* 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. E TWO [00:00:01] ONE. OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY, AND WELCOME TO THE JULY 7TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING. UH, WE HAVE, WE'RE MISSING ELIZABETH LATON, BUT OTHERWISE WE HAVE A FULL BOARD. SO FIRST, CAN [1. JUNE 2, 2026 MEETING ] I GET, UH, ONE OF MY FELLOW MEMBERS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 2ND, 2026 MEETING APPROVED? I'LL APPROVE THE MEETING. OKAY. CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. THIS SO MOVED, MR. CITY [CITY ATTORNEY UPDATES] ATTORNEY. AYE. GOOD MORNING. TODAY'S MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS BEING CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID FORMAT WITH A QUORUM PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL, AND APPLICANT'S STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPEARING EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM. THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM MAY DIAL THE TOLL FREE NUMBER, WHICH IS 8 7 7 8 5 3 5 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 AGAIN IS 8 6 1 4 3 4 2 6 3 2 7. INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST CLICK THE RAISE HAND ICON IF USING ZOOM OR DIAL STAR NINE OF PARTICIPATING BY PHONE BEFORE I SWEAR IN THOSE WHO ARE TESTIFYING, I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE CITY'S NOTICE REGARDING LOBBYIST REGISTRATION. IF YOU'RE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS, A CORPORATION, OR ANOTHER PERSON, INCLUDING AS AN ARCHITECT, ATTORNEY, OR REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPLICANT, OR AN OBJECTOR, YOU NEED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE SPEAKING TO THE BOARD. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ONLY ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF. YOU ARE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, OR OTHER SPECIALIZED INFORMATION, OR YOU ARE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION TO AN ITEM. EXPERT WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHALL PRIOR TO APPEARING DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK, THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND THE PRINCIPLE ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY'RE COMMUNICATING. THESE RULES APPLY WHETHER YOU ARE APPEARING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN ITEM, OR ENCOURAGING OR ARGUING AGAINST ITS PASSAGE, DEFEAT, MODIFICATION, OR CONTINUANCE. I'LL NOW SWEAR ON EVERYONE WHO IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AND INTENDS TO TESTIFY. VIRTUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE SWORN IN ONE BY ONE BEFORE ADDRESSING THE BOARD. SO IF YOU'LL BE, UH, TESTIFYING TODAY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL BE GIVING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL START WITH REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES. UH, THE FIRST [2. PB25-0776, LIQUOR STORE PROHIBITION ON LINCOLN ROAD.] PLANNING BOARD FILED PB 25 0 7 76 LIQUOR STORE PROHIBITION ON LINCOLN ROAD. UM, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. SO THE, THERE'S A SERIES OF ORDINANCES ON THE AGENDA THIS MORNING REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE MARCH, 2027 MEETING. THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO, UH, SENATE BILL 180. UM, SO WE ARE, HAVE BEEN PREEMPTED FROM, UH, ADOPTING CERTAIN REGULATIONS. SO WITH, UM, THE FIRST APPLICATION, WE ARE, UH, REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE MARCH, 2027 MEETING. OKAY. ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO, UM, YOU WOULD DO NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. OKAY. CAN SOMEONE MOVE TO, UH, MOVE IT TO THE MARCH 20 MOTION TO MOVE TO THE MARCH MEETING? MARCH MEETING? OKAY. I, A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. SO MOVED. NEXT ONE IS [3. PB25-0777, INCREASE DISTANCE SEPERATION FOR TOBACCO AND VAPE STORES.] PLANNING BOARD FILE 25 0 7 7 7. INCREASED DISTANCE SEPARATION FOR TOBACCO AND VAPE STORES. SAME THING, I ASSUME. SAME THING. OKAY. MOTION. MOTION TO MOVE. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT. ALL OPPOSED. OKAY. SO MOVED. AND THESE ARE ALL TO MARCH. UM, THOSE TWO ARE TO MARCH. UM, OKAY, THE NEXT ONE [4. PB26-0827, NORTH BEACH RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVES – LDR AMENDMENT.] [5. PB26-0828, NORTH BEACH RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVES – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.] IS PLANNING BOARD FILE AB 26 0 8 2 7 NORTH BEACH RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVES, LDR AMENDMENT AND A COMPANION, UH, PLANNING BOARD FILE, 26 0 8 2 8 NORTH BEACH RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVES, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. UM, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THE SPONSOR OF THIS ITEM, COMMISSIONER MATEO SALINAS IS RECOMMENDING THE ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING AND STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THAT. MOTION TO MOVE THROUGH SEPTEMBER. OKAY, I SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? OKAY. SO MOVED. AND THE LAST ONE IS PLAINTIFF WORD FILE 26 0 8 2 6. [6. PB26-0826, ALTON BEACH BAYFRONT OVERLAY TEMPORARY SALES CENTER.] ALTON BEACH, BAYFRONT OVERLAY TEMPORARY SALES CENTER. UM, THE SPONSOR OF THIS ITEM, UH, AS WELL IS, UH, REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE. UH, SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING FOR THE CONTINUANCE. AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. OKAY. MOTION TO MOVE. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? OKAY. ALL MOVED. ALRIGHT, PROGRESS REPORTS. FILE NUMBER [7. PB26-0846 A.K.A. PB0716-0042 A.K.A. PB FILE NO. 1819, 6946 RUE VENDOME, 1021 BIARRITZ DRIVE AND 997 BIARRITZ DRIVE.] PB 26 0 8 46, UH, PB 8 0 7 1 16 0 42. FILE NUMBER 1819, WHATEVER ALL THIS IS. 69 46 R DOME, 10 21 BS DRIVE AND 9 9 7 BEARD DRIVE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THE APPLICANT ALPHA SCHOOL LLC, IS APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD TO AFFIRM THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IN THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED MODIFIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, [00:05:01] THE EXISTING COP WAS ISSUED TO LE PETITE PAPILLON MONTESSORI SCHOOL FOR A 250 STUDENT EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY A NEW OWNER WHO IS APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD TO AFFIRM THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COP CONDITIONS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE BOARD HEAR FROM THE NEW OWNER AND CONCLUDE THE ITEM. SIR. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. UH, I'M HERE REPRESENTING AL ALPHA SCHOOL WITH THE NEW O OWNER OF THE, UH, LE UH, MONTESSORI SCHOOL ON . UH, I'M HERE APPEARING AS A CONDITION OF THE CUP, UH, TO INFORM YOU THAT WE ARE THE NEW O OWNER AND THAT WE WILL ABIDE BY ALL 18 CONDITIONS OF THE MODIFIED USE PERMIT. MODIFIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. OKAY. ANYONE HERE IN CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO I GUESS WE CAN MOVE, MOVE TO DISMISS IT. MOVE TO DISMISS. OKAY. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ONE? UM, NO. WE'RE ACTUALLY VERY EXCITED AND, AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT, UH, THIS NEW SCHOOL. GREAT. COMING TO NORTH BEACH. SO, ALL IN FAVOR OF, UH, THE, I GUESS THIS DISMISS FROM FUTURE REPORTS, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. CONCLUDING THE ITEM. OKAY. AND KEITH, KEITH MOVED IT SECOND. YEAH. CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. GOOD LUCK. GOOD DAY. OKAY. REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARINGS. PLAINTIFF BOARD FILED 21 0 4 4 2 7 43 WASHINGTON AVENUE. UM, MR. CHAIR, WE DID RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FROM THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REPRESENTATIVE, UH, DEAR ATTORNEY JAMES RAO. HE ADVISED US THAT HE HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT THIS MORNING. HE SHOULD BE HERE BETWEEN 10 AND 11:00 AM SO IF WE COULD SKIP THIS ONE. OH, OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE CONTINUE IT. OKAY. AND WELL, HE HAS REQUESTED CONTINUANCE, BUT LET HIM MAKE IT. YEAH, LET DELAY IT. ALRIGHT, WE'LL SKIP BY THAT ONE. AND WE'LL GO TO, UH, THE SECOND REVOCATION HEARING. [9. PB21-0448, 235 23RD STREET.] CLAIM BOARD FILED 21 0 4 4 8 2 35 20 THIRD STREET. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UM, THIS, UM, PARTICULAR ESTABLISHMENT, BACARA IS A NIGHTCLUB, UH, LOCATED IN THE COLLINS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE INITIAL CUP GOES BACK TO 2006, SO IT HAS QUITE THE HISTORY. UM, THERE WAS A, UM, A SERIES OF PROGRESS REPORTS IN 2025 FOR THIS PROPERTY DUE TO, DUE TO VIOLATIONS. UM, IN MAY, ON MAY 1ST, 2026, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, SENT A CURE LETTER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, AND TENANT OF THE SPACE. THAT CURE LETTER WAS IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE OUTLINED ON PAGE, UH, TWO AND THREE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT. UM, PRIMARILY THOSE VIOLATIONS CENTERED AROUND THEIR VALET OPERATIONS. SO THE APPROVED CUP, UM, HAS A COUPLE CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO THEIR VALET OPERATIONS, WHICH WAS PART OF THEIR OPERATIONAL PLAN. WHEN THE BOARD APPROVED, UH, THE CUP, UM, AT SOME POINT, THEIR VALET COMPANY, UH, DID NOT RENEW THEIR BTR. SO THE VALET COMPANY WAS OPERATING WITHOUT A VALID BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT THAT LED TO, UM, VIOLATIONS BEING ISSUED OF THE CITY CODE OPERATING WITHOUT A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT, AS WELL AS VIOLATIONS TO THE, UH, CUP SINCE THE CUP CONTAINS SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ABOUT THE VALET. UM, SO OVER SINCE MAY 6TH, UM, THE, THE PROPERTY HAS RECEIVED TWO VIOLATIONS, UM, MULTIPLE DAYS TOTALING A 44 VIOLATIONS. UM, WE ALSO, UH, NOTE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE VALET COMPANY. UM, I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT AFTER, YOU KNOW, A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THE VALET DID RESOLVE THEIR ISSUES AND THEY NOW CURRENTLY HAVE A BTR AND THEIR VIOLATIONS ARE PENDING REVIEW BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN, IN AUGUST. UM, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE ISSUES, UM, WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WHILE STAFF, YOU KNOW, IS VERY HAPPY THAT THAT VALET ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED, WE DO THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO KEEP THIS ON THE AGENDA, UM, AND BRING THEM BACK IN SEPTEMBER SO WE CAN DETERMINE IF, YOU KNOW THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS, UM, OR IF THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THEIR CONDITIONS OF THE CUP. OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MICKEY MARRERO HERE ON BEHALF OF, UH, BACA NIGHTCLUB. UM, MY ADDRESS IS 200 SOUTH PISCA BOULEVARD WITH THE LAW FIRM, BURKE, DALE FERNANDEZ. LARKIN AND TAPS. UM, SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE WERE HERE LAST MONTH AND, AND WE HEARD A LOT FROM FROM THE BOARD, WHICH I HAVE CONVEYED TO MY CLIENT. UM, THE, THE THING THAT DEBBIE SPOKE OF, AND I JUST WANNA, YOU KNOW, MENTION THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. AGAIN, THIS WAS, THESE [00:10:01] VIOLATIONS EVERY TIME THEY WOULD OPEN. AND I, AND I, AND I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH CODE AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED. THEY WOULD ISSUE TWO VIOLATIONS JUST, AND WE APPEALED THEM EVERY TIME BECAUSE FRANKLY WE FELT THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT THEY DID OR COULD CONTROL, UH, THE VALET COMPANY THAT, THAT THEY HAVE USED AND, AND HAVE A CONTRACT WITH, AND THAT THAT SERVICES MANY, MANY RESTAURANTS. I THINK IT'S LIKE 60 OR SO DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS, BUSINESSES IN THE CITY, UM, HAD SOMEHOW THEIR LICENSE LAST HAD NO, WE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THAT WAS HAPPENING OR, OR DOING IT. SO, SO THEY WERE JUST CITED FOR, FOR THAT THIRD PARTY ISSUE. WE APPEALED THEM BECAUSE IT, AGAIN, HAD WE JUST DECIDED TO CLOSE UNTIL THE VALET COMPANY, UH, RESOLVED THAT ISSUE, THAT, UH, PAPERWORK ESSENTIALLY ISSUE, UM, THEY WOULD'VE GONE OUTTA BUSINESS BECAUSE A BUSINESS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT FIVE, SIX WEEKS, YOU KNOW, THEY LOSE ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES. IT'S NOT, IT DOESN'T OPERATE WITH THE WIDEST MARGINS. SO, AND AGAIN, IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD EVEN FIX. UH, SO WE WERE CONSTANT TOUCH WITH THE VALET COMPANY. WE OFFERED TO HELP. UM, THEIR ATTORNEY DID GET INVOLVED AND, AND, AND DO EVERYTHING AS QUICKLY AS THEY COULD. WE RE LOSING THE CONTRACT WITH THE VALET COMPANY, SEEKING A NEW VALET COMPANY WOULD'VE TAKEN LONGER THAN, THAN WHAT WAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN HERE. AND WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH CODE AND THEY, AND, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEY'VE BEEN GREAT TO DEAL WITH. THEY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THAT IT REALLY WASN'T ANYTHING THAT WE COULD, COULD CONTROL OR EVEN FIX. SO WE'RE WORKING, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THEY WERE THE ONES THAT CONTINUED OUR APPEALS TO AUGUST TO ALLOW US AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO RESOLVE THAT POTENTIALLY WITH A SETTLEMENT OR, OR SOMETHING REASONABLE JUST BECAUSE, UH, WE DID EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD TO SOLVE IT. AND, AND THE OTHER THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, AND I, AND I, AND I DISCUSSED LAST TIME, THE TWO VIOLATIONS THAT DID BRING US HERE TO THE, IN THE BEGINNING ONE WAS RELATED TO AN EVENT THAT THEY ALLOWED. AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN, WHEN THEY ALLOW A THIRD PARTY TO USE THE VENUE, THEY'RE GONNA BE MORE CAREFUL AND THEY'VE BEEN MORE CAREFUL SINCE. BUT IN NOVEMBER, THERE WAS A CHARITY EVENT FOR BREAST CANCER CHARITY THAT THEY ALLOWED THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY TO BE USED. AND IN THAT EVENT, THE OUTDOOR PATIO WAS USED BY THE CHARITY. IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE USED, YOU KNOW, THEY PAID THE FINE AND, AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, BUT IT, AGAIN, IT WAS, IT WAS A RESULT OF THEM ALLOWING IT TO BE USED FOR A CHARITY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S SOME QUESTION. THE OTHER THING THAT, UH, THAT, THAT BROUGHT THEM HERE WAS OUT OF THE HUNDREDS OF TIMES THAT THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY THE POLICE, YOU KNOW, WITHIN 96 HOURS ABOUT ANY CELEBRITY, ANY ACT THAT'S GONNA BE PRESENT IN THE, IN THE VENUE. ONE TIME THEY WERE LATE. THEY, THEY WERE LATE, THEY PAID THE VIOLATION. BUT AGAIN, THAT HAPPENS MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK. AND THEY'RE PRETTY JUDICIOUS ABOUT GETTING THAT RIGHT. UM, ANOTHER THING THAT WASN'T IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS MENTIONED BY SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS, THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL MEDIA PERSONALITY, UH, WHO HAD A PARTNERSHIP, A MARKETING PARTNERSHIP WITH THE, WITH THE VENUE. THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS RAISED, NOT JUST ON THIS DAY AS I SEE MR. MARK SHAKING HIS HEAD. 'CAUSE YOU DEFINITELY HAD SOME CONCERNS. I CONVEYED THAT TO THEM. AND WHILE IT WAS A PROFITABLE PARTNERSHIP FOR THEM, THEY IMMEDIATELY BROKE THAT PARTNERSHIP. THEY FELT THAT THE CONCERNS WERE WARRANTED. UM, I EXPLAINED TO THEM, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, MAY HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL AND HIS FOLLOWING THAT OCCURRED. AND THEY JUST FELT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO BREAK THAT RELATIONSHIP. AND THAT'S SINCE BASICALLY A COUPLE DAYS AFTER THAT HEARING THAT IS NON-EXISTENT. AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT SOCIAL MEDIA ON THAT BECAUSE THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS UPSET THAT HE WAS, UH, TAKEN AWAY FROM THE CLUB AND, AND NEVERTHELESS, HE'S NO LONGER INVOLVED. AND I THINK THINGS HAVE, HAVE STRAIGHTENED OUT. UM, AGAIN, THE, THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS I THINK IS, IS REALLY A MISNOMER HERE BECAUSE IT WAS ONE THING THAT A LICENSE BY A THIRD PARTY VENDOR WAS LAPSED. THEY MOVED QUICKLY. AND THESE LICENSES TAKE WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS TO SOLVE. 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH ALL NEW PAPERWORK ON, WITH SIGNATURES, STUFF FROM THE STATE, STUFF FROM THE COUNTY. BUT IT GOT DONE AND, AND EVERYTHING'S IN ORDER NOW. SO I, I AGREE WITH DEBBIE. I THINK THAT THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH CONCERN, THEY HAVE TAKEN ACTION. SO I, I HOPE YOU ALL SEE THAT. BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER OR, OR, OR WHENEVER YOU FEEL APPROPRIATE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS CONTINUE ON THE RIGHT PATH. DEBBIE, DID YOU SAY A BTR WAS ISSUED? 'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S STILL UNDER REVIEW. IT WAS, WE WERE ADVISED BY THE APPLICANT LATE LAST WEEK. IT WAS APPROVED. HE'S CODE IS HERE. THEY CAN, YEAH, MERADA, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CO COMPLIANCE IS HERE. UM, SO BTR HAS IN FACT BEEN ISSUED. UH, THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. UH, THE BTR FOR THE VALET COMPANY HAS BEEN ISSUED AND, UM, THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO, TO NOW OPERATE. OKAY. JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THAT. OKAY. WERE THEY OPERATING, WERE THEY OPERATING OR WERE THEY NOT THERE FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS? THEY, THEY WERE NOT THERE. THE VALET COMPANY WAS NOT THERE BECAUSE THEIR BTR WAS, WAS NOT ISSUED AT THAT. SO THEY WERE OPERATING IN WITH KNOWLEDGE OF VIOLATING THE CP. RIGHT. LET ME, LET ME CLARIFY. THE VALET COMPANY, LEMME, LEMME WAIT BEFORE YOU, I I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAY BTR IS ISSUED, DOES IT HAVE TO BE ISSUED PER LOCATION OR IS IT A BLANKET? BTR? IT'S ONE BTR AND THEN THEY HAVE TO LIST ON THEIR BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT, ALL THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY SERVICE. AND SO HAS THE BTR BEEN ISSUED FOR THIS LOCATION? YES. THE ONE BLANKET BTR HAS BEEN ISSUED. SO THEY CAN OPERATE FOR THIS LOCATION THOUGH? YES, YES. OKAY. UH, BUT THIS COMPANY HAD A BTR FOR OTHER LOCATIONS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? SO IT'S ONE BTR ONE. AND IN THAT ONE BTR, THEY HAVE TO LIST OUT ALL THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY'RE APPROVED TO WORK FOR. [00:15:01] SO WERE THEY IN VIOLATION AND HE MENTIONED 60 PLACES. WERE THERE VIOLATIONS IN OTHER PLACES OR DID THEY HONOR THEIR COP AND DECIDE NOT TO, UH, OPERATE WITH AN INVALID VALET OR GET ANOTHER VALET? UH, I'M, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS IF THEY WERE OPERATING OUT OF THERE. DO YOU? YEAH, LOOK, AGAIN, I'M, AND I ONLY SPEAKING TO THE VALET COMPANY. I DON'T REPRESENT THE OTHER VENUES AND YOU KNOW, I JUST USED THE NUMBER, BUT IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WELL, BUT YOU MENTIONED, YEAH, THEY, THE VALET OPERATOR WHEN I SPOKE TO HER SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, TOLD ME THAT THE ONLY ONE THAT GOT, EVEN THOUGH HER LICENSE WAS IMPACTED, THE ONLY ONE THAT GOT VIOLATIONS WAS THIS VENUE NO OTHER, AND NOBODY SPOKE. SO, SO THEY WERE OPERATING ILLEGALLY IN OTHER LOCATIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY EVEN KNEW THERE WAS AN ISSUE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE VIOLATIONS. WELL, WE WERE HERE LAST MONTH. YOU NO, NO. YOU, YOU DIDN'T CURE IT BETWEEN MAY AND JUNE. NOW JULY I WAS JULY, THE OTHER VENUES DIDN'T EVEN GET VIOLATIONS. SO THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE OPERATING. OUR, OUR, OUR, OUR, OUR OPERATION, WE APPEALED EVERY ONE OF THEM UHHUH BECAUSE WE DON'T FEEL THAT IT WAS JUST, FRANKLY, WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING AND THEY DID NOT HAVE VALET. THE, THE REASON IT'S AN ISSUE IS 'CAUSE THE CUP BACK IN OH SIX WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED, WHEN VALET WAS A MAJOR WAY THAT PEOPLE GOT TO NIGHT CORPS REQUIRED. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE PARKING ISSUES THAT VALET BE REQUIRED. FRANKLY, AND IT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE, AND I KNOW TODAY'S NOT THE DAY, BUT WE, MY CLIENT WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO MODIFY THAT CUP AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WHENEVER THIS CONCLUDES TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. THEY TELL ME THEY, THEY HONOR IT. THEY PAY A VALET COMPANY, THEY PAY IT AT A PREMIUM BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED. RIGHT. BUT THEY, EVEN WHEN IT'S OPERATIONAL VALET, FOUR TO SIX CARS A NIGHT. THE, THE BUSINESS HAS CHANGED IN OH SIX. EVERYONE VALET TO THESE CLUBS. NOW EVERYBODY UBERS, THAT'S THE REALITY. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT. SO THEY TOLD ME WE DON'T NEED A VALET. REALLY, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CONSTANTLY CREATING PAPERWORK PROBLEMS FOR US. WE DON'T, THE ALL THIS TIME THAT THE VALET WASN'T OPERATING, THE VALET WAS NOT OPERATING, THEY WERE THE ONE THAT THE LICENSE WAS AT ISSUE. THEY OPERATED FINE WITHOUT A VALET. THEY, THEY DIDN'T NEED TO VALET CARS. SO THIS SORT OF PROBLEM IS KIND OF LIKE ON PAPER, BUT IN REALITY IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO VALET. THEY WOULD ULTIMATELY LIKE TO REMOVE THAT CONDITION BECAUSE I THINK IT'S WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN OH SIX TO HAVE, BUT IN 2026, IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT BUSINESS. BUT, BUT AGAIN, THE VALET COMPANY, MR. MARKS WAS NOT OPERATING IN THE LOCATION. THEY WERE NOT, AND, AND, AND THEY WERE, THEY WERE NOT DURING THAT TIME. NOW THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE OPERATING ILLEGALLY IN OTHER LOCATIONS. UH, I'M NOT AWARE. CAN YOU FIND OUT, UM, WELL, HOW WOULD THEY, I MEAN, HOW YOU HOLD ON. HOW WOULD R IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BTR, HOW WOULD THEY NOT BE? YEAH, I MEAN, MEAN, WHY WOULD YOU GIVE 'EM A BTR IF THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR MONTHS LEGALLY? UH, THAT, THAT WITHOUT, WITHOUT AT LEAST KNOWING THAT. SURE. I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT, I MEAN, JUST FROM SEEING THIS HAPPEN, I'M VERY CLEAR WITH SOME OF OUR VALET OPERATORS, THERE ARE TIMES WHERE THEY'RE OPERATING. THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD A BTR IT LAPSES FOR WHATEVER REASON. YEAH. SOMEONE DOESN'T GET A NOTICE. THEY GET THE NOTICE THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION, THEY IMMEDIATELY APPLY. AND THE ISSUANCE OF THE BTR IS SOME TYPE OF STAMP THAT OKAY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURAL, YOU GOT IT. NOW YOU'RE GOOD TO OPERATE. SO, I MEAN, THINK WHEN DID THEY COMPLY? IT'S SOMEWHAT NORMAL THAT IT HAPPENS. SO THAT INFORMATION, I, THE INFORMATION THAT I, I DO KNOW IS THAT THEY WERE ISSUED, THEY, THEY REISSUED THEIR BTR ON JUNE 30TH. SO THAT, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY REAPPLIED? NO, I, I, I WOULDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THAT INFORMATION GOES THROUGH OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT, WHICH HANDLES ALL, ALL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT APPLICATIONS. OKAY. AND YOU'RE CERTAIN THAT THIS LOCATION HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR IT? ABSOLUTELY, YES. WHAT, WHAT ABOUT THE PYROTECHNICS VIOLATION . SO THAT, THAT WAS SOMETHING WHAT ABOUT ALL THE POLICE VIOLATION? HOLD ON, LET ME ASK JUST ABOUT THIS ONE. DO, BY THE WAY, DO YOU HAVE, DO YOUR RECORDS THAT VERIFY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT THEY WERE ISSUED A BTR ON JUNE 30TH? YES. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT FROM? FROM OUR, UH, SYSTEM, OUR ENTER GOV SYSTEM. YOU LOOKED AT THAT THIS BEFORE YOU TESTED BEFORE YOU CAME TODAY? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. 'CAUSE I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS STILL PENDING FOR, FOR THE VALET? NO, THE VALET, IT CLEARLY SAYS IN THE, THE SYSTEM ISSUED JUNE 30TH, ACTIVE ACTIVE STATUS. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I HAVE A QUESTION. DO YOU SWEAR ARE THERE, YOU'RE UNDER OATH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE ACCURATELY, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU, NOT ASSUMING THAT YOU ACTUALLY KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. H HOW OFTEN, HOW OFTEN IS CODE OUT THERE ON SCENE N ARE THEY GETTING CALLED OR THEY GET, IS IT JUST RANDOM CHECKS LIKE THEY DO WITH OTHER NIGHTCLUBS? UH, WELL ROUTINELY IT, IT IS JUST RANDOM CHECKS, RANDOM PROACTIVE CHECKS THAT WE DO AT, AT DIFFERENT CLUBS. BUT SINCE WE KNEW THAT THIS LOCATION WAS, WAS IN VIOLATION, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY, UH, WERE EITHER IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT. SO WE WOULD DO REGULAR CHECKS, UH, AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. AND I THINK TO TRY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER MR. MARCUS'S QUESTION ON THE TIMING. WE, THE MINUTE WE FOUND OUT, AND FRANKLY THE VALET COMPANY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ISSUE FROM ME, I, I FOUND OUT WHO THEY WERE. I CONTACTED THEM AND SAID, GUYS, WE'RE HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THIS VENUE BECAUSE OF YOUR LICENSE. THEY'RE LIKE, WHAT ISSUE? I MEAN, THEY, THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. SO THEN WE GOT THEM. I, I DON'T REPRESENT THE VALET COMPANY. MY CLIENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE VALET COMPANY. THEY [00:20:01] WERE TELLING US, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. WE'RE GONNA GET ON IT RIGHT AWAY. WE HAD WEEKLY CALLS. ULTIMATELY THEY DID, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THEY STARTED THE PROCESS PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY. THEY WERE CAUGHT BY SURPRISE. UM, AND AGAIN, NONE OF THE OTHER VENUES, AND I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, AND I'M NOT HERE TO EXPLAIN IT 'CAUSE I DON'T GET IT, BUT WE GOT ISSUED VIOLATIONS JUST BY OPENING. YOU DON'T HAVE VALET EVERY TIME, NONE OF THE OTHER VENUES ACCORDING TO, ACCORDING TO THE VALET COMPANY. SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT TESTIFYING, I'M JUST TELLING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE TOLD ME THAT SHOULD KNOW. WE'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT GOT VIOLATIONS FOR THIS. NONE OF THE OTHER ONES WERE TOLD TO CLOSE. NONE OF THE OTHER ONES EVEN KNEW ABOUT THIS, THAT THE VALET COMPANY SERVES. SO WE WERE THE ONES PUSHING THEM TO PLEASE SOLVE THIS BECAUSE IT'S AFFECTING US. WE, WE APPEALED IT BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK US NOT APPEALING IT AND JUST CLOSING DOWN WOULD'VE JUST MEANT THE BUSINESS CLOSES BECAUSE OF LA COMPANY DIDN'T FILE PAPERWORK THAT WE DIDN'T CONTROL. AND I JUST THINK THAT'S PATENTLY UNFAIR. SO WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD TO HELP THEM. WE OFFERED TO HELP. THEY ULTIMATELY DID RESOLVE IT IN LESS THAN TWO MONTHS. IT DOES TAKE TIME FOR THOSE THAT ARE INVOLVED HAVE EVER BEEN THROUGH LICENSING PROCESS. IT DOES TAKE SOMETIMES MONTHS TO, TO GET A LICENSE WHEN YOU LET IT LAPSE. IT'S NOT JUST TO MAKE A PAYMENT, YOU GOTTA SHOW A NEW PAPERWORK AND IT TAKES TIME. BUT THEY DID IT. WE WERE CONSTANTLY, YOU KNOW, OFFERING SUPPORT AND, AND, AND PLEA URGING THEM ON. UM, BUT I THINK WE'RE IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE NOW. AND, AND, AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, I I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD DO. AND AGAIN. ALRIGHT. IS THERE, IS THERE ANYONE IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? NO. YES. ARE YOU COME UP RAY BRESLIN, PRESIDENT OF COLLINS PARK NEWS ASSOCIATION. AND I JUST WANNA GO ON RECORD AS SAYING, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT 23RD STREET. IT IS THE, ARGUABLY THE BUSIEST STREET IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU, YOU CAN'T GET TO COLLINS AVENUE UNTIL YOU GET TO 41ST STREET. BUT YET THERE'S NO ACTIVITY AT ALL BETWEEN VALERO GAS STATION AND WALGREENS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET. EVERY BUSINESS IS CLOSED OR NOT OPEN. AND THE CITY OWNS TWO OF THOSE PROPERTIES. THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY AT THE ANMAR. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING FOR FIVE YEARS WITH MIAMI. NEW DRAMA IN THE GARAGE, BUT YET NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. IF YOU WALK DOWN THAT STREET, IT'S FILTHY YOU IN FRONT OF, UH, OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE. THERE'S, UH, UH, ON, ON THE WINDOWS IT SAYS NOT A WINDOW, BUT YET THEY'RE PEELING. THE BUILDING IS FILTHY. I MEAN, TO ME, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAINTAIN A CLEANLINESS. SO ALL OF THIS, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IS PART OF A CU THAT YOU ISSUE TO THE BUILDING. ONE OF THE THINGS THEY ORIGINALLY TOLD US IS THAT THEY WERE GONNA HAVE THE, UH, UM, THEY HAVE THAT OUTSIDE AREA THAT'S ALL BLOCKED OFF AND NICE SOFAS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS GONNA BE OPEN DURING THE DAY OR EARLY EVENING AND OFFER SOMETHING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WANNA PUT A RESTAURANT ON THE CORNER. UM, AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S COMING THROUGH AT SOME POINT IN TIME. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF BENEFIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ACTUALLY GONNA GET OUTTA THAT. SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THAT WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS. MM-HMM . AND I APPRECIATE DEAR. THANK YOU. THANKS, RAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? OKAY. YOU CAN COME BACK UP. AND I GUESS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR? WELL, THE, THE QUESTION IS, IT WAS REQUESTED OF STAFF, MR. CHAIR, HAVE POLICE DISCUSS. SO, SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I I MISSED SOMEONE. WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON ON ZOOM. OKAY. CAN, OKAY. SORRY MR. MARKS. GO AHEAD. UM, UH, WE HAVE BREWSTER KNOT. BREWSTER, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YOU THERE? HELLO? DEB, YOU STILL SHOWING US THERE? YES, THERE I DO. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YEP. THANK YOU FIRST. ALL RIGHT, SORRY, AGAIN. MY NAME IS BRUCE AU I REPRESENT THE ANMAR AT COLLINS PARK, UH, WITH THE MIAMI CITY BALLET SCHOOL AS DORMITORY DWELLING AND WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. UH, ASIDE FROM ALL OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT VALET, I BROUGHT THIS UP LAST MONTH ON THIS CALL. UM, OUR CONCERNS AND MY CONCERNS AS A PROPERTY MANAGER FOR THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IS THE SAFETY OF RESIDENTS, SAFETY OF STUDENTS. MM-HMM . AND THE ACTIVITY THAT'S GOING ON AT THAT NIGHTCLUB, IT'S BEEN SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT COURTYARD IS NOT TO BE USED. THAT COURTYARD IS USED EACH NIGHT THAT THAT CLUB IS OPEN, WHETHER IT'S RENTED OUT PRIVATELY OR NOT. THE COURTYARD IS IN HEAVY USE. THE NOISE ACTIVITY IS INSANE. AND THE ACTIVITY THAT OCCURS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 2:00 AM AND 5:00 AM WHEN THAT CLUB SHUTS DOWN, THERE ARE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE STREETS. THEY'RE CROSSING THE SIDEWALKS, THEY'RE IN PARTYING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREETS. THEY'RE ON MY PROPERTY WHEN THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. AND IT'S TURNING INTO AN ENTIRE NIGHTMARE. MY RESIDENTS ARE COMPLAINING, THE STUDENTS ARE COMPLAINING THEY CANNOT SLEEP. AND I'M GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE MOVE OUT OF THIS BUILDING EARLY, THEN WHAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY DO BECAUSE OF [00:25:01] IT. SO THAT'S MY CONCERNS WITH THE NOISE AND WHAT'S GOING ON. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S REALLY BRINGING THAT UP. BUT THE COPS HAVE BEEN CALLED MULTIPLE TIMES. IT SHOULD BE IN THE REPORTS. WHERE'S THE REPORT? SO WE HAD REQUESTED, UH, THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTEND TODAY'S MEETING. UM, WE HAVE NOT, WE REACHED OUT TO THEM AGAIN TODAY. WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM THEM, UM, FOR A WHILE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE GONNA HAVE ANY UPDATED INFORMATION. BUT THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION INCLUDED THE CALLS FOR SERVICE, NUMEROUS CALLS, CORRECT NOISE, BUT NO, NO NOISE VIOLATIONS. NO, THE NOISE VIOLATIONS WOULD BE A CODE COMPLIANCE VIOLATION. THE CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, CALLS, REPORTING ANY TYPE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUE. UM, AND RIGHT. IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY ASSIGN AN ADDRESS, BUT IT'S HAPPENING OUTSIDE THE NIGHTCLUB. AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT APPEARED THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL VI THE OF THE POLICE CITATIONS, UM, THAT WERE DURING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE NIGHTCLUB. SO, BUT WITH MR. KNOTT HAS, HAS, UM, MENTIONED THAT SEEMS THAT THERE'S NOISE VIOLATION HAPPENING, UH, WHERE THE NOISE SEEMS TO BE EXCESSIVE BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE. DO WE HAVE ANY RECORD? I DON'T HAVE ANY RECENT NOISE VIOLATIONS OR NOISE WARNINGS. UM, I, I, I DON'T BELIEVE CODE HAS, HAS CITED OR GIVEN A WARNING FOR ANY NOISE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS. I SEE. AND I, IF IT'S OKAY, MR. CHAIR, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL. SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I, I'M HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO MR. KNOT. I CAN TRY AND FIND HIS CONTACT INFORMATION AND, AND, AND WORK WITH HIM. BUT AS YOU KNOW, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, CODE IS THERE EVERY NIGHT THAT THEY'RE OPEN. I MEAN, THAT'S EVIDENCED BY THE VIOLATIONS. WE HAVE NO NOISE VIOLATIONS. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, OFTENTIMES NOISE VIOLATIONS, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH OTHER LOCATIONS, ARE NOT THAT HARD TO GET IF YOU'RE IN VIOLATION. THE CITY'S VERY ACTIVE AND THEY HAVE A VERY GOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. IF THERE ARE COMPLAINTS, THEY GET THEIR PRETTY QUICKLY AND THEY ISSUE THESE VIOLATIONS. CAN I, THERE ARE NONE. ASK CODE DIRECTOR, SIR. ARE YOU KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS OF CODE BEING YOU'VE BEEN CHECKING ON VALET THAT YOU COULD CHECK ON THEM AT MIDNIGHT. WHAT, WHAT ACTIVITY HAS CODE HAD PROACTIVELY TO LOOK AT THAT PLACE BETWEEN TWO AND 5:00 AM ANY, UH, PROACTIVELY? SO, YES, PROACTIVELY, UH, ABSOLUTELY. WE, WE ARE OUT THERE. UH, WE'RE NOT OUT THERE THE ENTIRE TIME, SO THERE NO, BUT BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE RAN BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE. WE HAVE RANDOMLY, UH, GONE OUT PROACTIVELY IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. CORRECT. SINCE, SINCE MAY. SINCE MAY SINCE MAY. UM, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NOISE COMPLAINTS. UH, WHEN WE HAVE RECEIVED THE NOISE COMPLAINTS, IT DEPENDS. IF IT'S ON A WEDNESDAY, UH, WE DON'T HAVE OFFICERS WORKING UNTIL 5:00 AM UH, SO WE WOULD GET THE COMPLAINTS AFTER THE FACT. UH, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ISSUE A NOTICE, UH, FOR, 'CAUSE OUR OFFICERS NEED TO OBSERVE IT FIRSTHAND. UH, NOW WHEN IT'S BEEN ON ANY OTHER DAYS THAT OUR OFFICERS ARE WORKING, UH, IF WE, WE ARE, UH, VERY QUICK TO, TO ISSUE A NOTICE FOR EXCESSIVE NOISE. HOWEVER, UH, IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS WE HAVE NOT ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. SO WE HAVE NOT, UH, PHYSICALLY OBSERVED FIRSTHAND ANY NOISE VIOLATIONS. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CALLS FOR NOISE YOU'VE HAD IN THE LAST FEW? UH, I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT NUMBER ON ME NOW, BUT, UM, GUESSTIMATE, A GUESSTIMATE, A FAIR GUESSTIMATE. I WOULD SAY, UH, BETWEEN 5, 5, 5, MAYBE FIVE TO SEVEN, PERHAPS IN THE LAST, UH, TWO MONTHS FOR THREE MONTHS. AS FAR AS THE COURT USAGE, UM, CAN YOU BOTH CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S WHAT MR. KNOTT SAID? IS IT BEING USED ILLEGALLY? IS THAT CORRECT? SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, TO TO, AS EDGAR SAID, THEY'RE THERE PRETTY REGULARLY. THERE'S ONE NIGHT A WEEK THAT THEY'RE, BECAUSE OF THE SHIFT, THEY CAN'T BE THERE AT CERTAIN HOURS, BUT, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH THERE A LOT. YOU CAN SEE PROACTIVE INVESTIGATION ON THE ENTER GOV. THEY'RE THERE PRETTY REGULARLY. IF THAT COURTYARD'S BEING USED ILLEGALLY, A VIOLATION WOULD BE ISSUED. IT'S BEEN ISSUED BEFORE FOR THAT CHARITY EVENT. I'M NOT, AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO MR. KNOTT. I, I, MAYBE THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, STAGING THAT GOES ON. IT'S NOT, THEY'RE NOT OPERATING AS PART OF THE VENUE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT PEOPLE DON'T WALK THROUGH IT BECAUSE THEY COULD USE IT TO BRING IN STUFF AGAIN, IT, BUT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE USING IT AS PART OF THE NIGHTCLUB, IT'S JUST, THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING AND SPEAKING TO MY CLIENT AND, AND THE EVIDENCE FROM THE VIOLATION SHOWS, THAT'S JUST NOT HAPPENING. BUT AGAIN, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S IMPACTING HIM AND HIS RESIDENCE, WHERE I'D LOVE TO TALK TO HIM AND UNDERSTAND, BUT, BUT I'M NOT, AND AGAIN, I WANNA POINT SOMETHING ELSE OUT, AS HAS BEEN SAID. AND, AND AGAIN, I I I, I I, I KNOW RAY REN FOR YEARS AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO HIM AND, AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS SOME HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT AS, AS MENTIONED, A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE VACANT. IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE, WE JUST HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THE ONLY OPEN PLACES IN THAT AREA. SO IF SOMETHING HAPPENS A BLOCK AWAY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ADDRESS YOU PUT, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS MANY TIMES, IS THE ADDRESS OF, OF THE CLOSEST VENUE THAT HAS A LICENSE. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAPPENED THERE. IT IS AN AREA WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ACTIVITY, YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CIE AND OTHER ISSUES. AM I SAYING NOTHING HAS EVER HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF PEOPLE IN THE CLUB? OF COURSE NOT. IT COULD BE PEOPLE ARE OUT PARTYING. THERE'S AN ARGUMENT. IT HAPPENS AT EVERY VENUE, RESTAURANTS, NIGHTCLUBS. [00:30:01] BUT I THINK TO SAY THAT IT'S ALL RELATED TO THIS, TO THIS VENUE IS, IS NOT FAIR BECAUSE IT'S AN AREA THAT'S JUST UNDER, UNDER LIT AND UNDER UNDERACTIVE. SO I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS AND JUST SO WE MOVE THINGS ALONG HERE. SO I THINK WE, WE'VE ADDRESSED THE VALET ISSUE, I THINK THAT'S RESOLVED. UM, AND SO BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE HERE FOR TODAY, THAT'S A SECTION THAT WE COULD PROBABLY MOVE. BUT, UH, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES. AND I JUST WOULD CALL ONTO LIKE RAY AND THE, AND MR. KNOTT, WE GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS CALL IN THE VI, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT ON YOU GUYS TO DO THIS, BUT I THINK WE ARE ALL, UM, WANTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO, TO, TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A INSTITUTION LIKE THE CITY, UH, UH, BALLET SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET. UM, I THINK THAT BRING THEM BACK IN SEPTEMBER IS VALID, BUT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, OR MAYBE IT'S OCTOBER TO GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE TIME, BUT I THINK IT'S VALID THAT, UM, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES AND THAT WE GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS CALL IN SOME COMPLAINTS IF THERE'S VIOLATIONS OF NOISE. UM, SO THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING TO BASE OURSELVES ON TO MAKE A DECISION IN THE NEXT, UM, HEARING MAKE THE MOTION. SO, I MEAN, I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, SO. YEP. UM, UH, SO I, I GUESS WHAT IS THE NUMBER ONE I, I AM LOOKING AT THE, I GUESS THE CUP, IS THIS THE ONE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED FOR MOCA AT 2:00 AM AND THEN TRANSFERRED OVER TO, TO, UH, TO BACARA? CORRECT. OKAY. UM, I, I MEAN, I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THERE THAT THEY CAN'T USE THE COURTYARD. IT JUST CAN'T, THERE CAN'T BE, UH, ENTERTAINMENT OUT THERE. IS THAT, UM, THEY DID COME BACK FOR A MODIFICATION, I BELIEVE TO THE, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS, UH, REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD DID REMOVE THAT COURTYARD, THAT OUTDOOR AREA FROM THE VENUE. THE COURTYARD IS OUTDOORS, IS IT? CORRECT? IT SAYS NO OUTDOORS CORRECT ITEM RIGHT THERE ON ITEM SIX. CORRECT. SO, SO IF THEY WANTED TO USE THAT, NO, I'M SORRY, PEOPLE OUTDOORS, IT SAYS NO OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED. YEAH. YOU CAN POUR PEOPLE OUT THERE AND HAVE THEM, YOU KNOW, DOING WHATEVER DRINKING AND YOU CAN MAYBE EVEN HAVE AMBIENT MUSIC OUT THERE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE ENTERTAINMENT. AND SO THE, THE USE OF IT, EVEN AS JUST AN OUTDOOR CAFE WAS REMOVED YEAH. AS PART OF THEIR CPN? WELL, SO WHAT I GET, I GUESS 21, I BELIEVE. SO CURRENTLY, IF THEY ARE USING IT, EVEN IF IT'S JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, A QUIET PASSIVE SERVICE OF, OF FOOD OR DRINK, THAT WOULD NOT BE, I DON'T KNOW IF NECESSARILY THEY'RE DOING THAT, BUT IF THEY HAVE PEOPLE HANGING OUT OUT THERE AS MAYBE EVEN LIKE A SMOKING LOUNGE THAT W WOULD BE NOISY AND THAT WOULD BE USING IT AS PART OF THEIR FACILITY. I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS FOR CODE IS WHEN THAT'S NOT, WHEN IT'S NOT DIRECTLY IN THE CUP SAYING THAT THIS CANNOT BE USED FOR, YOU KNOW, X, Y, Z, THEN CODE IS NOT LOOKING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE CUP AND IF IT DOESN'T SAY THAT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE A CITATION. EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY AS, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S INTENT AND, AND SOME OF THE LAWYERS INVOLVED SAID, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW, IT IS SO THAT IT'S NOT GONNA, THERE'S NO NOISE OUT THERE OR IT'S NOT GONNA BE USED BECAUSE OF IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A CAFE AND THAT'S STRICKEN CODE DOESN'T SEE THAT AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE A VIOLATION. SO MY INCLINATION, SO I MEAN, WHAT IS IT THAT THEY'RE USING THE COURTYARD FOR? IS IT JUST FOR LIKE A SMOKING SECTION AREA OR? SO MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I RAISED THIS TO THEM IN REFERENCE TO THE ONE VIOLATION, THEY BACK YOUR MIC. YEAH, I'M SORRY, WHAT? YOUR MIC WASN'T ON. OH, I'M SORRY. THEY TURNED IT ON THEN IT'S ON. UM, IT WAS THAT IT'S JUST NOT BEING USED. A AGAIN, TO YOUR POINT, ARE SOME PEOPLE USING IT LIKE, AS AN OUTDOORS? LIKE IF LIKE, LIKE THE SIDEWALK WHEN THEY'RE, OR ARE THEY PULLING, ARE, ARE THERE CARS BACK? LIKE ARE THERE CARS BACK THERE? LIKE NO, IT CAN'T HAVE, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO SERVICE THERE, THERE'S NO ENTERTAINMENT, THERE'S, IT'S NOT PART OF THE VENUE. IT'S NOT BEING USED. I BELIEVE WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE CUP. I CAN SPEAK TO DEBBIE AFTER THIS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING HOW DO YOU GET TO IT IS THE ONLY WAY THROUGH THE VENUE YOU CAN GET TO IT THROUGH THE VENUE AND THERE'S A, THERE'S AN OPENING OUTSIDE AS WELL. I, I GUESS THE, THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, HOW NUMBER ONE, I, I DO THINK IT'S CONCERNING ABOUT THE, THE NOISE THAT POURS OUT. YES. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THAT ISSUE WITH, WITH MILA AND THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING SECURITY, YOU KNOW, HANDLE THAT. SO I MEAN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE FIXED. SO THAT'S A CONCERN. THE, THE OTHER CONCERN IS IF THE NEIGHBORS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NOISE FROM THE, THE OUTDOOR AREA, THERE'S CLEARLY SOMETHING GOING ON THERE. I GUESS I I OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO LIKE FORMAL VIOLATION OF THAT OTHER THAN THAT ONE I THINK IN OCTOBER. BUT I MEAN THAT'S, THAT THERE, THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE AND IT'S NOT GONNA GET FIXED UNTIL IT GETS FIXED. RIGHT. SO, SO, SO THE, TELL ME ABOUT THE PYROTECHNIC THING. SO, WELL LET ME JUST, I WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION FIRST. SO I, MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. SO AGAIN, WHEN THERE ARE VIOLATIONS WE FIGURE OUT, WE REACH [00:35:01] OUT TO CODE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHAT WAS THE VIOLATION? TRY TO RESOLVE IT HERE. I'M HEARING ABOUT IT HERE. SO I'M GONNA REACH OUT TO THE GENTLEMAN AND IF IT, IF, IF IT MEANS THAT WE EXPLAIN TO THE, TO THE OPERATORS, JUST YOU CAN'T HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE AT ALL BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOUR NOISE OR YOUR SERVICE, BUT JUST PEOPLE HAPPEN TO BE TALKING BEFORE THEY COME IN. IT'S CREATING AN ISSUE. MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT IT IS TECHNICALLY. IS IT UNDER THEIR CONTROL? IT'S PART OF THEIR LEASE PREMISES SO THEY CAN LOCK IT UP. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S NOT, WELL I THINK UNLESS WE WANT TO CHANGE THE CUP, WHICH I WOULDN'T MIND, THAT'S WHY I THINK WHERE WE'RE HEADING, THEY CAN'T FIX IT. THEY SHOULD THEM LOCK THAT AREA UP IF THEY CAN'T FIX IT THEMSELVES AND HANDLE THE ISSUE UNLESS THEY CAN FIX IT THEMSELVES. WE'RE, WE'RE HEARING ABOUT THIS ISSUE. BUT A SO WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT. I JUST, THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS THAT I WASN'T PREPARED TO ADDRESS IT IN, IN A DE LEVEL OF DETAIL BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS AN ISSUE. BUT TO YOUR POINT, YES, WE MIGHT BE ABLE JUST TO LOCK IT UP. I I JUST WELL I'M SAYING THERE MAY, IT MAY BE SOMETHING FOR STAGING, BUT LOOK YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THAT THAT'S THE GOAL. I WE WANNA SOLVE THIS. THEY DON'T USE IT. THEY'RE NOT MAKING MONEY IN THAT AREA. THEY'RE NOT SELLING DRINKS IN THAT AREA. LET THEM FIX IT. SO IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE HEARING ABOUT, WE WANNA FIX THE ISSUE. THE PYROTECHNIC THING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'VE SEEN WITH A LOT OF THE, THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE VIP BIRTHDAY PARTY THINGS, SOMEBODY BROUGHT THOSE SPARKLERS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE TRAINED NOT TO DO THAT. SOMEBODY DID IT. IT WAS A ONE TIME THING AND THEY WERE, AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I, I SAID, AND BY THE WAY THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO US BEING HERE LAST TIME, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT, AND, AND I, AND I SAID, LISTEN, YOU GUYS ARE ARE ON, ARE ARE ON ABOUT TO GET A SECOND STRIKE, YOU KNOW, NOTHING. AND, AND, AND THAT THE, THE EMPLOYEE WAS ADDRESSED, UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS FAR TOO OFTEN AND, AND IT'S A FIRE ISSUE AND, AND THEY, THEY RECOGNIZE THE CONCERN. BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, IN RETROSPECT THEY'VE BEEN HIT WITH A LOT OF ISSUES AND HAVE REALLY, I THINK DONE EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO ADDRESS IT. THIS VALET THING WAS OUTTA A LEFT FIELD AND IT, IT REALLY DISRUPTED EVERYTHING. AND WE GOT IT SOLVED AND WE HELPED IT SOLVED THE, THE, TO ME THE MOST TROUBLING OF ALL OF THEM IS THE PYROTECHNIC ISSUE. 'CAUSE IT'S THE SAFETY CONCERN. IT'S A REALLY BIG SAFETY CONCERN. YOU'VE GOT A TIGHT PACKED, TIGHT CLUB. WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENED AT, WE'VE SEEN WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENED AT OTHER CLUBS. YOU'VE GOT AN OLD BUILDING. UM, AND SO I MEAN THAT'S, YOU KNOW, VERY CONCERNING TO ME THAT, THAT EITHER THERE'S NOT GOOD TRAINING OF YOUR EMPLOYEES OR THERE'S JUST THE OWNERSHIP DOESN'T CARE OR THEY SEE THAT WHERE THIS IS HEADING AND THEY FIGURE LET'S GO OUT IN MY UNDERSTANDING TO, TO GO WITH WHAT, BECAUSE I THINK THIS BOARD WAS, WAS VERY, VERY MUCH CORRECT. YOU KNOW, AND, AND I'M NOT, AGAIN, MY KIDS KNOW ABOUT SOME OF THESE INTERNET PERSONALITIES I LEARNED FROM THEM. USED TO BE COOL, NOT COOL ANYMORE. BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS TIED TO THE CLUB, YOU KNOW, HIS, THERE WAS SOME, AND THAT WAS DURING THAT TIME, THERE WERE SOME POOR DECISIONS MADE. THAT PERSON'S BEEN REMOVED VERY DECISIVELY. AND, AND I THINK IT WAS STILL ON THEIR INSTAGRAM THAT, THAT HE'S BEEN MOVED. WELL I KNOW, BUT HIS NAME IS STILL ON THEIR MAIN PROFILE CLOUDS LIST. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS A, YOU CAN ALSO SEE AN INSTAGRAM WHERE THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS, YOU KNOW, PUBLICLY UPSET THAT HE WAS REMOVED AND YOU KNOW, BUT HE, HE'S NO LONGER PART OF THE CLUB . UM, SO I MEAN, MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE IT TILL AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, NUMBER ONE, I MEAN WE'LL BE HERE SOONER IF THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION. SO MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO HOLD IT OVER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE SEPTEMBER, I MEAN EVERYTHING'S DEAD NOW. AND UM, SO I WOULD HOLD IT OVER TILL YOU THE JANUARY, UM, PLANNING BOARD MEETING. I DUNNO, I'D SECOND THAT GIVE SOME TIME FOR . SEEMS TO BE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, BUT YOU, YOU COME, IF THERE'S A VI I MEAN HERE ANY VIOLATION WILL BRING US BACK. YEAH. ANY CP VIOLATION. ALRIGHT, SO ONE NOISE VIOLATION, CAN WE DO THAT? MOVE IT TO JEREMY, BUT, BUT IF A COMPLAINT COMES IN AND WE COULD RESCHEDULE IT SOONER YES. IF WE'RE ALERTED TO ANY TYPE OF VIOLATION, WE WILL BRING IT BACK SOONER. UM, AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO BRING IT BACK. HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL, THEY'LL STAY IN TROUBLE AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK IN JANUARY. ONE NOISE VIOLATION. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE, I MEAN, I THINK IF, IF WE COME BACK, I MEAN WE'RE DEFINITELY GONNA WANT TO HEAR FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, AND, AND WE WILL MAKE THAT REQUEST AGAIN. YEAH. STRANGE. YEAH. UM, THE ONE, ONE QUESTION I HAD IS BECAUSE THIS, UM, THIS, UH, YOU'VE DISCUSSED THE COURTYARD AREA, UM, THERE WE COULD CLARIFY THAT CONDITION TODAY. UM, BECAUSE I THINK THE CONDITION IS EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT AREA CANNOT BE USED BY PATRONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. UM, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN I READ THIS UP THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT MAYBE IF YOU, IF YOU WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE ORDER, UM, WE CAN DO THAT TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE ORDER IS EXPLICIT, THAT THE COURTYARD IS UNDER THEIR CONTROL AND THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY FIRE CODES, THAT THEY CAN SECURE IT AND LOCK IT. AND THAT NO ONE INCLUDING THEIR EMPLOYEES GO OUT IN THAT COURTYARD SINCE THEY ARE AT 5:00 AM. UM, AND MOST OF THEIR ACTIVITY PROBABLY STARTS AT TWO. UM, I [00:40:01] THINK THAT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THAT ENDS AND THAT IT, I'D LIKE TO PUT A MOTION THAT THAT'S PART OF THE C-U-P-I-I HAVE A CRITICAL JUST 'CAUSE I, AND I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLORE THAT, BUT MR. ROSE, I'M NOT EXPLORING, I'M MAKING A MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUP RIGHT. TO REQUIRE THE OWNER TO SECURE THAT LOCATION AND THAT IT IS NO ONE INCLUDING EMPLOYEES GO OUT THERE. MY CONCERN, JUST TO YOUR MOTION IF I MAY. I THINK THAT'S A NUMBER ONE. THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCES. INGRESS AND EGRESS PEOPLE SHOULD NOT CONGREGATE THERE. IT'S ALSO A FIRE ISSUE. IF THEY CLOSE THAT, I THINK IT'S A FIRE ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THE INGRESS AND EGRESSES. I DON'T THINK WE CAN CLOSE IT. SO I JUST DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A CONDITION CREATED. THERE CANNOT BE. I THINK IT WOULD CREATE PROBLEM. WHAT'S THAT? THEY CAN'T CLOSE IT. I THINK IT'S A REQUIRED FIRE EXIT AND, AND ALSO IT'S ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCES. I'M, PEOPLE DON'T CONGREGATE THERE, THERE'S NO SERVICE THERE, BUT IT IS A REQUIRED ACCESS POINT AND ENTRANCE. YEAH. THE MAIN ENTRANCE. IT'S, IT'S, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE. IT'S A REQUIRED FIRE EXIT. SO I, I'M VERY COMFORTABLE SAYING IT WON'T BE USED AS PART OF THE PREMISES. MEANING WE WON'T HAVE SERVICE THERE, WE WON'T HAVE ENTERTAINMENT THERE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. BUT IT'S TO GET IN AND OUT WE NEED. AND I THINK THE GATHERING IS THE THING TOO. JUST HAVING PEOPLE HANGING OUT, GATHERING, JUST LIKE ON THE SIDEWALK ISSUE. AND I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT MADE TO THEM ABOUT CONGREGATION, BUT, BUT I JUST TO, TO, TO LOCK IT. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE AND WOULD BE CREATE WAY MORE ISSUES AS FAR AS INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE WOULD BE NOW UNACCESSIBLE, YOU, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT A FIRE EXIT LIKE WE HAVE IN EVERY OTHER BUILDING. SO IT'S LOCKED, BUT IT HAS A PUSH BAR ON THE INSIDE SO THAT IT CAN BE USE, THE ALARM GOES OFF. I I I THINK IT, IT'S, AND FIRE COMES, IT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE. IT'S HOW MOST PEOPLE GET IN AND OUT. I I JUST THINK THEY CALL, THEY GO THROUGH THE CART YET TO GET INTO THE YEAH, TO THE UNIT. YEAH, THAT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE. OKAY. AND IT GETS THE PEOPLE OFF THE STREET, THEY COME IN, THEY HANG OUT IN THEY ROLL, THEY GOING INTO THE BUILDING. RIGHT, RIGHT ON THE STREET. RIGHT. IF YOU'RE GONNA ADDRESS THE BOARD, WE NEED YOU ON THE MIC. YEAH, PLEASE. WELL, THANK YOU RYAN. YEAH, OBVIOUSLY NONE OF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN TO THIS PROPERTY, BUT, UH, IT'S, IT'S ALL GOT A HEDGE ALL THE WAY AROUND AT LEAST FIVE FEET TALL THAN I AM. AND THERE'S JUST ONE LITTLE ENTRANCE TO GET IN. THERE'S A GUARD THAT WILL CHECK YOUR ID. YOU GET INTO THAT AREA AND THEN THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY IS FROM THERE. BIG, HUGE, 12 FOOT WIDE ENTRANCE, BIG TALL DOORS. THAT'S THE WAY YOU GET INTO THE PROPERTY AND IT'S A DOUBLE DOOR ENTRANCE. UM, THE ONLY OTHER ENTRANCE THERE IS A VIP ENTRANCE OFF THE PARKING LOT IN THE BACK, ALL THE WAY ALONG, UM, 23RD STREET. THERE IS NO ENTRANCE. AND THAT WAS MY COMPLAINT IS THEY DON'T KEEP THAT AREA CLEAN. IT'S FILTHY. ALRIGHT. AND SO IN LIGHT OF THE, THE, THE NOISE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING AND THE, THE FACT THAT WE WANNA KEEP THAT AREA CLEARED, NO GATHERING, IS THERE A WAY OF WORDING IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO GATHERING HAPPENING THERE? UM, CERTAINLY YOU COULD, UM, REQUIRE THAT THE USE OF THAT COURTYARD ONLY BE FOR EGRESS AND INGRESS. CORRECT. AND THAT THERE SHALL BE NO CONGREGATION OF PATRONS WITHIN THE COURTYARD. THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE THERE, THERE WOULD BE VIOLATION AND CODE COMPLIANCE COULD BE FIN THEM. ALRIGHT. OKAY. I'D MAKE THAT MOTION. ALRIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT THAT AREA IS RESTRICTED TO INGRESS AND EGRESS, CORRECT? NO. OR IT'S A CODE VIOL RES. IT'S ONLY, YOU SAID INGRESS AND EGRESS. IT'S ONLY EGRESS. IT'S, IT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THERE TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE. RIGHT? WELL, I GUESS HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT I, I THINK THAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT WELL, NUMBER ONE, PATRONS HAVE TO CUE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND NO QUEING SHALL OCCUR, OCCUR ON THE SIDEWALK OR ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. YEAH. THAT'S THE CONDITION THAT'S IN THERE. NOW WHAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THEY'RE QUEUING IN THAT COURTYARD AS A WAY OF CIRCUMVENT. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE GATHERING OUT THERE CAUSING NOISE WAITING TO GET INTO THE CLUB. AND THAT'S PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THAT'S CAUSING NOISE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT'S NEVER, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET FOR VARIOUS REASONS CLOGGING UP TO THE SIDEWALK, BUT IT'S ALSO SO YOU DON'T BOTHER THE NEXT, NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS. UM, I MEAN YOU'VE, WE'VE SEEN THIS, YOU KNOW, UH, ALL THE TIME. ALL THE TIME. I MEAN, THERE'S PROBLEMS. SO THAT IS WHAT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO FIX. BUT IF YOU'RE, IF WE'RE SAYING THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE TO ENTER, CORRECT THE PROPERTY, THEN THEY CAN'T ALLOW QUEUING. I MEAN, HOW ARE YOU GONNA ALLOW HUGE LINES OUTDOOR GATHER? YOU KNOW, HOW, YOU KNOW? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT'S LIKE, LIKE MOST OTHER PLACES, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PLACE INSIDE THAT'S, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE IQ INSIDE. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON WHAT THE MOTION IS. KEITH, GO AHEAD. THE MOTION IS THAT IT IS FOR INGRESS AND INGRESS, IF I PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECTLY. ONLY, UH, NO QUEUING IN THE CART YARDS BECAUSE IT COULD HAPPEN AT FOUR OR FIVE IN THE MORNING. AND THAT IF THEY HAVE AN OVERFLOW, IT HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED ON THE INSIDE THAT THEY CHECK PEOPLE. AND [00:45:01] IF THEY'RE GOOD TO GO IN, THEY GO IN. IF NOT, THEY DON'T HOLD THEM IN THAT AREA, OTHERWISE IT'S GONNA CAUSE ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT WORKS. YEP. YOU CAN WORD IT HOW YOU WANT IN THE ACTUAL WE HAVE MOTION WE GET A SECOND. I NEED A SECOND ON THAT MOTION. ANY SECONDS? YEAH, NO, I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT? OKAY. NOW THE SECOND MOTION WAS BY JONATHAN TO MOVE IT TO MM-HMM . TO JANUARY. JANUARY. BUT WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IF THERE ARE COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN, IN THE INTERIM THAT WE CAN SCHEDULE IT SOONER, CORRECT? YES. OKAY. CORRECT. ALRIGHT. CAN I GET A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT ONE TOO. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT? AYE, AYE. ALL. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU ALL. UH, JAMES, ARE YOU READY? OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO, [8. PB21-0442, 743 WASHINGTON AVENUE.] UH, THE OTHER REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARING PLANNING BOARD FILE, 21 0 4 4 2 7 43 WASHINGTON AVENUE. THANK GO. UM, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. JUST A, A QUICK INTRODUCTION. SO THIS CUP IS ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, QUITE OLD. IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2008. UM, IT WAS LAST MODIFIED IN, UM, 2024. AND WE SENT A CURE LETTER IN, UH, IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. UM, DUE TO VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE, YOU KNOW, EVENTS OR PROMOTED, UH, ACTIVITY AT THE NIGHTCLUB. THERE WERE SEVERAL, UM, OF THOSE VIOLATIONS ISSUED. UM, SINCE THAT TIME, LET'S SEE, THE LAST VIOLATION WE HAVE ON RECORD WAS ISSUED, UM, LET'S SEE, I THINK IT WAS, UM, DECEMBER 27TH, 2025. UM, SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE NOT, THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS AND ALL FEES, UM, HAVE BEEN PAID. SO THE, THE, WHEN WE WROTE THE REPORT, THEY STILL HAD, I BELIEVE IT WAS $11,000 IN OUTSTANDING FEES THAT HAS BEEN PAID. UM, SO WE JUST WANNA THANK THE APPLICANT FOR THAT. AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING, UH, HOWEVER THAT WE CONTINUE THIS, UM, JUST TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO, UM, FUTURE VIOLATIONS. UM, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING A CONTINUANCE TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING. OKAY, JAMES, HOPE YOUR APPOINTMENT WENT WELL. YES. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. HONORABLE BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME MAKE IT TO MY, UH, MEDICAL APPOINTMENT. UM, UH, WE'RE IT JAMES ROW GREENSVILLE WATER OFFICE AT BRICKLE AVENUE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OPERATOR UNDER THIS FILE. UM, WE'RE, OUR FIRM WAS JUST RECENTLY ENGAGED, BUT WE'RE, SO WE'RE REQUESTING ATTAINMENTS, WE WE'RE REQUESTING THE SAME, UM, CONTINUANCE THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO SEPTEMBER AS THE STAFF INDICATED. THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS. THERE ARE NO FINES DOING OWING. UM, AND UH, SO WE'RE JUST ASKING IT BE CONTINUED AND UH, WE'LL ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT COMES UP IN SEPTEMBER. OKAY. WHICH WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. ITEM. ANYONE ON ZOOM? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? SO WE WANNA MOVE IT TO SEPTEMBER? YEAH, I'LL MOVED. OKAY. KEITH, CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SEE YOU IN SEPTEMBER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, ON TO PREVIOUSLY CONTINUED APPLICATIONS PLANNING BOARD [10. PB26-0815, 1775 COLLINS AVENUE – LDR AMENDMENT.] [11. PB26-0816, 1775 COLLINS AVENUE – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT] FILED, I GUESS COMPANION 26 0 8 1 5 AND OH 8 1 6 17 75 COLLINS AVENUE, LDR AMENDMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR AN FAR INCREASE FOR THE RALEIGH SITE, WHICH INCLUDES THE HISTORIC RALEIGH SOUTH SEA SEAS ENRICHMENT HOTELS. THIS HEARING IS STEP THREE IN A SIX STEP PROCESS FOR FAR INCREASES. LAST MONTH WE HAD THE INITIAL MEETING IN A PUBLIC WORKSHOP, WHICH WERE STEPS ONE AND TWO. THE WORKSHOP WAS WELL ATTENDED WITH FOUR SPEAKERS, AND A SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM THE WORKSHOP HAS BEEN PASSED OUT FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION AFTER THE BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION. THE PROCESS WILL CONTINUE WITH A FIRST READING AT COMMISSION, A SECOND PUBLIC WORKSHOP, AND A SECOND READING AT COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE FAR FROM 2.0 TO 2.5 FOR RM THREE OCEAN FRONT LOTS WITHIN THE ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT THAT EXCEED A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2026. THESE CRITERIA WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE RALEIGH SITE. ALL OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT THAT EXCEED A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WERE AGGREGATED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 14TH, 1998, AND ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A GREATER 3.0 FAR. THE PROPOSED 0.5 FAR INCREASE REPRESENTS AN ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATELY 66,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY MASSING PLANS TO SHOW HOW THE ADDITIONAL FAR COULD BE DISTRIBUTED. THE REQUESTED CODE AMENDMENTS DO NOT ALTER EXISTING HEIGHT OR DENSITY MAXIMUMS, AND ANY REVISED DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE A REVIEW BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY [00:50:01] AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, STAFF IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDS THE BOARD TRANSMIT A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. GONZALEZ. THANK YOU. GOOD, GOOD MORNING. UM, MR. CHAIR AND BOARD. MY NAME'S ALFREDO GONZALEZ, OFFICE OF 3 3 3 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE WITH GREENBURG TAR ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. UH, NALA RALLY, LLC, UH, WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE FROM, UH, OWNERSHIP GENGE HADID. WE HAVE OTHER REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PROJECT TEAM AS WELL AS, UH, FROM KOBE CAR'S OFFICE. UM, MATT MCCART. WELL, WE WERE HERE LAST MONTH AND WE DIDN'T DO A FULL PRESENTATION. WE WERE GONNA TRY TO DO A, A SHORTER PRESENTATION. UH, SINCE YOU'VE SEEN, WE, WE'VE HAD, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, WE'VE HAD OUR COMMUNITY MEETING, AS STAFF HAS SAID, AND, UM, GOTTEN FEEDBACK AND WE'RE CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT. TODAY'S REQUEST IS STRICTLY A 0.5 INCREASE IN FAR. AND, UM, BUT BEFORE I START THE PRESENTATION, I KNOW, UH, MR. A HAD COME IN FOR THE HEARING, WANTED TO SAY A FEW WORDS, THE, THE, THE DEVELOPER. SO I'M GONNA INTRODUCE HIM AND THEN I'LL GET INTO THE POWERPOINT. I'M RIGHT HERE. GOOD MORNING. UH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE TIME TODAY. APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S, UH, FOCUS ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT. AS I INTRODUCED LAST TIME AND, AND REITERATE TODAY, THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT IN OUR BUSINESS RIGHT NOW THAN THE RALEIGH HOTEL. UM, OUR TEAM HAS CONTINUED TO WORK TIRELESSLY. WE HAVE SINCE OUR JUNE 2ND MEETING IN THE, I GUESS IN THE PAST MONTH, UH, WE HAVE SPENT 25% MORE THAN I HAD TOLD YOU AT THAT TIME. WE HAD INVESTED AL ALREADY 4 MILLION INTO THE ASSET THAT'S SPECIFICALLY INTO THE HOTEL. WE'RE NOW AT 5 MILLION. WE'RE NOT STOPPING. OUR GOAL IS TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, AT A RAPID PACE. WE DO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR REQUEST IS, UH, IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE PROJECT. WE'RE, UH, FULLY DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE HOTEL. UM, IN LINE WITH THIS REQUEST AS, AS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO US THAN GETTING THIS PROJECT GOING AND NOT WASTING ANY MORE TIME. UM, AND WE'RE NOT WASTING ANY TIME. WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS. WE APPRECIATE ALFREDO'S WORK ON THIS, AND KOBE CAR'S TEAM. EVERYBODY'S WORKING WEEKENDS, NIGHTS, HOLIDAYS, UM, TO GET THIS PROJECT OFF THE GROUND AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. AND WITH THAT, I JUST, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I'M HERE FOR, FOR, FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU MAY WANT TO DISCUSS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. CAN WE GET THE POWERPOINT UP PLEASE? THANK YOU. SO OBVIOUSLY, I'M JUST GONNA GO, I'LL SKIMP FAST THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN PARTS OF IT. UH, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS HISTORIC RALLY AND HISTORIC IMAGES. THIS IS GOING BACK TO THE WORK THAT WAS DONE, UH, THE RESTORATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS NOW, THE CAPITAL IS, IS THE FIFTH OWNER IN OVER 14 YEARS. AND, UH, ONE CONCERN WHEN, UH, THE NEW OWNERSHIP TOOK OVER WAS THE FACT THAT THE RALEIGH HADN'T BEEN BOARDED UP OR PROTECTED IN OVER NINE YEARS. UH, AND AS I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, BY MAY 1ST, ALL THAT WAS COMPLETED SOHO, IT'S, IT'S BEEN OPEN, RIGHT? HUH? HAS IT BEEN CLOSED OR OPEN? IT'S BEEN CLOSED. IT, IT WAS CLOSED IN 2017, AFTER 2000 WHEN TOMMY HILFIGER THREW, UH, TWO OWNERS AGO. SO IT'S BEEN CLOSED THREE, ALMOST 10 YEARS, HUH? IT'S BEEN CLOSED FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS. YES, SIR. WOW. SO, FOR ABOUT 14 YEARS, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL OWNERSHIPS TO REDESIGN, TRY TO REDESIGN THE RALEIGH. BACK IN 2017, TOMMY HILGER GROUP, UH, ACQUIRED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, UH, THROUGH HPB AND STARTED, PULLED THE PERMIT AND STRIPPED THE RALEIGH TO WHAT EVERYONE'S BEEN TO, THIS IMAGE THAT EVERYONE'S BEEN LOOKING AT FOR OVER NINE YEARS. AND THAT, THAT CONTINUED UNTIL THIS YEAR WITH THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP, HEARING THE, THEIR OWN CONCERNS AND THE CONCERNS OF STAFF AND, AND THE CITY THAT THIS BUILDING WAS BEING UNPROTECTED. AND GOD FORBID THERE WAS, UH, SOME KINDA STORM. SO THAT'S WHY WHAT YOU SEE NOW, WHAT, WHEN WAS IT ACQUIRED? IT WAS ACQUIRED AT THE END OF OCTOBER, 2025. SO THEY IMMEDIATELY STARTED GETTING ACCESS TO THE SITE WHEN THEY HAD FULL CONTROL IN DECEMBER, AND REALIZING THE CONDITIONS OF THE RALEIGH. AND, UH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY EVER SINCE. SO THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY TO GET PERMITS AND ADDRESS. SO YOU'LL SEE THE FACADE, UH, ALL THE INTERIOR BRACING, INSURING THAT WAS DONE IN THE INTERIOR AS WELL WAS COMPLETED. AND THEY'VE CLEANED UP THE POOL. AND THEN ONE THING THAT I KNOW, UH, STAFF HAS BEEN FOR YEARS, OR OVER A DECADE LOOKING TO HAVE IT REMOVED WAS THERE WAS A PENTHOUSE EDITION IN THE NINETIES. UM, AND WHILE IT WAS UNDER PERMIT, HAD NEVER BEEN ACTUALLY REMOVED, NOW THE BUILDING'S BEEN BRACED AND PROTECTED, THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP HAS GONE AND MOVED, REMOVED IT. AND THEN THIS WAS A DO CROSSOVER, UM, DOON CROSSOVER BEHIND THE RICHMOND HOTEL THAT WAS IN DISREPAIR FOR YEARS. AND AGAIN, THEY TRIED, THEY GOT IT DONE BEFORE MAY 1ST, SO [00:55:01] NOT TO INTERFERE WITH HURRICANE SEASON OR, UM, AND IT'S NOW BACK IN THE PUBLIC EYE. UH, THAT WAS ONE COMMENTS WE WERE GETTING FROM THE CITY THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT AND COMPLAINTS THAT THIS WAS IN DISREPAIR AND HAD BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS. SO, WANNA GIVE YOU CONTEXT, WHAT THIS PROJECT IS ASKING FOR IS A 0.5 FAR, AND AS STAFF AND JAMES AND DEBBIE MENTIONED, UH, IT WOULD REALLY APPLY TO ONLY LARGE SCALE SITES IN WITHIN THIS, THIS, THIS AREA ABOUT A FLY FIVE BLOCK AREA THAT, UH, SEVERAL OTHER SITES ALREADY ARE GRANDFATHERED, I GUESS, AT A MUCH HIGHER FAR. AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A SCOPE, THIS IS AN OVERLAY OF THE RM THREE DISTRICT AND THE MAY BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT OCEANFRONT SITES. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS ALREADY FOUR SITES. YOU HAVE THIS SETAI, I UNDERSTAND SIZE OVER 6.0 FAR, UH, THAT WAS DONE BEFORE THE, THE, THE, THE, I GUESS THE, THE 1996 DOWN ZONE. SO 2 0 1 IS THE TIE, THE YES, 2101, IT SAYS TIE, THAT'S NUMBER ONE. YEAH. THEN, THEN YOU HAVE THE SHORT CLUB, AND THE, UH, SHORT CLUB IS 1901. YES, SIR. SHORT CLUB IS 1901. THEN YOU GO TO SITE NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS OUR SITE, THE RALEIGH RICHMOND SOUTH SEAS. AND THEN YOU GO TO FOUR, WHICH IS THE RITZ CARLTON SAGAMORE SITE, THE RITZ CARLTON SITE. AND THE, UH, SHELL BORNE SITE, SORRY, NOT SHOW BORN, UH, SHORT CLUB ARE AT 3.15 FAR, WHICH IS THE 3.0 FAR PLUS A BONUS OF UP TO 1.5. SO OUT OF THE, ON THE ONLY LARGE SCALE SITES IN THIS AREA, AND I DIDN'T INCLUDE ALL THE WAY IN THE SOUTHERN TIP, THE LOWS, THE LOWE'S IS AT 4 2 5 FAR HA. THE, THE LARGE LOWE'S HOTEL IS IN THE RM THREE, THE ROYAL PALM, THAT, THAT'S PART OF THE COMPLEX IS IN THE MXC. SO I, SINCE IT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING, I LEFT IT OUT. BUT IT, AGAIN, ONLY THE, THE FEW LARGE SCALE SITES. THIS DOES NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO, UM, OTHER SITES. AND OUTSIDE OF THIS BRACKET, ANYWHERE ELSE, AN OCEANFRONT PROPERTY, UH, IN R THREE, AS LONG AS THEY'RE OVER 45,000 SQUARE FEET, ALMOST A THIRD OF WHAT OUR SITE IS OVER 137 WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE A 3.0 FAR. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS FOR THIS BOARD TO RECOMMEND TO HELP THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD AND GET BUILT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. THIS 25%, WHICH EQUATES TO ABOUT 66,000 SQUARE FEET OF FAR, UM, INCREASE, WE'RE NOT ASKING TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS THE OTHER TWO SITE LARGE SALE SITES IN THAT AREA, WHICH ARE AT 3.15, WHICH WOULD'VE MEANT, UH, ABOUT 152,000 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL FAR. UH, WE STUCK IT TO THE 0.5. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY DENSITY INCREASES. I MEAN, THIS PROJECT WAS CLEARLY BEFORE IT STARTED THE RICHMOND SOUTH SEASON, UH, THE THREE HOTELS HAD OVER 300 HOTEL UNITS. IT'S BEEN ENTITLED SINCE 2 20, 20 20, AT 84 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 86 HOTEL UNITS WITH THIS FAR THAT THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP IS LOOKING AT HAVING AT MAXIMUM 52 UNITS AND UNDER 80 HOTEL ROOMS. SO STILL A REDUCTION FROM WHAT WAS ENTITLED. UM, YEAH, I WAS GONNA ASK YOU, SO THE, THE ADDED FAR IS GONNA GO WHERE, WHERE'S THE ADDED FAR? AND WE, WE COULD, I'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT. PART OF IT'S GONNA GO INTO THE NEW TOWER. THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO, AND WE, AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL WORKING ON MASSING. REMEMBER THIS PROJECT, ONCE THE FAR IS APPROVED, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT TO THE HPB IN ORDER TO APPLY THAT 0.5 AND TO HOPEFULLY SUCCESSFULLY GET THAT 0.5 ALLOCATED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. SO AT THAT POINT, WE'LL HAVE DETAILED PLANS. WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IS WHAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE A IS TO HAVE SOME MASSING TO HAVE GENERAL IDEAS OF WHERE EVERYTHING'S GOING TO, TO GIVE THIS BOARD THAT INDICATION. THAT'S WHAT THE, THE IMAGES THAT I HAVE AND I'LL SHOW YOU, WILL HAVE AND AND REWIND. IS THIS JUST GONNA BE A HOTEL OR IS IT A CONDO HOTEL? IT'S GONNA BE A COMBINATION. SO IT'LL BE A ROSE. IT IS STILL GONNA HAVE A ROSEWOOD FLAG, UH, AS LIKE, AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE. CAN I CHIME IN ON THAT? SURE. JUST, JUST TO PUT SOME CONTEXT, THIS IS A THREE ACRE SITE. SO THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY. UM, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THREE HOTELS THAT HAVE ALL BEEN COMBINED INTO ONE PROPERTY. THE, THE, THE RALEIGH, THE RICHMOND, THE SOUTH SEAS. UM, THIS WILL TAKE ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS OF REINVESTMENT INTO THIS SITE TO ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. IT'LL BE MULTIPLE RESTAURANTS, IT'LL BE A HOTEL, UM, IT'LL BE A RESIDENCES, THERE'LL BE LANDSCAPE GARDENS. BUT EACH THREE OF THE THREE BUILDINGS WILL REMAIN, REMAIN ABSOLUTELY. SEPARATELY. ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE, WE'RE KEEPING THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT THE HPB HAS HAS REQUESTED. AND, AND OUR INTENTION IS PRESERVATION. RIGHT. I MEAN, THE GOAL IS TO KEEP THE, THE SO OF THIS PROPERTY, IT IS NOT TO, UH, DEMOLISH ANYTHING. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT ALL THREE THAT WERE ONE SEPARATE HOTELS WILL ALL BE NOW RUN BY ONE FLAG. CORRECT. CALLED THERE'LL BE ONE [01:00:01] FLAG, BUT THEY WILL REMAIN INDEPENDENT BUILDINGS. OKAY. UH, THEY WILL NOT BE, AND EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE CONDOS AND HOTELS? NO, THE CONDOS WILL BE A SEPARATE, SEPARATE BUILDING. OKAY. ON THE SITE, BECAUSE IT'S A THREE ACRE SITE, YOU HAVE THE SPACE AND IT WAS PREVIOUSLY OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WONDER. SO THERE'S GONNA BE A SEPARATE CONDO TOWERS. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN THE THREE EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL REMAIN HOTEL. THAT'S CORRECT. GOT IT. OKAY. THANKS. YES, SIR. THE OF THE PICTURE YOU SHOWED WHICH ONE I'M GOING THOUGH, . OKAY. YOU'RE GOING, I'LL WAIT. NO, NO, I'M HAVING, I'M SO JUST WONDERING TO BE CLEAR THAT WITH THIS 0.5 OF FAR, IT'S NOT ALSO REQUESTING ANY TYPE OF HEIGHT INCREASE. NO HEIGHT. WE ARE, WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING UNDER R THREE, WHICH PERMITS UP TO 200 FEET, UH, FOR SITES. AND 200 FEET IS TYPICALLY FOUND IN A LOT OF OCEAN FRONT SITES WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND MORE THAN ONE HISTORIC DISTRICTS ALONG, UH, THE OCEAN FRONT. UM, IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER HAD PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS TO IMPROVE 18TH STREET OVER A MILLION DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION. UH, OBVIOUSLY WE WERE STORING THE, THE, THE THREE L MURRAY DIXON BUILDINGS TO THEIR ORIGINAL, UH, UM, 1940S, UH, FACADES BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN ALTERED IN THE FIFTIES, ESPECIALLY THE RICHMOND, THE SOUTH SEA, AND OBVIOUSLY ADDED SECURITY IN ADDITION TO THE SECURITY THAT IS PROVIDED FOR THE, THE RALEIGH SITE AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ARTISAN CULTURAL PROGRAM THAT WORKS WITHIN THE RALEIGH SITE AND ALSO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF LOCAL ARTISTS. UM, BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE RENDERINGS OF WHAT IT WE, THIS BUILDING. THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES ARE NOT, ARE ACTUAL ACCURATE, THEY'RE BASED ON THE BUILDING PERMIT SETS. SO YOU'LL SEE THE RALEIGH, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING BEHIND THE RALEIGH IS WOULD BE THE, THE NEW TOWER. UM, HERE'S A STREET, UH, STRAIGHT ON YOU SEE THE RICHMOND, THE SOUTH SEAS, AND UH, THE RALEIGH. UM, AND TO ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. SO THERE'LL BE ACTIVATIONS IN THE LOBBIES OF THE RICHMOND, THE SOUTH SEAS. OBVIOUSLY THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS, IS THE RALEIGH HOTEL, UH, WILL BE FLAGGED UNDER THE ROSEWOOD, BUT THE WHOLE SITE WILL BE CONTROLLED, THEIR BASEMENTS. UH, AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS IN THE REAR. WHEN YOU SEE THIS IMAGE, UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THIS MASSING, WE JUST, BASICALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE ADDED TWO LEVELS OF THE ALREADY PERMANENT BUILDING. SO JUST THE TWO TOP FLOORS IS WHAT POTENTIALLY IN SOME ITERATION WOULD COME BACK WITH THAT 0.5 FAR. UH, THE REST OF THE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED AND THAT ENDS UP ANOTHER IMAGE. AND THAT HEIGHT OF THAT TOWER IS WHAT'S PERMITTED THERE. IT LOOKS HUGE. 200, IT'S 200, IT'S 200 FEET. IT'S WENT UNDER THE, IS PERMITTED UNDER CODE. OKAY. AT 200. SO I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT HAS TO GO TO THE HPV TO APPROVE IT. UH, BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY, THERE'S NO TEXT AMENDMENT. YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. A GREATER HEIGHT, UH, UNLIKE, I KNOW THERE'S SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED AND REVIEWED THROUGHOUT PARTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO ALLOW DIFFERENT HEIGHTS. THIS IS 200, WHICH SHOULD YOU KNOW, AND I COULD HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE NUMEROUS SITES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT'S. OCEAN FRONT SITES 200 HAS BEEN THE STANDARD SINCE THE NINETIES. OKAY. BASED ON PRELIMINARY MASSING. HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU HAVE IN THERE? UH, ABOUT 52. GREAT. AND THEN THAT JUST THE STREET, THE STREET FRONT VIEW. UM, AT THIS POINT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST RESERVE FOR REBUT. I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE OKAY. A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS. AND IF, AND MAYBE, UM, DURING, I'LL REBUT AND THEN I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE MAY HAVE. ALRIGHT. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. ALRIGHT. ANYONE IN CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS? THERE ARE ANY, UM, EX PARTE DISCLOSURES BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. NONE. DO WE NEED DISCLOSURES ON THAT CODE? OH, THIS, OH YEAH, YEAH. ACTUALLY IT, IT'S LEGISLATIVE, SO WE DON'T NEED TO, YEAH, YEAH. YES MA'AM. AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS, BUT JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOUR AFFILIATION. THANK YOU. HI, GOOD MORNING, AMANDA COR HAND. I'M WITH, UH, A QH LAW OFFICES AT 1395 BRICK LAB, SUITE 800. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SHELBURN HOTEL. IT'S A BUDDING PROPERTY OWNER. UM, MY CLIENT IS HERE, MITCHELL COHEN. HE'S GONNA ALSO SPEAK ON THE RECORD FROM A MORE PERSONAL BASIS, BUT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, I'D LIKE TO PLACE, UM, TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF FACTS BECAUSE THE BOARD PICKED UP ON IT RIGHT AWAY. UM, I THINK SOMEBODY SAID THAT THE TOWER LOOKS HUGE. UM, THE FIRST PAGE IN THE MATERIALS THAT I PASSED OUT AND I HAVE GIVEN ONE TO, UM, MR. GONZALEZ IS, UH, AN AERIAL OF WHAT THE SITE LOOKS LIKE. UH, AS OF THE CURRENT, UH, GOOGLE AERIAL, IT SHOWS A RELATIVELY BLANK SLATE. SO WHERE WE PUT THE FAR IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S FLEXIBLE BECAUSE THIS IS A THREE ACRE [01:05:01] SITE. YOU HAVE RALEIGH HOTELS STILL STANDING, YOU HAVE THE POOL, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE FACADES OF THE TWO SMALLER HOTELS. UM, SO THERE IS A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY AS TO WHERE WE, WHERE YOU PUT THE FAR AND ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, UM, HE DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL FAR, THE HEIGHT IS THE ISSUE. IT IS OUT OF SCALE, IT IS OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT. SO ON PAGE ONE, I'M SHOWING YOU THAT IT'S A RELATIVELY BLANK SLATE WHERE WE CAN PUT THE FAR OTHER PLACES. UM, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE HEIGHT CONTEXT FROM AROUND 15 TO 20TH. THAT WOULD BE THE TALLEST BUILDING. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS, THEY'RE ALL ABOUT ONE. LEMME INTERRUPT. BUT YOU WOULD, IT'S PERMITTED THOUGH, CORRECT? THERE IS A CODE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS 200 FEET, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT HAS TO BE, UH, GRANTED THE CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT IS FOR 175 FEET. AND IN FACT, THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. I THINK MR. NEEDLEMAN MENTIONED THAT BEFORE. UM, GRANT, I THINK AT THE, AT THE LAST PLANNING BOARD HEARING, HE SAID, WELL, IF WE APPROVE A BUILDING THAT WAS 200 FEET, IT'D BE UNDOING ALL THE WORK THAT THE HPV DID BEFORE. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WAS A CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT BEFORE. THERE IS A BUILDING PERMIT FOR 175 FOOT BUILDING THAT IS NOT OPPOSED. THAT WAS PART OF A RESOLUTION OF PREVIOUS DEBATES BETWEEN THE SHELL BORN HOTEL AND THE RALEIGH. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS FOR, FOR THE BOARD TO ADD A CONDITION ONTO THE LEGISLATION. THIS IS A PROPOSED LDR AND THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE, UH, MODIFICATIONS. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE LAST TIME THIS BOARD WILL HEAR THIS ITEM. SO THIS IS YOUR LAST OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN. BUT THE, THE, UH, PROPOSED 200 FOOT TOWER IS OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT. AND SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE LANGUAGE BE MODIFIED SUCH THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT BE TALLER, UH, HEIGHT GREATER THAN ANY OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES. AS, UM, MS. HACKETT, UH, POINTED OUT AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING BOARD, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES, THE SHELL BORNE AND THE PROPERTY TO THE ITSELF? HOW HIGH IS THE SHELL BORNE? IT'S ONE 50 WITH A, WITH LIGA MECHANICAL. SORRY, JUST A QUESTION ON THAT. YOU CAN SEE IT ON, I THINK IT'S PAGE THREE OF THE HANDOUT. SO I'M ON PAGE THREE. SO SEPARATE FROM THE, I GUESS, ADJACENT PROPERTIES, IF WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING YOU'RE SHOWING, I MEAN, YOU GOT SHORE CLUB AT 2 25 R AT OVER 200. SO TIE IT CLOSE TO 400 W AT TWO 30. I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT, SEPARATE FROM, AGAIN, JUST THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WELL, FROM 15TH TO 20TH, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 150 FEET WITH SOME TOWER FEATURES. I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT THE RITZ, THERE'S THAT SPINDLE THAT GETS IT TO 2 0 4. UM, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS. THEY'RE IN THE 150 RANGE WITH, YOU KNOW, LITTLE MECHANICAL TOWERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S 200 FEET IN THAT RANGE. OKAY. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN'T MODIFY IT. WHAT WE CAN DO IS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. WELL, YES, YOUR RECOMMENDATION COULD BE JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T, WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO MODIFY IT. WE CAN RECOMMEND UNDERSTOOD. JUST TO BE CLEAR. YES. UNDERSTOOD. SO WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE RECOMMENDATION BE THAT THE LEG, THAT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION BE MODIFIED SUCH THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT BE HIGHER THAN THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES. I, I THINK THAT WOULD KEEP THE HEIGHTENED CONTEXT AND WILL ALSO, UM, BE A WAY FOR, FOR THE DEVELOPER TO GET THE ADDITIONAL FAR THAT THEY WANT FOR THEIR PROFORMA. THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE ADDITIONAL FAR IT IS WHERE, UH, WHERE THE FAR IS PLACED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS, SIR? GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, MITCHELL COHEN, UM, SHE HOTEL 1801 COLLINS AVENUE. UM, EVERY PLANNING DECISION ASKS A SIMPLE QUESTION, ARE WE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR ARE WE SOLVING A PRIVATE PROBLEM? TODAY, I RESPECTIVELY SUBMIT THAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO SOLVE A PRIVATE PROBLEM. I REVIEWED THE VIDEO OF THE JUNE 2ND COMMITTEE MEETING, AND AT 54 MINUTES INTO THE HEARING, COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT TALKED ABOUT THE ERRORS THAT HIS CLIENT UNCOVERED DURING DUE DILIGENCE, UH, DEVELOPING 1 0 1. YOU CHECK OUT THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA COST, AND YOU BUILD IN THE RISK. THE WAY I VIEW IT, THE APPLICANT IS NOW COMING BACK AND TRYING TO CASH IN AN INSURANCE POLICY, AN INSURANCE POLICY THAT SAYS I WANT 25% MORE FAR TO MAKE MY PROJECT ECONOMICAL. AGAIN, AS, AS MY COUNSEL INDICATED, AND I INDICATED AT THE LAST MEETING, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FAR. AGAIN, IT'S JUST MATH AND IT'S CONTEXTUAL. BUT TO ADD 25 FEET TO THIS TOWER, [01:10:01] IT'S NOT RIGHT. IT, IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT, IT'S OUT OF CHARACTER, AND I THINK IT IMPACTS THE HERITAGE FEATURES OF SOUTH BEACH. ADDITIONALLY, AT THE JUNE 30TH PUBLIC MEETING, UM, COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT ALSO SAID THAT ONCE THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETED, THE RALEIGH'S POOL WILL HAVE MORE SUNLIGHT THAN IT DID IN THE 1950S. WELL, I, I FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING YOU TO TAKE THE SUNLIGHT AWAY FROM ME AND GIVE IT TO HIM. I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT. I'M FINE WITH FAR. BUT IN TERMS OF OF SUN SHADOW, THE HPB WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO MAKE THIS BUILDING 1 75 AND FIT IN AS BEST AS IT COULD. AND THIS APPLICATION UNWINDS IT WITH THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. AGAIN, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO SOLVE A PRIVATE DUE DILIGENCE PROBLEM AND HEIGHTENED DENSITY SHOULD BE GRANTED ON PLANNING MATTERS, ON, ON GUIDELINES, ON, ON GOOD JUSTIFICATION. NOT SOMEBODY WHO DISCOVERED THAT THE NUMBERS JUST DON'T ADD UP. SO, UM, I RESPECTIVELY ASK THAT THE FAR AT 2.5, I'M OKAY WITH IT, BUT I DON'T THINK 25 FEET SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE ADDED TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL FOR THE TOWER AT THE BACK, WHICH UNWINDS EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE ADDITIONAL TIME. THANK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE MA'AM? GOOD MORNING PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MEG LUAU. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MIAMI DESIGN PRESERVATION LEAGUE. FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, MDPL HAS WATCHED PROPOSAL AFTER PROPOSAL COME FORWARD FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE RALEIGH HOTEL. DURING THAT TIME, A SUCCESSION OF DEVELOPERS HAS PRESENTED PLANS TO RESTORE THIS ICONIC ART DECO LANDMARK. CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP IN THE RESULTING DELAYS HAVE TAKEN A HEAVY TOLL TODAY, LITTLE REMAINS OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING BEYOND ITS FACADE. WHILE THE ORIGINAL TERRAZZO FLOORS AND MANY OTHER HISTORIC FEATURES HAVE BEEN LOST, THE CURRENT DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL THAT IS LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH PLANS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BOTH BY YOU, THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. HOWEVER, IT INCLUDES ONE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE RM THREE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM 2.0 TO 2.5. AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATION MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE PROPOSAL MDPL OPPOSES THE REQUESTED INCREASE IN FAR, WE ARE GENUINELY ENCOURAGED BY THE VISION PRESENTED FOR THE RESTORATION AND REACTIVATION OF THE RALEIGH, THE RICHMOND, AND THE SOUTH SEAS. THESE ARE AMONG MIAMI BEACH'S MOST ICONIC HISTORIC HOTELS AND WE APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S COMMITMENT TO INVESTING IN THEIR PRESERVATION AND ENSURING THEIR CONTINUED VITALITY. WE SUPPORT THE OVERALL GOAL OF BRINGING THESE REMARKABLE BUILDINGS BACK TO LIFE IN A MANNER THAT CELEBRATES THEIR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. OUR SUPPORT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THESE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROPOSED FAR INCREASE AND CONCURRENT ADDITION OF TWO STORIES TO THE NEW OCEAN FRONT TOWER. FROM THE BEGINNING, MDPL HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE SCALE AND PRESENCE OF THE TOWER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY INCREASING ITS HEIGHT FROM 175 TO 200 FEET ONLY EXACERBATES THOSE CONCERNS. A BUILDING OF THIS SIZE AND CHARACTER IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BEACH IS FUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS WITH THE HISTORIC OCEAN FRONT SETTING THAT MAKES THIS PART OF MIAMI BEACH SO SPECIAL. WE NOTE THAT THE TWO PROPOSED ADDITIONAL STORIES, ATO, THE NEW TOWER ACCOUNT FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AREA THAT WOULD BE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE FAR REQUEST, APPROXIMATELY 44,000 OF THE 66,000 ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET THAT THESE FAR WOULD GRANT. INDEED THESE ADDED FLOORS APPEAR TO BE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR SEEKING THE FAR INCREASE. WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED, HOWEVER, ABOUT THE REMAINING 22,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. I'M ALMOST DONE, IF I CAN CONTINUE. RIGHT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, APPROVING THESE ADDITIONAL FLOORS WOULD ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT THAT EXTENDS WELL BEYOND THIS PROJECT. SHOULD THE CITY DETERMINE THAT GREATER HEIGHT AND DENSITY ARE APPROPRIATE ALONG THE STRETCH OF THE BEACHFRONT TO ADDRESS PROJECT ECONOMICS, IT'LL BECOME INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO DENY SIMILAR REQUESTS IN THE FUTURE. THAT IS NOT A PRECEDENT WE BELIEVE THE CITY SHOULD SET. IF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ARE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE RESTORATION, THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES THAT DO NOT FURTHER INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND PROMINENCE OF THE BEACHFRONT TOWER. WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING TOWARD A SOLUTION THAT PRESERVES BOTH ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT AND THE HISTORIC CHARACTER THAT MAKES THE RALEIGH, THE RICHMOND AND THE SOUTH SEAS WORTH THE PRESERVATION FOR THESE REASONS. MDPL OPPOSES THE PROPOSED FAR INCREASE AND RESPECTFULLY URGES THE PLANNING BOARD TO TRANSMIT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES AMENDING THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH AN UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. ONE QUESTION, I KNOW YOU'RE READING A SCRIPT AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT IF YOU, ELI, TAKE AWAY THE HEIGHT FOR A MINUTE, WHAT IS THE CONCERN ABOUT ADDITIONAL FAR? I KNOW YOU SAID THAT THEY AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, BUT WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS? DO YOU KNOW, OR YOU PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT? UH, WELL, I MEAN WE, IT'S A LARGE SITE. THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW. AND THIS IS AN, THIS IS A CONDITION, BUT IS IT THE HEIGHT, THE PRIMARY CONCERN [01:15:01] OR YOU JUST DON'T WANT ANY, THE HEIGHT IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN, BUT WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO DUE DILIGENCE AND KNEW THE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS CAME IN AND SAID, BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, AND THEN AFTER THE FACT SAID, WELL NOW MY NUMBERS DON'T WORK. OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AND IS NOW ASKING FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO, UM, A TREMENDOUS INCREASE IN ECONOMIC VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS? RAY? HI. UM, I'M HERE. TALK ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WHEN RITZ CARLTON CAME BEFORE US AND WANTED TO BUILD THEIR TOWER, WE HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE COME IN SAYING, WE DON'T WANT THAT TOWER. WE DON'T WANT THAT TOWER. WELL, WE SAID OUR JOB IS IF THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR A VARIANCE, WE LOOK AT THE DESIGN, WE DON'T LOOK AT THE HEIGHT. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN REALLY DECIDE THAT IS THE COMMISSION. AND IF, IF, IF THE CURRENT ZONING IS FOR 200 FEET, THE COMMISSION CAN SAY WE WANNA CHANGE OUR MIND. BUT THAT IS WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE AND THAT IS WHAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE RITZ CARLTON. AND, AND YOU KNOW, LIKE, I'M NOT HERE TO SAY WHETHER IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT YOUR BOARD AND THE HPB IS THE WRONG PLACE TO COME TO TALK ABOUT HEIGHTS. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? ALFREDO REMIND ME, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT YOU ALL MADE WAS FOR 175 FEET AND THEN IT WAS AMENDED TO INCREASE 25. JUST EXPLAIN THAT. I'M SORRY. YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN, UM, JUST THE EVOLUTION OF THAT REQUEST OF THE REQUEST OF THE H TO INCREASED TO 200 FEET OR WAS IT ALWAYS, IF I UNDERSTOOD THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION YOU ALL MADE WAS FOR 175 FEET? NO, SO NO, NO, NO. THERE'S, AND I COULD ADD, THERE WAS NO REQUEST TO INCREASE. SO THE, THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO GO TO 200 FEET. HPV IS WHO DECIDES, UH, OR VOTES ON WHETHER OR NOT THE 200 FOOT IS APPROVED. SO SHORT CLUB GOT APPROVED AT 200 FEET, UH, RITZ GOT APPROVED. OKAY. MY QUESTION WAS YOU GUYS FROM THE BEGINNING, THAT WAS YOUR, SO THERE'S NO REQUEST HERE FOR 200 FEET, HUH? THE YOU MEAN UNDER THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP, THE ONLY REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE YOU AND THE ONLY REQUEST WE'VE MADE AT THIS POINT IS A 0.5 INCREASE OF FAR WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR. OKAY. YEAH, BECAUSE THERE WAS DENSITY THAT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL DENSITY REQUEST. NO, LET, LET ME TALK. THERE WERE SOME REPRESENTATIONS THAT IT WAS FOR 175 FEET AND I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL, IN FACT, SINCE THE DAY YOU, YOUR CLIENT HAS PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE EXPECTATION OF 200 FEET. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S ALLOWED, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. YEAH, AND, AND I COULD GO THROUGH SOME OF MY ROLE 'CAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS SAID AND I WANT TO CLARIFY SOME MISSTATEMENTS AND, AND JUST, OKAY, GO AHEAD. I THINK IT WOULD HELP. AND THEN I HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO, UM, THIS, THIS PRO, THIS BUILDING AND PROJECT IS IN THE R THREE DISTRICT WHERE ALLOWS UP TO 200 FEET THAT IS WHAT'S IN THE RESILIENCY CODE, UH, TODAY. SO WE COULD GO AND FILE AN APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE EXISTING BUILDING AND MAKE CHANGES AND GO. IS TAI IN THE SAME DISTRICT? HUH? IS THE SAT IN THE SAME DISTRICT? YES, BUT THEY THAT'S PRE 1996. NO, I GET GET, I GET IT. SO BACK THEN, SO THEY, THE COMMISSION HAS LOWERED OBVIOUSLY. YES. IN THE NINETIES THERE WAS A SAY MIAMI BEACH MOVEMENT THAT SOME OF THOSE WHO WERE AROUND WILL REMEMBER AND IT REDUCED THE FAR BEFORE THIS SITE HAD ABOUT A 6.0 FAR. JUST SO YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, THE BEFORE THE NINE IN THE NINETIES, IT WAS REDUCED AND THE CITY MADE A EVALUATION DECISION AT THAT TIME THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT STANDARD MAXIMUM HEIGHT, WHAT ON OCEAN FRONT LOTS IN THE RM THREE, WHICH IS OUR MOST DENSE AREA, WOULD BE 200 FEET. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU FIND FROM ALL THE ENTIRE RM THREE DISTRICT WITHIN THE ARCHITECTURAL SOME TWEAKS AND CHANGES THAT, SOME EXTRA HURDLES THAT ONLY ALLOW THAT 200 FEET TO GO TO LARGE SCALE SITES. SO TYPICALLY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE IN THE COLLINS HISTORIC DISTRICT IN MID BEACH, YOU COULD, UH, IF YOU WERE A 45,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT A THIRD OF OUR SIZE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY COULD GO TO 3.0 FAR. YOU COULD GO TO 200 FEET, YOU COULD APPLY, I MEAN I MADE IT CLEAR EVERYTHING HAS TO GO THROUGH A HEARING PROCESS. AND SO YES SIR. WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO RECOMMEND, THEY, THEY DON'T ADDRESS THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THE HEIGHT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE. CORRECT. OKAY. IT ONLY, IT ONLY ADDRESSES A 0.5, APPROXIMATELY 66,000 SQUARE FEET OF A HALF HOUR. IT'S NOT EVEN BEFORE US THEN, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. AND WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR, 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS. YES. WHEN THIS PROJECT ORIGINALLY WENT BACK IN 2019, 2020, UNDER THE PREVIOUS OWNER, THERE WERE LENGTHY HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETINGS. [01:20:01] 'CAUSE THAT'S THE VENUE WHERE THE CITY HAS DETERMINED THESE TYPE OF PROJECTS. ANY PROJECT ONCE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED HAS TO GO THROUGH HPB OR DRB DEPENDING ON THE ZONING THAT THIS IS HPB. RIGHT. SO COULD HPB DID NOT IF THE COMMISSION LEAVES YES SIR. UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES. OKAY. WHERE YOU'RE ALLOWED 200 FEET, CAN HPB EVEN REJECT THE 200 FEET? I KNOW THEY CAN, THEY CAN ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES. I CAN WELL, THEY SPEAK TO MR. CHAIR THAT THE HPV IN REVIEWING A SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COULD CONDITION ITS, ITS APPROVAL ON THE BASIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS CRITERIA THAT MAY INCLUDE BY REDUCING THE HEIGHT OR INCREASING. THEY CAN DO THAT EVEN THOUGH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE 200 FEET. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. YEAH, THEY COULD DO, THEY COULD DO THAT ON THE BASIS OF THEIR REVIEW CRITERIA. OKAY. BRIAN, CAN I JUMP IN? SURE, I CAN. I SAT ON THE HV FOR YOU BACK AND WE, WE DID HAVE A NUMBER OF MEETINGS. UM, THE CONCERN WAS, AT LEAST MY CONCERN, AND I THINK THE CONCERN OF THE BOARD WAS, WAS THIS BILL, THE, THE PROPOSED TOWER IS, IS PROBABLY FURTHER EAST THAN ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER, ANY OF THE OTHER ADJOINING BUILDINGS OR, OR FAR EAST. THAT WAS THE CONCERN AT THE TIME. AND, AND THEY, IT WAS THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD SORT OF OVERWHELM THE BEACH WALK AND THE BEACH AND, AND EVEN THOUGH THE HEIGHT WAS, UH, THE APPROVED, THE, THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WAS 200 FEET, WHAT WE DECIDED WAS, OR THE, WHAT THE BOARD CAME UP WITH, WELL, IN NEGOTIATION OVER THE COURSE OF ALL THE MEETINGS WAS THAT THE BUILDING WOULD ONLY GO UP TO 175 FEET. I BELIEVE THE TOP TWO OR THREE FLOORS WERE, WERE SET BACK A LITTLE BIT. UM, SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A STEP, UM, THAT WAS THE CONCERN AND THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T APPROVED AT 200 FEET BACK THEN. UM, HONESTLY, I, YOU KNOW, THAT I SAT ON THE BOARD THEN THAT, THAT'S STILL A CONCERN FOR ME. UM, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS 200 FEET AND PROBABLY GETTING RID OF THOSE, UM, THAT THAT STEP BACK. UM, I PERSONALLY, I I CAN'T SEE MYSELF GOING BACK ON THAT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO A A 0.5 FAR INCREASE. UM, IT'S THAT HEIGHT AND IT'S THE LOCATION OF THAT TOWER THAT, THAT I HAVE A, A CONCERN WITH. UM, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE, UM, PACKAGE THAT, OR THE FIST THAT WAS HANDED OUT WITH THE, THE, UM, SITE. UM, AND IT IS RATHER LARGE SITE AND IT, THERE DOES SEEM TO BE SOME ROOM ON THERE TO MAYBE MOVE THE TOWER, PUSH IT BACK A LITTLE BIT OR DO SOMETHING. UM, QUITE HONESTLY, I, AGAIN, I'M NOT ON THE HPB NOW AND I COULDN'T REALLY ANSWER THIS DEFINITIVELY UNLESS I SAW A PLAN. BUT IF THAT TOWER WAS PUSHED QUITE A BIT BACK FROM THE BEACH, I I, YOU KNOW, I'D BE OKAY WITH THE 200 FEET WHERE IT'S LOCATED NOW. UM, SO CLOSE TO THE BEACH, THE BEACH WALK. UM, IT JUST, IT, IT WOULD GO AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT YEARS AGO OVER THE COURSE OF MANY MEETINGS ON THE PLANNING BOARD. HOLD ON A SECOND. I'M SORRY. ON HPV. GIMME ONE SECOND BEFORE I GET THE QUESTION. ONE SECOND. UM, NICK AND DEBBIE, SO I WANNA UNDERSTAND, I MEAN THEY'RE CONCERN ABOUT HEIGHT, BUT IF THIS ORDINANCE, IT'S BEFORE US DOESN'T ADDRESS HEIGHT, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR, WHAT OUR EVEN ABILITY IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A, IT DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR HEIGHT IN THIS ORDINANCE. SO WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION SEPARATELY. RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMMENDATIONS, YEAH. BUT THAT'S ABOUT A SEP THAT'S TO GO BACK ON WHAT THE EXISTING ORDINANCE ARE. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ORDINANCE. YOU, BUT YOU COULD CONDITION YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON, ON THIS CHANGE. BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS, IS YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS, THIS CHANGE BEFORE YOU DOES NOT INCLUDE A MODIFICATION TO THE HEIGHT. CORRECT. IT'S ONLY FAR BUT YOU COULD RECOMMEND THAT FOR A PROJECT THAT, THAT SEEKS TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE ADDITIONAL FAR, THAT THE HEIGHT HAS TO BE REDUCED. YOU COULD, YOU COULD RECOMMEND THAT AS A CONDITION OF THE FAR INCREASE. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT OUR POWER IS. GO AHEAD. BEFORE YOU MOVE OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS, I, I'D REALLY LIKE TO DO A REBUTTAL. SURE. I WANT TO, I WANT THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND AND BE CLEAR ON ALL A LOT OF THINGS YOU HEARD, SOME OF WHICH ARE INACCURATE. SO, UM, JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, AND IT'S TRUE, THE HPB WILL BE THE, IS THE BODY THAT IS DICTATED BY THE CITY TO EVALUATE THIS PROPOSAL. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR 200 FEET, WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT IT'S ONE OF THE AREAS WE WANT TO PUT THE FAR IF IT'S, IF THIS BOARD AND ULTIMATE COMMISSION GRANTS IT, WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THEY'LL HAVE TO EVALUATE WHEN THEY EVALUATED BACK IN 2020. AND IN 2019 THEY DID, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS OF WHERE THE TOWER SHOULD BE LOCATED. ACTUALLY THIS TIRE, THIS TOWER, PART OF THE REQUIREMENT IS IT SET BACK A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS A GREATER SETBACK THAN WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN REQUIRED HAD THAT NOT BEEN DONE. SO THE BUILDING WAS MOVED BACK FURTHER FROM THE OCEAN. THERE WAS ALL A COMPETING CHALLENGE BECAUSE HPV HAD DEEP, YOU KNOW, EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS, NOT ONLY ON SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHADOWS AND THE BEACH, WHICH IS [01:25:01] STANDARD ALL ALONG THE BEACH, BUT ALSO OTHERS WERE CONCERNED IF YOU PUT THE TOWER TOO CLOSE TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. SO THERE WAS A BALANCING ACT. THAT'S THE BALANCING ACT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH, ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THE FAR FOR THE SITE ULTIMATELY WILL BE. IF THE COMMISSION ULTIMATELY APPROVES AT 2.5, WE'LL HAVE A PLAN, WE'LL SUGGEST WHERE OUR FAR SHOULD BE PLACED WITHIN THAT SITE. AND THEN THE BOARD WILL EVALUATE AND DO A THOROUGH REVIEW COMPARING WHAT HAPPENED IN 2019, 2020. STAFF WILL EVALUATE THE ACTUAL PLANS, NOT MASSING STUDIES TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACTS AND WHERE THE BEST LOCATION, WHETHER THE 200 FEET IS APPROPRIATE. IS IT 180 5? WHATEVER THAT, YOU KNOW, IS IT A FATTER BUILDING, THINNER BUILDING, ALL THOSE THINGS WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HBB. BUT I ALSO WANTED TO, SO, SO, SO SCOTT, WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON THAT? I MEAN, SHOULD WE BE USURPING THE HP B'S ROLE OR, BECAUSE SEE FOR ME THE TOUGH PART IS THAT YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, IT LOOKS AT A CONTEXT. BUT IF YOU TAKE THE THAT WHOLE DISTRICT, IT'S NOT SO, AND YET HP WILL I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH. AND YEAH, I MEAN YOU HEARD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE CAN RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW TO RECOMMEND. RIGHT. UM, BUT YEAH, I'M SAYING LOOK, I SAT, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, I SAT ON THE H PB BACK THEN. WELL THAT'S, DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE ALL THESE MEETINGS? YOU SAID USURPING THEIR, THEIR AUTHORITY. RIGHT. IT WOULD BE LIKE USURPING WHAT, WHAT, WHAT I WENT, WHAT I DID BEFORE AND WHAT THE, WHAT THE BOARD DID BEFORE. UM, SO THAT'S WHY I, I JUST FEEL THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T, AGAIN, I I'M, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FAR INCREASE. RIGHT. I I JUST TELLING, IT'S JUST THAT OTHER THAN ONE OBJECTION, IT SEEMS LIKE NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FR. YEAH. THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE, UH, WITH THE PROJECT. OKAY. AND I JUST, YOU, YOU'LL HAVE YOUR TIME. GO AHEAD. DON'T WANT TO GO BACK ON WHAT WE DID BEFORE. OKAY. AND I UNDERSTAND AND I, I RESPECT THAT. UM, AND AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST A RECOMMENDATION. YEAH, YEAH. I GET IT. I I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE ARCHITECT. HAVE SOME, SORRY, JUST ONE SECOND SO I CAN UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT THE REQUEST IS. IF YOU WERE TO INCREASE THE FAR AND YOU'RE REDUCING THE HEIGHT, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE, LET'S CALL IT A WIDER BUILDING, UH, WOULDN'T THAT CREATE MORE OF A SHADE SITUATION FOR THE NEIGHBORING ASSETS, I GUESS NORTH AND SOUTH? IT WOULD, IT WOULD BECAUSE YOU WOULD END UP WITH A BUILDING, IF WE'RE 200 FEET LONG NOW AND YOU'RE INCREASING THE FAR, YOUR BUILDING COULD GO 250, 275 FEET LONG. RIGHT. IT WOULD GET CLOSER TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND IT WOULD CREATE A MUCH WIDER SHADOW AS THE DAY WOULD GO THROUGH ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE AND TO THE BEACH. OKAY. UM, THE LENGTH OF THE SHADOW WOULD BE REDUCED. MM-HMM . UH, IT MAY NOT, IT MAY ONLY GO TO THE END OF, TO 18TH STREET, UM, AT, TO THE NORTH, BUT IT WOULD GET MUCH BIGGER THAT THAT WAS DISCUSSED YEARS. SO, YOU KNOW, YEARS AGO, AGAIN, SKINNIER AND TALLER MAY BE A MUCH LESS IMPACTFUL SHADOW AS IT MOVES ACROSS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BACK YEARS AGO WAS WIDER NORTH SOUTH INSTEAD OF EAST WEST. YEAH. UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T REMEMBER IF, IF THAT WAS EVER, MAYBE THEY, MAYBE THEY AT THE TIME, UM, THEY CONSIDERED IT. BUT I MEAN, I KNOW I, I REMEMBER SUGGESTING THAT INSTEAD OF GOING SO HIGH, JUST MAKE IT A LITTLE WIDER NORTH SOUTH, UM, WHICH GIVES YOU THE FAR AND IT WOULDN'T BE AS TALL AND YOU'RE, AND YOU'RE NOT BEING, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT LENGTHENING IT LENGTHENING IT EAST WEST, WHICH WOULD BLOCK, WHICH WOULD CAUSE MORE SHADOW. WE DID, WE DID MAKE IT WIDER, BUT WE STAYED WITHIN THE SITE CONSTRAINTS BECAUSE OF THE SIGHT LINES THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE RALEIGH FROM THE EAST ON THE BEACH AND THEN LOOKING YOU WITH THE SETBACKS ON THE SOUTH. SO YOU KIND OF HAVE THIS NATURAL SETBACK TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS THE SITE LINE OF THE RALLY YOU WANNA MAINTAIN AND, AND PRESERVE THAT. SO THERE ARE WAYS TO MAKE IT WIDER IF WE PUSH INTO THAT SITE LINE. YEAH. I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THIS THAT WAS HANDED OUT AND IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE, IT'S ALMOST A BLANK SLATE, BUT THAT, THAT EXHIBIT HAS A LOT OF INACCURACIES. AND I, AND I WILL POINT THEM OUT WHEN I GET IT'S A PICTURE. NO, IT'S A PICTURE. IT'S TRUE. BUT AS YOU WERE ON THE BOARD BACK IN 2020 WHEN THERE WAS COUNTLESS HOURS OF DEBATE OF HOW YOU WOULD RELOCATE THE TOWER, WE HAD OUR FATTER TOWER LONGER TOWER TALLER AND WHERE TO PLACE IT. AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOU, AS ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AT THAT TIME WERE CONCERNED ABOUT SHADOWS ON THE BEACH, THAT WAS YOUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN. OTHERS DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOU. THEY WANTED, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IMPACTS ON THE RICHMOND SOUTH SEAS AND RALEIGH HISTORIC BUILDING IN THE HISTORIC POOL. SO THERE WAS A COMPETING ON THAT BOARD OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS. AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT BOARD AND LET THEM REEVALUATE. THEY MAY AGREE THAT SOME EXTRA HEIGHT IS VALUABLE, THEY MAY SAY NO, BUT IT WILL [01:30:01] BE FULLY VETTED AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD THAT ULTIMATELY APPROVED THE 2019 AND 2020 HV ORDER THAT THIS IS RUNNING UNDER. SO, UM, BUT I WANTED TO BE REALLY QUICK AND, AND CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS. SO IT IS A BLANK, IT'S NOT A BLANK STATE. THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT THERE TODAY OF 175 FOOT TOWER. AND, UM, THE, OH, I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE SECOND PAGE. THERE WERE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT HOW THE SHELL BARN'S 150 AND YOUR EXHIBIT THAT YOU HAVE IS MISSING A LOT OF HEIGHTS. IF YOU GO TO OUR EXHIBIT, THEY COPIED OUR EXHIBIT. THEY SEE RACE THE TALL HEIGHTS. SO YOU LOST THE REFERENCE TO 171 FEET AT THE SHELL BARN 150 AT, UM, THE SLS YOU, THE 185 AT, UM, THE RITZ CARLTON, THE 183 AND 137. SO SOMEHOW YOU DIDN'T GET A FULL PICTURE. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT OUR EXHIBIT, YOU HAVE ALL THE ACTUAL HEIGHTS THAT WERE POSED. AND WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE SHADOWS, AND IT SHOULD BE CLEAR, THE FIRST EXHIBIT IS A SHADOW OF 175, THAT DECEMBER 21 AT 175 FEET, THEY HAVE A SHADOW. THEY DO HAVE A SHADOW ON THE PERMANENT BUILDING ONE MONTH A YEAR FOR A COUPLE WEEKS, A COUPLE HOURS A DAY. UM, NO ONE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT NON SHADOW. ACTUALLY, SOME OF THE SHADOW IS CAUSED BY THEIR OWN BUILDING AND THEIR OWN, THEIR OWN SITE CONDITIONS THAT THEY'VE CREATED. SO, UM, I WANTED TO BE CLEAR, THIS MAKES IT SEEM THAT IF YOU PUT A 200 FOOT TOWER, IT'S GONNA ALSO GONNA CREATE A NEW CONDITION THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. UH, YES, WE DO HAVE AN IMPACT OF SHADOWS, SLIGHTLY INCREASE IN IMPACT FOR A 1 75 TO 200 IN JANUARY. UH, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A MASKING STUDY THAT WE STARTED WITH. AND FOR HPB WE WOULD HAVE TO REALLY HONE IN, SEE HOW WE TWEAK THE CUTBACKS AS WE DID BEFORE. ALL THAT'S ON THE TABLE, TO SEE HOW IT CAN MINIMIZE THE IMPACT TO NOT JUST SHELBOURNE, BUT TO THE BEACH WALK AND TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. UM, BUT I DID ALSO WANT TO REFER THAT THE HISTORIC RALEIGH POOL. YES. AND I, AND IT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. IT WAS MADE AT HPB. IT WAS SHOWN THAT PRIOR TO THIS PROJECT EVEN GETTING UNDERWAY, UH, AND THE, THE DEMO PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED, UH, AFTER 2020, UH, THE RALEIGH SINCE THE 40, THE FIFTIES WHEN THERE WAS ADDITIONS DONE BY THE RICHMOND, HAD AN EIGHT STORY TOWERS, FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THREE WHAT I CALL THE THREE STORY BARRACKS. SO THE WHOLE SIDE OF THE RALEIGH, DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, UNTIL OUR MODERN TIME WAS CASTED IN SHADOWS A GOOD PART OF THE DAY. SO WITH THE TOWER PLACEMENT, CONSIDERING WHERE REPLACED THE TOWER, THE BOARD LOOKED EXTENSIVELY THE OPENNESS IN BETWEEN THE TOWER AND THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS YOU CREATE, YOU ENDED UP CREATING. AND OUR SHADOW STUDIES SHOWED IT IN HPP THAT IT IMPROVED AND YOU WOULD ACTUALLY GET MORE SUN AND LIGHT AND AIR AT THE HISTORIC RALEIGH POOL, WHICH IS AN ICONIC POOL. AND WE COULD ALL AGREE ON THAT. ONE OF THE MOST ICONIC POOLS IN THE ENTIRE CITY, UH, WAS GETTING MORE SUN AND LIGHT AND AIR WITH THIS PROJECT THAN LEAVING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. UM, I DID, YOU KNOW, SO AT THE END OF THE DAY I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT THAT, UH, WE'RE NOT USING THE MAJORITY, THE VAST MAJORITY AS IT'S QUOTED IN, IN A LETTER YOU RECEIVED, UM, ON THOSE TWO POTENTIAL TWO FLOORS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MAXIMUM OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S LESS THAN 50% OF THE FAR WE WOULD OBTAIN. MOST OF THE FAR IS ACTUALLY GOING HISTORIC AND OTHER INFILL ELEMENTS THAT MAKES THIS PROJECT VIABLE. THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE FAR. SO IT'S, IT'S INACCURATE TO SAY THAT 44,000, WE CAN'T, OUR FOOTPRINT AT LARGE CASE, LARGEST CASE IS 15,000. SO THAT SAY SUGGESTS THAT WE'RE PUTTING 22 THOU TWO FLOORS AT 22,000 SQUARE FEET DOESN'T MEET THE CODE. UH, AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A TAX AMENDMENT TO DO THAT TO MAKE OUR BUILDING, UH, TALLER AND WIDER. UM, I ALSO WANTED TO, I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT, UH, MY CLIENT ON HIS ACQUISITION. HE DID WANNA MAKE A QUICK REBUTTAL STATEMENT ON THINGS THAT WERE MADE ON HIS DECISIONS TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND MOVE FORWARD. OKAY, LET ME HAVE ONE MORE QUICK DICK, I WANNA MAKE SURE, AGAIN, I'M SORRY ABOUT PROCEDURE. I WANNA KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. IF WE PASS THIS ON FAVORABLY WITHOUT A DISCUSSION ABOUT HEIGHT. OKAY. AND THE HEIGHT STAYS AT 200 FEET PERMISSIBLE, HPB CAN STILL REQUIRE THAT THE BUILDING BE LOWER THAN 200 FEET. YES. YES. IS THAT ON THE, IS THAT ACCURATE STATEMENT? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. 'CAUSE MY VIEW, I MEAN, I'M, THIS IS JUST ME THAT, THAT WE LET HPB DECIDE IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. BUT GO AHEAD. NO, I JUST, UM, I APPRECIATE THE, THE COMMENTARY TODAY. UM, AND THE CONSIDERATION, [01:35:01] YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA REITERATE RIGHT, SOME, I I'VE, I'VE HAD THE FORTUNE AND OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP IN, IN CITIES LIKE MIAMI BEACH THAT ARE VERY PRESERVATION CONSCIOUS. UM, AND THAT'S WHY WHEN WE APPROACH PROJECTS, WE DON'T APPROACH THEM WITH REQUESTS THAT, THAT THAT WOULD BE VIEWED QUITE CONTROVERSIALLY, 300 FEET AND FOUR FAR. AND LET'S BE REALLY AGGRESSIVE ABOUT IT. WE APPROACH THESE PROJECTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GET THESE DONE? LET'S GET THIS PROJECT BUILT. LET'S NOT DEBATE OVER SOMETHING THAT THEN CONTINUES TO SIT VACANT FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS. IT IS TRUE, AFTER WE ACQUIRED THE SITE AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET OUR PHYSICAL HANDS ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE RALEIGH HOTEL WAS CRUMBLING, AND MY FIRST CALL WAS TO ALFREDO TO SAY, WHAT DO WE DO? THIS IS NOT GONNA SURVIVE ANOTHER HURRICANE SEASON IF WE GET HIT BY A HURRICANE. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO. AND THE DECISION ON OUR SIDE WAS MADE TO IMMEDIATELY PROTECT THE HOTEL. AND THESE ARE DECISIONS MADE BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE INVESTED IN. THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CAPITAL COMMITTED TO THIS. WE DON'T BELIEVE, IF WE WERE TO ZOOM OUT AND WE WERE TO LOOK AT THIS IN CONTEXT OF THE SCALE OF THE INVESTMENT TAKING PLACE, THE REBIRTH OF AN ICON OF MIAMI BEACH, UH, THE INVESTMENT THAT THIS WILL DRAW, THE TAX DOLLARS THAT THIS WILL CREATE, THAT EVEN IF WE GO BACK AND STAY WITHIN OUR RIGHT OF, OF, OF 200 FEET, THAT THAT SHOULD EVEN BE VIEWED AS CONTROVERSIAL. NOW I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY'S GOT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. WE ALSO DON'T THINK THAT THE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING REQUESTED IS SIGNIFICANT IN THE SCALE OF THE SITE. IT'S A THREE ACRE SITE. SO I I DO JUST MAKE THE STATEMENT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO MAKE A PRIVATE INVESTMENT DECISION. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE. AND IN DOING SO, I'M ALSO ASKING YOU NOT TO MAKE A PRIVATE INVESTMENT DECISION ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE'S POOL BEING COVERED FOR TWO HOURS A DAY, FOR THREE WEEKS IN THE YEAR. I THINK THE CONTEXT SHOULD BE WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE RALEIGH FOR THREE ACRES OF PROPERTY ON SOUTH BEACH, WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS HAD TO LOOK AT A, A BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN CRUMBLING OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS. AND THE NUMBER OF CALLS THAT I'VE RECEIVED AS AN OWNER SAYING, WHEN THE HELL IS THIS GONNA GET BUILT? IT'S TIME FOR THIS TO GET BUILT. SO ALL WE ASK IS WE LOOK AT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MIAMI BEACH, UM, AND, AND, AND ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD SO THAT THIS PROJECT CAN, CAN GET GOING. THANK YOU. AND I, AND I JUST WANNA ADD, THANK YOU. LAST, WE GOTTA MOVE ON. I KNOW JUST HAD TWO MORE QUICK POINTS. NUMBER ONE, YOU DO HAVE A LIST OF SUPPORT LETTERS BEFORE YOU, AND NOTABLY, THE FIRST SUPPORT LETTER IS THE MARSAI. THE ONLY ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE RALEIGH SITE IS THE MARSAI. THEY ARE SUPPORTING THE FAR INCREASE AND THEY SUPPORTED THE 200 FOOT BUILDING WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED IN 2020. AND IF ULTIMATELY HVV APPROVES THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF A HVV SUPPORTING A A 220 BUILDING AS, UH, 200 FOOT BUILDING, AGAIN, IF WE, WE PROPOSE THAT TO HPB. SO THAT LETTER IS THERE. AND I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THIS AMENDMENT WOULD, AS PROPOSED BY THE SHELL WOUNDS COUNCIL, WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOSE 50 FEET OF THE PERMANENT BUILDING TO TAKE THE FAR. 'CAUSE IT CLEARLY SAYS BUDDING OCEAN FRONT LOTS. OKAY, WELL, A BUDDING OCEAN FRONT LOT AND A BUDDING PROPERTIES HAVE TO, UNDER THE CITY DEFINITION HAVE TO BE A BUDDING. A BUDDING IS THEY SHARE PROPERTY LINES NOT ACROSS THE STREET. I'M NOT COMPARING MYSELF TO WHAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLINS AVENUE. AND THE MARSAI IS AT 127 FEET. SO IF YOU APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT, YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU WANT THE FAR REMOVE 50 FEET OF THE EXISTING PERMANENT BUILDING. UM, AND AGAIN, I REALLY THINK THAT THE APPROPRIATE VENUE TO DEBATE AND TO SEE WHAT IS MAKES SENSE, WHERE SHOULD WE LOCATE THE BUILDING AND WHAT THE APPROPRIATE HEIGHT, LOOKING AT ALL THE FACTORS IS GOING BACK TO THE STORE PRESERVATION BOARD AND LET THEM HAVE THE DETAIL PLANS AND STAFF HAVE THE DETAIL PLANS AND CAN MAKE AN EVALUATION. AND ULTIMATELY THAT BOARD WILL DECIDE HOW TO USE IT. AND WITH THAT, I PRETTY MUCH, IF YOU HAVE ANY, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER. YEAH. OH, BESIDES, BESIDES YOU. ONE SECOND. ANYBODY ELSE IN HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ALRIGHT, LAST, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A LAST MINUTE AND THEN WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WELL JUST ONLY TO SPEAK ON THE COMMENT ABOUT THE REQUESTED, UM, AMENDMENT. UM, IF, IF THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF ABIDING PROPERTIES, YOU CAN JUST MAKE IT 1 75. THERE'S AN EXISTING, UH, BUILDING PERMIT FOR 1 75. WE DON'T OBJECT TO 1 75. WE DON'T OBJECT TO THE 2.5 FAR. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS, IF YOU'RE GONNA TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE 2.5 FAR, THEN YOU'RE GONNA AGREE TO THE 1 75 HU HEIGHT. IT'S AN ASK AND THEN A, A CONCESSION. SO THAT IS UNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, AGAIN, MY VIEW IS, UH, THAT I WOULD RATHER THE HPB ADDRESS THIS, BUT UM, OBVIOUSLY WELCOME [01:40:01] TO YOUR COMMENTS. IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TOWARDS THE HEIGHT. WELL, YOU CAN. I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON THE RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF SAYING ONLY RECOMMENDING IT FAVORABLY IF YOU LOWER THE HEIGHT. RIGHT. I WOULD RATHER SAY WE, WE RECOMMEND IT FAVORABLY. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THIS IS IN CONTEXT, SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE, UH, BENIGN. THANK, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF WHAT NICK SAID IS TRUE THAT HPB CAN REQUIRE THAT IT BE LOWER RIGHT. WHEN THEY SEE ALL THE PROJECT, I'D RATHER LET, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR DECISION, RIGHT? I THINK H HPB CAN JUST IN FRONT OF US, IS THE FAR CONVERSATION. THAT'S, AND H PB TENDS TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND A LOT OF THESE ISSUES MORE THAN THE PLANNING BOARD. SO I THINK THAT OUR JOB TODAY IS TO DECIDE IF WE WANT, THAT'S MY VIEW. SO, RIGHT. RIGHT. SO I I I CAN MAKE A MOTION IF, UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO GO AHEAD, JONATHAN. JUST LOOKING AT FAR YEAH. I MEAN, I, I'M VERY TROUBLED BY THE BLOCKAGE OF THE, THE SHELL BORNS POOL. YOU KNOW, THEY PUT A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS INTO IT. THEY PRESERVED ALL THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE POOL. THEY, THEY, YOU KNOW, THE MORRIS LAPUS TY, UH, DIVING BOARD, I MEAN, IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND IT, AND IT'S WELL RUN AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND TO TAKE AWAY, EVEN IF IT IS JUST TWO HOURS OF PRIME SUN DURING THE BUSIEST, YOU KNOW, MONTHS OF THE YEAR OF DECEMBER AND JANUARY. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WRONG TO DO FOR THE NEW PROJECTS BENEFIT TO SAVE THE, I MEAN PERHAPS TO SAVE THE SHADOW, THE, THE SHADE IN YOUR POOL. UM, AND SO I, I HAVE BIG PROBLEMS WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GIVING YOU GUYS A PUBLIC GIFT, UM, TO HELP YOU GUYS MAKE MORE MONEY. AND I DON'T SEE IT AS A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY TO BE TAKING, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE SHELL BORNE HOTEL IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY, RIGHT. THE NEARBY COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT OR JUST ACROSS THAT SMALL STREET, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, NOT DO THINGS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO DID DO EVERYTHING THE RIGHT WAY. THEY PUT IN ALL THIS MONEY. UM, AND, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. AND SO I I I, I COMMEND YOU ALL FOR COMING IN AND SAVING THE DAY. UH, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S GOTTA BE A WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. UM, I, I AGREE. IT'S, IT LOOKS TO ME TOO FAR EAST, UM, THE THE CURRENT BUILDING, UH, YOU KNOW, AND I, AND I, SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, TOTALLY UNOPPOSED TO THE 200 FEET. UM, I JUST THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE COMING BACK TO, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE SEEN THIS ISSUE IN THE PAST, RIGHT? PEOPLE BUY THESE PROPERTIES, THESE OLD, YOU KNOW, ANTIQUATED BUILDINGS THAT ARE HISTORIC LANDMARKS FOR US. THEY, SOMETHING HAPPENS. THE FINANCING FALLS THROUGH THE, THE BUILDINGS SIT IN A REALLY BAD STATE FOR YEARS. THEY CRUMBLE, AND THEN THE, A NEW DEVELOPER COMES IN TO SWOOP IN SAVE THE DAY, AND THEY COME TO US AND SAY, WELL, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN SAVE THE DAY IS IF YOU GIVE US THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE SAW, WE'VE SEEN THAT ALL UP, UH, COLLINS AVENUE. AND, AND SO THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND I, I, I'M FINE WITH, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, WELCOMING DEVELOPERS TO COME SAVE THE DAY. AND I'M EVEN FINE GIVING THEM THINGS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO COME SAVE THE DAY. BUT WHEN IT'S GONNA BE TO THE DE DETRIMENT OF OTHERS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY RIGHT UNLESS THE BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY AROUND, YOU KNOW, UH, PHRASE IT, COIN THE TERM OVERSHADOWS THE DETRIMENT EXCEEDS, YEAH, WELL, WHATEVER. SO, UM, YOU WANTED TO USE THAT ONE? I WANTED TO THROW THAT OVERSHADOW. THAT'S, THESE ARE MY, MY THOUGHTS. I DON'T, I THINK THERE'S, I, IT IS A HUGE PROPERTY, AND SO I THINK THERE'S A WAY WE, THIS CAN WORK. I JUST THINK IT, IT NEEDS MORE WORK, YOU KNOW, TO, TO GET DONE. BUT, SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, I MEAN, THE GOOD THING IS FOR YOU GUYS THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S OPPOSED TO THE EXTRA 0.5. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE REWORKED A BIT. UM, I DON'T KNOW. SO I, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M SORT OF IN THIS PLACE OF, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 0.5, WHICH ALONE IS A BENEFIT, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A GIFT FROM THE CITY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T THINK THAT IT SHOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, AFFECT OR IMPACT, UM, OBVIOUSLY THE BEACH SHADOWING, BUT, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD POOL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS WITH THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A SHADOW ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE SHELL BOARD. I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. IT'S JUST, I THINK IT'S WHERE A MAJORITY OF THEIR FOOD CONCESSIONS SOLD AND, AND, YOU KNOW, POOL, I KNOW THEY'VE GOT MEMBERSHIPS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHO'S GONNA BUY A MEMBERSHIP TO THE POOL IF IT'S COVERED FOR THE PRIME [01:45:01] TIME OF THE DAY. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. SO I, I WOULD, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW I, I, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU SHOULDN'T REALLY CONDITION ANY OF THIS, UH, ON IT. BUT I THINK I WOULD MOVE, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE, UH, A, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED AMENDMENT. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT IF IT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS HERE, HERE'S THE, I, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO, IS REALLY BROAD, RIGHT? SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S, YOU KNOW, POSING THE CERTAIN HEIGHTS IF IT'S PROPERLY PLACED, UM, YOU KNOW. SO WOULD IT BE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR A RECOMMENDATION TO CORRECT. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A RECOMMENDATION. WE CAN'T PROPOSE. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. IT'S ALSO, YOU CAN, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU CAN RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION AMEND THE ORDINANCE. SO THAT CAN BE PART OF YOUR, OR THAT'S WHAT MY, WHAT I'M GONNA SAY. SO MY, MY, I GUESS MOTION WOULD BE TO SEPARATELY RECOMMEND THAT THEY AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE ABUTTING OCEAN FRONT LOT. BUT I'M ALSO NOT TOTALLY OPPOSED TO IT BEING HIGHER IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, BUT, BUT SHOULDN'T THAT LET HPB DECIDE THAT HPB AND WELL, I THINK REVIEW, BUT, BUT THEN HERE, HERE, I, I HAVE A, THEY'RE GONNA SEE THE PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO. AND WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING, YOU KNOW, DECIDE. ALL RIGHT. SO SHOULD WE JUST INCLUDE, HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT. I, I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE. SO SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION. I, I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. HOLD ON. WE'RE STILL THIS PROCEDURALLY, WE'RE STARTING WITH THE, UH, FIRST LDR AMENDMENT, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO DO 'EM INDIVIDUALLY. I WOULD DO THE, THE COMP PLAN FIRST. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS PLANNING BOARD 8 0 8 1 6. PLEASE MAKE YOUR MOTION. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO GO FROM THE 1 7 5 TO THE TWO FAR. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? NO, NO, YOU'RE OPPOSED. THAT'S JUST ON THE PAYROLL. OKAY. ALRIGHT. JUST TO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S TO 2.5. 2.5. SORRY. CORRECT. ACTUALLY, YES, IT'S THE EXTRA 0.25. ALRIGHT, SO IT'S FOUR ONE, SORRY, EXTRA, EXTRA 0.5 GOING FROM 5 2 5 DOING TWO FIVE. THAT'S JUST ON THIS MOTION, SO THAT'S A FIVE ONE. OKAY. UM, WHO WAS, NO, SCOTT. SCOTT. SCOTT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, NOW LET, LET'S GO TO THE LDR AMENDMENT AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS WE WANT TO MAKE. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LDR AMENDMENT WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL, I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT? AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? SCOTT? OKAY. SAME FIVE ONE. OKAY. NOW SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A, A MOTION ON, ON A SUGGESTED REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION. GO AHEAD. YES. UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, I GUESS IF, IF TO, TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT THAT IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE 2.5 FAR OR THE 0.5 FAR INCREASE THE, THE HEIGHT OF ANY NEW STRUCTURE CANNOT EXCEED, UM, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE, UH, I GUESS THE, THE NEXT CLOSEST OCEAN FRONT LOT. BUT WHAT WOULD THAT BE? I WOULD SAY, I MEAN, 1 75, WE CAN JUST SAY 1 75. YEAH, I WOULDN'T DO IT. YEAH, I WOULDN'T DO IT. I WOULDN'T DO, YOU'RE SAYING 1 75. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. I WANNA DO A ROLL CALL ON THAT ONE, PLEASE. OKAY. UM, MR. MARKS? NO. MR. FRIEDEN? YES. MS. BEATY? NO. MR. NEEDLEMAN? YES. MR. CEMENT? NO. MR. ELIAS? NO. ONLY BECAUSE I WANT THE HPB TO DECIDE THAT. YES, CORRECT. AGREED. ALRIGHT. SO THAT, SO THAT FAILS. YEP. UM, YES. WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON THEN. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEND, TO SEND A, LIKE A, TO IN THE CON THE REFERRAL TO THE HPV AND WHENEVER THEY GET IT, TO HAVE THE MESSAGE, MESSAGE FROM US DELIVERED THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE HEIGHT OF IT, GIVEN THE IMPACT ON THE BEACH, ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THAT WASN'T THE CONSENSUS OF THE BODY? I, I'M, I'M JUST ASKING IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PASS A, A RECOMMEND, LIKE A, A NOTE TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE AS PART OF THE, [01:50:01] I THINK THAT IT, GIVEN THE PLANNING BOARD'S ROLE IN PLANNING AND POLICY MAKING, I THINK THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, IT SHOULD BE THAT IT BE PART OF THE, OF THE REGULATION ITSELF. RIGHT. BUT TO YOU ALL, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR CONCERNS MM-HMM . BUT I OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GONNA PARTICIPATE IN THE HPP HEARING AND I'M, I JUST FEEL THAT THAT'S WHERE THEY SHOULD MAKE THAT DECISION. AND I HOPE YOU'LL BE AS ACTIVE THERE AS YOU WERE HERE TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I UNDERSTAND THE HPV NEEDS TO STEP UP. ALRIGHT, NEXT IS, UM, PREVIOUSLY CONTINUED APPLICATION FILED PB 26 0 8 3 8 1 [12. PB26-0838, 1 OCEAN DRIVE – CONCESSION AGREEMENT.] OCEAN DRIVE SESSION AGREEMENT. DO AN APPROPRIATE, UM, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I'M GONNA GIVE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO, UM, OZZY DOMINGUEZ, WHO IS OUR DIRECTOR OF ASSET MANAGEMENT, UM, WHO'S REALLY BEEN WORKING, UM, ON THIS, ON THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT. SO, AS NOTED IN THE REPORT, IT WAS IN, UH, 2023 THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED A RESOLUTION, UM, APPROVING A CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH THE BOUCHER BROTHER, UH, FOR THE PIER PARK SITE. UM, SINCE THAT TIME, THERE WERE, UM, DISPUTES. THE CITY WAS INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE, UM, AND THERE WERE THE EXISTING, UH, OCCUPANT OF THE SITE. AND THE BOUCHER BROTHERS WERE, UH, INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE THAT HAS BEEN, UH, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED, UM, WHICH IS REALLY WHY THIS CONCESSION AGREEMENT IS COMING BACK TO YOU. THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDED, UM, AN INITIAL 10 YEAR TERM AND EXTENSION TERMS, THAT PERIOD OF TIME TRIGGERS PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. SO ANY, UM, ANY CONCESSION AGREEMENT OR LEASE AGREEMENT THAT EXCEEDS 10 YEAR OR THAT IS 10 YEARS OR MORE, DOES REQUIRE THE REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD. UM, SO THAT'S WHY IT, IT'S HERE BEFORE YOU, THE SETTLEMENT, IF I READ IT CORRECTLY. SO THEY, THEY'RE GONNA KEEP IT UNDER CURRENT MANAGEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 27, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SORRY. UM, SORRY, DEB. NO, NO PROBLEM. UH, STAFF HAS REVIEWED, UH, THE TERMS AND WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AGREEMENT. AGAIN, THEY WOULD HAVE A, UM, A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH A, AN EXTENSION OF FIVE YEARS AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE OF AN OF THREE YEARS. UM, THEY ARE COMMITTED TO, UH, MAKING A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IN THE SITE, UM, $50 MILLION. AND, UM, THE PLAN HAS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED, UM, BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HAD, UM, COMMENTS. SO IT'S, IT HASN'T BEEN IMPROVED YET, BUT I WILL BE GOING BACK, I BELIEVE, UH, THIS MONTH, UH, TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. SO WITH THAT, UM, I CAN TURN IT OVER TO THE REAL EXPERTS IN THE ROOM ON, ON THE, THE TERMS. BUT PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ISSUE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. AND, AND MR. CHAIR, BEFORE YOU TURN IT OVER, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT NOTHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM OF THE USES HAS CHANGED. THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU MAY RECALL, UM, HELD A HEARING ON THE APPROVAL OF THE USE SINCE THIS IS GU PROPERTY, UH, AND THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSMITTED A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. UM, NOTHING ABOUT THE, THE, THE PROGRAM OR THE USE IS PROPOSED HAS, HAS CHANGED. THANK YOU. YEAH, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ALSO INCLUDE, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT SONA HAD, UM, IN OUR MEETING BEFORE LAST OR THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD A ATTORNEY REPRESENTING, UH, BOUCHER UP JUST INFORMING OUR COMMUNITY THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SETTLEMENT. UH, I WANTED MIGHT BE WHAT SETTLEMENT? THERE MIGHT BE A SETTLEMENT. OH. BUT HE GAVE ACTUALLY NO, OTHER THAN INFORMING PEOPLE THAT THERE COULD BE A POSSIBLE RIGHT. UH, AND THAT THIS WOULDN'T, AND BASICALLY ALL HE SAID WAS THIS, THERE'S A CHANCE THAT THIS MIGHT NOT TURN INTO A FOUR YEAR BATTLE WHERE IT SITS EMPTY. AND, UH, I HAVE NO EX PARTE WITH THEM. NEVER MET THE LAWYER BEFORE OR AFTER, DID NOT DISCUSS IT. WE DID NOT VOTE. AND NOR DID WE ISSUE TO THE CITY, UH, A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT FOR OR AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT. IT'S NOT IN OUR LANE. UH, ALTHOUGH I CAN ALSO STATE THAT OUR COMMUNITY WAS HAPPY THAT THERE COULD BE A MUTUAL AGREED BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE PARTIES AND IT WAS PRETTY COMPLEX. UM, AND THAT THERE'S BEEN ZERO. I NEVER SAW THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT, NEVER DISCUSSED IT UNTIL IT WAS IMPLANTED. SO, THANK YOU, KEITH. NO CONFLICT. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I CAN JUST SAY, MY NAME IS AARON TANDY. I AM THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR BOUCHER BROTHERS. OH, GENERAL. I WAS THE PERSON THAT MR. MARKS WAS, UH, MENTIONING. I WAS THE ATTORNEY [01:55:01] WHO WENT TO SONA. JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR. SO WAIT, JUST SO I'M CLEAR YOU, SO NEESON IS OUTSIDE COUNSEL, YOU'RE ACTUALLY THEIR GENERAL COUNSEL AND GENERAL, I'M GENERAL COUNSEL IN HOUSE, AND I'VE BEEN ASKED TO APPEAR HERE TODAY. GOT IT. I, BY NICK AND OZZY AS A SORT OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, I'VE, I'VE REGISTERED, BUT I'M A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT IN CASE YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OKAY. ABOUT THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT THAT OZZY WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE I ANSWERED ABOUT OUR INTENTIONS OR, OR THE TERMS. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD MORNING. OZZY DOMINGUEZ, DIVISION DIRECTOR OF ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. PLEASURE OF SEEING EVERYBODY HERE THIS MORNING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, UM, BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO, UH, TO AARON SO THAT HE CAN GIVE YOU A QUICK, UH, REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT. YEAH, I DON'T ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. I, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I, I I'M GONNA DO WHAT JUDGES USUALLY SAY. I'M GONNA JUST BE SILENT. BE QUIET. . YEAH. I MEAN, UNLESS, UH, ANY COMMENTS HAVE, OH YEAH, I'M SORRY. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? NO. SEE, I KNEW THAT. I'M PROUD OF YOU. UM, SOMEONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. I'LL SECOND MUCH. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. SIX. OH, EASIEST JOB YOU EVER HAD. YES, INDEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. UH, DEBBIE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE INTRODUCTION. AND NICK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOU GUYS. OKAY, NEW APPLICATION PLANNING BOARD FILE [13. PB26-0844, 1940 PARK AVENUE – LEASE AGREEMENT. ] 26 0 8 4 4 19 40 PARK AVENUE LEASE AGREEMENT. THIS ALL, LOOK THAT TOGETHER. MS. T. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, YES, FOR, I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE SITE OF THE, UM, BARKLEY PLAZA. UH, IT'S A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN THE COLLINS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND THE MUSEUM HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD A VERY LONG HISTORY OVER SINCE OVER 10 YEARS AGO. WE STARTED, UM, WITH RF, RF QS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY THE, UM, MIAMI BEACH HOUSING. WHAT WAS IT? THE, WAS THE CDC, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THE MIAMI C. THEY WERE INVOLVED IN SOME DIFFICULTIES, AND THE CITY ACTUALLY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, UM, OVER 10 YEARS AGO. UM, SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE ISSUED, UM, I BELIEVE THREE DIFFERENT RF, RF, QS, RFPS, AND NONE OF THOSE PROJECTS ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. UM, SO MOST RECENTLY THE CITY ISSUED AN A A, IT WAS IN 2022, AN RFP. UM, WE HAD ONE PROPOSER. UM, AND WE HAVE, UM, THAT'S THE, THE CURRENT PROJECT YOU SEE TODAY. SO THE, THE IDEA OF THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. THIS MULTIFAMILY BUILDING WILL HAVE A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF UNITS, UM, THAT WILL BE DEDICATED FOR ELDERLY WORKFORCE, AND A SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT WILL HAVE UP TO, UM, 160 A MI RENTS. SO THE REST OF THE BUILDING WILL BE, WILL BE MARKET RENT. THERE'S TOTAL OF, UH, 105 UNITS IN THE BUILDING. SEVEN WILL BE THE ELDERLY WORKFORCE, AND I BELIEVE 15 OR 16 ARE, ARE PROPOSED TO BE RESTRICTED, UM, TO AN A MI RENT OF 160 OR LESS. UM, THEY'VE ALSO PROPOSED A TRANSIENT USE RESTRICTION. SO THEY'RE AGREEING TO A COVENANT THAT WOULD IN PERPETUITY PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF SHORT TERM RENTALS OR TRANSIENT USE. UM, THEY'VE ALSO AGREED, GIVEN THE, THE, UH, POOR STRUCTURAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IF TOTAL DEMOLITION IS REQUIRED, WHICH, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, MY PERSPECTIVE, IT MAY BE THAT THEY WILL RECONSTRUCT, UM, THE HISTORIC FACADES BOTH ON PARK AVENUE AND WASHINGTON AVENUE. SO, UH, WE ARE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE. THEY, THEY HAVE AGREED TO A $2 MILLION UPFRONT RENT PAYMENT. AND THEN, UM, THEY'VE ALSO AGREED NOT TO REQUEST ANY, UH, CITY SUBSIDIES FOR THE, UM, FOR THE PROJECT. THE INITIAL TERM IS 4 51 YEARS PLUS 2 24 YEARS YEAR EXTENSIONS. UM, SO THIS DOES REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, A REVIEW AND A, UM, RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD. AND ULTIMATELY IT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION. UM, BUT I SEE STEVEN ANTHONY, OUR DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS HERE. UM, AND I BELIEVE, STEVEN, ARE YOU GONNA SHOW A, A PRESENTATION? THAT PRESENTATION WILL BE WITH THE COUNCIL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, GREAT. UM, BUT WITH THAT, I, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, UM, WE'RE HERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. [02:00:01] WELL, THE DIRECTOR ATTACK AT STEVEN ANTHONY, AGAIN, STEVEN ANTHONY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. UM, IT'S A PLEASURE TO MEET THE, THE BOARD. UM, I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, DIRECTOR ATTACK AT A FANTASTIC JOB OF GOING OVER THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE, OF THE GROUND LEASE. UM, SO AGAIN, AS, AS ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF, WE ARE, WE ARE CERTAINLY, UM, UH, WE ARE CERTAINLY APPROVED OF THE, OF THE TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE. UM, BELIEVE THIS WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ACTIVATE, UH, THIS PARCEL, UM, AND REALLY GET IT BACK INTO, INTO USE FOR, UH, FOR THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU ALFREDO. UM, GOOD STILL. MORNING, . GOOD MORNING. ALFREDO GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF 9 40 19 40 BARKLEY, UH, PARTNERS, LLC. UM, AND I THINK THAT DIRECTOR TACKETT AND DIRECTOR, I HAVE, UM, REALLY HIGHLIGHTED THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER. UH, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE TERM SHEETS LAST YEAR, AND WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING A FINAL LEASE READY TO GO TO THE COMMISSION, UH, HIGHLIGHTED BY ALL THE POINTS ON THE TERM SHEET. SO, UM, I'LL HAVE A PRESENTA MORE OF A PRESENTATION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE LDR AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE WE'RE SEEKING, THAT WOULD GO IN LINE WITH, UM, THE ULTIMATE LEASE THAT'S GONNA BE APPROVED BY, WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. SO, UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY, ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS. OKAY. UH, RAY, ARE YOU SPEAKING OR THIS LETTER SPEAKS FOR YOU? , ARE YOU COMMENTING ON THIS ITEM? YES. OKAY. COME ON UP. I JUST, I, UM, MR. CHAIR, SINCE THIS PROJECT, IT WILL BE COMING BEFORE THE HPB THAT I, YEAH, I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE COLLINS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS THRILLED TO FINALLY HAVE THIS PROPERTY BE, UM, DEVELOPED. THAT'S WHAT, WHAT WERE YOU GONNA SAY, NICK? WHAT WERE YOU GONNA SAY? WHAT WERE WE GONNA SAY? BECAUSE IT'S COMING BEFORE HPV. WHAT? THE, SO WHAT'S BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD TODAY IS THE REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE CITY CHARTER OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT AND THE TAX AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LDRS, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADVISE MR. BRESLIN THAT SINCE THE APPLICATION WILL BE COMING BEFORE HIM AS A MEMBER OF THE HPV. OH, UM, CAN I ASK A CURIOSITY? BE CAREFUL. ILLEGAL ACTUALLY, UM, AREN'T CITY LEASES OVER 10 YEARS REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC VOTE? YES. SO THAT'S CURRENT. SO THE, THE CHARTER WAS AMENDED IN NOVEMBER OF 2024 TO REQUIRE A, UH, A REFERENDUM PRIOR TO THE SALE OR LEASE OF 10 YEARS OR LONGER OF ANY CITY PROPERTY, ANY CITY. THIS, UM, THIS LEASE WAS AWARDED PRIOR TO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, SO IT DIDN'T, SO, SO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT HAS A, LOSING MY MIND, HAS A CARVE OUT FOR ANY LEASES THAT WERE AWARDED PRIOR. THANK YOU. BUT GOOD QUESTION. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WANNA MOVE IT. QUESTION. OH, SO IT SEEMS LIKE DEMOLITION IS MOST PROBABLY GOING TO BE REQUIRED, SO, SORRY. YEAH. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD. YEAH. SO, SO WHEN IT'S REBUILT, THEY REBUILT THE SAME FACADE. DO THEY GET ANY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT? DO THEY GET ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS ACCOMPANIED WITH, WITH THIS OR HAS TO BUILT? UM, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT APPLICATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY ADDITIONAL FAR THEY ARE REQUESTING SOME OTHER LDR AMENDMENTS, BUT NOT HEIGHT AND NOT FAR. SO IT, IT WOULD, FOR THE MOST PART, BE REBUILT TO PRETTY SIMILAR SPEC. WE, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE FINALIZED THE DESIGN YET, BUT I, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE LOOKING TO, TO MAXIMIZE THE FAR AND THE ALLOWABLE. UM, I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT WILL BE PART OF THE NEXT PRESENTATION. THEY PROBABLY HAVE SOME VISUALS, UM, FOR THE BOARD TO SHOW WHAT THE INITIAL PROJECT IS. I GUESS MY ONLY MY QUESTION, WOULD THE LEASE PAYMENTS THAT WERE CONTEMPLATED, IS THAT BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO REBUILD OR WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE? THAT'S BASED ON THEIR CURRENT PLAN. THEY HAVEN'T CONFIRMED 100% BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO REALLY EVALUATE THE, THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS OF THE BUILDING. UM, BUT THEY'RE ANTICIPATING DEMOLISHING AND, AND RECONSTRUCTING, UM, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD ANTICIPATION TO HAVE BECAUSE THAT'S LIKELY FOR MY EXPERIENCE TO, TO BE REQUIRED. SO THE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON, ON THAT ASSUMPTION, MEANING IT'S IT'S BASED ON THE REBUILDING ASSUMPTION? YES. SO THAT'S HOW THE RENT PAYMENTS WERE STRUCTURED BASED ON WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO REBUILD? CORRECT. NOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE PROPOSING CURRENTLY FOR JUST REALLY JUST REBUILDING THE FACADES AND THEN THE NEW ADDITION TO THIS SITE WOULD BE KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. SO IT WOULDN'T BE A COMPLETE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDING. IT WOULD BE SOME RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS AND THEN A NEW, [02:05:01] UM, PROJECT KIND OF INSERTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. GOT IT. SO DOES RENT GO UP IF THEY BUILD MORE, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION. SO IT IS JUST A SINGLE, THE SINGLE PAYMENT. SO IT'S THE SINGLE UPFRONT $2 MILLION PAYMENT. RIGHT. SO WOULD THAT, WOULD THEY HAVE TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT IN THE EVENT THAT THEY ULTIMATELY END UP BUILDING MORE? SO RIGHT NOW AS, AS, AS IS THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THE STRUCTURE THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN SET FORWARD AS THE, AS THE CURRENT PLAN HAS BEEN SET. SO, NO, YEAH, THE, THE, THE FAR ALLOWED FOR THE SITE IS 2.37. SO THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT PLANS ARE. IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK AND SAY, WE WANT MORE FAR, THEN I THINK THIS WOULD ALL BE OPEN TO RENEGOTIATION. I, I, I COULD DO, I COULD CLARIFY ON BEHALF OF, UM, THE, WELL, NOT THE APPLICANT, BUT I, ALL THE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE ON THE ANTICIPATION OF MOST LIKELY HAVING TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AND, AND DO A REPLICATION AND RESTORE ELEMENTS. UM, I MEAN, THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN SET FOR DEMOLITION BY AN EMERGENCY MISSION THAT'S BEEN STAYED OVER THE YEARS. UM, WE HAVE NOT HAD, WE JUST RECENTLY GOT ACCESS TO THE SITE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY TO GET ACCESS TO. SURVEYS ARE ABOUT TO BE DONE. SO THE ARCHITECT WHO'S HERE WITH ME TODAY WILL BE ABLE TO KIND OF, UM, START HAVING A REAL PLAN. BUT WE ANTICIPATE THE NUMBER OF UNITS WE'RE ANTICIPATING. AND WHEN I GET INTO THE LDR DISCUSSION, THAT'S GOING HAND IN HAND. SO, UH, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE NEGOTIATING A LEASE AND THEN AFTER THE LEASE IS NEGOTIATED, THEN WE'RE GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, OH, WE WANT MORE UNITS. NO, WE'RE UPFRONT THAT WE WANT ABOUT A HUNDRED NEED ABOUT 105 UNITS. AND THE BREAKUP BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT USES THAT THE CITY AND, AND WE'RE DISCUSSING, THAT'S ALL INTENDED TO BE APPROVED TOGETHER AT A COMMISSION MEETING. SO ULTIMATELY, BEST CASE SCENARIO, WE'LL HAVE THE, THE TWO, THE LDR AND THE COPPER PLAN AMENDMENT UP FOR A VOTE AND THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE LEASE ALTOGETHER. SO IT'S, THE INTENT IS FOR IT TO ALL BE AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT'S CLEAR WE'RE LOOKING FOR ABOUT 105 UNITS TO BE BILLED. SO IT'S THE, UM, THE NEXT PRESENTATION WON'T BE SOMETHING THAT'S, UH, NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE LEASE. DEBBIE, QUICK ONE QUESTION ON THAT. AND YOU MENTIONED NO, UH, I GUESS A COVENANT FOR NO, NO, UH, TRANSIENT, UH, USES INCLUDES HOTEL USE AND, UM, I ASSUME, AND THERE'S NO CHANCE THAT THEY WOULD WANNA COME BACK AND ASK FOR THAT OR, SO THE CURRENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES NO TRANSIENT USE, INCLUDING NO HOTEL UNITS. UM, IF THEY WERE TO WANT TO AMEND THAT TO INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF SHORT TERM RENTALS, THAT WOULD'VE TO BE, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD AS WELL AS THE CITY COMMISSION. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S COMMISSION'S DIRECTION, UM, FOR THIS PROJECT WAS TO INCREASE OUR, OUR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING STACK. LONG TERM RESIDENTIAL, YES. IT'S ALRIGHT. SOMEONE WANNA MOVE IT? I'LL MOVE IT. FAVOR? FAVOR? YES. ALRIGHT. CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL FAVOR OF THIS ONE? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? NOPE. ALRIGHT. SIX. OH, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO I'M ASSUMING ALFREDO, YOU'RE STAYING FOR THIS, DEBORAH, YOU'RE GONNA PRESENT ON THE SURE CASE. SO THIS, THE NEXT [14. PB26-0833, 1940 PARK AVENUE – LDR AMENDMENT.] [15. PB26-0834, 1940 PARK AVENUE – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.] APPLICATION IS THE, UM, THE LDR AMENDMENT PLUS THE COMPANION, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. SO THAT'S PLANNING BOARD FILED 26 0 8 3 3 AND 26 0 8 3 4. UM, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, IS BEING REQUESTED BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR, UH, APPLICATION NUMBER ONE IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE DENSITY CURRENT. UH, THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR 100 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE THAT TO UP TO 150 UNITS PER ACRE, PLUS A 30 DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE. UH, BONUS IF THE PROJECT MEETS CERTAIN, UM, CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE OR, UM, ATTAINABLE HOUSING, UH, THEY'RE REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE ALLOWABLE UNIT SIZE. CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE UNIT SIZE FOR AFFORDABLE OR WORKFORCE HOUSING IS 400 SQUARE FEET MARKET RATE HOUSING, THE CURRENT MINIMUM IS 550 SQUARE FEET. THEY'RE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 400 SQUARE FEET. REGARDLESS OF THE, UM, WHETHER THE UNIT IS, IS INCOME RESTRICTED OR NOT, THEY'RE ASKING TO REDUCE THE, UM, SETBACKS FOR, FOR THEIR NEW CONSTRUCTION. UM, THEY'RE ASKING TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, THE VEHICULAR PARKING REQUIREMENT. THEY ARE STILL PROPOSING TO, UH, MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING. UM, ADDITIONALLY, THEY ARE PROPOSING [02:10:01] MICRO MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE SITE. THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD TO WAIVE THE LOADING REQUIREMENTS. UH, CURRENTLY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DOES HAVE SOME ABILITY TO WAIVE LOADING, UH, WITH AN EXISTING CONTRIBUTING BUILDING ON THE SITE. SO THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO, UM, IF THEY HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO ALSO WAIVE THE LOADING ZONES. THEY'RE ASKING FOR SOME, UH, EXEMPTIONS FROM THE RESILIENCY AND ADAPTATION STANDARDS FROM THE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. UM, THEY HAVE A YARD ENCROACHMENT WITH THE DRIVEWAY. SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING, UM, PARKING FOR THE UNITS ON THE SITE, THEY ARE PROVIDING, UH, SOME PARKING FOR LOADING, UH, AND DROP OFF AND PICK UP. SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S A MAYBE FOUR PARKING SPACES THAT THEY ARE, UM, PROPOSING, WHICH WOULD NEED EITHER A VARIANCE OR A CODE AMENDMENT. SO THEY'RE ASKING, UH, FOR AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW DRIVEWAYS TO ENCROACH INTO THAT REQUIRED YARD. UM, FINALLY THEY ARE ASKING FOR A, UM, A ZONING MAP, DESIGNATION CHANGE, UM, AND ALSO A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE. WHEN A PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY A GOVERNMENT, IT AUTOMATICALLY GETS REZONED TO A GU. UM, HOWEVER, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES NOT BECOME AUTOMATICALLY CHANGED. SO THE, THE APPLICANT IS JUST CLARIFYING THAT THIS WILL BE A GU ZONE SITE, WHICH IT IS AUTOMATICALLY SINCE THE CITY HAS OWNED IT. UM, BUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED TO CHANGE FROM CURRENTLY RM TWO TO PUBLIC FACILITIES. AND STAFF IS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, UM, THAT REQUEST. AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT SOME OF THESE, YOU KNOW, ZONING AMENDMENTS WOULD, WILL MAKE THE PROJECT FEASIBLE BECAUSE WE REALLY DO NEED TO GET THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BACK TO ACTIVE USE. IT'S BEEN A, A REAL CONCERN, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR PRESERVATIONISTS, RIGHT? WE, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO WAS ON THE PRESERVATION BOARD AS STAFF FOR A LONG TIME, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN, UM, THIS BUILDING IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, BUT ALSO, UM, IT'S BECOME A REAL NUISANCE TO, TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH BREAK-INS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF POLICE ACTIVITY ON THIS SITE AND I KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN NEIGHBORS HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME DIRECTLY REALLY ENCOURAGING THE CITY TO TRY AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VIABLE PROJECT. SO WITH THAT, UM, I CAN TURN OVER TO APPLICANT, BUT I'M ALSO HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, . GOOD MORNING. UH, AGAIN, ALFREDO GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF 1940. UM, BARKLEY PARTNERS, LLC I'M HERE TODAY WITH ASSOCIATE, UH, DAVID BUTTER, ALSO THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT FROM BROOKS, UH, SC AND HUBER. JEFF HUBER IS HERE AS WELL. AND THESE LDR AMENDMENTS HELP BRING THE SITE IN CONFORMITY. UM, WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF ON THEM. I'M GONNA GO THROUGH A QUICK PRESENTATION TO GET YOU A, A BEARINGS ON WHY, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. MM-HMM . UH, WE CAN PUT THE PRESENTATION UP PLEASE. PERFECT. SO, OH GOOD. THIS WORKS. SO JUST TO ORIENTATE, I MEAN EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS JUST IN CASE THE BARKLEY IS LOCATED JUST OFF, UH, THE, ACROSS EAST OF THE CONVENTION CENTER AND PARK, IT'S ALMOST THE DIAMOND. IT'S AN ODD SHAPED LOT. SO, UM, AND YOU'LL SEE FROM THE IMAGES OF THE BUILDING THAT'S BEEN THIS WAY SINCE, I GUESS FOR THE LAST ALMOST 12 YEARS, SO WAS BORDER THE CITY ACQUIRED IT, THERE WERE FIRES IN ARSON. UH, SO THIS BUILDING WILL LIKELY HAVE TO COME OUT, BUT THERE ARE, UH, PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS TO RESTORE AND, AND, AND, AND SAVE WHATEVER ELEMENTS WE COULD SAVE OFF THE BUILDING TO BE REUSED. AND, UM, THE REC THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS IS GOING TO BE ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. 'CAUSE TECHNICALLY AS A GOVERNMENT SITE, YOU CAN'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES. SO, UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A MIXED USE PROJECT AS YOU HEARD BEFORE. UM, AND SO ON THE COMP PLAN, WE LIKE TO IT TO BE RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, ADD RESIDENTIAL USES AND ALSO THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. 'CAUSE IT IS A GOVERNMENT SITE. IT HAS AN FAR GREATER THAN A A 2.37. THAT'S THE FAR THAT THE SITE HAS. UH, TYPICALLY IN THE RM TWO, IT'S TWO OR LESS. SO IT, IT CREATES A DISPARITY THAT NOW THAT, THAT THIS WILL CLEAN UP. SO IT'LL ALLOW THE DENSITY TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO USE IT. AND WE DO GET BONUSES FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOU, THE HOUSING EARNINGS, UH, NO MORE THAN 160 A MI. UH, THERE'S ALSO AN ELDERLY COMPONENT, WHICH WE DON'T [02:15:01] HAVE TO MAKE A TAX AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE, THAT'S PART OF THIS PROJECT AS WELL. SO IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, UM, I, WE ALSO ARE DOING THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. WE'RE REQUESTING A MINIMUM UNIT SIZE TO BE 400 SQUARE FEET, UH, TO ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, MORE, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO HIGH END LUXURY UNITS. THERE. THERE'S GONNA BE THIS WORKFORCE, UH, MARKET RATE UNITS THAT ARE MORE FOR, UH, PROVIDING A NEED THAT IN THE AREA. WE'VE ALL, YOU KNOW, AT THIS BOARD, AT COMMISSION AND MANY BOARDS, THERE'S A DISCUSSION OF TRYING TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING EVEN AT FULL MARKET RATE. UH, SO WE ARE ALSO NEED SETBACK ENC ENCROACHMENTS 'CAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP, YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS IS THE SITE. UM, AND THEN TRYING TO KEEP THE, THE, THE, THE FORMAT OF HOW THE, UH, THE BARLEY USED TO BE. IT'S, AND KEEPING THAT THE FACADES IN THE HISTORIC ELEMENT, WE'RE GONNA NEED, UH, RELIEF FROM SOME OF THE SETBACKS. AND CAN I SHOW YOU ON THE HIGHER FLOORS IS JUST A SMALL PORTION AND WE INCLUDED THAT IN OUR REQUEST. SO THIS PROJECT, BY AMENDING THE LDRS, IT'S CLEAR THAT WE GO IN TO THE HPB, UH, FOR THAT REVIEW. YOU'LL HAVE OBVIOUSLY, UM, WE CAN'T INCLUDE THE PARKING WITHOUT AND ALSO REPLICATE THE FACADES 'CAUSE THERE'D BE NO WAY OTHER THAN THIS DRIVEWAY ON THE NORTHERN PORTION TO ENTER OR, AND EXIT THE PROPERTY. UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE FRONTAGE STANDARDS AND THE LANDSCAPING TO GET SOME RELIEF BECAUSE OF, OF THE SITE. AGAIN, ULTIMATELY ALL THIS WILL BE APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. UM, AND JUST SO, AND THAT, AND THAT'S REALLY AT THIS POINT WHAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS AT THIS POINT. WE JUST GOT RECENTLY GOT ACCESS WORKED OUT WITH THE CITY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PARTNERS WITH THE CITY AND WE, WE HAVE ACCESS AND OUR FIRST STEP IS GETTING SURVEYS. SO I CAN PROVIDE THE SURVEY TO OUR ILLUSTRIOUS ARCHITECT , AND THEN HAVE DESIGN PLANS STARTING TO BE PREPARED. UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, AND I KNOW IT WAS POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, BUT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT, I HAVE ABOUT 105 UNITS AT RIGHT NOW. THERE'S ABOUT 16 UNITS WOULD BE, UH, RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL. ANOTHER SEVEN WILL BE ABOUT ELDERLY HOUSING. AND THAT'LL, THAT'LL BRING THE TOTAL SET ASIDES IN THE, IN THE BUILDING TO OVER 22%, UM, OF THE OVERALL BUILDING. NOW IF YOU, I KNOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE, WE CALL FOR 10% BEING A MINIMUM OF 10% TO BE THE, THIS RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL STAFF IS CALLING FROM MEMORY TO BE 15. THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR IT TO STAY 10% IS TO ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE CITY. ULTIMATELY WE HAVE TO DO WHATEVER OUR LEASE REQUIRES US. SO IT'S NOT THAT, UM, WE COULD DO 10% AND THE CITY DOESN'T WANT US TO DO 10% THERE. IT'S DICTATED IN THE LEASE TERMS. NOW, I WANTED TO LEAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY THERE. SO IF AS IT GOES ALONG THE WAY GETS TO THE, SORRY, GETS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, UM, IF THERE WAS SOME CHANGES IN THE PERCENTAGES OF THE UNITS, MORE, EVEN MORE ELDERLY HOUSING MIX IT, THE CITY WOULD HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY. SO THAT'S THE ONLY, UM, REASON WE'D LIKE TO LEAVE IT AT 10% VERSUS 10% TODAY. UH, AT 10% VERSUS, UM, MOVING TO 15. EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT CURRENTLY OUR TERM SHEET SAYS 15%, BUT I WANTED TO LEAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY AND NOT HAVE TO TRIGGER A NEW LDR AMENDMENT DOWN THE ROAD IF THERE WAS A CHANGE BY THE COMMISSION. AND WITH THAT, IF YOU, I'LL HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT, DEBBIE? SURE, YEAH. I MEAN THE, THE LEASE AGREEMENT IS, IT DOES REQUIRE 15%. SO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE TEXT AMENDMENT ALSO HAVE THE 15%. UM, RIGHT. SO I UNDERSTAND. WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW IT GIVES YOU MORE FLEXIBILITY? RIGHT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. YEAH, I DON'T, WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT, WHAT THE, UM, ATTORNEY IS SAYING IS THAT IF WE WANTED TO REDUCE THE, THE UNITS THAT ARE RESTRICTED TO 160 A MI AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL AFFORDABLE BY THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEN THAT MIGHT THROW OFF THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE, THE REGULAR KIND OF INCOME RESTRICTED VERSUS THE ACTUAL AFFORDABLE FROM, FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT AS MUCH ATTAINABLE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS POSSIBLE. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ELDERLY HOUSING AND RETAIN THE NUMBER OF THE, [02:20:01] THE 15% NUMBER. SO FROM, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE, UM