS NOT AWARE THAT THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE AFFIDAVIT, THEY COULD SUBMIT A VIOLATION ON A PROPERTY AND THE APPLICANT COULD APPEAR AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS ISSUED TO THE WRONG, TO THE WRONG, UM, APPLICANT. 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW, I KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT MODIFYING, WE ARE NOT MODIFYING THE CHANGE, UM, IN THE ACTUAL COP WE'RE TAKING YOU THE, THE EVIDENCE OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN COMBINATION WITH THE CP, BUT YOU HAVE THEM BOTH TOGETHER. I DON'T THINK THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, UM, RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. IS IT THE AFFIDAVIT? IT IS, IT IS THE AFFIDAVIT'S A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND THAT GETS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. OH, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING. SO HOW COULD YOU DENY THAT IT WAS CHANGED? BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING THE LANGUAGE OF THE C THE COP IS NOT BEING MODIFIED. IT'S JUST NAME. BUT THEY'RE SIGNING AN AFFIDAVIT AND COVENANT THAT GETS, GETS RECORDED PUBLIC RECORD'S NOTING WHO'S GONNA WALK IN AND SAY, IT'S NOT MY CP. BUT IF YOU HAND IN THE C IF YOU, IF YOU, IF YOU HAND IT JUST THE COP WITHOUT THE AFFIDAVIT, NO ONE'S GONNA KNOW THAT THAT WAS MODIFIED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY MODIFYING THE ACTUAL CP. CORRECT. CORRECT. I, I GUESS THAT'S MY CONCERN. 'CAUSE I WAS OPEN TO, UM, ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO, TO SUBMIT [00:55:01] AN AFFIDAVIT. BUT I WOULD KEEP THE, THE, I WOULD MAKE THE OTHER CHANGES YOU'RE RECOMMENDING AND, AND ACTUALLY KEEP THE, THIS HEARING OPEN, UM, TILL NOVEMBER. UM, BUT THEN YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, IF I HEARD SOMEONE SAY THAT, IF THEY DON'T HEAR, IF IT'S NOT IN FRONT OF US, THEN TECHNICALLY IF THERE'S A NEW OWNER AND THE FIRST WEEK HE HAS THE OPERATION, THERE'S A VIOLATION THAT WOULD BE GROUNDS, UM, TO GET THE CASE THROWN OUT AT THE SPECIAL MASTER. 'CAUSE IT WOULD BE THE OLD NAME. BUT IF YOU TELL ME THAT THE, THE NEW NAME, ONCE AN AFFIDAVIT IS SUBMITTED, THAT THAT NEW NAME IS AUTOMATICALLY ATTACHED TO THE, OR IS IS ATTACHED TO THE CUP AND THAT'S THE NAME ON THE VIOLA, THAT THE WOULD BE ON THE VIOLATION THEN I'D BE OKAY WITH, WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THIS, FOR THIS APPLICATION. I THINK WE FOUND THERE'S A, UM, LOOPHOLE OR UM, DEFICIENCY IN THE AFFIDAVIT WHERE YOU COULD HAVE, UM, A COP BEING LOOKED AT THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE MOST UPTODATE OWNERSHIP INFORMATION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ADDRESS INTERNALLY. YEAH. AND PROBABLY HAVE THAT'S PHYSICALLY UPDATE. THAT'S A PROBLEM WE MAY HAVE ON ALL THE OTHER ONES THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE DOING THAT THAT WAS WHAT I WAS, LET, LET ME JUST ADD THAT NO ONE CAN SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT IS ALSO A COVENANT. IT'S RECORDED AGAINST THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND COME INTO THE CITY AND SAY, THAT'S NOT MY CUP. IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A LEGAL INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON THE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT CONFIRMS THAT. SO, BUT YOU GOT IT DISMISSED, BUT YOU GOT THE VIOLATIONS DISMISSED. SAYING, SAYING, FIRST OF ALL, THAT WAS NOT MY ONLY ARGUMENT AT THE START FROM MAGISTRATE . THERE'S A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF STAFF REPORT OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS NOT TECHNICALITIES. THAT'S AN ATTEMPT TO WATER DOWN WHAT WAS DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY WHO HAD SOLD JURISDICTION OVER THE VIOLATIONS. BUT FURTHER FROM THAT, THAT THERE WAS NO AFFIDAVIT HERE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE CO COMPLIANCE HAD THE WRONG, OR THEY BASED THEIR, THEIR VIOLATION ON THE WRONG ORDER. THAT WAS ONLY ONE ISSUE. OKAY. MORE IMPORTANTLY, BY THE WAY, AFFIDAVIT WAS CLEAR, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? NO ONE BASHING YOU FOR MAKING THE ARGUMENT. ANY LAWYER WOULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. RIGHT. OKAY. I HAD NO CHOICE. I DON'T NO, LISTEN, YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT ANY LAWYER WOULD ARGUE IS THAT THEY WERE ALL DISMISSED. SO NO ONE'S DON'T, DON'T, DON'T TAKE THIS WRONG. WE'RE NOT BASHING YOU ABOUT IT. I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE LIKE POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS OVER THAT. IT'S, IT, THE AFFIDAVIT IS VERY CLEAR. CITY STAFF'S DONE A GREAT JOB ON THAT. IT'S A COVENANT, IT'S AN AFFIDAVIT, IT'S AN INSTRUMENT RECORD ON THE PUBLIC RECORDS. THERE IS NO ONE THAT CAN HAVE ANY LEGAL BASIS TO SAY, THIS IS NOT MY CP AFTER THEY SIGN THAT AFFIDAVIT, THEY'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT NO, I AGREE WITH THAT. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS IF THERE, IF THE OWNERS WANT TO CHANGE OPERATIONS OR CHA MAKE CHA, THEN, THEN I THINK, OH, THEY WOULD'VE TO COME TO THE BOARD TO CHANGE IT. I, I'M RECEPTIVE TO THAT. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT. NO ONE'S GONNA FORGET ABOUT THIS PROPERTY. IT'S GONNA BE ON THE RADAR FOR A LONG TIME. RIGHT. ALRIGHT, SCOTT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MATTHEW? I THINK WE CAN'T ARGUE WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED. AND I'M, I'M OKAY WITH, WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO MODIFY THE CUP. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION THOUGH. UH, CAN YOU READ THE CURRENT LANGUAGE REFLECTING, UH, IN THE ORDER REFLECTING WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE DONE IF A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP WERE TO TAKE PLACE TODAY? SURE. JUST ONE SECOND. SO THIS IS, UM, CONDITION TWO. AND IF YOU LOOK ON, UM, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE BOARD PACKAGES, THE, OF THE ORIGINAL COP OF THE LAST COP DATED JANUARY 22ND, 2019, WHICH SAYS, UM, SUBSEQUENT OWNERS OR OPERATORS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD TO AFFIRM THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONDITIONS LISTED HEREIN ANY CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS LLC EXCEEDING 24% OF THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS. LLC SHALL WE TEAM TO CREATE A SUBSEQUENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRING SET OWNER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD TO AFFIRM THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONDITIONS LISTED HEREIN. SO THE, SO THE ORDER IN WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN FACT, DOES REQUIRE, REQUIRE, UH, A, A, UH, APPEARANCE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. CORRECT. SO YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THAT CONDITION. WE'RE MAKING IT MORE FORMAL SAYING THEY HAVE TO FILE FORMAL APPLICATION FOR THAT. OKAY. SO I, I JUST WANT TO WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE. WE'RE NOT IMPOSING ANY, IS THAT IMPOSING A NEW YES. UM, I'M SORRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. ASK. GO AHEAD. EXPLAIN IT. EDUCATE US. GO AHEAD. YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW WHAT IT SAYS, THE BEST WAY I CAN DESCRIBE IT IS, IS I'M A BUYER OF A, OF REAL ESTATE THAT HAS THIS HOTEL. OKAY. THE WAY THE LANGUAGE READS, NOW YOU HAVE YOUR TRANSACTION, YOU CLOSE, YOU COME IN TO AFFIRM YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE, OF THE ORDER TO THE BOARD. AND THE CUP ESSENTIALLY STAYS THE SAME. OKAY. IF THERE WAS AN AFFIDAVIT, YOU, YOU'D HAVE THE AFFIDAVIT PRETTY SIMILAR PROCESSES, [01:00:01] BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE OPTION OF, OF PROVIDING AN AFFIDAVIT. RIGHT NOW IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HERE. NO, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE AFFIDAVIT. WHAT, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE CHANGE IS NOW, IT SAYS ESSENTIALLY BEFORE YOU CLOSE YOUR TRANSACTION, YOU HAVE TO FILE A PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION. WAIT THE THREE, FOUR MONTHS FOR THAT TO GET TO HEARING, GET TO A HEARING, MAYBE WAIT UNTIL THE APPEAL PERIOD PASSES, AND THEN MAYBE YOU CAN CLOSE YOUR TRANSACTION, WHICH IS NO TRANSACTION'S EVER GONNA SURVIVE A FOUR OR FIVE, SIX MONTH PROCESS LIKE THAT. IT CREATES, SO, LIKE, MICHAEL, SORRY, I, I, I, I'M, BECAUSE I'M REA I'M HUNG UP ON THIS LANGUAGE AND I'M SORRY, BUT NUMBER TWO THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT MM-HMM. , YOU'RE STRIKING OUT REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD. RIGHT. WHICH IS WHAT I ALWAYS THOUGHT THEY SHOULD DO IS COME HERE JUST TO AFFIRM THEY'LL, THEY'LL COMPLY WITH THE CUP AND TELL US THERE ARE ANY CHANGES, RIGHT? SO IT JUST ISN'T THAT YOU'RE STRIKING THAT OUT TO MAKE THEM FILE AN APPLICATION TO MODIFY IT, TO CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP AND THAT, AND THAT'S TO REQUIRE THE PUBLIC NOTICE. 'CAUSE OTHERWISE, IF THEY'RE JUST UNDER THE PRIVILEGE, A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THERE'S CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THEY'RE GONNA MAKE AN, THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. BECAUSE REMEMBER AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS THIS MODIFIED CUP IS ISSUED TO 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC. SO THERE HAS TO BE A IN ORDERS THAT WERE DRAFTED IN THIS FORMAT. RIGHT? 'CAUSE YOUR NEWER ORDERS, SOME OF YOUR NEWER ORDERS USE THE AFFIDAVIT PROCESS. RIGHT. BUT, BUT WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE TO DO WITH THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP? I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. IT JUST REQUIRES NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC THAT THERE'RE GONNA, THERE'S GONNA BE AN APPLICANT THAT THIS ITEM'S GONNA BE ON THE PLANNING BOARD AGENDA. AND ANYBODY CAN MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT. AND SO HOW IS IT BEFORE THIS CHANGE? WHAT HAPPENS? SO THIS, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN JUST ON THE AGENDA. UM, LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY THAT SOMEBODY NOTIFIES US THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE, THEY'VE MADE A CHANGE TO THE OWNERSHIP. THEY WOULD JUST LET US KNOW. WE WOULD PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULD ONLY HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA ONLINE. IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE HAROLD NOTICE. IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE MAIL NOTICE. IT WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING ON THE ON ON. RIGHT. AND SO, SINCE YOU DIDN'T DO THAT BEFORE, WHAT RE WHY DO YOU THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOW? I, I STILL UNDERSTAND IT BE TO, TO, UM, TO MAKE THE APPLICANT AND TO MAKE IT A PUBLIC PROCESS, JUST TO MAKE IT STRONGER THAT THE A THAT THE A THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOTIFIED. THEY CAN SPEAK ON ANY VIOLATIONS OR CONCERNS. OKAY. PROBLEM IS THAT ALSO REQUIRES A VOTE BY THE BOARD TO APPROVE WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY PERMISSION TO BUY A PROPERTY. WELL, THAT'S WHY I WANT THE, I THINK THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE MODIFIED. THAT'S NOT, IT'S NOT JUST NOTICE. IS THERE STILL A VOTE REQUIRED TODAY BASED ON THE CURRENT LANGUAGE WHEN THEY APPEAR, IF THEY WERE TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD? YES. BECAUSE WE'RE MODIFYING THE CP TO CHANGE THE, TO CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP. NO, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE QUESTION. WELL, THE QUESTION WAS UNDER THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. OKAY. WOULD THAT REQUIRE THE BOARD TO VOTE IF THERE WAS A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP? THE ANSWER IS NO. WELL, I THINK YOU WOULD WANT, YOU WOULD WANT A VOTE TO CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS IT READS NOW. YES, WE WOULD, IF YOU WERE APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD, WE WOULD MODIFY THE CEP TO CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP. WE WOULDN'T LEAVE IT UNDER THE PRIOR OWNERSHIP. SO A VOTE WOULD BE REQUIRED. OKAY. YES. SO LET'S, THEN WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO ADD NEW LANGUAGE? WELL, UNDER THE CURRENT, UNDER THE CURRENT, UM, LANGUAGE, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO FILING FEE. THERE'S NO TIMEFRAME. SO, UM, THIS WOULD FORMALIZE THAT PROCESS. ALRIGHT. I, I JUST THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REWORDED SO THAT IT DOESN'T APPEAR AS THOUGH WE ARE ABLE TO VOTE YES OR NO ON A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. SO DO YOU WANNA LEAVE THE CONDITION AS DRAFTED, WHICH SAYS THIS MODIFIED COP IS ISSUED TO 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS AS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS AFFILIATES, SUBSEQUENT OWNERS OR OPERATORS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD, UM, PERIOD TO THAT'S THE EXISTING LANGUAGE. YOU CAN LEAVE IT AS IS. THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. OKAY. BUT OBVIOUSLY I'M ONE OF SEVEN. WELL, I, AND I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE CURRENT LANGUAGE EITHER. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. I AGREE. ALRIGHT. YOU WON THAT ONE. WELL, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GIVE A PRACTICE. I DON'T IF YOU WON, IT'S STILL REQUIRED TO. I THINK IT'S THE I KNOW, BUT, BUT TO MAKE THEM FILE A NEW, HAVE ANOTHER FEE AND FILE WHEN IT'S ALREADY, ANYWAY, I, I DON'T WANT, WE GOTTA MOVE ON. SO I THINK WE DEFINITELY BEAT THAT ONE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM JONATHAN? MICHELLE? I, I JUST WANT TO ONE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT. SO IN THE CODE DIFFERENCES, THE, AM I CORRECT THAT THE OLD CODE THAT WAS CITED HERE IN THAT DEFINITION OF ENTERTAINMENT DID NOT INCLUDE A DJ AND THAT THE NEW DEFINITION OF ENTERTAINMENT? NO. THE DEFINITION OF THAT DEFINITION HAVEN'T CHANGED. YEAH. THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. OKAY. IS THAT, 'CAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED AT ONE OF THE LAST HEARINGS. BECAUSE DIDN'T YOU HAVE A POSITION THAT, THAT A DJ WASN'T SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED UNDER THE CUP? MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE WE DON'T GET INTO THAT ISSUE. BUT IN SHORT, DEFINITION OF ENTERTAINMENT DOESN'T MENTION THE WORD DJ. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THAT [01:05:01] THAT ISSUE IS A LITTLE BIT CONVOLUTED, HAS TO DO WITH INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT DEFINITION OVER THE YEARS. IT'S ON APPEAL BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON ANOTHER PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW I SO, SO GIVEN THAT SAME DEFINITION, SO GIVEN THAT, I THINK THE CLEAR INTENT WAS TO, IN THE ORIGINAL COP WAS NOT TO HAVE DJS. AND SO I WOULD WANT TO CLARIFY IN THE COP NO DJS GIVEN ALL THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD. UM, AND, UM, SO THAT, THAT'S, I WOULD CHANGE, I WOULD AGREE. I AGREE TO CHANGE ALL THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING. NOT CHANGE THE OTHER LANGUAGE ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP, FINE, BUT ABOUT THE CODES, I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO UPDATE THE NUMBERING. BUT I WOULD ALSO ADD NO DJS, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT I, THAT THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT BEHIND THE CUPI, I WOULD JUST ASK IF YOU HAVE THAT INTENTION, MAYBE YOU COULD CONSIDER THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT MAKES THIS ABSOLUTELY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. AND ALSO, AS I MENTIONED, THAT ISSUE IS, IS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN OCTOBER. SO MAYBE IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO, TO TABLE THAT ITEM. I WOULD SUGGEST WE SUGGESTION, I WOULD SUGGEST WE DON'T MODIFY THAT TODAY. I AGREE. OKAY. CAN WE JUST CONTINUE THIS? I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONTINUED. I THINK WE THINK WE NEED, IT'S BEING CONTINUED, BUT OKAY. I JUST WANNA, BUT, BUT WE'RE, WE NEED TO AT LEAST CHANGE THE, THE CODE SECTIONS. THE CODE SECTION. YEAH. LET'S TWEAK THE, LET'S TWEAK THE CODE SESSIONS. RIGHT. AND WE'RE, WE LEAVE IT OPEN. RIGHT. UM, AND WE'LL COME BACK AT ANOTHER DATE TO ADDRESS THAT. I SUGGESTED WE CONTINUE IT ALL THE WAY TO NOVEMBER INSTEAD OF OCTOBER. JUST ON THE BASIS OF, I FIND IT VERY HARD TO EVALUATE SOME OF THESE BUSINESSES THAT ARE DURING THEIR OPERATION DURING THE SUMMER WHEN IF THE QUIET SEASON I AGREE. MUCH MORE REFLECTIVE PICTURE OF THE BUSINESS ONCE THE HIGH SEASON BEGINS. SO I THINK IF WE PUSH IT TO NOVEMBER, IT GIVES US MORE TIME TO, TO SEE WHAT THE AGREE. I AGREE. I AGREE WITH YOU CONSIDERING THOUGH THAT AGAIN, THERE WAS SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC HERE SPEAKING OUT MEAN PREVIOUSLY WE SAW FIVE PEOPLE HERE, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, SIX PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT, YOU KNOW, AGAINST THE APPLICANT. THEY'RE NOT HERE NOW. I MEAN, IS THERE AND FIVE PEOPLE SUPPORTED IN AN AFFIDAVIT? WELL, NO EMAILS. I'M JUST SAYING TO AT LEAST I DON'T AGREE WITH THE LANGUAGE. I MAKE A MOTION TO. WELL, YEAH. WE'RE NOT GONNA ESSENTIALLY TO DISMISS THIS. I MEAN, TO BRING IT BACK AGAIN TO HEAR IT, IF THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION THAT THAT'S HELD UP, THEN WE, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE SAYING MAKE NO CHANGES TODAY SAYING MAKE NO CHANGES. SIMON, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE'LL SEE IF IT PASSES. I, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROGRESS REPORT WITH NO CHANGES MADE AND BRING THEM BACK IN NOVEMBER AND NOT BRING THEM BACK. OH, I MEAN, JUST AGAIN, THERE'S, THERE'S NO OUTSTANDING VIOLATION. YEAH. AGAIN, I JUST THINK IT'S NOT, THERE'S NO ONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT'S COME OUT HERE SAYING RIGHT OVER SEPTEMBER. AND THAT'S NOT VERY REFLECTIVE. I THINK WE'VE GOT LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT'S COME IN. SO YOU DON'T, THERE'S FIVE, TWO COME SAME. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. EVERY ONE AT A TIME. HE SHIELD'S MAKING A MOTION THAT WE DISMISS THE, OKAY. THE STATUS REPORT. THAT'S YOUR MOTION, RIGHT? THAT'S MY MOTION. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? NO, NO SECOND. OKAY. UM, AMENDED I'LL TO IT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, MODIFY THE CUP, UH, TO REFLECT THE NEW CODE NUMBERING AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO OMIT THE RECOMMENDATION AND LEAVE IT OUT ABOUT THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. AND THEN TO CONTINUE, WELL ACTUALLY IT'D BE TO BE CLEAR, IF YOU JUST SAY TO ADOPT THE NEW CODE AND THAT'S IT. YEAH. BUT YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING AND DEFER THE REST. WELL, I'M SAYING I, AND THEN LATER I CAN MAKE A SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PROGRESS OR PROGRESS REPORT OR CP MODIFICATION HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER. OKAY. SO THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE, THAT, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE MODIFIED RIGHT NOW IS JUST CODE NOTHING IN SECTION TWO, CORRECT? CORRECT. CORRECT. I'D SECOND THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND. SO WE'LL ROLL CALL PLEASE. UM, MS. MR. FRIEDEN FIRST? YES. AYE. YES, MS. BEATY, ARE YOU SURE? YES. MS. BEATY? YES, PLEASE. MR. CEMENT? YES. MR. COLTON OFF? YES. MR. THE TONE? YES. MR. NEEDLEMAN? YES. ARE WE GONNA TAKE ANOTHER VOTE ON YOU? CALL ME, BY THE WAY. I'M SORRY WISE, RIGHT? YES. SO THAT MOTION PASSES, UM, SEVEN TO ZERO. WE'RE GONNA MODIFY THE COP JUST TO REFERENCE THE CHANGES, THE CODE SECTIONS. CORRECT. AND WE CONTINUE THIS INTO NOVEMBER AND A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NOVEMBER 26TH MEETING. MM-HMM. IS THAT ? RIGHT. AND, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE JONATHAN, THE REASON FOR THAT IS, WELL, THE REASON FOR THAT IS I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT LIKE, THERE'S CLEARLY THEY'RE MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S NO DJS OR THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE DJS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE INTENT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORS SIGNED UP FOR. I THINK THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE CODE THAT HAD A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION. THEY'RE ARGUING THIS AND, AND I JUST THINK [01:10:01] THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS THE WHOLE TIME. ALL RIGHT. THEY GOT A VIOLATION FOR IT. IT WASN'T UPHELD BY THE MAGISTRATE. 'CAUSE THERE'S ARGUMENT. SO NOT ONLY THAT, BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD REGARDLESS GIVE IT MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE, SEE IF THERE'S ANY MORE COMPLAINTS. EXACTLY. OKAY. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO, ALRIGHT, THAT'S FAIR. ALRIGHT, WELL, SO, SO THE MOTION IS TO BRING THEM BACK IN NOVEMBER FOR A STATUS REPORT. SECOND THAT ALSO, OR WAIT, WOULD IT BE A STA OR WOULD IT BE A MODIFICATION? MODIFICATION? IT, IT SEEMS MODIFICATION. MODIFICATION. ALL RIGHT. UNTIL NOVEMBER 2ND. THAT ALSO SECOND. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL ELIZABETH SECONDED IT. YEAH. OKAY. ROLL CALL. CAN YOU HOLD ALL IN FAVOR? YES. YES. YOU OPPOSED? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO BEHAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER PLEASE. . ALRIGHT. IT WAS LONGER THAN I THOUGHT, BUT IMPORTANT. OKAY. NEXT [12. PB21-0442, 743 Washington Avenue – Club Vendome.] FILE IS, UH, ANOTHER REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING PLANNING BOARD FILE 21 0 4 4 2 7 43 WASHINGTON AVENUE, VON DOME. JUST A SECOND. SO THIS APPLICATION, THE HISTORY FOR THE CURRENT, UM, APPLICATION FOR THE BOARD ON MAY 29TH OF THIS YEAR, A CURE LETTER WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE CAP THAT WAS LAST MODIFIED BY THE BOARD ON JULY 27TH, 2021. THE CURE LETTER REQUESTED THE APPLICANT APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A PROGRESS REPORT ON JUNE 25TH. ON JUNE 25TH OF THIS YEAR. THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE PROGRESS REPORT AND CONTINUED THE, UM, THE REPORT TO THE JULY, UM, 30TH MEETING ON JULY 30TH. THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE REPORT, THE PROGRESS REPORT, AND ACTUALLY SET THE REVOCATION MODIFICATION FOR A DATE CER CERTAIN OF TODAY. AS NOTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT, THE PROPERTY HAD RECEIVED SEVERAL VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SCULPTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, AS WELL AS VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THE COP FOR THE APPLICATION OF WINDOW TINTING AND FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND TO PATRONS QUEUING IN FRONT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. WE ALSO NOTED THAT A VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON JUNE, I'M SORRY, JUNE 5TH OF THIS YEAR, FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE MIAMI BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR A PERFORMANCE THAT OCCURRED ON JUNE 7TH. THIS VIOLATION WAS APPEALED TO THE SPECIAL MASTER SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. AND ON JULY, UM, 15TH, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DENIED THE APPEAL WITH AN ADJUDICATION OF GUILTY. NOW, AT THE THE JUNE 25TH MEETING, THE BOARD DID REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENT OPERATIONAL PLANS TO ENSURE THAT NO QM WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. AND THE BOARD ALSO ASKED FOR THE NUMBER OF PROMOTED, UH, MONTHLY EVENTS. THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AT THE LAST HEARING ON JULY 30TH. SINCE THAT TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A, UM, QUEUING PLAN. WE HAVE INCLUDED IT TO THE, UM, AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT. AND THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION PROHIBITING QUEUING ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. THIS QUEUING, UM, NARRATIVE, WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL EXPLAIN FURTHER, UM, INCLUDES A A A TWO PHASE APPROACH, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS STATED HAS ALLOWED THE QING TO BE CONTAINED COMPLETELY WITHIN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. NOW THE APPLICANT HAS NOT YET PROVIDED US INFORMATION REGARDING THE NUMBER OF, UM, MONTHLY PROMOTED EVENTS. AND ADDITIONALLY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICANT UPDATE THE QUEUING NARRATIVE, UM, TO INCLUDE AN AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT THAT NO QING WILL TAKE PLACE ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AT ANY TIME. AS WELL AS A PLAN, A SITE PLAN THAT ILLUSTRATES THE, UM, THE VARIOUS, UH, CHECKPOINTS. WE ALL RECOMMENDED THE BOARD MODIFY THE COP AT THIS TIME TO UPDATE, UM, THE REFERENCE CODE SECTIONS, AS WE MENTIONED FOR THE PRIOR, UH, REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING. WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THE, UM, COP BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE LATEST QUEUING PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. AND THESE MODIFICATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN OUR ATTACHED DRAFT ORDER. WE'RE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD DISCUSS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PRIOR VIOLATIONS AND CONSIDER WHETHER ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS MAY BE WARRANTED. UM, IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING THE UPDATED QUEUING PLAN AND PROMOTED EVENTS INFORMATION, THE BOARD MAY WANT TO CONSIDER LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF PROMOTED EVENTS, UM, OR REQUIRING, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE, LIKE WITH THE MONDRIAN, WHERE THOSE PROMOTED EVENTS CAN ONLY HAPPEN AS PART OF A SPECIAL EVENT ISSUED BY THE CITY. SO FOR THAT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE, THE CP MODIFIED AS INDICATED IN OUR DRAFT, UH, CP, AND THAT THE REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING BE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 29TH MEETING WITHOUT TURN OVER TO MR. VERO ON BEHALF OF BEFORE. SO YOU SAID THEY DID NOT PROVIDE, UH, INFORMATION ON PROMOTED EVENTS. CORRECT? I I THINK THAT'S GONNA BIG CONCERN, SO I'M SORRY TO HEAR THAT, BUT I COULD EXPLAIN THAT. . ALRIGHT, SO GOOD. UH, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MICKEY MARRERO HERE ON BEHALF OF VAN DOME, UH, NIGHTCLUB AT 7 43 WASHINGTON AVENUE. UM, AS NOTED BY MICHAEL, WE'RE HERE ON A IFICATION MODIFICATION HEARING. I DID SUBMIT [01:15:01] A, UH, PRESENTATION THAT COULD BE SHARED. PLEASE THANK YOU. WITH ME TODAY, MY PARTNER, MICHAEL LARKIN. UM, SO I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY 'CAUSE I, IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD GET THE ? I GUESS NOT. BUT ANYWAY, UM, I, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE HISTORY OF, OF THIS BUSINESS, SO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND. 'CAUSE A LOT OF YOU, BY THE WAY, WE DON'T SEE THAT, SO IT'S OKAY. OKAY. I, I KNOW WHAT'S THERE. SO, YEAH, UM, THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY, AND IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. HOW DO I DO THIS HERE? OKAY, SO JUST, THIS IS A, A, A VIEW OF THE, OF THE VENUE. IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL, SMALL NIGHTCLUB. ON, ON WASHINGTON AVENUE PREVIOUSLY WAS A VENUE CALLED ROCKWELL. AND THAT I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHEN THERE WAS A CHANGE. UH, MICHAEL MENTIONED THAT IN 20, THERE'S JUST A, AN ARIEL IN 2021 WAS THE LAST TIME PRIOR TO THIS SERIES OF EVENTS THAT THE APPLICATION WAS HERE. THAT WAS, WE WERE HERE ON THAT OUR CLIENTS, UH, PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, PURCHASED THE ENTIRE BUSINESS FROM THE ROCKWELL OPERATORS, BEEN 2021. UH, ROCKWELL ESSENTIALLY SUFFERED. THEY'RE A VICTIM OF, OF COVID. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO SURVIVE. AND THESE GENTLEMEN BOUGHT, ESSENTIALLY THE BUSINESS REBRANDED IT, BUT IT HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR. AND HERE YOU SEE, UH, EVERY, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY CLOSE DURING THE PANDEMIC, BUT NOW, UH, VAN DOME PURCHASES IT AND IT BECOMES A, A NEW VENUE. UM, 2021, THE, THE, THE BOARD APPROVED IT. WE ALSO HAD TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO MODIFY THAT ORDER. AND FROM THEN ON FORWARD, IT WAS OPERATING. WE BELIEVE IN A, IN A, IN A GOOD MANNER. UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS REQUESTED WAS A QUEUING PLAN. I'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. BUT BEFORE THAT, I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THE VIOLATIONS. I GOT INTO A LITTLE BIT LAST, UH, THE JULY MEETING, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING AGAIN. 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. UH, SO THE CURE LETTER WAS SENT MAY 29TH. THE WHAT TRIGGERED THAT CURE LETTER WAS AT THAT TIME, THREE VIOLATIONS. ONE OF THEM WAS FOR A SCULPTURE THAT WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. I WANNA REITERATE THAT SCULPTURE WAS THERE WHEN ROCKWELL WAS THERE. WE INHERITED THE, THE BUSINESS. WE INHERITED THE, THE SPACE AND MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS PLANNING CODE, MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS. I WAS THERE, DID INSPECTIONS OF THAT PROPERTY. THIS SCULPTURE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED. MY CLIENTS LIKED IT. THEY KEPT IT THERE, BUT THEY DIDN'T PUT IT THERE. THE MINUTE THE VIOLATION WAS ISSUED, THE SCULPTURE WAS GONE. IT'S NOT THERE. ANOTHER VIOLATION WAS FOR TINTING. AGAIN, SAME FACT PATTERN. THE TINTING WAS THERE, UH, FROM THE PRIOR OPERATOR. THEY DIDN'T CHANGE IT. THEY LEFT IT THE WAY IT WAS. UH, INSPECTIONS WERE DONE BY THE CITY. IT WASN'T RAISED. THEY OPERATED FOR THREE YEARS. IT'S BEEN FIXED, IT'S BEEN REMOVED. BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS AN ISSUE ON THE QUEUING. THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE, UH, INSTANCE OF A QUEUING PROBLEM. IT WASN'T JUST THAT DAY. THERE WAS ONE VIOLATION. I KNOW MR. MR. FRIED AND I, WE, WE, WE SPOKE ABOUT IT IN DETAIL. UM, THERE, THE, THEY, THEY RECOGNIZE THAT QUEUING COULD BE AN ISSUE, SO THEY ACTUALLY PROACTIVELY ADDRESSED IT. UM, IF THAT'S HARD TO READ THERE, IT JUST KIND OF SHOWS YOU THAT WE SUBMITTED. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, IT KIND OF SHOWS THE, THE, THE DRAWING OF THE QUEUING. WHEN, WHEN, WHEN DID YOU SUBMIT THIS? IF YOU DON'T MIND, WHEN DID YOU SUBMIT THE QUEUING PLAN? THE QUEUING, THE ACTUAL QUEUING PLAN WAS SUBMITTED A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. COUPLE, COUPLE WEEKS AGO. OKAY. IT WAS IMPLEMENTED. THE, THAT IS GETTING SOMEONE TO DRAW IT UP. OKAY. BUT IT WAS IMPLEMENTED SINCE, SINCE JUNE. THANK, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CHECK. AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE, ESSENTIALLY, THEY USED TO HAVE ONE SPOT WHERE THE STAFF, AND AGAIN, IF WE COULD, UH, I'M THE ONE DOING THIS, I'M SORRY. UM, DIFFERENT VENUES, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT TECH. SO WHAT THEY USED TO DO IS THE SAME PERSON THAT WOULD CHECK YOU FOR YOUR IDS WOULD PAT YOU DOWN. AND IT WAS BASICALLY WHEN THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE PEOPLE IN THE LINE WOULD CREATE A JAM. IT WAS NEVER A HUGE JAM. BUT WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE NOW MADE IT A TWO STEP PROCESS. SO THEY BRING THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS, NOT ON THE SIDEWALK. ONE PERSON'S CHECKING FOR YOUR ID, UH, CHECKING FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR CREDENTIALS. ANOTHER PERSON WOULD THEN PAT YOU DOWN, CHECK FOR ANY ILLEGAL, ILLEGAL, UH, WEAPONS OR ANYTHING YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ON YOU. AND THEN YOU CAN PAY AND GO FORWARD. SINCE THEY'VE BEEN IMPLEMENTING THAT PROCESS. AND I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, THERE HAVE BEEN 68, 68 PROACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS BY CODE. WHAT THAT MEANS IS WITHOUT A COMPLAINT FILED BY A NEIGHBOR, WITHOUT ANYBODY CALLING IN CODE, AND I GUESS THERE'S BEEN THIS SPOTLIGHT ON NIGHTLIFE, MAYBE IT'S A COMPETITOR CREATED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. BUT I'VE NEVER, IN 20 YEARS OF MY DOING THIS, SEEING ONE ESTABLISHMENT HAVE THAT MANY PROACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS. MAYBE IT HAPPENS, BUT I JUST, I'M NOT AWARE. BUT AGAIN, AND I COUNTED THESE YESTERDAY, I HAVE ALL THE DATES HERE. AND I, YOU KNOW, 68 TIMES CODE WAS THERE TO SEE IF THERE WAS A QUEUING PROBLEM AND OTHER ISSUES. MICKEY, MICKEY, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YES. REAL QUICK. YES. WHILE YOU'RE, WHILE WE'RE ON THIS TOPIC. SO THIS, THIS PLAN WAS SUBMITTED TWO WEEKS AGO. YEAH. WAS THIS IMPLEMENTED TWO WEEKS AGO? NO, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED. THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING LIKE THIS SINCE JUNE. SINCE JUNE, YEAH. BUT I HAD THEM, AND WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT I HAD THEM DRAW IT BECAUSE IT WAS A REQUEST TO SUBMIT PRIOR TO THIS HEARING. BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE A QUEUING PLAN AT THE LAST MEETING? WELL, THEY WERE STILL OPERATING IN THIS FASHION. THEY JUST DREW IT. BUT THIS IS [01:20:01] HOW IT CLEANED UP. BUT THIS HAS BEEN IN, THIS HAS BEEN IN COMPLIANT. I MEAN, YOU'VE BEEN OPERATING UNDER THIS YES, ID CHECK AND ALL THAT. OKAY. YES, THEY, IT'S BEEN OPERATED THIS WAY. AND THE REASON IT'S IMPORTANT, SINCE THAT MAY 29TH VIOLATION, GOING BACK FOUR MONTHS, 68 TIMES, THEY'VE GONE OUT SOMETIMES THREE TIMES A NIGHT, AND THEY'RE ONLY OPEN THREE, FOUR DAYS A WEEK. SO THEY'VE GONE AND, AND, AND I LOOK, I, I WORK GREAT WITH CODE. I THINK THEY DO A GREAT JOB, BUT IT CLEARLY, THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT BY THE CITY TO, TO MAKE SURE OP NIGHTCLUBS ARE OPERATING RESPONSIBLY. AND I THINK THE FACT THAT, LOOK, IF YOU'RE THE BEST DRIVER IN THE WORLD, BUT A POLICE OFFICER'S FOLLOWING YOU AROUND 24 7, YOU MIGHT EVENTUALLY GET A TICKET. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. SO SINCE MAY 29TH, 68 TIMES THEY'VE BEEN THERE, AND IN ALL OF THEM BEEN EXACTLY ZERO VIOLATIONS FOR QUEUING. SO TO ME, THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY GOT, THAT IT WAS A MINOR PROBLEM, CREATED SOME ISSUES. THEY, THEY FOUND A SOLUTION AND, AND IT WORKED. IT JUST 68 TIMES WHERE THEY'RE OH, FOR 68 ON VIOLATIONS FOR QUEUING. I THINK THAT THAT'S PRETTY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT, THAT THE PLAN IS WORKING. UM, SINCE THEN, THERE HAVE TWO, BEEN TWO ADDITIONAL, LIKE COURTESY NOTICES ISSUED. ONE WAS FOR, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE PERFECT DRIVER WITH A POLICE OFFICER BEHIND EVERYTHING. THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH A DOOR WAS A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, IN DISREPAIR. THEY FIXED IT. I THINK THERE WAS JUST A COURTESY NOTICE AND THERE WAS ANOTHER, UH, VIOLATION ISSUED FOR GRAFFITI ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE VIOLATION ITSELF SAYS, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, SOMEONE HAS A VANDAL HAS, UH, DEFACED YOUR PROPERTY. THEY DON'T ACTUALLY CONTROL THE AREA OF THE GRAFFITI, BUT I CONTACTED THEM, THEY SPOKE TO THEIR LANDLORD, THEY'RE DEALING WITH IT. IT TURNS OUT, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE SCIENCE OF ALL THIS, BUT THE GRAFFITI, WHOEVER THE VANDAL THAT PUT THE GRAFFITI ON THAT BUILDING, WHICH WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE LANDLORD, UM, DID IT WITH SOME SORT OF ACIDIC PRODUCT THAT'S VERY HARD TO REMOVE. SO THEY HAVE TO HIRE A SPECIFIC, UH, CONSULTANT OR PRO, YOU KNOW, SERVICE PROVIDER TO REMOVE IT. IT'S BEING DONE, BUT IT WASN'T THEM AND IT WASN'T EVEN ON PROPERTY. THEY CONTROL, BUT THEY'RE DEALING WITH IT. UM, ANOTHER THING I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, MR. ELIAS, FOR YOUR SPECIFIC COMMENT ON THE PROMO PROMOTING EVENT, AND I DID MENTION THIS TO MICHAEL, IT, DEPENDING ON WHAT WE CHARACTERIZE IT AS, EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY'RE OPEN COULD BE A PROMOTED EVENT OR MAYBE ZERO. BUT LEMME TELL YOU WHY. THE WAY THAT THEY, THIS BUSINESS OPERATES, THEY GENERALLY, UH, THAT SAY AN ARTIST, IT COULD BE A LOCAL ARTIST, IT COULD BE A CELEBRITY, IT COULD BE A PERFORMER IS IN TOWN. THEY PAY A FEE, THAT PERSON COMES TO THE CLUB. WHAT THAT DOES IS IT, IF, IF IT'S A BIG CELEBRITY, SOMEONE THAT PEOPLE KNOW, IT MAY MAKE THE TABLES A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THAT DAY, BUT THEY HAVE SOMEONE, SOME, SOME DJ OR SOMEONE ALMOST EVERY TIME, IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF THE PLACE. AND MOST OF THEIR CLIENTELE RESERVE TABLES IN ADVANCE. SO THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A HICCUP. WAIT, ARE YOU SAYING PROMOTED EVENTS DON'T INCREASE YOUR CAP? NOT THE CAPACITY, BUT THE ATTENDANCE. YEAH. BUT, BUT THEY LIMIT IT BY THE, THE NUMBER OF TABLES THAT, THAT ARE SOLD. AND THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T OVER SELL. RIGHT. WHICH IS WHAT CAUSES THE QUEUING. 'CAUSE YOU PROMOTE IT, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE COME. SO, BUT THERE'S NEVER THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE BECAUSE, AND, AND AGAIN, THEY, WELL, I'VE SEEN VIDEOS THAT SAY OTHERWISE. WELL, SO, SO THAT BRINGS ME TO THIS, UM, JUST LAST WEEK. DO YOU KNOW WHO THE CRYPTOCURRENCY GUY IS? THE, THE MALONE LAMB, I THINK HIS NAME IS FOR, HE WAS INDICTED FOR $240 MILLION OF THEFT OF CRYPTOCURRENCY. HE'S 20. HE GOT INTO THE CLUB SOMEHOW. AND I, AND IF THIS WAS, IF THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED AND BEING PRACTICED FOR THE PAST, YOU KNOW, SINCE JUNE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS GUY WAS IN, HE'S, HE'S THROWING $2 MILLION AROUND THE CLUB AND SAYING, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET INDICTED AND THAT'S UNDERAGE DRINKING. SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS HAS BEEN IN PRACTICE. HOW ARE UNDERAGE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR FRAUD THEFT, ALL THAT GETTING IN THE CLUB? I'M, I'M JUST, JUST CURIOUS. WELL, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO HE IS OR EITHER. IT'S, IT'S ON, ACTUALLY IT'S ON ES, UM, INSTAGRAM PAGE. OKAY. YEAH. I, I JUST, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S, BUT IT IS, BUT IT IS LIKE THAT'S UNDERAGE DRINKING. YEAH. AND THEN AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS. I DON'T KNOW HIS AGE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE INDICTMENTS, SO I CAN'T, I'M TELLING YOU THAT. BUT I'LL LOOK INTO IT. BUT, BUT I, AGAIN, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS. I'M LOOKING AT ALL THESE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE CAUSED AS FAR AS THE ONE VIOLATION THAT RELATED TO NOTICE WHAT THEY DO. AND I'M COPIED ON ALL THESE EMAILS. THEY NOTIFY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EVERY TIME. IF THE PERSON IS A BIG PERSON, IF IT'S A SMALL, YOU KNOW, NAME, I DON'T RECOGNIZE, THEY STILL NOTIFY IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. THERE WAS THAT ONE VIOLATION WHERE THEY NOTICE WENT OUT. THE TIMING WAS A LITTLE OFF. SO WE DID APPEAL IT BECAUSE WE, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY DO THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES AND IT'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE. THIS PARTICULAR TIME THERE WAS A DIS, UH, DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE MARKETING FOLKS POSTED SOMETHING ON INSTAGRAM AND THE ACTUAL CONTRACT WAS FILED, THE SPEC. WE, WE SHOWED ALL THE DATES. WE SHOWED THE CONTRACT, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SAID, LOOK, IT OCCURRED, BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY A CLERICAL MISTAKE. SO SHE REMOVED THE FINE [01:25:01] AND, AND IT, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST TO SHOW THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL, AND THAT THEY OTHERWISE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE HISTORY OF FOLLOWING THAT REGULATION. UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY, BUT IF, IF, IF WE SAY THAT EVERY TIME THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY THE POLICE THAT A PERSON IS THERE AS A PROMOTED EVENT, THEN EVERY NIGHT THEY'RE OPEN AS A PROMOTED EVENT. AND, AND THAT'S JUST THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. AND AGAIN, IT'S A BUSINESS MODEL THAT DOESN'T CREATE NOISE ISSUES THAT WHILE THERE WAS A A, A QUEUING ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED. AT LEAST THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT SOMEONE'S CHECKING ON THIS ALMOST EVERY DAY, THAT THEY'RE OPEN, IF NOT MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY, AND THEY'RE OPEN AND THERE'S BEEN NO VIOLATIONS. SO THAT THERE'S A TWO CHECK PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE OPEN GENERALLY THURSDAYS, UH, FRIDAY, SATURDAYS AND MONDAYS, UM, EVERY WEEK. AND MOST OF THOSE TIMES THEY DO HAVE SOMEONE THAT, THAT THEY NOTIFY POLICE, HEY, THIS PERSON'S HERE. JUST IN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION THAT SOMETIMES IT'S MOST OF THE TIME, BUT NOT ALL OF THE TIME, THEY NOTIFY. MM-HMM. . YEAH. EVERY TIME YOU, I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID MOST OF THE TIME. NO, NO. ALL THE TIME. OKAY. YEAH, THEY NOTIFY EVERY TIME. SO, SO AGAIN, I WANNA COME BACK TO THIS UNDERAGE THING. IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY THERE THAT'S IDING AT THE CHECKPOINTS, AND YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THROWING $2 MILLION AROUND, HOW IS IT THAT PEOPLE DON'T GO, HEY, I AGAIN, BECAUSE HE'S THROWING $2 MILLION AROUND. I MEAN, RIGHT. THAT'S WHY, LOOK, HE PROBABLY HAS A REALLY GOOD FAKE ID MAKER. I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS, SO I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO IT. BUT THEY, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY WAS A FEW MONTHS BEFORE 21 AND GOT IN, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WHAT SHE'S GETTING AT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE QUEUING PLAN AND HOW YOU'RE GONNA HAVE PEOPLE CHECKING IDS HERE AND THAT, AND IF SOMEONE THAT'S UNDERAGE CAN MM-HMM. CAN GET IN AND GET RIGHT PAST THAT. I, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK SHE'S QUESTIONING THE QUEUING PLAN, THE WHOLE PLAN. EXACTLY. AG AGAIN, THE QUEUING PLAN IS REALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT QUEUING ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT, BUT IT'S ALSO AN ID CHECKPOINT. IS WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN DOWN. YOU SAID THAT IT'S BEEN AN IMPLEMENTATION? WELL, MY CLIENTS ARE AVAILABLE BY ZOOM TO ADDRESS THIS, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, I'M SURE THEY CHECKED THAT PERSON'S ID, BUT MAYBE THAT PERSON HAD. OKAY. SO WHO, HOW ABOUT THE BACK DOOR? I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING THROUGH THE BACK ALLEYWAY DOOR. RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? ME, PERSONALLY? I DO NOT KNOW. LET'S GET YOUR OWNERS ON. YEAH, LET'S, LET'S, IF THEY'RE ON, LET'S GET 'EM AND I, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE AVAILABLE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, HOLD ON. UM, IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM AND, AND BEFORE, BEFORE WE GO TO ZOOM, DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE? NO. OKAY. IT'S, IT'S SINCE THE LAST ONE, RIGHT? NO. YEAH. SINCE THE LAST YEAR. SINCE YOUR LAST EXCLUSION. AND, AND MICKEY, ARE YOU PUTTING ON THE OWNER DURING YOUR CASE IN CHIEF, OR IS THIS YEAH, THEY, THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO SIGNED. YEAH. I'D RATHER HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE. AND THEN WHAT IS, WHAT IS THEIR ZOOM NAME? ONE GUY'S NAMED ADELE. THE OTHER GUY'S NAMED, WE HAVE SOMEBODY WITH THEIR HAND RAISED. UM, GIL. YEAH. YEP. NOBODY, IS HE THE ONLY ONE ON ZOOM? YES. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS? HELLO. HI. TROY WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WASHINGTON AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. HAPPY TO SEE EVERYONE HERE. YOU KNOW, IT'S, TO ME, VIN DOME, THEY'RE GREAT OPERATORS. THEY DO A GREAT JOB. AND WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY NAMES THIS WEEKEND, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU WHO SPECIFICALLY, UNLESS I HAD TO, ONE OF THE TOP MAYORS IN AMERICA WAS MY GUEST HERE ON MIAMI BEACH. HIS TEAM SAID, HEY, WE WANT TO GO TO A CLUB OR A VENUE OF ENTERTAINMENT ON MIAMI BEACH. WHERE DO YOU SUGGEST I TOOK THEM TO VEN DOME. THEIR RESPONSE WAS, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST DIVERSE, SAFEST CLUBS THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN. WE WOULD LOVE FOR A CLUB LIKE THIS OR VENUE LIKE THIS TO BE IN OUR CITY. WHERE WAS THAT? HOLD ON. THIS WAS THIS WEEKEND. NO, NO. AND I TOOK THEM TO VEN DOME. WHO WAS THAT? IT WAS ADVENT. I CAN'T TELL YOU. AND I, IF I NEED TO LATER, I MAY BE, BUT I WON'T. UH, SO , BUT I CAN, I'M ON UNDER OATH. SO THIS IS WHAT IT IS. RIGHT. UM, BUT THAT'S WHO WE'RE WORKING WITH. PEOPLE SEE MIAMI AND THE VENUES THAT ARE BEING, THAT OPERATE HERE AS GREAT ESTABLISHMENTS. YES, THERE ARE PROBLEMS HERE AND THERE, BUT FOR VEN DOME, THEY HAVE BEEN A GREAT OPERATOR. THEY DO NOT ALLOW A LOT OF ISSUES. IT'S SAFE, IT'S HAS DIVERSITY. IT GIVES EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE WANT IN ENTERTAINMENT HERE ON MIAMI BEACH. SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE DISCONNECT IS COMPLETELY CONSIDERING. THERE ARE BAD OPERATORS OTHER PLACES. UM, BUT FOR WASHINGTON AVENUE AND FOR VAN DOME, I BELIEVE THAT THEY DO AN AMAZING JOB. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN CHAMBERS? OKAY. UH, THE ONLY ONE ON ZOOM IS, IS THE OWNER. HI, GAIL. DO YOU, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. UM, FIRST OF ALL, UM, I'M MORE THE PARTNER OF . UH, MY NAME IS JILL [01:30:01] MELO, UM, FROM 7 43 WASHINGTON AVENUE. UM, CAN YOU, EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME VERY WELL? YES. OKAY. I'M SORRY. UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR MAIN PRIORITY IS THE SAFETY OF THE VENUE AND TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A GOOD IMPACT ON THE CITY. SO THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US. UM, SO WE HAVE ZERO INCIDENT IN ALL OVER THOSE YEARS INSIDE THE VENUE. WE DON'T HAVE FIGHT. WE MAKE SURE TO HAVE EXTRA SECURITY SO EVERYONE CAN FEEL VERY SAFE, JUST LIKE MR. CHO JUST MENTIONED. UM, I WANNA TOUCH THE TWO TOPIC THAT I SEE THAT ARE VERY SENSITIVE BESIDE THE QUEUING AT THE DOOR. UM, I HEARD, UH, YOU WERE ASKING IF THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT GO THROUGH THE BACK. UH, THE BACK ENTRANCE ARE ONLY USED FOR THE OWNERS, UH, AND THE STAFF. WE, UH, ONCE IN A WHILE WHEN THERE IS TOO MANY PEOPLE, THE OWNERS GO DIRECTLY TO THE BACK. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YES, I CAN WALK ME AND, AND, AND MY WIFE AND, AND, AND A FEW GUESTS TO THE BACK. REGARDING MALONE, THE CASE OF THE, UH, THE CRYPTO SCAMMER. UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAD NO IDEA HE WAS A, A SCAMMER OF THIS SIZE. UM, YOU, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND, UH, UH, A KID LIKE THIS CAME WITH A LOT OF MONEY IN TOWN AND OBVIOUSLY DID, DID YOU CHECK FOR HIS ID? YEAH. YES. I WAS ABOUT TO TOUCH THIS POINT. OKAY. THE, THE, HE, HE NEVER SPENT $2 MILLION IN, IN, IN, MAYBE HE SPENT $2 MILLION OVER THE WEEK IN MIAMI, BUT NOT IN , IN, IN V HERE. I THINK HE SPENT LIKE AROUND 150 OR $200,000. THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM, FROM, FROM THE PARTNERS, YOU KNOW, BUT VERY FAR FROM 2 MILLION, A GUY LIKE THIS CAME WITH A PIPE BODYGUARD. TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, HE'S EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY WEALTHY. WE SAW HIM AS A CLIENT AND HE HAS A REAL IDEA ON HIM. SO AS, AS MUCH AS WE CAN CHECK, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE STOP LIKE 50 TO 40 UNDERAGE LEFT AND RIGHT, OR PEOPLE TRYING TO COME WITH WRONG IDEAS. BUT A GUY LIKE THIS THAT IS EXTREMELY WEALTHY HAVE THE, THE WAY TO FIND REAL ID. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW HE DID IT, BUT HE MUST HAVE PURCHASED A REAL ID. AND THAT'S HOW HE GOT INSIDE THE, INSIDE THE VENUE. SO WE STOPPED ALL OF THEM. WE PASSED THEM DOWN FROM THE SECURITY, SO THE, TO MAKE SURE WE A HUNDRED PERCENT SAFE, BUT WE ALSO CHECK IDS, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S HOW WE, HE WENT THROUGH, HE PASSED THROUGH THROUGH THE CODE, YOU KNOW. DO YOU, DO YOU BRING PEOPLE IN THE BACK WITH YOU? YEAH. OTHER THAN FAMILY AND I MEAN, HOW, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF, YOU CAN MUTE, I MEAN, LIKE I'VE, LIKE THE CHAIR HAS SAID ALSO I'VE HEARD THAT THE BACK IS ALSO A KIND OF A HOTSPOT FOR BRINGING PEOPLE IN WITHOUT HAVING TO STAND IN QUEUE. NO, NO. THE, THE, THE ONLY ENTRANCE IN THE FRONT, WHAT WE CAN BRING TO THE BACK ARE LIKE A, A BIG VIP OR CELEBRITY THAT DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN. SO WE DO DO A FULL CHECKUP EVEN THROUGH THE BACK, UM, LET'S JUST SAY HAVE A VERY BIG CELEBRITY OR HAVE LIKE SOMEONE THAT WANNA BE DISCREET. WE JUST WALK THEM THROUGH THE BACK AND WE DO THE SAME PROCESS ID AND CHECKUP. YOU KNOW, IT'S EXTREMELY RARE TO BE HONEST. SO $200,000 IS 200, WHAT, WHAT WAS IT? 250. I MEAN, I, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S MISSING HERE AND I'M TRYING TO PUT MY FINGER ON IT. MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS. WE, WITH ALL THE RESPECT, BUT I DO KNOW, 'CAUSE I KNOW I HEARD YOU MENTIONING THAT HE SPENT $2 MILLION, HE DIDN'T SPEND $2 MILLION. UH, THIS IS, IS A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE. YOU KNOW, I JUST ASK THE APPLICANT, UM, THIS, THE, THE, THE CLUB RESTAURANT, WHATEVER IT WAS, IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 2008. UM, YOU GUYS, UH, TOOK IT OVER IN 2001 FOR ABOUT A LITTLE, ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO. 21? NO, 21. I'M SORRY. 21. 21. UM, UH, AND APPARENTLY THERE WERE NO, NO VIOLATIONS FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS. UM, WHAT'S CHANGED? I MEAN, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE YOU DOING DIFFERENTLY NOW? BECAUSE MAYBE WE CAN ADDRESS THAT. YEAH, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT WE WERE TOLD. THEN THERE WAS A SHOOTING AT ANOTHER CLUB CALLED EXCHANGE AROUND THE SPRING OF THIS YEAR. TERRIBLE TRAGEDY. IT WAS A FIGHT BETWEEN, I GUESS THAT BOUNCER AND SOME DISGRUNTLED INEBRIATED CLIENT CAME BACK. NOTHING TO DO WITH VEN DO, BUT CODE WAS DIRECTED MY UNDERSTANDING TO, TO PUT A TIGHTER LOOK ON ALL THE NIGHTCLUB ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU'VE SEEN ALL THESE PROACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS. IT'S PROBABLY NOT JUST THIS VENUE, IT'S PROBABLY THE OTHER NIGHTCLUBS. AND AGAIN, SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S CHANGED. AND, AND, AND, AND BECAUSE OF THAT LITTLE THINGS LIKE WAS THAT SCULPTURE PERMITTED AGAIN? THE CITY HAD BEEN THERE. THEY LOOKED AT THE SCULPTURE. NO ONE RAISED THE ISSUE. WE HAD NO REASON TO KNOW IT WAS, IT WAS NOT PERMITTED. WE REMOVED IT IMMEDIATELY. BUT LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT WERE NEVER BROUGHT TO ANYONE'S ATTENTION. UH, THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN RESOLVED. THE QUEUING ISSUE WAS ONE VIOLATION, [01:35:01] AND SINCE THEN THEY'VE IMPLEMENTED A PLAN. WE'VE SUBMITTED IT, WE'RE HAPPY TO AGREE TO A CONDITION ON THAT PLAN. UM, AND IT, IT HAS RESULTED IN SINCE THAT DAY ZERO VIOLATIONS, DESPITE 68 VISITS REGARDING THE QUEUING ISSUE. SO I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE WAY THEY OPERATE. IT'S ONLY IMPROVED. UM, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY A LOT MORE EYES ON THIS THAN OTHER VENUES AS A RESULT OF AN INCIDENT AT A COMPLETELY UNRELATED VENUE. WELL, IT'S JUST SOMETHING, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT THE, THE KIND OF THE DIRECTION THE CITY'S GOING IN. IT'S, IT'S, UM, I GUESS A LOT OF THE CLUBS ARE ARE, AND SOME ARE MANAGED AND RUN BETTER THAN OTHERS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IN GENERALLY GENERAL, THE CITY'S HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH, WITH CLUBS, UH, SHOOTINGS, WHATNOT. OBVIOUSLY, ESPECIALLY IN THAT AREA. YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'M NOT GONNA AGAIN POINT THE FINGERS AT YOU. I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT OF UNDERAGE DRINKING GOING ON IN CLUBS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE DIRECTION THE CITY NEEDS TO AND IS TO MAYBE CRACK DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND DO THINGS TO TRY TO TRY TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE ISSUES. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR NOW. I MEAN, QUEUING IS ONE. I MEAN, I KNOW WE CAN LOOK AT OTHER THINGS LIKE, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY EVENTS THEY CAN HOLD, SPECIAL EVENTS THEY CAN HOLD. UM, UM, I, I MEAN, I'M OPEN TO OTHER, WELL, THAT'S MY CONCERN. WHEN YOU SAY EVERY DAY IS A SPECIAL EVENT, I, I JUST, I FIND THAT, LISTEN, I I, YOU'RE A GREAT LAWYER AND I KNOW YOU HAVE INTEGRITY, BUT I FIND A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE THAT, LET ME LEMME EXPLAIN WHY THOUGH. YEAH. SPECIAL EVENT, WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU'RE EXCEEDING WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO. YOU WANT MORE PEOPLE, YOU NEED A BIGGER OCCUPANCY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPECIAL VALET THAT DAY. NONE OF THESE THINGS TRIGGER ANY OF THE CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL EVENTS. JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED IN THE CLUB. THE, THEY, HE CAN ANSWER, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF SPECIAL EVENTS IS THE RIGHT WORD. PROMOTED EVENTS, RIGHT? LIKE WHEN YOU GOT ON INSTAGRAM AND YOU PUT, OH, WE HAVE SO AND SO HERE, AND WE HAVE, SO I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR PROBLEMS IF YOU ASK ME IF YOU DO 'EM EVERY DAY. ESPECIALLY IT'S, IT'S, IT'S EVERY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT OPEN EVERY DAY, BUT, BUT WHEN THEY'RE OPEN AND, AND IT HAPPENS, IT GENERALLY HAPPENS. AND I SEE IT BECAUSE I GET THE EMAILS TO THE POLICE THAT ARE SENT, YOU KNOW, I WEEKLY AND IT, MAYBE IT'S NOT, LET'S SAY THEY'RE OPEN TWICE IN ONE WEEK AND IT MIGHT BE TWICE. I DON'T KNOW THE NAMES OF ALL THESE ARTISTS. I RECOGNIZE THE NAME OF SOME OF THEM, RIGHT? BUT THEY NOTIFY THE POLICE IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION JUST TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHO'S GONNA BE HERE. IF THE POLICE CHOOSE TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ANY REASON TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PERSON. THERE GENERALLY ISN'T, GENERALLY THINGS DON'T CHANGE ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, BUT THERE'S A CODE SECTION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO NOTIFY WHEN THERE'S, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, MOST PLACES THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE. THEY HAVE SOME TALENT, SOME DEGREE OF TALENT THERE WHEN THEY'RE OPEN. THERE'S LESS OVERALL CLUBS THAN THERE USED TO BE. AND I CAN TELL YOU MANY, MANY LIFETIMES AGO I USED TO PROMOTE AT CLUBS IN MIAMI BEACH, AND IT WAS JUST, YOU JUST KIND OF WENT. NOW THE BUSINESS, THERE'S LESS OF THEM, BUT THERE'S MORE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MORE OF A DRAW TO A SPECIFIC TALENT THAT'S THERE. BE IT A DJ, BE IT A CELEBRITY THAT'S THERE TO SAY HELLO OR, OR SOMEONE THAT PERFORMS ONE ENTRY SONGS. THEY'RE NOT REALLY CONCERTS, IT'S JUST AN APPEARANCE. UM, BUT THAT'S A BIG PART OF THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. AND AGAIN, IT HA DOESN'T, OTHER THAN THE ONE VIOLATION THAT THEY GOT, IT REALLY DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE CREATED, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED BY THIS PLAN, ANY ONGOING QUEUING ISSUES, I FEEL LIKE I'M GONNA JUST KEEP COMING BACK TO THE, TO THE UNDERAGE DRINKING. UM, YOU KNOW, IF THERE, IF IT'S ON INSTAGRAM, IF IT'S ON PUBLIC, IF IT'S ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN THAT SOMEBODY IN THE CLUB WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN. OH MY GOD. AND IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY WHEN YOU'VE BEEN INDICTED FOR $240 MILLION AND THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE FOR OVER A WEEK AND NOBODY FROM THE CLUB HAS ADDRESSED THAT AT ALL. AND I DON'T KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THE CLUB WOULD'VE SAID, YOU KNOW, OH MY GOD, WE BETTER TAKE THAT DOWN. OR SOMETHING TO POINT, THE KID THAT WAS 20 POSTED ON HIS OWN SOCIAL MEDIA THAT HE WAS AT BUN DOME AND SPENT LIKE A UNGODLY AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND HE ACTUALLY SAID 200, 2 MILLION, I THINK. BUT I GUESS, I MEAN, THE OWNER MADE THE POINT, LIKE HE HAD AN ID, A REAL ID, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T, I MEAN, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO? I MEAN, DO A FULL BACKGROUND CHECK, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THEY HAVE A REAL ID WHEN'S ON SOCIAL MEDIA FELONY AND SAYS YOU'VE BEEN INDICTED FOR A, A CRIME, THEN YOU MIGHT WANNA GO BACK AND VISIT THAT. THAT WAS A, THAT WAS AFTERWARDS THOUGH. YEAH. I I, I DON'T THINK THIS, THIS IS THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE. A A ALLEGED CRIMINAL, UM, YOU KNOW, GOING, BUT IT KIND OF IS GOING TO A CLUB HERE. YOU KNOW, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE QUEUING AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PROMOTED EVENTS. UH, WE'RE NOT THE POLICE AND WE'RE, OUR JOB IS NOT TO ENFORCE, UM, THE AGE RESTRICTIONS. I DON'T BELIEVE IT KIND OF IS PART OF THEIR CEP AND, UM, OPERATING LEGALLY. BUT I WILL ALSO SAY I DON'T THINK THAT OPERATING BETWEEN, UM, JUST HAVING QUEUING SPECIFICALLY BETWEEN 12:00 AM AND 1:00 AM IS, IS SUFFICIENT. I, I MEAN, WHAT TIME DO YOU OPEN? THEY USUALLY AROUND 12. AT 12, YEAH. AND, AND YOU CLOSE AT, THEY'RE, THEY DEPENDS ON THE EVENING, BUT GENERALLY THEY'RE OPEN TILL UP TO FIVE. IT COULD BE AS LATE AS FIVE. SO [01:40:01] I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED TO THAT. UM, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT PROMOTED EVENTS. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME THINGS THAT ARE ADDRESSED THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW. WOULD YOU, MICHAEL, WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS? WELL, FIRST LET ME JUST COMMENT ON, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT IS DEFINED AS A PROMOTED EVENT. SO IT'S ACTUALLY DEFINED IN THE CODE UNDER CHAPTER SIX, WHICH IS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. AND A PROMOTED EVENT CONCERT SHALL MEAN ANY LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCE OR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN WHICH AN ENTERTAINER IS ADVERTISED OR MARKETED TO PERFORM AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT. SO WHEN YOU HAVE A, A, A BUSINESS SERVING ALCOHOL WITH ENTERTAINMENT, AN OCCUPANCY OVER 350, THAT TRIGGERS A WHOLE SET OF REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING NOTIFICATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. UM, THAT INCLUDES THE DATA, THE DATA PERFORMANCE, THE PERFORMER, UM, UM, CONTACT INFORMATION REGARDING THE PERFORMER, THE NUMBER OF TICKETS SOLD FOR THE EVENT, AS WELL AS, AS A SECURITY PLAN FOR THAT EVENT. SO THERE'S A WHOLE, WHOLE RANGE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. SO WE'RE SUGGESTING AND IS THERE ANY LIMIT TO HOW MANY OF THOSE YOU CAN HAVE? NOT IN THE CODE, NO. OKAY. BUT HAVE TO BE IN THE CUP. RIGHT. AND YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS EVERY, EVERY DAY YOU'RE OPEN. MAJORITY OF THEM, YEAH. AND AGAIN, IT COULD BE A DJ. IT'S, IT'S A VERY BROAD POSITION. ANY LIVE PERFORMER AND YOU'RE PROMOTING, RIGHT? YEAH. EARLY, EVERY DAY YOU'RE OPEN. MAYBE WE SHOULD LIMIT THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT OR THE PROMOTED EVENTS IN SOME FORM. CAN I, CAN I ASK? I MEAN, I, I MAY BE MISSING SOMETHING, SO, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THEY HAD A QUEUING ISSUE AND IT, IT'S CLEAR THAT THEIR BUSINESS MODEL EITHER STARTED AS OR BECAME, YOU KNOW, HAVING PERFORMANCE ARTISTS OR DJS OR BECAME, IT BECAME THAT IT'S CLEARLY VERY PROFITABLE FOR THEM. THEY HAVE FIXED OR CURED THE VIOLATIONS THAT THEY GOT. SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE OTHERS. UM, BUT THEY FIXED THEM ALL. THEY HAVEN'T, WE ASKED THEM TO COME BACK WITH A QUEUING PLAN. THEY DID. THERE DOESN'T SEEM, WE, WE HEARD THE POLICE DATA FROM THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE. THERE WA DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY ISSUE AT THE ACTUAL NIGHTCLUB. IT WAS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ONCE PEOPLE LEAVE THE NIGHTCLUBS THAT THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. UM, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT LI WE BASICALLY WOULD BE FORCING THEM TO EITHER CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL OR CLOSE BECAUSE OF THIS QUEUING ISSUE THAT OCCURRED. THEY, I WE'RE, I'M ACCEPTING THE REPRESENTATION THAT 60 SOMETHING TIMES CODE HAS GONE OUT AND THERE'S BEEN NO VIOLATIONS FOUND. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE CURED THE ISSUE AND ANYTHING. I JUST DON'T SEE WHAT WE'RE CHASING AFTER IN TERMS OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS. I MEAN, FRANKLY, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE QUOTE UNQUOTE SPECIAL EVENTS, THEN THEY'RE PROMOTED EVENTS, PROMOTED EVENTS, SORRY. UM, THEN THEY'RE DOING LESS GIVING, HAVING LESS INTERACTION WITH POLICE IN THE CITY. AND I, I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO BE HAVING THE MORE, MORE OF THE INTERACTION. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT FOR ONE OR TWO SITUATIONS, UH, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ACCORDING TO THE COUNCIL. SO I JUST DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT LIMITING THE PROMOTED EVENTS WOULD DO OTHER THAN FORCE THEM TO EITHER CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL OR CLOSE. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, A PERFORMER COME IN AND GRAB THE MICROPHONE AND BE IN THE, IN, IN THE NIGHTCLUB AT THEIR TABLE THE REST OF THE NIGHT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT'S, SEEMS TO ME THAT'S A PRETTY STANDARD SOUTH BEACH SORT OF THING. AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE CRIME, UH, AT THIS VENUE. THEY'VE FIXED THE ISSUE OF THE QUEUING. AND SO I, MY POSITION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, I'M, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ANOTHER COUPLE MONTHS, JUST YEAH, JONATHAN, I WAS GONNA SUGGEST THAT, WHY DON'T WE CONTINUE IT AND, AND LET THE CROWDS COME BACK AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE QUEUING PLAN AND, YOU KNOW, SURE. SEE HOW THAT WORKS AND SEE IF, CHECK IDS AND SEE WHAT, SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING. WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? SO WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT TO, UH, BUT HOLD ON. DO YOU WANT, WE'RE GONNA MODIFY IT TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED CODE, CORRECT? YES. LIKE THE LAST ONE? YEAH. YEAH. ALRIGHT. SO YEAH, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD, UM, AT LEAST MODIFY TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED CODE SECTIONS, UM, SIMILAR TO THE LAST APPLICATION WE DID CHANGE, JUST TO CLARIFY AND UNDERSTAND. SO IF, IF WE'RE MAKING THIS MOTION, I GUESS, TO CONTINUE, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR TO HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND, AND THEN SEE HOW THEY BEHAVE, ENFORCEMENT OF THE Q SO JUST TO CONTINUE TO SEE HOW, MAKING SURE THAT IT'S COMPLIANCE. IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE MONITORING A, A NIGHTCLUB OR A HOTEL, YOU KNOW, IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER IT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF FRUITLESS. CORRECT. SO YOU'RE IN MAINE, CONTINUE TO WIN. WE GOTTA MOVE ON FIRST. WELL HOLD ON. FIRST, DO A MOTION, UH, [01:45:01] JONATHAN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, TO ADOPT THE UPDATED CODE AS PART OF THE CUP AND I. JUST ONE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WE HAD ALSO RECOMMENDED MODIFYING THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT. THE COP WAS ACTUALLY MODIFIED A COUPLE YEARS AGO TO ALLOW THE AFFIDAVIT. SO WE, WE HAD, UM, RECOMMENDED GOING BACK TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY FILE AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION. SO IF YOU WANNA EXCLUDE THAT, WE CAN, OR IF YOU WANNA INCLUDE THAT, CAN IT BE THE SAME AS LAST TIME? THEY HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THE LANGUAGE? WELL, RIGHT NOW, SO WHAT, WHAT'S DIFFERENT HERE COMPARED TO THE MONDRIAN IS THAT THE COP WAS MODIFIED IN 2021 TO ALLOW THEM TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT. RIGHT. SO WE HAD SUGGESTED GOING BACK TO THE OLD REQUIREMENT OF, UM, FILING AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION. IF YOU WANNA KEEP THE AFFIDAVIT, THEN WE'LL, WE WILL. WE'LL, ISN'T THAT WHAT WE JUST THOUGH, WHEN THE LAST ONE DECIDED NOT TO DO, IT HAD A DIFFERENT, THE ORDER WAS DRAFTED. IT'S DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT. IT'S A DIFFERENT ORDER. IT'S A DIFFERENT ORDER. ALL THE PREVIOUS ONE JUST HAD 'EM APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD. THIS ONE HAS THEM FILING AN AFFIDAVIT. CORRECT. RIGHT. SO, SO I MEAN, I, I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH ARE TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION. IN ADDITION, I THINK THERE WAS ONE WHERE IT WAS THEY WERE GONNA COMPLY WITH THE, UH, QUEUING PLAN THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED. RIGHT. AND THEN ALSO THE CODE, UH, NUMBERING CHANGES AS WELL. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND THOSE? OH, WE ARE, SO JUST BE CLEAR. ARE WE, SO ARE WE MODIFYING THE CONDITION OF BURDEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT? HIS MOTION IS TO MODIFY IT AS YOU'VE REQUESTED. OKAY. TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFY IT AS PROPOSED. AND YOU UPDATE ANY CUING PLAN? NO OBJECTION WITH THAT. THIS WILL INCLUDE AN UPDATED CUING PLAN WITH THE SITE PLAN AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT THAT THERE'LL BE NO, UM, QUEUING ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT. AND WHAT WE'VE SUBMITTED SATISFIES THAT REQUIREMENT. CORRECT. IS, IS THE, ARE Y'ALL OKAY WITH THE HOURS FROM 12 TO ONE? DO YOU WANT IT TO CONTINUE TO TWO O'CLOCK? ARE YOU, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS THERE AS FAR AS WHAT THE Q OF THE QING? THE QING, I MEAN, I, IQ UNTIL FIVE, IF THE QING PLAN SHOULD BE WHOLE TIME, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHEN THE GENERAL PEOPLE COME. YEAH. WE CAN MEAN OPERAT OPERAT MOTION WILL INCLUDE THAT THE, THE QING ISN'T LIMITED BY 12 TO ONE. IT'S CORRECT. NO, NO OBJECTION TO THAT CHANGE. ALRIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. WHO MADE THE MOTION ON THAT AGAIN, MR. DEN? UH, JONATHAN MADE THE MO AND WE'RE CONTINUING UNTIL NOVEMBER RIGHT? IS WHAT WE AGREED ON. RIGHT, RIGHT. SEPARATELY, OR YEAH. IS NOVEMBER JUST RIDICULOUSLY BUSY? THE YES. AND IT'S THE DAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING SECOND, THE AGENDA? YES. IT IS PRETTY BUSY FOR OCTOBER. YES. WHY DON'T WE DO DECEMBER. DECEMBER. LET'S DO DECEMBER. YEAH, IT'S DECEMBER. SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S DO THE FIRST MOTION FIRST THAT WE'LL REALLY HAVE A GAUGE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO MODIFY THE COP AS REFERENCED. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION AND WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT THE, AND THE HOURS THAT THE HOURS ARE UNTIL CLOSE. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT? OKAY. THE SECOND ONE IS TO BRING THEM MOTION TO CONTINUE THE REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING TO, TO DECEMBER TO DEC. I'LL SECOND THAT. ACTUALLY, THERE'S, THERE'S, WE CANCELED THE DECEMBER MEETING, SO OH, WE DID? YES. WE CANCELED. WHAT? WELL, THANK DECEMBER FOR LETTING ME KNOW DECEMBER BECAUSE WE, UH, REMEMBER STARTING NEXT YEAR REMOVING PLANNING BOARD TO THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH VERSUS THE FOURTH TUESDAY AND EARLIER, RIGHT? OH, NINE O'CLOCK. YEAH, WE'RE ALSO STARTING NEXT MONTH AT NINE O'CLOCK. ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL MOVE IT TO JANUARY OR YOU CAN, I WOULD SUGGEST NOVEMBER AT THIS POINT JUST TO OKAY, BUT SORRY, CAN WE MOVE IT TO JANUARY? SO WE ACTUALLY GET THE, YOU KNOW, THE WINTER MONTHS IN THERE. SO IF THERE IS GONNA BE AN ISSUE UP TO THE BOARD, I MEAN, WHAT, LET'S DO JANUARY AND IF THERE'S COMPLAINTS IN THE INTERIM, THEN YOU KNOW, YOU'LL LET US KNOW. WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S MORE TIME, I MEAN, THAT'S HIGH TIME. SO, ALRIGHT, SO JONATHAN, YOUR MOTION IS TO, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO IT IN NOVEMBER, THEN THE BOARD COULD TAKE ACTION IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL, UM, VIOLATIONS OR RIGHT. BUT OUR POINT IS THAT THEY'RE MORE, MORE LIKELY TO GET A BETTER FEEL FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING DURING THE WINTER MONTH. SO MAYBE JANUARY WOULD BE BETTER. WELL, WE COULD ALSO MODIFY, YOU ALSO COULD HEAR IT IN NOVEMBER AND THEN CONTINUE UNTIL JANUARY AS WELL. ALRIGHT, SO IT SEEMS LIKE YOU WANT IT IN NOVEMBER. YEAH, I WOULD SUGGEST NOVEMBER. IT'S OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO THE MOTION IS BY JONATHAN TO BRING THEM BACK IN NOVEMBER. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I THINK ELIZABETH ALREADY SECONDED. OH, OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER. THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD. THAT'S THE NOVEMBER 26TH MEETING. JUNE, NO, NO, YOU I JUST GOT MODIFIED AGAIN. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. NEW APPLICATIONS, UH, PLANNING BOARD FILE PB 24 0 7 0 5, MECHANICAL PARKING AT 1901 COLLINS AVENUE. THE NEXT ITEM IN THE AGENDA [13. PB24-0705. 1901 Collins Ave. Mechanical parking] IS PB 24 DASH 7 5 19 0 1 COLLINS AVE. MECHANICAL PARKING. AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR MECHANICAL PARKING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 2.52 AND CHAPTER FIVE, ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 5 2 11 F OF THE MIAMI BEACH RESILIENCY CODE. SO JUST TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS, UM, THE EXISTING SITE OR [01:50:01] INCLUDES A REDEVELOPMENT OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY, THE SHORT CLUB PROPERTY, INCLUDING A NEW LOADING AND SERVICE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 20TH STREET. UM, THIS WILL INCLUDE A, UM, A PUZZLE TYPE OF MECHANICAL PARKING SYSTEM FOR, UM, SEVEN SPACES AS WELL AS FOUR TANDEM SPACES. ONE, ONE A DA SPACE, AND ONE SPACE FOR MANEUVERABILITY. UM, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, LOCATION HERE, IT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW THIS TYPE OF MECHANICAL PARKING, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO RESULT IN ANY, UM, IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS OR SURROUNDING AREA DUE TO THE, UM, MINIMAL NATURE OF THE NUMBER OF SPARK PARKING SPACES. UM, WE DID PASS OUT AND EMAIL YOU A, UM, TRANSPORTATION MEMO, INCLUDING SOME ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONDITIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT FINAL ORDER. SO WE'RE ALL RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THIS APPLICATION FROM MECHANICAL PARKING, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. UH, TURN OVER FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON, NICHOLAS RODRIGUEZ. BUR HOWIE FERNANDEZ. LAR EZ REAL QUICK BEFORE YOU START ANY, ANY UH, DISCLOSURES ON THIS BY THE BOARD? NO, NONE. OKAY. SORRY, GO AHEAD. NO WORRIES. UH, NICHOLAS RODRIGUEZ, BUR HOW FERNANDEZ LAKIN AND TAP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD HERE REPRESENTING THE SHORE CLUB PROPERTY OWNER, LLC. UH, WE DO HAVE A DIGITAL PRESENTATION IF WE COULD JUST CALL THAT UP. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, SO I'M JOINED HERE FROM OWNERSHIP BY ADAM GOTTLIEB. UM, OUR PROJECT ARCHITECT MATT PICARD, AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADRIAN DEBOWSKI, IS ALSO JOINING US VIA ZOOM. UM, IF WE COULD, OH, I HAVE THE SLIDES. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THIS PROPERTY, AND, AND AS MICHAEL BELU EXPLAINED, UH, THIS PROPERTY WAS A SUBJECT OF A REDEVELOPMENT. UM, IT'S CURRENTLY IN PERMITTING, THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD. UH, THE, THE PROPERTIES AT 1901 COLLINS AVENUE, JUST SOUTH OF THE SETAI AND 20TH STREET, JUST NORTH OF THE NAUTILUS HOTEL. IT'S A THREE ACRE OCEAN FRONT SITE AND WAS PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED WITH A 200 PLUS HOTEL. UH, AND IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY BEING REDEVELOPED WITH A MUCH, UH, LESS INTENSE USE. UH, TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC AS TO THE, THE VARIOUS STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, IT'S A MIX OF CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES. A, B AND C ARE THE CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC STRUCTURES. IT'S THE ORIGINAL SHORT CLUB BUILDING A AND C. AND THEN B ON THE DIAGRAM IS THE CROMWELL BUILDING USED TO BE A SEPARATE HOTEL, UM, BUT IT WAS AGGREGATED INTO THE SITE. AND THAT'S THE BUILDING THAT'S ON 20TH STREET JUST TO ORIENT YOU. UH, AND THEN THE BUILDING IN THE CENTER IS KNOWN AS THE CHIPPERFIELD EDITION. IT WAS ADDED IN THE LATE NINETIES AND EARLY TWO THOUSANDS. THAT BUILDING IS BEING DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH THE CONDOMINIUM TOWER THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE HPV IN 2022. AND ACTUALLY, UH, THEY, THEY'VE ACTUALLY DONE QUITE A WAYS OF DEMOLISHING THAT TOWER. WHEN YOU DRIVE BY THE SITE, IT'S NO LONGER I VISIBLE. UM, THEY'RE FINISHING UP DEMOLITION OF THAT TO ACTUALLY PUT IN THE NEW BUILDING SUIT. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE APPROVED PROJECT, UH, IT WAS APPROVED THAT 80 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 110 HOTEL KEYS, WHICH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION, UH, FROM THE 200 PLUS HOTEL ROOMS THAT EXISTED THERE PREVIOUSLY. THE VERSION OF THE PROJECT THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING FORWARD TO PERMITTING IS EVEN LESS INTENSE. IT'S ONLY 49 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 76 HOTEL ROOMS. UH, SO IT'S A REALLY LOW INTENSITY OPERATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN CONSIDERING THE FACT, UH, THAT IT'S A THREE ACRE OCEAN FRONT SITE. UH, HERE'S A RENDERING WHERE YOU SEE THE NEW CONDOMINIUM TOWER AT THE CENTER OF THE SITE, UH, BEHIND THE ORIGINAL SHORE CLUB BUILDING. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, SORRY, BY GOING THROUGHOUT, WHY THE REDUCTION IN UNITS AND KEYS? UH, I THINK THERE WERE, IT'S, IT WAS LARGER UNIT SIZES AND LARGER HOTEL ROOM SIZES. IT'S THE SAME FLOOR AREA AS THE SAME BUILDING THAT WAS APPROVED. IT'S JUST WHAT THE MARKET DICTATED WAS LARGER UNITS. UM, AND SO TO HERE, JUST TO GIVE YOU GUYS, UH, UPDATED RENDERINGS OF, OF WHERE THEY'RE AT, SOME OF THEIR MARKETING MATERIALS, UM, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN VERY WELL RECEIVED AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, IT'S, YOU KNOW, SALES ARE GOING WELL. UH, I BELIEVE THE UNITS ARE, MOST OF THE UNITS ARE SOLD, UM, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING THIS PROJECT OFF THE GROUND. UH, BUT ONE OF THE ISSUES IS, OF COURSE, PARKING, UM, IN THIS AREA. SO THE ORIGINAL PARKING LAYOUT INCLUDED A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE THROUGHOUT THE SITE. UH, WHEN THIS PROJECT WENT FORWARD TO THE ENGINEERING PHASE, AFTER GETTING APPROVED BY HPV, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE WAS GOING TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. I WAS REALLY GONNA PLACE THE ORIGINAL SHORT CLUB BUILDING AND THE CROMWELL BUILDING AT RISK, UH, WHEN THEY HAD TO BUILD THE RAMP TO GET DOWN INTO THE GARAGE LEVEL. UM, SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS MOST OF THE REQUIRED PARKING IS GONNA BE SATISFIED OFFSITE, AND I HAVE A SLIDE ON THAT SO WE CAN, WE CAN COVER THAT. UM, BUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS REALLY JUST A MUCH REDUCED, UH, GROUND LEVEL PARKING GARAGE RATHER THAN THIS EXPANSIVE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE THAT WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, NOTHING IS INFEASIBLE, UM, BUT IT WAS GONNA CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK AND HAVE A, A SIGNIFICANT COST, UH, THAT WAS MAKING, UH, THE PROJECT DIFFICULT TO GET OFF THE GROUND. SO [01:55:01] THE PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN, AND WE'LL SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, AS MICHAEL MENTIONED, IT'S 12 TOTAL SPACES, SEVEN MECHANICAL SPACES, ONE A DA SPACE, AND THEN FOUR TANDEM SPACES. AND THE REALITY IS THESE SPACES ARE GONNA BE MORE OF A LUXURY AMENITY THAN DAY-TO-DAY PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS. THIS IS REALLY JUST EXTRA PARKING FOR PEOPLE'S, YOU KNOW, LUXURY CARS OR, UM, THAT SORT OF THING. IT'S, IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A DAY-TO-DAY PERSON IN AND OUT PARKING, UH, YOU KNOW, ARRANGEMENT. UM, YOU CAN SEE ON THE FLOOR PLAN ON THE RIGHT, THAT IS THE LO LOWER LEVEL OF THE GARAGE. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS WHERE THE MECHANICAL PARKING PUZZLE SYSTEM WOULD BE LOCATED. UM, AND THAT SYSTEM WOULD BE TWO TIERED. SO IT WOULD BE, THAT'S THE GROUND LEVEL LEVEL AND THEN IT WOULD GO ONE BELOW. AND ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE IMAGE, THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE, UH, THE LOWER LEVEL. SO SEVEN SPACES IN A PUZZLE SYSTEM, AND THEN FOUR TANDEM SPACES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE IMAGE ON, ON THE FLOOR PLAN. UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SHOW IT IN 3D UH, ACTUALLY THE TOP LEVEL OF THIS STRUCTURE IS A LOADING DOCK AND THEN THE LOWER LEVEL YOU SEE IN THAT SECTION IMAGE IS WHERE THE MECHANICAL PARKING WILL BE LOCATED. UM, AND JUST, I KNOW FOR GOOD MEASURE, THIS BUILDING IS A SEPARATE NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDING THAT'S BEING ADDED TO THE SITE. IT'S GONNA HAVE A GREEN ROOF BE SURROUNDED BY LANDSCAPING. UM, IT LOOKS QUITE NICE FOR A LOADING AND PARKING STRUCTURE. SO THE, THE WAY THE PUZZLE SYSTEM WORKS, THIS SHOWS THREE LEVELS. IT'S ACTUALLY JUST WE'RE PROPOSING TWO LEVELS. THIS IS THE MANUFACTURER SPEC. THERE'S ALWAYS ONE SPACE LEFT OPEN SO THAT THE, THE SYSTEM CAN, UM, SCOOT OVER AND SLIDE OVER IT AND ALLOW THE, THE PARK, THE CAR THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED TO BE LIFTED TO THE GROUND LEVEL. AND THEN IT JUST BACKS OUT OF THE SPACE LIKE A NORMAL PARKING SPACE. AND HERE YOU CAN VISUALIZE, UH, WHAT, WHAT THOSE MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS WILL LOOK LIKE IN THIS GARAGE. UH, IT'S A REPUTABLE MANUFACTURER THAT HAS PLACED OTHER, UH, MECHANICAL PARKING SYSTEMS IN MIAMI BEACH ALREADY SO THAT THEY'RE LOCAL MANUFACTURER. UM, HERE IS THE RENDERINGS OF WHAT THE, THE LOADING AND PARKING BUILDING WILL LOOK LIKE. ON THE LEFT IS THE RAMP THAT WILL GO DOWN TO THE PARKING LEVEL. ON THE RIGHT IS OUR LOADING DOCK, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GREEN ROOF AND SUBSTANTIAL LANDSCAPING. SO ANOTHER VIEW FROM 20TH STREET. AND THEN THIS IS SHOWING OUR OFFSITE PARKING ARRANGEMENTS. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT WILL OCCUR OFFSITE AT 2000 COLLINS AVENUE. UH, AND WE'VE DONE A VALET ANALYSIS TO SHOW HOW THAT WILL WORK AND TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE ENOUGH VALET AT ATTENDANTS TO, TO MAKE IT WORK. UM, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF VEHICLES WILL ACTUALLY, WHAT, WHAT'S A 2000 COLLINS? 2000 COLLINS? IS IT A, IS IT A GARAGE SUITE? LIBERTY, WHERE WE'RE SUITE LIBERTY, WE'RE TR UM, JOE AND THE JUICE IS, UH, THERE'S A PARKING, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT'S WHERE THE PARKING, WHAT, WHAT IS THERE GARAGE? YEAH. OH, THERE IS, OKAY. THERE'S A LARGE GARAGE. THE CITY, THE CITY GARAGE? NO, PRIVATE. OH, IT'S A PRIVATE GARAGE. OKAY. RIGHT. SO THEY'VE NEGOTIATED WITH THE, WITH THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY. SO BASICALLY PURCHASED A HUNDRED SURPLUS BASES IN THE GARAGE AND MAKE THOSE PERMANENTLY AVAILABLE, UM, FOR THE RESIDENCES. UM, SO ONLY, I'M JUST CURIOUS, DOES THE OWNER OF THAT LOT NEED ONE OF THOSE UNDERUTILIZED PARKING CS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I'M JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE IT'S COMING UP IN ANOTHER ISSUE. DEPENDS ON THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE HOURS. UM, OKAY. THIS ONE DOESN'T, THEY CAN JUST MAKE A DEAL WITH A, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE PARTICULARS ABOUT THE, THE THIS THIS PROPERTY HERE AND THAT AGREEMENT, BUT, UM, OKAY. YEAH. NO CONCERNS FROM STAFF THOUGH. YEAH, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT SURPLUS. SO TYPICALLY UNDERUTILIZED AS LIKE WHEN YOU YEAH, YEAH. NO, I JUST KNOW THAT CERTAIN GARAGES, IF THEY, IF THEY'RE GONNA ALLOW PARKING FROM OTHER VENUES 'CAUSE THEY'RE UNDERUTILIZED, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL CUP. RIGHT. SO IT DEPENDS. SOMETIMES IF THERE'S A CONDITION IN THE ORIGINAL CUP THAT COULD PROHIBIT THAT, THEN THAT COULD BE A CONCERN, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SORRY, GO AHEAD. THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING . YEAH, NO, I LOVE HAVING, I LOVE HAVING UNDERUTILIZED GARAGES BE USED, SO, BUT I JUST, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT SOMETIMES THEY DO KNOW THE, UM, THE GARAGE NEXT DOOR TO IT IS, UM, DOES HAVE AN UNDERUTILIZED ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MUCH EXCESS PARKING. RIGHT. ALTHOUGH TECHNICALLY IT, IT, IT SATISFIED THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THEY SUBSTANTIATED THAT THE, THE PARKING, UM, THERE'S AN ABUNDANCE OF PARKING THERE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT, US NOT NEEDING IT TO GO. RIGHT. TO GO TO VENUES THERE. YEAH. OKAY. GREAT. BUT NICK, DO YOU HAVE A SLIDE THAT OUTLINES YOUR REQUIRED PARKING FOR THIS PROJECT? UM, IT, SO NO, BUT I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE ON IT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU 49 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THEY'RE ALL OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET. SO IT'S TWO SPACES PER UNIT. EVERYTHING IN THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE IS EXEMPT FROM PARKING REQUIREMENT EX EXCEPT FOR, UM, OUTDOOR SEATING. UM, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY ON THEIR OUTDOOR SEATING PLAN OR ANY OF THEIR FOOD AND BEVERAGE COMPONENT. UH, WHEN THAT DOES COME FORWARD, THEY'RE GONNA NEED TO EITHER PAY INTO THE FEE IN LOOP PROGRAM, UM, OR, OR USE ANY OF THE VARIOUS METHODS IN THE CODE TO SATISFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. UM, BUT THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ALL BEING SATISFIED OFFSITE. SO IT'S A HUNDRED SPACES, 49 UNITS TIMES 2 98 SPACE REQUIREMENT. UM, THEY HAVE A HUNDRED SPACES OF, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, CONCERNS WITH RUST OR ANY OF THAT KIND [02:00:01] OF THING? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S I THINK THREE PARKING, UH, MECHANICAL PARKING GARAGES, MAYBE TWO. I THINK THE HAS ONE AND THEY'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH RUST AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ARE YOU, HOW ARE Y'ALL, HOW ARE YOU DEALING WITH THAT? I JUST DON'T, I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO BE WITHOUT PARKING. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FUNCTIONAL. RIGHT. SO WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE MANUFACTURER WHO HAS INSTALLED SUCCESSFULLY IN OTHER BUILDINGS. THEY'RE A LOCAL MANUFACTURER, SO THEY, THEY KNOW THE SOUTH FLORIDA CONDITIONS. I THINK THEY'RE BUILDING 'EM ACTUALLY HERE, UH, IN SOMEWHERE IN AL. UM, SO THAT YOU, IT IS A CONCERN THAT'S JUST HAD ISSUES NOT JUST I'D LIKE, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WORKS REALLY WELL. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND AGAIN, COMING BACK TO, IT'S NOT KIND OF THEIR DAY-TO-DAY PARKING. RIGHT. SOMEONE'S, YOU KNOW, FERRARI MIGHT BE IN THIS GARAGE AND OKAY. YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE TO, HOPEFULLY WE, THEY NEVER HAVE TO WAIT AN EXTRA HOUR. THEIR CAR PROBABLY IS GONNA HAVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THE, THAN THE . YEAH. THERE ALREADY IS. SO THERE ARE ALREADY MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS REQUIRED IN THE CODE. THANK YOU. UM, AND IN THE ORDER, AND WHILE I'M ASKING ABOUT IT, DO YOU AGREE WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSED SEAT? UM, I'LL, I'LL GET TO THAT. WE HAVE A FEW CONDITIONS THAT WE WANT TO WORK ON A LITTLE BIT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY NEXT. SO, UH, STAFF HAS, UH, PROPOSED A CONDITION LIMITING OUR HOURS OF LOADING AT THE LOADING DOCK, UH, FROM 9:00 AM TO 4:00 PM UH, WE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THIS CONDITION IN RELATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE VENUES. OUR ONLY REQUEST TODAY IS MECHANICAL PARKING. UM, WE DIDN'T INTEND TO PUT THE LOADING DOCK, UH, ON, YOU KNOW, TO BE CONSIDERED HERE TODAY. UH, WE ARE NOT THE HOTEL OPERATOR AND AT SOME POINT THE HOTEL OPERATOR WILL BE COMING BEFORE YOU FOR THEIR CUP TO ACTIVATE THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE. AND WE THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO HAVE THE LIMITS ON THE LOADING HOURS AND OPERATIONS. UM, THIS CONDITION REALLY HAS NO RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO OUR APPLICATION REQUEST TODAY. UM, SO WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT, WOULD THIS BIND THE HOTEL OPERATOR? THE, WE'RE, WE'RE APPLYING THESE CONDITIONS TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD, IF THE UM, PROPERTY DOESN'T, UM, EXCEED A VENUE THAT'S OVER, UM, SAY 1 99 WITH ENTERTAINMENT OR 2 99 WITH ENTERTAINMENT, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. UM, ACTUALLY WITH A RECENT MODIFICATION FOR RESTAURANT AND SUPPER CLUBS, THEY MAY HAVE TO COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ANY ENTERTAINMENT ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THERE'S CONCEIVABLY A CASE WHERE THEY DON'T COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD. SO THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDED THESE CONDITIONS. WELL, WHY, I MEAN, THAT SEEMS LIKE A, A NORMAL TIMEFRAME, NINE TO FOUR. WHY WOULD THAT BE A CONCERN? WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST, WE'RE NOT THE HOTEL OPERATOR AND THERE IS A, IT'S GONNA BE AN ALBERT RESORT AND WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS CONDITION WITH THEM, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER WELL, WHEN IT'S, IT'S ALL ONE, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS ONE PROPERTY. SO NO, I UNDERSTAND. WHAT, WHAT ARE TYPICAL, UH, TIMEFRAMES FOR DELIVERIES AND WASTE THAT'S TYPICAL FOR THIS AREA TO AVOID THE, UH, OTHER HOTELS? SAME, SAME RESTRICTION? YES. YEAH, I LOOKED AT SOME OTHER ONES. THIS IS, THESE ARE, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER OPERATORS ALONG COLLINS AVENUE AND WE'VE SEEN RIGHT, SO LET ME ASK YOU, SO HIS POINT IS WAIT FOR THE HOTEL. WELL, YOU'RE SAYING THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY COME BEFORE US, CORRECT. I SEE. SO IF WE DON'T PUT IT IN HERE AND THEY DON'T COME BEFORE US, YOU MAY WANNA, YOU COULD INCLUDE A CA CONDITION UNLESS SUPERSEDED BY A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION NOW. SO, UM, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND, UM, WELL, IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE DIDN'T PUT IT IN HERE AND THEY DIDN'T COME BEFORE US, THEY'D HAVE UNLIMITED RIGHT. TIMES. WE DON'T WANT THAT. I MEAN, ARE ARE YOU WILLING TO COME BACK TO PROPOSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE BEFORE THE HOTEL HAS THEIR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHO THE HOTEL IS OR THEIR OPERATIONS PLAN? I MEAN, I GUESS OUR POINT IS LISTEN, I MEAN, IF YOU COME TO US AND SAY, I NEED EIGHT 30, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA BE, I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULDN'T MIND AMENDING THE CONDITION TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE, THESE, THESE CONDITIONS APPLY UNLESS IF IF THERE'S AN APPLICATION MADE TO THE BOARD FOR A, UM, AN NIE ON THE PROPERTY, RIGHT, THEN THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD APPLY. THEY, THEY CAN SEEK A MODIFICATION AND THIS, AND THIS WOULDN'T REQUIRE NOTES. WE COULD, WE COULD, WE COULD DRAFT THE CONDITIONS SO THAT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A MODIFICATION OF THIS, THAT, UH, ANY SUBSEQUENT, UM, CUP FOR THE PROPERTY WOULD SUPERSEDE THESE CONDITIONS. OKAY. THAT'S FAIR. OKAY. THAT WAY IF THEY COME BEFORE US THEN AND WE CHANGE THE CP SUPERSEDE THIS, SO LET'S GO WITH THAT. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. LET ME, LET ME DISCUSS WITH THE CLIENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE OKAY. OKAY. SO ONE SEC, ONE MOMENT. UM, YES, WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. YEAH, MICHAEL, IF THEY COME BACK AND WE DO A NEW CUP AND WE DECIDE TO GIVE YOU DIFFERENT HOURS, THEN IT'LL SUPERSEDE THIS. THIS IS JUST IN THE EVENT YOU ALL DON'T COME BEFORE US BECAUSE YOU DON'T TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CUP. UNDERSTOOD. BUT IT JUST, NINE SEEMS LATE IN THE DAY. AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE CAN HAVE, INSTEAD OF HAVING NO CONDITION, COULD WE HAVE A COUNTER CONDITION THAT'D BE LIKE 7:00 AM AND THEN, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND ANYTHING BEFORE 7:00 AM IS CRAZY, BUT AT 7:00 AM THAT'S WHEN A LOT OF LOADING OR DELIVERIES ARE OCCUR. WELL THAT'S WHY I ASKED MICHAEL WHAT'S CUSTOMARY. I DON'T KNOW THAT 9:00 AM IS CUSTOMARY. I'VE SEEN IT FOR OTHER, OTHER HOTELS ALONG HERE. I MEAN, UM, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY WITH SEVEN? WE PROBABLY WANT, DON'T WANNA GO EARLIER THAN SEVEN BECAUSE THERE NOISE IMPLICATION. RIGHT. BUT IS SEVEN PALATABLE TO THE CITY? [02:05:01] NO EARLIER THAN SEVEN, RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, TO ME, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE'S HOTEL GUESTS AND THERE'S OTHER RES SEVEN SEEMS EARLY, BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT. IF THERE'S A PLAN TO MINIMIZE DISRUPTION, IF THERE'S THE PARKING IS CLEAR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IS CLEAR. AND SO I GUESS THE POINT IS I THINK WE WANT ALL WANT TO SORT OF LEAVE IT OPEN. IF THEY NEED SEVEN, COME, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. UH, YOU KNOW HOW THAT'S GONNA WORK. AND YOU KNOW, LOGISTICALLY, SO WE, SO WE DO HAVE A CONDITION HERE THAT REQUIRES 'EM TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD SIX MONTHS AFTER OPERATION TO SORT OF UPDATE THE BOARD ON HOW THE LOADING AND TRAFFIC AND MECHANICAL PARKING'S BEEN OPERATING. SO I THINK IF WE, IF WE MODIFY IT TO SEVEN, THAT CAN BE LOOKED AT AT THE TIME OF A PROGRESS REPORT AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PROTECTION THAT WE DO, WE'RE ASKING FOR A DOCK MASTER TO BE THERE. SO IT ALSO HELPS TO, UM, MAINTAIN THE, UH, OPERATIONS. RIGHT. YEAH, WE WERE GONNA MENTION THE DOCK MASTER AND THAT WAS SOMETHING ACTUALLY THAT WE, WE OFFERED TO, TO TRANSPORTATION. SO, AND, AND JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE COULD CIRCUMVENT YOUR REVIEW WHEN IT COMES TO THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE VENUES IS NOT REALISTIC BECAUSE THE WAY THE PATRON OCCUPANT LOAD IS CALCULATED, YOU AGGREGATE TOGETHER THE VENUES WITHIN A HOTEL AND THE WAY THEY CALCULATE THE PATRON OCCUPANT LOAD, THEY INCLUDE CIRCULATION PATHS WITHIN EACH RESTAURANT. SO WHILE YOU THINK LIKE CATCH RESTAURANT IS A RATHER SMALL RESTAURANT, IT ZOOMED RIGHT PAST THE TRIGGER NEEDED FOR A CUP. AND SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT 7:00 AM BE GOOD AND WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL MODIFY IF NECESSARY. BUT I THINK 7:00 AM IS A GOOD TIME. IF THE BOARD AGREES THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. YOU OKAY WITH THAT? WITH THE, WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE REGARDING THE, UH, THE DOCK MASTER AND THAT'S FINE. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. AND, AND 7:00 AM WITH THE ABILITY TO ADMINISTER ADMINISTRATIVELY SUPERSEDE IT. IF SO, IF THERE, IF BY ANOTHER CP A CP APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY AND AS PART OF THAT THE BOARD SAYS, HEY WAIT, WE REALLY NEED TO MOVE THAT TO EIGHT OR NINE NOW, THEN THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE. I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE TRUCKS ARE GONNA BE BACKING INTO YOUR LOADING DOCK AND 7:00 AM THERE ARE OTHER RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS NEARBY THE BACKUP, THE BEEP BEEP BEEP COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. WE COULD DO NO EARLIER THAN EIGHT ON THE WEEKENDS OR SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSSED. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT LIKE CATCH THAT MICHAEL MENTIONED, UM, HAS ON A, A LIMIT ON THE WEEKENDS. IT'S JUST NOT TYPICAL, WE DON'T THINK TO LIMIT LOADING ON THE WEEKDAYS. UM, THE GARBAGE TRUCK COMES THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD. YEAH. AT 7:00 AM EVERY DAY. UM, CERTAINLY, AND I LIVE ON BELLA. I JUST WANT EVERYONE'S RADAR, THAT'S ALL. YEAH, THAT COULD BE BY THE, IS THERE, IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM TO SPEAK ON THIS? WE DO HAVE SOMEBODY ON ZOOM. YES, BUT HOLD ON. ARE ARE YOU FINISHED? NO, WE'RE NOT DONE. HOLD DONE. OKAY, HOLD ON. GO AHEAD. SO I THINK THAT TAKES CARE OF THE MAJORITY OF IT THERE. THERE'S ONE OTHER CONDITION, UM, RELATED TO, UH, THE STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED KEEPING ONE OF OUR ONLY 12 PARKING SPACES, UM, FOR CIRCULATION AND MANEUVERABILITY. UH, WE DO HAVE ADRIAN ONLINE AND WE DID UPLOAD A MANEUVERABILITY ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS WE CAN MANEUVER WITHIN OUR GARAGE EVEN IF ALL THE SPACES ARE FULL. UH, SO I DON'T THINK WE, WE REALLY WOULD NOT WANT TO LOSE ONE OF OUR ONLY 12 SPACES, UH, TO KEEP IT FOR VALET CIRCULATION WHEN CLEARLY, UH, WE CAN MANEUVER WITHIN THE GARAGE WITHOUT IMPACTING THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE GONNA IMPACT THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE'LL JUST PROHIBIT, UH, IMPACTING THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT BEING PRESCRIPTIVE AS THEY'RE REQUIRING US TO KEEP ONE OF OUR SPACES OPEN. UM, IT'S ONLY 12 SPACES AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIMITED NOW AS LONG AS WE'VE PROHIBITED. THAT SOUNDS FAIR. RIGHT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN THIS WAS ON 10 C, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE COORDINATE, UH, 10 C AND THREE A BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER CONDITION THAT SAYS LOADING, UH, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO NON-PEAK HOURS. SO WHATEVER THREE A SAYS 10 C SHOULD SAY THE SAME THING. UM, ALRIGHT, MICHAEL. OKAY. AGREE WITH THAT. GOT IT. YEAH. UM, SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TEAM'S HERE FOR QUESTIONS. THANKS SO MUCH. ALRIGHT. WHO'S ON ZOOM? SO WE HAVE, UM, KENT ROBBINS ON ZOOM WITH THIS HAND RAISED KENT. HERE WE GO. KENT. KENT, YOU THERE? WELL, THIS IS KENT ROBBINS. UM, DO HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN? THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY ATTORNEY. HUH? DO YOU HEAR ME? SO, UM, YES, THIS IS KENT ROBBIN KENT. KENT. I KNOW YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY, BUT DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT ANY TESTIMONY YOU PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I APPEAR AS AN ATTORNEY. UM, I REPRESENT THE TAI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, UM, IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S A COUPLE CONCERNS WE HAVE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE BACKING UP OF TRUCKS. REMEMBER WE RE HAVE, UH, OVER A HUNDRED, UH, RESIDENTIAL UNITS ACROSS THE STREET AND THE BACKING UP OF TRUCKS DOES DISTURB THE RESIDENTS IN THE MORNING. WE WOULD ASK THAT, UH, THAT WE HAVE A, UH, CUTOFF THAT THEY CANNOT BACK [02:10:01] UP, UH, BEFORE 8:00 AM IN THE MORNING. UH, AND THEN ALSO THAT, THAT BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF THE SIX MONTH FOLLOW-UP TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THERE'S SUFFICIENT WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS DISTURBING OUR RESIDENTS, UH, BETWEEN NINE AND EIGHT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S UNBEARABLE TO THEM. IF IT'S UNBEARABLE, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO THEN ADJUST IT AGAIN, BUT ASK THAT WE HAVE AN 8:00 AM UH, START TIME AS FAR AS, UH, LOADING AND UNLOADING. UH, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, ORIGINALLY THE PARKING WAS ON SITE. I JUST WANNA HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THE PRESENTATION WAS NOT CLEAR. HOW MANY RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES WERE ON THE SITE THAT NOW HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM BEING ON SITE PARKING NUMBER ONE, AND HOW ARE WE HANDLING THE VALETING OF THOSE NEW CARS THAT WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BEEN PUT PARKED ON SITE AND NOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VALET PROCESS? SO THAT'S A QUESTION TO, I GUESS TO THE, UM, TRANSPORTATION REPRESENTATIVE OF THE, OF THE, UH, SHORE CLUB. KEN, DO YOU WANNA FINISH YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THE, UM, APPLICANT RESPOND? OKAY. SO OUR CONCERN OF THAT IS I REALLY NEED THE ANSWERS TO THAT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE FURTHER COMMENTS BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL TESTIMONY AND ISSUES INVOLVING THE VALET AND HANDLING OF THE VALET, AND IT HAD BEEN REPRESENTED THAT ALL THE PARKING AT THE HBB, THAT ALL THE PARKING WOULD BE ON SITE, THAT THE VALET WOULD PARK IT AND ENTER RIGHT INTO THE BUILDING AND WE WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY VALET COMING IN AND OUT OF 20TH STREET. NOW THIS IS AN ENTIRELY NEW PLAN BEING PRESENTED. SO NUMBER ONE, I WANNA KNOW HOW MANY PARKING, RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS, UH, ONE, THERE WERE, THERE WERE SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL PARKING ON SITE, AND NOW THAT'S BEING REMOVED. HOW ARE YOU SUFFICIENTLY HANDLING THE VALET? SO THE VALET WILL NOT INTERRUPT 20TH STREET, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, 20TH STREET IS ONLY TWO LANES AND THAT SERVES THE SETAI. IT SERVES THE, UH, ART DECA HOTEL ON 20TH STREET, THE SATTA ART DECO HOTEL. AND IT ALSO SERVES THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER. AND THAT ENTRYWAY IS ON 20TH STREET. AND IT WAS A VERY CAREFULLY PLANNED ON HOW VALET WOULD BE SERVING THE 20TH STREET AREA. NOW, WITH THE CHANGE IN PLANS, WE DO NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT IS THE CHA HOW ARE THEY HANDLING THE NEW VALET REQUIREMENTS AND HOW ARE THEY HANDLING THE QUEUING OF CARS. ON 20TH STREET, WE HAD BEEN ASSURED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT, UM, PARKING ON SITE SO THE CARS WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY BE TAKEN OFF OF 20TH STREET AND PARKED WITHIN THE AREA. IN FACT, IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, ARRANGED ORIGINALLY THAT THE CARS WOULD LITERALLY DRIVE INTO THE PARKING GARAGE UNDERGROUND AND THEN THE VALET, UM, WOULD THEN TAKE IT FROM THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AREA AND THEN PARK IT ITSELF. NOW IT APPEARS THAT THOSE CARS ARE GONNA BE LEFT ON 20TH STREET AND THEN TAKEN BY THE VALET AND THEN TAKEN WHEREVER IT IS. SO THE ISSUE IS WHERE THE, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE NOW BEING REDUCED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AND HOW ARE YOU HANDLING THE QUEUING OF PARKING GIVEN THAT'S ONLY A TWO LANE ROAD AND THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT, IF THE CARS START TO QUEUE UP, THERE WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT SPACE. AND SHOULD THE 20TH STREET BE BLOCKED AS YOU ENTER INTO 20 STREET GOING WEST, UH, GOING EASTBOUND, THAT WILL BLOCK THE ENTRYWAY TO OUR PARKING GARAGE AND THAT SERVES LITERALLY HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF CARS. SO I'D LIKE THAT TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE RECORD AND YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT. UH, SO WE'VE, WE'VE SUBMIT FIRST, I MEAN THE OFFSITE PARKING IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF TODAY'S APPLICATION, BUT, UH, WE HAVE SUBMITTED A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY. THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS A MEMO THAT IS INCLUDED WITH YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT EVALUATED OUR VALE OPERATIONS EXACTLY HOW MANY ATTENDANCE WE NEED AND CONFIRM THAT QUEUING IS NOT GONNA BE A PROBLEM ON 20TH STREET. WE ALSO HAVE A CONDITION THAT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE, OF THE, THE PROJECT BECOMING OPERATIONAL, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK, UH, WITH A NEW STUDY AND CONFIRM THAT THAT QUEUING ON 20TH STREET IS NOT AN ISSUE AGAIN. ALSO, THE INTENSITY OF OUR PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED, UH, ONLY 49 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 76 HOTEL ROOMS ON A THREE ACRE SITE. UM, WE DID REDUCE THE PARKING FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PLAN. UM, THERE'S ONLY 12 SPACES NOW AND THERE WAS CLOSE TO 75 BEFORE. UH, BUT IT'S BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT TO THE HISTORIC [02:15:01] STRUCTURES AND, AND WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT, THAT THERE ARE NO ISSUES ON 20TH STREET FOR THE CENTAI. THANK YOU. AND MICHAEL AND NICK, I THINK NICK RAISES A GOOD QUESTION. WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF US TODAY? AND IF THE OFFSITE PARKING IS NOT IN FRONT OF US, WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THAT CHANGE? WELL, I, I THINK HERE, UM, THAT THE VALET PARKING WAS INCLUDED AND WAS REVIEWED BY, UM, THE CITY AND TRANSPORTATION STAFF AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. SO WE DID INCLUDE A TRANSPORTATION MEMO. UM, IT WAS, I WAS, IT WAS, UM, EMAILED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AND PASSED OUT THIS MORNING. THIS DOES INDICATE, YOU KNOW, THE VALET FOR BOTH THE HOTEL PORTION AND USES AND THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. IT HAS INDICATED IN THE, UM, IN THE TRANSPORTATION MEMO, WHICH REFERENCES THE TRAFFIC STUDY, THERE WOULD BE A, UM, 10 VALET ATTENDANCE FOR THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT, VALET AREA REQUIRED, AND THREE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL VALET DROP OFF AREA. AND SO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS REVIEWED AS PART OF THIS, THIS ANALYSIS WHEN THE APPLICATION FOR, UM, MECHANICAL PARKING OR NIE, THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DOES LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT ANY VALET OPERATIONS. AND BECAUSE THIS WAS, UM, MADE AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DID TAKE A LOOK AT. SO THAT IS REFERENCED IN OUR, IN OUR, UM, APPLICATION. AND AS PART OF THE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION, I BELIEVE THEY DID INCLUDE A FLOOR PLAN OF WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED THAT SHOWS THE PARKING THAT WAS ONSITE PREVIOUSLY, CORRECT? YEAH, CORRECT. DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE A REFERENCE TO WHAT SHEET THAT IS IN THE, UM, IN THE BOARD APPLICATION AND IN THE ACTUAL PLANS OR IN OUR PRESENTATION? I HAVE IT FOR THE HP BOARD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. DID THEY CONSIDER OFFSITE PARKING AS WELL? I DON'T, I MEAN, THE, THE BOARD DOESN'T GET IN THE HPB DOESN'T TECHNICALLY GET INTO THOSE OPERATIONAL ISSUES. UM, IT'S COME NOW THAT THIS IS COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, THE BOARD CAN LOOK AT THAT VALET OPERATIONS, UH, AND THE, UH, VALET ANALYSIS. UM, BUT IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE GOING BACK TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. OKAY. IF THEY MODIFIED THE, UM, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THEY COULD ALSO, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THEY, THEY COULD PAY FULLY INTO THE, UM, UM, UM, FEE AND LOOP PROGRAM, NOT PROVIDE ANY PARKING, UM, ON THE ENTIRE SIDE IF THEY SO WISH AND THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE A MODIFICATION WOULD NOT V OR THE, OR EVEN THE PLANNING BOARD, IF THEY DECIDED TO AFTER THIS, THEY COULD DECIDE, HEY, WE'RE GONNA PAY THE FEE FOR ALL THE PARKING AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. SO, SO LEGALLY, HOW DOES ACQUIRING, UH, PARKING SPACES IN A OFFSITE GARAGE, HOW DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IT? WELL, THERE HAS TO BE A LONG TERM LEASE ARRANGEMENT. THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE DISTANCE. IT HAS TO BE WITHIN A, A CERTAIN DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. UM, AND THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT REFERENCES THOSE REQUIREMENTS. WE HAD, IN ADDITION, WE HAD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE GARAGE HAD SURPLUS PARKING AND ANALYZE EVERY SINGLE USE IN THAT BUILDING AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE SPACES WERE SURPLUS, PROVIDE THE, THE PROOF TO THE CITY, UM, AND THEN EXECUTE A COVENANT AGAINST THE PROPERTY SO THAT IT'S KNOWN THAT THOSE SPACES ARE PERMANENTLY, BUT THESE PART OF THE SPACES ARE ESSENTIALLY RESERVED FOR THAT USE, YOU KNOW, FOREVER. AND THAT'S BEEN DONE OR WILL BE DONE. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. ANYTHING FOR YOU? DO YOU WANNA GIVE, UM, UM, A CHANCE FOR, UM, MR. ROBBINS TO RESPOND? SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, YOUR, IT'S NOW A REDUCTION OF 75 ON, UM, ONSITE SPACES, UM, ON THE LOT THAT WAS PREVIOUS APPROVED BY THE HPB. AND AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A CRITICAL ISSUE INVOLVING HOW THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. APPARENTLY THERE IS NO, UH, DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT, UM, LANE AVAILABLE TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS ADDITIONAL VALET USE BEFORE THE 75 PARKING SPACES WOULD ACCOMMODATE ALL THE RESIDENTIAL USE ON SITE. SO WE DID NOT HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT VALET BECAUSE THE VALET WAS BEING ACTUALLY HANDLED WITHIN THE PARKING LOT ITSELF, AND THE DRIVER WOULD DRIVE INTO THE PARKING LOT AND THEN THE VALET WOULD TAKE OVER FROM INSIDE AND UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. THAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A TRANSPORTATION MEMO. THAT TRANSPORTATION MEMO WAS NOT ONLINE YESTERDAY AND YES, IT WAS APPARENTLY YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING I DOWNLOADED IT. WELL, IT'S NOT ONLINE RIGHT NOW. THE TRANSPORTATION MEMO, IT'S NOT ONLINE RIGHT NOW UNDER FOR THIS MEETING. AND YOU'RE SAYING IT WAS DELIVERED TODAY TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. [02:20:01] WE HAVE HAD INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND WE'RE REALLY BEING DENIED DUE PROCESS. WE, THE, THE SETAI ARE BEING DIRECTLY IMPACTED AND THIS IS 20TH STREET IS THE ONLY MEANS OF EGRESS TO OUR GARAGE, WHICH SERVES NOT JUST THE TOWER, BUT ALSO THE HOTEL IN FRONT OF THE TOWER ON COLLINS AVENUE. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS 20TH STREET, WHICH HAS BEEN A VERY TIGHT, VERY DIFFICULT, UM, VERY TIGHT AREA TO SERVE THE TWO HOTELS ARE NOW GONNA HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF VALET PARKING 68 MORE PARKING SPACES, UM, OFFSITE AND THE TIME TO SERVICE THAT. AND THERE'S NO SHOWING THAT THE VALET IS GONNA OCCUR ANY PLACE ON THE STREET OTHER THAN ON THE STREET. I THINK THAT ISSUE HAS TO BE EVALUATED TO SAY THAT A MEMO WAS PROVIDED THIS MORNING IS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME FOR ME TO SIT DOWN WITH MY EXPERTS TO BE ABLE TO RAISE, TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT ISSUE, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO I'D ASK THAT I CAN I RESPOND? DOES HE HAVE A TIME LIMIT? YOU FINISHED THAT? YES. UH, I, I'VE MADE MY OBJECTION. I'D ASK FOR THIS MATTER TO BE CONTINUED IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THIS TRANSPORTATION MEMO THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO US AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS AND ALLOW US TO, UM, CONFER WITH THE DEVELOPER. I'M SURE THAT IF WE HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS, WE CAN FIGURE OUT A MUTUALLY AMICABLE RESOLUTION. BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE SHOVED DOWN THE THROATS OF THE NEIGHBOR WITHOUT ADEQUATE DISCLOSURE TO US. THEY KNOW I'M THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND IT IS NEVER PROVIDED TO ME AND THIS MEMO WAS NOT TO PROVIDED TO ME. SO IT'S VERY UPSETTING THAT THIS IS BEING DONE WITHOUT AT LEAST. THANK YOU, KEN. BIG INFORMATION. SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, AS YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ACTIVELY LITIGATING AGAINST US. UM, WE'VE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT THE SETAI IS AN ASSOCIATION, HAS NO STANDING. IF YOU LISTEN TO WHAT KENT WAS SAYING, HE'S SAYING HE'S HERE REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION, NOT INDIVIDUAL OWNERS, AND WE MAINTAIN THAT ASSOCIATION HAS NO STANDING ASSOCIATION, CANNOT PROVE DAMAGE AS SPECIFIC TO THEM. THAT'S GREATER THAN TO THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S THE, THE STANDING UNDER RENARD, WHICH IS THE SEMINOLE CASE THAT GOVERNS IN THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA ON STANDING AND ZONING ISSUES. SECOND, HIS OPINION TESTIMONY IS MERELY THAT IT'S LAYPERSON TESTIMONY. YOU HAVE A MEMORANDUM FROM YOUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT THAT CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE KENT WAS YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE, BUT THIS MEMO WAS AVAILABLE. HIS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATED AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TODAY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? I, NOPE. ANYBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? OKAY, WE A SECOND. AND SO YOU'RE APPROVING WITH THE, THEIR, THEIR PROPOSED MODIFICATION? I WOULD, I WOULD APPROVE IT WITH THEIR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS WITH THE HOPE THAT WHEN THEY COME BACK AFTER SIX MONTHS WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE HOW IT'S WORKING AND MODIFY IF NECESSARY. AND WITH THE LOADING CONDITION THAT WAS DISCUSSED ON THE RECORD, I'M GONNA, UM, SO WE HAD INCLUDED SOME RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION AS PART OF OUR DRAFT COP. WE HAVE, UM, A COUPLE OR ONE, A COUPLE ADDITIONAL, UM, MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. SO I WANNA READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD AND MAKE SURE THOSE ARE ALSO INCORPORAT INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDER, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE, UM, THE APPLICANT SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY DEPARTMENT, IMPLEMENT ACCEPTABLE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE TDM STRATEGIES OUTLINED IN THE MOST RECENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A SIGNED COPY OF THE VALET PARKING AGREEMENT AND COVENANT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2 37 20TH STREET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. AND THIS SHOULD REFLECT THE FINAL ALLOCATION OF THE 100 PARKING SPACES, UM, FOUR ON LEVEL THREE AND 96 ON LEVEL FOUR, WE ALREADY HAD A CONDITION REGARDING THE, UM, REQUIREMENT FOR A LOADING DOCK MASTER TO OVERSEE THE MOVEMENTS AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE UPDATED MECHANICAL SPECIFICATION CUT SHEETS TO THE CITY FOR THE FINAL VENDOR FOR THE SEMI-AUTOMATIC PUZZLE, MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING TECHNOLOGY IF DIFFERENT THAN THE VENDOR USED IN THE VALET PARKING OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS AND THEN ACCEPTED. DOES THE BOARD, WE DISCUSSED, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION NOW REGARDING THE HOURS FOR LOADING. UM, WE HAD INITIALLY RECOMMENDED, [02:25:01] UM, 9:00 AM THERE WAS A DISCUSSION REGARDING, UM, 7:00 AM DURING THE WEEK AND 8:00 AM ON THE WEEKENDS. UM, WHAT IS THE, UM, THE MOTION TO INCLUDE FOR THE HOURS FOR LOADING? I I THINK IT'S SENSIBLE TO CONSIDER, CONSIDER THE RESIDENTS AROUND THERE. SO, UM, I THINK IF WE GO FOR THE EIGHT, WHICH WAS KEN WAS PROPOSING EIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR WEEK AND WEEKENDS. AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE, UH, NEW, UH, RESTAURANT, UH, OR, OR YOU KNOW, THEY CAN COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND I THINK WE KIND OF FIND PEACE THERE. I WOULD PUT EIGHT, RIGHT? 8:00 AM SO THE, THE LOADING OPERATIONS WILL BE 8:00 AM SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, NOT BEFORE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, CORRECT. TO 4:00 PM CORRECT. 8:00 AM TO 4:00 PM AND THEN IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, WHETHER THEY COME BACK OR THEY WILL BE BACK EITHER WAY AFTER SIX MONTHS. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. ALRIGHT. YEAH. UH, WHO, WHO MADE THAT MOTION? SORRY, I DIDN'T SHALL SO I NEED A SECOND. ALL SECOND. OKAY. JONATHAN, SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? I'M GONNA VOTE YES, BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORS WITH REGARDS TO 20TH STREET. IT'S A REALLY BEAUTIFUL STREET. IT HAS A GREAT TREE CANOPY. AND, UM, I I JUST HOPE THAT, THAT IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES MADE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS OF QUEING, THAT THE TREES ARE PRESERVED ALONG THE STREET. OH YEAH. IT MAKES IT A BEAUTIFUL PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE. RIGHT. YEAH, WE WOULDN'T DO THAT. WE'RE RIDING LANDSCAPING AROUND OUR LOADING AREA, NOT, NOT REMOVING ANY TREES. YEAH, WE'RE NOT HEARING THAT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE IT. UH, EVERYONE, IT'S A GOOD TIME TO BREAK YOUR LUNCHES HERE. IT'LL TAKE UH, 15 OR 20 MINUTES. TWO, ONE. OKAY. WELCOME BACK EVERYBODY. THANKS FOR GIVING US TIME FOR LUNCH. MOVING [14. PB24-0709. 701 WEST AVE – CANOPY PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FLUM AMENDMENT] [15. PB24-0710, 701 WEST AVE – CANOPY PARK ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE] ON. WE ARE ON TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CODE AMENDMENTS. THE NEXT TWO ARE COMPANION ITEMS, UH, PLANNING BOARD FILE 24 0 7 0 9 AND PLANNING BOARD FILE 24 0 7 10. BOTH DEALING WITH CAN CANOPY PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FLUME AMENDMENTS AND ZONING DISTRICT CHANGES. THANK YOU. UM, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH SOME BRIEF HISTORY FOR THESE AMENDMENTS AND THEN ALSO POINT YOU GUYS TO, UM, THE MAPS WE HAVE STARTING ON PAGE, UM, PAGE SIX, SEVEN, AND EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT SO YOU CAN GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OUR EXISTING MAPS AND WHAT'S PROPOSED. SO AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE 500 ALTON ROAD PROJECT, THE DEVELOPER DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND CONVEYED A THREE ACRE PUBLIC PARK TO THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT UM, 7 0 1 ON WEST AVENUE. UM, THIS IS A MUNICIPAL PARK OPERATED BY THE CITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND AUGUST 23RD, 2020, 82% OF THE CITY VOTERS VOTED TO NAME THE PARK AS CANOPY PARK. AND THAT'S HOW IT'S REFERENCED IN OUR REPORT NOW AS PROPOSED, THESE SUBJECT ORDINANCES INCLUDE THE REZONING OF CANOPY PARK AS WELL AS THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO BETTER REFLECT THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND USE AS A PUBLIC PARK. CURRENTLY ON OUR ZONING MAP AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THESE ARE BOTH DESIGNATED AS CD TWO, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL MEDIUM INTENSITY, WHICH IS THE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT, THESE SUBJECT ORDINANCES WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT TO GU GOVERNMENT USE, WHICH IS THE CLASSIFICATION NOW THAT THE, THE CITY OWNS THE PROPERTY AND WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO ROS, WHICH IS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE. UM, ON PAGE, LET'S SEE PAGE, UM, SIX OF THE BOARD PACKAGES, YOU CAN SEE THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED. OUTLINED IN RED. THAT'S THE AREA SPECIFICALLY OF CANOPY PARK THAT DENOTES THE, THE THREE ACRES AND THE CURRENT ZONING OF CD TWO AND FUTURE LAND USE OF CD TWO AND HAS PROPOSED THIS WOULD CHANGE THE, THE AREA OF THE PARK TO, UM, GU GOVERNMENT USE THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS WOULD REMAIN AS IS. AND ON PAGE EIGHT, YOU CAN SEE WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE TO, UM, RECREATION OPEN AND OPEN SPACE. AND AS IT INDICATED IN OUR REPORT, WE PROVIDED THE, UM, THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS INCLUDING THE, THE PRIOR, UM, LAND USE OF CD TWO AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED, UM, FUTURE LAND USE OF R OS. YOU COULD JUST, YOU CAN SEE THE PURPOSE AND USES WHICH ARE PART OF THAT, UM, CHANGE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSMIT BOTH THESE ORDINANCES TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY JUST A FORMALITY. CORRECT? UM, IF THE, IF THE BOARD DID NOTHING, THE ZONING DISTRICT DOES CHANGE AUTOMATICALLY TO GU BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT, THAT AUTOMATICALLY CHANGES THE FU FUTURE LANGUAGE CLASSIFICATION. 'CAUSE IT COULD BE ROS, IT COULD BE PF, WHICH IS PUBLIC FACILITY, IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE. THIS SORT OF DENOTES IT AS RECREATION OPEN SPACE VERSUS HAVING THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT, YOU KNOW, UM, [02:30:01] PUBLIC SERVICES AND THINGS ON THE, ON THE PARK PROPERTY. OKAY. AND ARE WE I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN, IN THE, ON THE PUBLIC NO. ON ZOOM AND NO ONE ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED. OKAY. NO ONE HERE OBVIOUSLY. SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR I JUST HAVE A, A SMALL QUESTION. WHAT'S THAT LITTLE, LITTLE SLIVER OF, OF THE PARK, I GUESS YOU'LL CALL IT? THAT'S NORTH OF THE MAIN PARCEL OR THE MAIN PARCEL? SO THAT WAS I, THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION AT THE TIME WAS THAT WE NEED TO CREATE THREE ACRES. OKAY. SO THIS WAS DONE TO GET TO THAT THREE ACRES THRESHOLD. THAT'S THE REAL REASON WHY IT WAS DONE. OKAY. IT DOES, IT DOES INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, LANDSCAPE AREAS ALONG THE, THE WESTERN BORDER BORDER OF THE PARK. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE REASON WHY IT WAS DONE, BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION, PERCEPTION OF THREE ACRES, AND YOU'LL SEE IF'S EXACTLY THREE ACRES, 3.0, ZERO ZERO ACRES. SO JUST A FOLLOW UP. IF THERE, IF THAT LAND IS EVER DEVELOPED NORTH OF THE PARK, THAT LITTLE SLIVER COULD NOT BE PART OF THAT AS WELL. RIGHT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, THE, THE SITE THAT'S THE PARKING FLOOR, THE, UM, FLORIDIAN YES. THAT, THAT, THAT REMAINS A CD TWO. AND, UM, OH, I BELIEVE THAT FAR HAS ALL BEEN TRANSFERRED. UM, ALSO AS PART OF THIS, I, I THINK, I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE THE FINGER ITSELF. THE FINGER ITSELF, WHICH IS OH, CORRECT. YES. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT, THAT AREA CAN NEVER BE DEVELOPED. OKAY. OR EVEN LIKE BUILT OVER, NO CANTILEVERS OVER THERE OR ANYTHING OR WELL, IT, IT WOULD BE PROTECTED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU, IF YOU CHANGE THE, UH, THE FLU DESIGNATION AND THE, AND THE ZONING MAP, UH, DESIGNATION, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD PERMIT, UH, ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT. BUT ALSO AS PARK PROPERTY, UH, IT WOULD BE PROTECTED UNDER THE, UNDER THE MIAMI CITY CHARTER AS WELL AS THE MIAMI D COUNTY CHARTER. OKAY. THANK YOU NICK AND MIKE, ONE QUICK QUESTION, MICHAEL, THAT THE, THE, UM, AREA OF THE, I STILL CALL IT THE PARK WHERE THE, UM, SALE CENTER IS FOR THE CONDO BUILDING THERE. THAT'S NEV I MEAN, NO, NOT GOING BACK TO THE PARK. I MEAN THAT'S, THAT BELONGS TO THE BUILDING AND THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S GONNA BE DEVELOPED WITH A, UM, A FUTURE RETAIL COMPONENT. RETAIL. OKAY. WHICH FAR WAS ALLOCATED FOR THAT PURPOSE. OKAY. THAT MAY COME BACK BEFORE YOU, 'CAUSE I BELIEVE THEY MAY WANNA CHANGE, CHANGE THE DESIGN AND FUNCTIONALITY OF THAT. THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, REVIEWED BY PLANNING BOARD AS WELL AS THE, THE DRB. UM, I'VE SEEN SOME PROPOSALS, BUT NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE YET TO MODIFY THOSE PLANS. ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? OKAY, I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT'S FOR BOTH ITEMS, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY, GREAT. ALRIGHT, AND THEN LAST [16. PB24-0711. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT SITE - LDR TEXT AMENDMENT.] ITEM BEFORE OUR DISCUSSION ITEM IS, UM, PLANNING BOARD FILED 24 0 7 1 1 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT SITE LDR TEXT AMENDMENTS. JUST A SECOND HERE. SO THIS IS, THIS IS RELATED TO THE PRIOR PROPOSAL 'CAUSE IT DOES MODIFY, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT SITE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CANOPY PARK SITE. UM, WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT CREATED CANOPY PARK WAS APPROVED, THE ENTIRE OVERLAY WAS LOCATED WITHIN CCPS TWO, CD TWO AND RM TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH ALL HAD A MAXIMUM FAR OF 2.0. UM, NOW THE, ALL THE AVAILABLE FAR FOR THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS NOW A PUBLIC PARK, WAS MOVED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND WHAT WE REFERENCED AS THE, UM, DETACHED RETAIL STRUCTURE. SO THIS, THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS INCLUDED ON PAGE FOUR OF THE STAFF REPORT ADDRESSES THAT, UM, UM, WHAT HAPPENED FOR THE SITE BY INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING. UM, FOR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT SITES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND CONTAINED PROPERTIES WITH DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AS WELL AS PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE ALTON ROAD GATEWAY AREA AS DEFINED IN SECTION SEVEN, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FAR MAY BE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN THE, THE ENTIRETY OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT SITE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE GOING FORWARD. THIS SORT OF JUST RECONCILES WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, NOW THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. SO THIS IS LIKE AN AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL? WELL, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S TO ADDRESS WHAT HAPPENED AS PART OF THE, THE REZONING THAT WE, THAT WE'RE DOING. UM, NOW, JUST RIGHT NOW, RIGHT. AND IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION? YOU WANT ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM AND I SEE NOBODY IN CHAMBERS. OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. WE GET A SECOND. SECOND. THIS WILL BE THE RECOMMEND IN FAVOR, UM, TO THE CITY COMMISSION. MM-HMM. SECOND. SOMEONE I'LL [02:35:01] SECOND. OKAY, SCOTT, SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. UH, SEVEN ZERO WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. I'LL PASSES. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ON TO [17. Resiliency Code Clarification Amendments ] RESILIENCY CODE, CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT DISCUSSION. AND PJ IF WE CAN BRING UP THE PRESENTATION. SORRY, I HAVE TO DEAL WITH ONE QUICK WORK TODAY. SO JUST FOR SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS, UM, AS REFERENCED EARLIER IN THE MEETING REGARDING CHANGES TO THE CODE SECTIONS, UM, I THINK IT WAS JUNE OF LAST YEAR WHERE THE CITY ADOPTED OUR NEW RESILIENCY CODE. SO WE'RE GONNA BE BRINGING FORWARD SOME, UM, CLARIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS. WE'VE HAD OVER A YEAR NOW TO BE WORKING WITH THE CODE AND HEAR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, UM, AND REVIEW REVIEWING PERMITS FROM ARCHITECTS, RESIDENTS. AND SO THIS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS TO BRING FORWARD TO YOU TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, CHANGES WE'RE GONNA BE BRINGING FORWARD AS PART OF CODE CHANGES TO CLARIFY, UM, A HOST OF ISSUES. SOME OF THEM ARE SLIGHTLY SUBSTANTIAL, MOST OF THEM ARE PURELY CLARIFICATIONS AND JUST SORT OF CODIFY HOW WE HAVE BEEN INTERPRETING, UM, THE OPERATION IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW RESILIENCY CODE. SO I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH, IF WE CAN GO PGA TO THE, AND AND SORRY, JUST BEFORE YOU, YOU BEGIN, I GUESS WHERE ARE WE VOTING ON? ARE WE VOTING ON ANYTHING? DISCUSS? OH, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING TODAY. THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION AND IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS, WE BRING IT UP AND IT CAN BE MODIFIED OR YEAH, YEAH, WE CAN BRING IT UP. YOU CAN EMAIL ME, UM, SEPARATELY. UM, IT'LL COME BACK BEFORE YOU WITH AN, WITH A MORE COMPREHENSIVE, UM, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. GOT IT. UM, THIS IS JUST TO, TO SEE IF, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY, HAVE, HAVE YOURSELF EXPERIENCED OR HEARD OF OTHER EXPERIENCES OR CONCERNS AND FEEL THERE'S OTHER AREAS THAT ALSO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THIS, THIS UPDATE. SO, UM, PJ IF WE CAN GO TO THE, THE NEXT SLIDE. SO ON THIS PAGE, THESE ARE ALL, UM, JUST CLARIFICATIONS ON DEFINITIONS REGARDING, UM, WHERE THE, WHERE YOU TAKE THE SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD FOR PROPERTY, THAT'S A CORNER LOT. UM, CLARIFYING, UM, WHAT'S A HIGH ALBEDO SURFACE? UM, COOL PAVEMENT. UM, JUST MORE CLEARLY DEFINING, UM, A LOT WITHIN THE CODE IN TERMS OF, UM, THE MINIMUM, THE APPLICABLE ZONING VERSUS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. JUST SLIGHT TWEAKS. NOTHING, NOTHING MAJOR WITH OUR, UM, PROPOSED, UM, MODIFICATIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DEFINITIONS. UH, PJ ON THE NEXT, DO YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? SO WE'RE NOT AT THE SLIGHTLY SUBSTANTIAL PART YET, RIGHT? THERE'S NOTHING, THERE'S NOTHING EVEN SLIGHTLY SUBSTANTIAL WITH THAT. OKAY. UM, UNDER USE CLARIFICATIONS, I THINK THE BOARD HAS SEEN, YOU'VE SEEN APPLICATIONS FOR, UM, OUTDOOR, UM, PADDLE COURTS, OUTDOOR RECREATION, THINGS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATED IN THE CODE AS AN ALLOWED USE. SO THIS AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED WILL BE CLARIFIED THAT THESE, THESE OUTDOOR RECREATION COMMERCIAL FACILITIES WOULD BE ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. TYPICALLY, IF THERE'S A CUP OR, UM, IT INVOLVES CHANGES TO THE OVERALL BUILDING DESIGN. IT LIKELY WOULD REQUIRE COMING TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR APPROVAL AS WELL AS TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TYPICALLY INCLUDE, UM, THE CONSTRUCTION OF, OF, UM, TALLER FENCES AND GUARDS FOR THE, FOR THE, UM, ROOFTOP USES. BUT WE'RE SEEING A PUSH FOR MORE, MORE OF THESE TYPES OF USES. SO THIS IS TO EXPRESSLY AL CODIFY. WE HAVE HAD TO, UM, UH, WE'VE RESPONDED BY PROVIDING ZONING LETTERS TO PEOPLE TO CLARIFY, IS THIS USE ALLOWED IN THIS PROPERTY? SO, SO THIS WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THESE SORTS OF COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES, UM, WOULD BE ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. UM, WE ALSO WOULD BE CLARIFYING THAT NUS NUISANCE USES SUCH AS, UM, OCCULT SCIENCES OR, UM, TATTOO PARLORS, UM, SMOKE SHOPS, THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. UM, IN THE GEO DISTRICT, WE'RE GONNA ALLOW, CLARIFY THE ALLOWABLE GOVERNMENT USES, UM, AND ALSO SORT OF TIGHTEN UP THE, UM, INDUSTRIAL USES AND AUTO RELATED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. RIGHT NOW, TYPICALLY ONLY IF YOU WANNA DO LIKE A, A CAR WASH, THAT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN THE, IN THE IOWA DISTRICT. IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THE CODE, BUT IT SHOULD BE, UM, UNLESS YOU'RE DOING LIKE CAR WASH, THAT'S ACCESSORY TO A, UM, A GAS STATION. BUT THAT DOES REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, A CUP AND A WHOLE OTHER HOST OF IMPLEMENTATIONS IN ORDER TO ADD OR MODIFY ACCESSORY USES, UM, TO A GAS STATION. IN TERMS OF, UM, HOTEL OCCUPANCY LIMITS RIGHT NOW, UM, THERE ARE LIMITS FOR, UM, HOTEL OCCUPANCIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, INCLUDING, UM, THE RPSR ONE TWO R THREE DISTRICT. THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE, UM, UM, OCCUPANCY LIMITS FOR THE PS ONE AND, UM, MXE DISTRICTS. IN TERMS OF, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PJ UNDER YARD ENCROACHMENTS, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS, IT IS, UH, A CODE CHANGE MORE SUBSTANTIAL [02:40:01] IS, UM, MODIFYING THE ALLOWANCE FOR CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND EMERGENCY GENERATORS AND POOL EQUIPMENT AND THAT TYPE OF MECHANICAL USE AS ALLOWABLE YARD ENCROACHMENTS IN ALL DISTRICTS. RIGHT NOW, TECHNICALLY, TECHNICALLY THOSE ENCROACHMENTS ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN THE RM ONE AND TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT AS WELL AS WERE MENTIONED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. SO FOR ALL OTHER DISTRICTS, THOSE ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED AS ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS. SO IF YOU'RE IN RM TWO DISTRICT AND YOU'RE BUILDING MEETS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TRYING TO ADD OR INCORPORATE, UM, AIR CONDITIONING INTO YOUR SIDE YARD. THIS WOULD ALLOW THIS, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE, LET'S SAY, UM, YOU WANTED TO INSTALL SUCH A UNIT, IF YOU'RE AN RM ONE DISTRICT OR TOWNHOUSE UNIT, YOU CAN DO THAT WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. SO THIS SORT OF WOULD ALLOW THAT SETBACK TO BE, UM, IMPLEMENTED, UM, UM, FOR OTHER DISTRICTS AS WELL. RIGHT NOW I'M GONNA CLARIFY THAT BICYCLE PARKING ISN'T ALLOWABLE YARD ENCROACHMENT, 25%. WE'RE APPLYING THAT NOW. AND, AND OUR CODE IS NOT, NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THE CODE. SO THIS WOULD, THIS WOULD, UM, THIS WOULD INCLUDE THAT AS WELL AS ART INSTALLATIONS ALLOW THEM AS, AS, AS YARD ENCROACHMENTS AND NON SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UM, IN TERMS OF OUR, UM, LIMITS ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND WALKWAYS, THE CODE HAS A REQUIREMENT NOW THAT SAYS, UM, 70% OF YOUR REQUIRED YARD MUST BE OUS LANDSCAPE AREA, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD 30% FOR, FOR BUILDING. UM, THIS WOULD, THIS WOULD VER THIS WOULD JUST CLARIFY THAT THAT 30% ALSO INCLUDES WALKWAYS BECAUSE YOU ALSO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO REMAIN 70% PERVIOUS LANDSCAPING AND WALKWAYS DO NOT COUNT AS, UM, PERVIOUS LANDSCAPING. THIS WOULD ALSO CLARIFY THE, UM, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTIONS FOR MARINE PROJECTIONS. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A SETBACK OF SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT ON EITHER SIDE FOR THE DOCKS, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS EXTENDS OUT INTO THE WATERWAY. UM, AND THEN WE JUST CLARIFY THAT, THAT MOSTLY THESE, THESE, UM, MARINE STRUCTURES NOW ARE REVIEWED BY, UM, BY THE COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER, MAYBE BRIAN, WE USED TO HAVE, UM, A LOT OF DOCS APPEAR BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD IF THEY WERE GOING BEYOND A CERTAIN PROJECTION. NOW THAT IS ALL SUBJECT TO, UM, TO DERM. SO WE NO LONGER REVIEW THOSE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS. IT'S A SIMPLER PROCESS AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES. I'M JUST, JUST THIS, THIS CLARIFIES HOW WE'RE OPERATING, UM, CURRENTLY WITH THAT. UM, NEXT SLIDE. BE BEFORE YOU GO ON, UH, SURE. UM, CENTRAL AC UNITS, GENERATORS, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THE, IN THE, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, EXCEED THE, THE SETBACK, WOULD THEY STILL NEED A VARIANCE? NO, NO. THIS WOULD, THIS WOULD, WOULD ALLOW THEM WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK WITHOUT, ALRIGHT. BUT THEY ALSO, THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE SCREENING, SO, WELL THAT, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY CONCERN BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE MAYBE A NEW HOME GOING IN FRONT OF A BOARD AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA, THEY DECIDE TO PUT A GENERATOR OR AN AC UNIT VERY CLOSE TO THE BEDROOM WINDOW OF THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, AND IT GIVES THE NEIGHBORS AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, CONTEST THAT. SO THAT'S, WELL NOW, SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT FOR, FOR SINGLE FAMILY THAT'S IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW. YOU CAN DO, IF YOU MEET CERTAIN PROVISIONS. SO IT'S NOT JUST, IT'S NOT JUST AS OF RIGHT. YOU GET THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK, YOU HAVE TO BE, UM, NO HIGHER THAN A CERTAIN LOCATION. SO YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR AC UNIT HIGHER THAN I THINK IT'S, UM, UM, 10 FEET, 10 FEET FROM GRADE BECAUSE YOU, 'CAUSE THE, THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES YOU TO PLACE YOUR EQUIPMENT AT A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF THE BASE SPLIT ELEVATION. SO TYPICALLY IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THESE TYPES OF, UM, UH, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR AC UNITS THAT COMPLY WITH THE CODE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SHORTER, A SHORTER, UM, HEIGHT TO THE AC UNIT. UM, IT IS MORE LOCATION, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY'RE AT, NOT SO MUCH OFF THE GROUND, HOW HIGH OFF THE GROUND. UM, I KNOW IT'S SOMETHING YOU MAY WANNA LOOK AT HOW YOU CAN KIND OF JUST, IF WE CAN WE PREVENT, UM, CONFLICTS LIKE, LIKE THAT MAY COME UP WITH, THAT THEY COME UP WITH, WITH PEOPLE BEING ALLOWED TO PUT A GENERATOR OR SOMETHING MAYBE TOO CLOSE TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY OR, YEAH. AND TYPICALLY, RIGHT, LIKE RIGHT NOW, I THINK WHAT'S GONNA BE INCLUDED IS, IS PROVISION IS A CERTAIN LIMIT FOR THE SIZE. SO THAT'S WHY RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF GENERATORS, UM, MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO TALL AND BASED UPON THE HEIGHT, THEY WOULDN'T COMPLY. SO I THINK I, I AGREE, UM, TIGHTENING UP THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO IF WE ARE GONNA ALLOW ANY TYPE OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR GENERATOR AT THAT SETBACK, THAT'D BE UNDER, UM, A CERTAIN SET OF STRICT IONS. YEAH, I MEAN, I WANNA SEE THINGS, SIM THINGS ARE SIMPLIFIED FOR APPLICANTS, BUT YOU, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING SO SIMPLE THAT YOU CAN PUT IT ANYWHERE RIGHT NEXT TO SOMEBODY'S BEDROOM WINDOW. SO YEAH, I MEAN, AS LONG AS IT THOUGHT IT, SOME THOUGHT IT GOES INTO THAT. YEAH, I THINK THE INTENTION IS THIS WOULD BE MORE FOR THE, THE GROUND LEVEL VERSUS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, VERTICALLY UP AN ENTIRE BUILDING. AND [02:45:01] DON'T THEY HAVE TO, WILL THEY HAVE TO BE ELEVATED OFF THE GROUND THAT THAT'S A CODE REQUIREMENT BY BUILDING? YES. OKAY. I'M JUST, JUST CHECKING. DO WE HAVE A SPECIAL SPEAKER ON THIS? ? JUST WANTS TO CHECK IN TO SEE. I, I'M JUST GLAD TO SEE YOU NOT ON A BICYCLE. IT'S NICE. GO AHEAD. SORRY, I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK. GO AHEAD, MICHAEL. SORRY. OKAY. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PJ. SO RIGHT NOW WE DO A, WE'VE BEEN, WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED, UM, PLANNING AND ZONING PERMIT. SO THIS IS FOR ELEMENTS THAT DON'T REQUIRE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS JUST DEFINES THAT IN OUR RESILIENCY CODE, UM, JUST TO, UM, UH, SPECIFY WHICH, UM, ACTIVITIES CAN BE DONE WITH A, UM, PLANNING AND ZONING PERMIT VERSUS A BUILDING PERMIT. UM, ALSO CLARIFY THAT A PAINT PERMIT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT PAINTING UP TO 25% JUST FOR BUILDING, JUST FOR LIKE A, A BUILDING OR IT ALSO APPLIES TO A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THIS APPLIES TO, UM, WELL, I THINK THIS APPLIES MORE TO, TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE PAINTING. BUT THAT'S SPECIFIED. YES. OKAY. SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PAINT THEIR HOUSE, WE DON'T REGULATE THAT NOW, RIGHT? YOU NEVER KNOW. . THANK YOU. IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PJ. SO THIS IS MORE JUST CLARIFICATIONS FOR, UM, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS. A LOT OF THIS ARE ITEMS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE PRIOR CODE AND THROUGH SOME OVERSIGHT OR WHATNOT, WASN'T SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT OR NOT AS CLEAR. SO FIRST IS TO CLARIFY THAT A, WHEN THE, WHEN THE, WHEN THE CODE REFERENCES A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE, THAT MEANS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 18 FEET FOR A FLAT ROOF AND 21 FEET FOR A SLOPE ROOF. SO YOU CAN'T COME IN AND SAY, WELL, I'M DOING A, UM, A 27 FOOT TALL SLOPE ROOF, BUT IT'S ONLY ONE STORY. I DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE TWO STORY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SO IT'S JUST, THIS JUST CLARIFIES, UM, THAT REQUIREMENT. THIS ALSO JUST CLARIFIES THAT POOLS AND PONDS CAN GO WITHIN THE UNDERSTORY AREA. UM, SOME CLARIFICATIONS ON THE SETBACKS. UM, THERE'S ALSO A, A NEW REQUIREMENT IN THE RESILIENCY CODE TO HAVE A, UM, A MINIMUM GROUND FLOOR CLEARANCE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OF 12 FEET. UM, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY FROM WHERE. SO WE DON'T WANNA PENALIZE SOMEBODY WHO'S BUILDING THEIR HOME, SAY TO BFE PLUS PLUS FIVE. THEY'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE MINIMUM ELEVATION, THEN REQUIRE THEM ON TOP OF THAT TO GO 12 FEET TALLER. SO THEY'RE ALREADY BUILDING IN THAT RESILIENCY BY BUILDING THE, THE HIGHER, UM, FREEBOARD. SO THIS CLARIFIES THAT THAT 12 FEET IS MEASURED FROM VIP PLUS ONE VERSUS WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY, UM, BUILDING TO, UM, WE'RE ALSO CLARIFYING OR ESTABLISHING THAT, UM, FOR ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOMES, THESE ARE HOMES THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, OF INCENTIVES SUCH AS, UM, INCREASED LOT COVERAGE, INCREASED, UM, UNIT SIZE, UM, REDUCED SETBACKS, UM, AS A, UM, CONDITION FOR SUBSTANTIALLY PRESERVING AND RETAINING THAT STRUCTURE, WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS, THIS, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING THAT, THAT THE, UM, SOME OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THESE ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOMES. UM, WE ALSO HAD A, YOU KNOW, A, A PRIOR CODE ALLOWANCE FOR PORCHES AND PLATFORMS IN YOUR FRONT YARD. AND CURRENTLY THE CODE SAYS THAT COULD ONLY BE 30 INCHES ABOVE THE ELEVATION. A LOT. OF COURSE, NOW THAT WE'RE RAISING EVERYTHING HIGHER, THAT ALSO HAS TO GO HIGHER AS WELL. SO THIS JUST CLARIFIES THAT THAT'S ALLOWED UP TO THE FIRST LEVEL TO HAVE YOUR PORCH THAT ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT, UM, ALSO CLARIFIES THE SETBACKS FOR POOLS. THIS, THESE ARE ALL HOW WE'RE IMPLEMENTING AND, UM, USING THE CODE RIGHT NOW, A 20 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE, FOR A POOL IN THE FRONT YARD THAT APPLIES TO THE POOL OR A POOL DECK YOU CAN'T DO, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE COME IN AND SAY, WELL, I, I'M PLACING MY POOL WATER AT 20 FOOT SETBACK, BUT I HAVE A WALKWAY IN FRONT OF IT, NOT A, NOT A POOL DECK. SO THAT CLARIFIES THAT BOTH THE POOL AND POOL DECK ARE PART OF THAT, UM, THAT THE POOL, UH, LET'S SEE. WE CAN GO TO THE, THE NEXT PAGE, NEXT PAGE. PJ, UM, FOR THE PARKING, WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING THAT FOR EXEMPT, FOR RESTAURANT SEATING RESTAURANT AREAS, IF YOU, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CODE REQUIREMENT TALKS ABOUT, UM, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER SEATING SPACES, BUT IF YOU HAVE LARGE AREAS FOR STANDING THAT WE CALCULATE, YOU KNOW, UM, AREAS SUCH AS DANCE FLOORS OR BARS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE SEATS, THAT, THAT ALSO REQUIRES A PARKING REQUIREMENT. NOT JUST, YOU JUST CAN'T SAY THERE'S NO SEATING THERE, THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIREMENT. THIS SORT OF JUST FORMALLY ESTABLISHES THAT THIS, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT. UM, WE, WE ALREADY DO THIS NUMBER, BUT WHEN THERE'S A PARKING REQUIREMENT AND YOU COME UP WITH A FRACTIONAL NUMBER THAT SAYS LIKE 10.1 SPACES, YOU HAVE TO ROUND UP TO THE, TO THE NEXT, TO THE NEXT HIGHEST NUMBER OR 11 IN THAT CASE. UH, NEXT PAGE, PJ UNDER, [02:50:01] UM, HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEALS JUST REC, THIS JUST RECONCILES THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND THE RESILIENCY CODE WITH CHAPTER TWO OF THE CITY CODE. UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE, NO, THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS. SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE THESE REQUIREMENTS IN TWO SECTIONS OF THE CODE. THIS IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, UM, THEY'RE COORDINATED WITH EACH OTHER AND WE JUST REPLACE THE SPECIAL MASTER, WHICH IS THE TERM WE WERE USING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. UM, NEXT PAGE, PJ. AND IN TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, WHAT THIS REALLY DOES IS JUST, UM, CLARIFY THAT THE TIMEFRAME TO, UM, TO, UM, FOR US TO PLACE AN APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, FOR AME FOR CODE AMENDMENTS, RIGHT NOW, THE, THE TIMEFRAME IS PRETTY TIGHT. UM, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME THE, THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE CHANGED. IF YOU GO BACK, UM, YOU KNOW, 15, 20 YEARS AGO, IT WAS TYPICALLY A, A TWO WEEK NOTICE FOR A LOT OF THESE APPLICATIONS. NOW WE DO HAVE A, A 30 DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT. SO MEETING OUR HAROLD DEADLINES, YOU KNOW, CAN BE AN ISSUE SOMETIMES. I KNOW THAT SEPARATELY WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF, UM, ALSO MEN IN THE CODE TO ALLOW US TO, TO PLACE THE PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT, NOT IN THE HARALD, BUT IN ANOTHER, UM, WEBSITE THAT ALSO THE COUNTY'S USING. SO THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THIS. BUT THIS IS JUST TO UPDATE OUR, UM, OUR AMENDMENT PROCESS. DOES THAT GOVERN, IS THAT GOVERNED BY THE STATE? WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO JUST HAVE A FACEBOOK POST OR TWITTER POST JUST TO GET IT GOING? THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THAT THOUGH. I MEAN, ESPECIALLY, OH, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE NEWSPAPER EITHER. WELL, THAT'S WHY WE'RE IMPLEMENTING WORKING ON A DIFFERENT SYSTEM THAT I THINK THE COUNTY'S USING. IS THAT YES. AS TO, UM, AS TO NEWSPAPER NOTICES. AND I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ALREADY VOTED ON THAT. YEAH. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED IN FAVOR OF THAT. WAS IT LAST MONTH? I THINK IT WAS, IT WAS LAST MONTH. TO ALLOW US TO, INSTEAD OF, UH, ADVERTISING NOTICE OF THESE MEETINGS IN, IN THE NEWSPAPER TO PUBLISH THEM ONLINE, WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS ALSO DOING. SO LIKE I REMEMBER WHEN I, WHEN I HAD TO GO THROUGH MY HOUSE PROCESS AND I HAD TO WAIT, I THINK IT WAS TWO WEEKS OR A MONTH, WHATEVER IT WAS. 'CAUSE I HAD JUST MISSED THE HERALD CYCLE. SO SOMEONE WHO'S GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT. I GUESS WE HAVE A LOT MORE CONTROL, RIGHT? THEY COULD DO IT INSTANTANEOUSLY. OKAY. I'M SORRY. IT WAS THE LAND USE COMMITTEE THAT ENDORSED IT. IT'S COMING TO PLANNING BOARD ON OCTOBER 29TH. SORRY. IT'S OKAY. I VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. WELL WAIT MINUTE. I'M GOING. THANKS, TOM. I A THAT'S, I REMEMBER I ADVERTISED IT FOR OCTOBER. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. OKAY, SO ARE, IS THERE ANOTHER WE SEE THOSE SLIDES? I READ THAT. SO I DID, I DID ALSO, UM, EMAIL THIS PRESENTATION TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS, SO YOU HAVE THAT AS WELL. UM, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PJ. UM, NOW FOR SIGNAGE, THIS JUST CLARIFIES THAT REAL ESTATE SIGNS DO NOT REQUIRE PLANNING AND ZONING PERMIT. UM, SIGNS STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY CODE. AND IF AN, IF A PROPERTY OWNER INSTALLS A SIGN AND DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT, THEY CAN AND SHOULD GET A, A CITATION OF VIOLATION. UH, CAN, IS THIS THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS OR? YEAH, WE, WE CAN. OKAY. SO OUR SIGN CRITERIA, UM, THE MINIMUM, IT SAYS THE MINIMUM IS 11 BY 14 NOTICE. AND WHEN YOU GO TO ANY PROPERTY, IT, WHETHER IT'S BY THE CITY OR A REAL ESTATE SIGN OR, OR WHATEVER IT IS, YOU SEE THESE LITTLE TINY SIGNS, IT'LL SAY COMING, YOU KNOW, TWO OF THESE GUYS COMING, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT? IT'S, IT'S PLANTED IN A PARK. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA BE DOING SOMETHING. IT SAYS THE MINIMUM IS 11 BY 14 EVERY, EVERY CITY. SO THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS, THAT, THAT, TO CLARIFY THE MINIMUM, MINIMUM, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SIGNAGE FOR, UM, A PUBLIC APPLICATION, BUT FOR THE LANDES BOARD WANTING TO HAVE THE REQUIRED SIZE, LARGER, ANY OF THAT, I JUST THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED. I THINK, I THINK WE NEED TO, IF WE'RE ADDRESSING SIGNAGE, ALL OF THAT, IT, IT NEEDS TO BE, WE CAN'T HAVE JUST, IT SAYS MINIMUM. SO ALL OF THESE SIGNS, THEY'RE HUGE. WHEN YOU GO BUY EAST SHELL, YOU CAN TELL, YOU CAN MM-HMM, VOUCH FOR THIS. WHEN YOU GO BUY A A, A PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED, IT, IT'LL SAY, OH, YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT? THE SIGNS THAT HAVE ALL THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER NAMES I HAVE NO, THIS IS IF IT'S BEING DEVELOPED. RIGHT. SO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS. MM-HMM, . SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO EXACTLY. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO UP TO IT AND GO, WHAT IS THIS? WHY IS IT SO SMALL? WE NEED TO SAY THIS NEEDS TO BE, THE MINIMUM NEEDS TO BE MOVED UP FOR LAND USE BOARD APPLICATIONS FOR ANY, YES. OKAY. OR IF SOMETHING IS GONNA BE DONE IN A PARK OR IF SOMETHING IS, IS GOING TO BE, YOU'RE, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, [02:55:01] JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS WOULD BE FOR IF THERE'S A PUBLIC MEETING OR ANNOUNCE THIS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE FOR PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS OR WHAT? YES. SO IF YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING LIKE ALLISON PARK OR, OR WHEREVER THERE'S GONNA BE LA LET'S JUST USE THAT. USE AN EXAMPLE THAT, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE BEACH RENOURISHMENT. OKAY, YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE TINY SIGN AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS IF WE'RE, AND YOU HAVE TO PULL OVER, BUT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT ON THE PROPERTY. YES. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF. PUBLIC NOTICE, CITY PUBLIC NOTICES, CITY, PUBLIC CITY OR, AND OR, UM, DEVELOPMENTS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST TINY LITTLE SIGNS AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. YOU CAN'T READ IT. AND THAT PEOPLE, THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO KNOW. SO IF WE'RE GONNA BE MENDING THE SIGNAGE, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE ADDING OR CLARIFYING SIGNAGE, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS WELL. SO INCREASING THE SIZE OF POSTED THE RED NOTICES, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE AS WELL AS ANY, ANY, YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER ONES MAY NOT BE GOVERNED BY, IT'S, IT'S ON, IT'S IN OUR CODE. THE OTHER ONES MAY NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE LDRS. LIKE WHEN THE CITY IS, IS, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, PUBLICIZING A, A PROJECT THAT WE ARE DOING. UM, THOSE MAY NOT BE GOVERNED, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, A BEACH TREE NOURISHMENT, THERE MAY BE OTHER NOTICES OF THAT. BUT THE, IT SAYS IT, IT SAYS THE MINIMUM SIGN THE MINIMUM, YEAH. IS 11 BY 14. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T GO LARGER MM-HMM. SO THAT PEOPLE ARE, HAVE MORE ACCESS TO, TO KNOWING WHAT SOMETHING SAYS. SO I'M JUST MAKING THAT AS A SUGGESTION BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S THIS LITTLE TINY SIGN THAT'S, I I I WOULD JUST SAY JUST MY 2 CENTS. BUT, UH, GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, THE RED, THE RED SIGNS THAT, THAT ARE, ARE, ARE POSTED ARE USUALLY CATCH YOUR ATTENTION. RIGHT. AND SO I'M NOT, EITHER WAY, YOU'D HAVE TO COME UP AND GO READ IT. SO IT'S, IF IT'S A SOMETHING THAT'S OF INTEREST OF YOU GETTING THE INFORMATION, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO STOP AND GO AND READ IT ANYWAY. IT'S UP CLOSE. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S AN 11 BY 14 OR, OR, BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. 1316 IS, IS WHEN YOU'VE GOT THE 11 BY 14, YOU'VE GOT TINY LITTLE PRINT. SO THEN YOU'RE REALLY HAVING TO STOP. IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE PRINT, THE MAKE IT, THE FONT SIZE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF, YOU KNOW, AND A LOT OF THESE NOTIFICATIONS ARE LIKE A FULL BLOWN LETTER. SO I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S JUST, YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO IT WHERE YOU'RE GONNA BE. YOU GOTTA GET OUTTA YOUR CAR AND GO READ IT. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT IS YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO, WELL, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WRITING IN THESE MESSAGES. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT A FULL TEXT, LIKE MOST OF THOSE NOTIFICATIONS ARE PRETTY FULL, FULL PAGES, I MEAN, RIGHT. YEAH. RIGHT NOW OUR NOTIFICATIONS, WHICH ARE THE, THEY'RE ON 11 BY 17, UM, FORMAT RIGHT NOW IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE FULL PAGE BECAUSE WE, WE INCLUDE ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND SO MAKE IT LARGER AND JUST, JUST MAXIMIZE IT SO PEOPLE CAN GO, OH, OKAY. THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. IT'S JUST, THAT'S, I KNOW, I KNOW. SO I, AND SOME CITIES USE LARGE, I KNOW WHERE I LIVE IN MIAMI SHORES, IT'S LIKE THEY, THEY DO 24 BY 36. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU KNOW, UM, LARGER SIZE, WHICH FEEL LIKE, TAKE A LOOK AT THE LOGISTICS. RIGHT NOW OUR DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, LAMINATES THOSE THINGS. SO WE CAN EASILY DO THAT AND POST THEM. IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PROCESS, WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE LOGISTICS INVOLVED IN, IN LOOKING AT SOMETHING ELSE. SO 11 BY 14 IS AWFULLY SMALL TO INCLUDE A LOT OF INFORMATION. AND YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO PARK YOUR CAR, GET OUT, GO LOOK AT IT AND GO, WHAT IS THIS? IT JUST NEEDS TO BE, I, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT CLARIFIED AS WELL, IF THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT. OKAY. UM, I THINK THAT WAS IT IN TERMS OF THE PRESENTATION. SO CAN WE GO BACK ALSO TO THE MARINE? UM, I GUESS IT'S PROJECTION. SURE. SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A PROPERTY ON PINE TREE THAT IS A HISTORIC, THEIR INCORPORATED PART OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE INTO THEIR NEW, THEIR NEW HOME. AND THERE WAS A PREVIOUS BOATHOUSE THAT PROJECTS OUT INTO, UH, THE CANAL. SO WOULD THIS, UH, WOULD THIS MAKE IT EASIER IF IT'S NO LONGER GOVERNED BY THE CITY? WOULD IT MAKE IT, AND IT'S GOVERNED BY A, UH, A, A COUNTY AUTHORITY? WOULD IT MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOMEBODY TO SAY, OH, WELL I'M GONNA APPLY TO HAVE A NEW BOATHOUSE AND I DON'T HAVE ONE NOW. NO, NO, NO, THIS, THIS, YOU WOULD NOT WAIT, WHAT, WHAT'S THERE TODAY IS SO UNIQUE, UM, YOU COULD NOT DO, UM, IN THE FUTURE. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YEAH. THIS, THIS NOT AFFECT THAT, BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT, THAT PROPERTY, BUT, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE ABOUT THAT. I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE TOO. SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW, Y'ALL SHOULD WE, I, WE DID HAVE A COUPLE OTHER, UM, MODIFICATIONS HERE. PJ, IF YOU CAN BRING UP THE PRESENTATION AGAIN. UM, WE'RE JUST GONNA BE MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE LETTERS. THESE ARE, THESE ARE FORMAL DETERMINATIONS THAT STAFF DOES ADMINISTRATIVELY. UM, ABOUT A YEAR OR TWO, TWO YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A, A STATE REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS WE COULDN'T TREAT, WE CAN NO LONGER TREAT PRE 42 HOMES DIFFERENTLY THAN POST 42 HOMES. PRIOR TO THAT, UM, THAT [03:00:01] CHANGE, WE REQUIRED A, UM, A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS, UM, SENT OUT TO NEIGHBORS AND POSTED ON THE PROPERTY WHEN ANYBODY CAME IN FOR A FORMAL DETERMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. NOW IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, UM, BECAUSE ANYBODY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS IS NOT DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING. UM, THAT, THAT SORT OF WAS INTENDED WHEN, UM, WHEN AN APPLICANT WANTED TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING AND REQUIRED THEM TO GO TO, TO IN FRONT OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE NOW. SO THIS JUST CLARIFIES THAT REQUIREMENT. AND, UM, IN TERMS OF THE SUPPER CLUB HOURS OF OPERATION, WE'RE GONNA BE, UM, FINE TUNING, UM, SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS AND THE HOURS. WHAT ARE THOSE HOURS, TOM, DO YOU HAVE UP AN UPDATE ON, ON THE SUPPER CLUB ORDINANCE? THE HOURS, I BELIEVE REMAIN THE SAME. IT'S GOING TO THE COMMISSION FOR SECOND READING ON OCTOBER 30TH. BUT, UM, IF THERE'S ANY TWEAKING OF THOSE HOURS, IT WOULD BE DONE PURSUANT TO THAT. OKAY. LEGISLATION. OKAY. SORRY. THAT'S, THAT'S IT THEN. UM, THERE WAS NO, JUST, SORRY, ONE MORE THING. UM, THERE MAY BE A FEW THINGS THAT I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT NOW THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN HERE, BUT WE WILL INCLUDE IN THE UPDATE. FOR EXAMPLE, UM, I JUST REMEMBER THAT PREVIOUSLY, UM, IF YOU'RE IN RM ONE DISTRICT, YOU COULD DO PARKING, UM, AT A REDUCED SETBACK. IF YOU HAD A SMALL LOT FOR SOME REASON, THAT WAS, UM, UM, NOT INCLUDED IN A NEW RESILIENCY CODE. SO TECHNICALLY IF SOMEBODY COMES IN RIGHT NOW IN A SMALL LOT THAT IS PARKING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE. SO WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA LOOK AT GOING BACK TO, IT'S NOT REALLY A, A CHANGE IN THE CODE, IT'S JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT IT WAS. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY INTENT TO, UM, MODIFY THAT. SO WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT, SEE INSTANCES WHERE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN, MAY HAVE BEEN SOME INADVERTENT EMISSIONS FROM THE OLD CODE TO THE NEW RESILIENCY CODE, UM, SIDEWALK CAFES AND SIDEWALK CAFE CONCESSION PROGRAM AREAS. OH YEAH, SIR. THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST TO, UM, CHANGE HOW THE, THE VERBIAGE OF HOW WE'RE DISCUSSING HOW WE'RE TREATING THOSE NOW AND HOW, AND, AND CAN WE, CAN YOU GIMME A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THAT SINCE I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT TIME? ON THAT TIME? JUST, JUST A MATTER OF JUST UPDATING THE VERBIAGE. IT'S NOT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING SUBSTANTIALLY IN TERMS OF THE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OKAY. FOR SIDEWALK CAFE PERMITS. AND WHAT ARE THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS FOR THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY? CPS ONE, MXC DISTRICTS? YEAH. IF YOU GIMME A SECOND, I CAN, THANK YOU. SORRY, I DIDN'T GET TO LOOK AT ALL THIS LIKE YOU ALL DID. AND WHILE I'M LOOKING THIS UP, JUST TO REMIND ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW NEXT MONTH WE'RE STARTING OUR MEETINGS AT NINE O'CLOCK. OH, NEXT MONTH? YEAH. STARTING FROM OCTOBER. GOING FORWARD, WHAT'S THAT? STARTING FROM NEXT MONTH GOING FORWARD. SO OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, STARTING OCTOBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER. AND DECEMBER'S CANCELED. WHO VOTED FOR THIS? ? YEAH, I'M WITH YOU. UM, SO THAT'S OCTOBER 22ND, 29TH. 29TH. IT'S UH, THE 20 OCTOBER IS THE 29TH. AND THAT'S FOREVER. . WELL, IT'S, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER, UM, BOARDS. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE CHAMBERS TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE. SO, UM, WE OFTEN HAVE INSTANCES WHERE SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO USE THE CHAMBERS IN THE AFTERNOON, AND IT'S HARD TO DO THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE PLANNING BOARD START LATE AND THEN GO LATER ON. SO AT LEAST THIS ALLOWS US TO FINISH EARLIER TO ALLOW, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ELSE TO USE THE FACIL FACILITIES. OKAY. LET ME JUST FIND THAT, UM, SECTION, JUST A SECOND. AND NOVEMBER'S THE 26TH? YEAH, CORRECT. AFTER THANKSGIVING, AFTER MM-HMM. . SO I'LL PUT MY CHANGE NO, BEFORE. BEFORE. IT'S TWO DAYS BEFORE. TWO DAYS BEFORE THANKSGIVING'S. THE 28TH. I WISH IT WAS AFTER 'CAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MY FAMILY AND I CAN WE CHANGE THAT DATE? SORRY, WHICH DATE BEFORE? IT'S LIKE, DOESN'T GIVE PEOPLE TIME TO DO THE NOVEMBER MEETING IS THE 26TH. YEAH. YES. YEAH. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE DONE. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE DISCUSSION ITEMS, [03:05:01] SCOTT, MATT, JOHN? NO, WE'RE ALL GOOD. NOTHING. THERE'S NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL IN HERE? NO. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ALL GOOD. ALRIGHT, I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING. TOM, THANKS FOR YOUR SPECIAL APPEARANCE. GREAT, TOM. THANKS TOM. THANK YOU GUYS. REMINDER, OUR NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 9TH AT UM, 10 9:00 AM OH NINE. THAT'S RIGHT, YOU JUST SAID THAT SOME. I WAS ASKING QUESTIONS, I JUST DIDN'T SEE IT. PROBABLY. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.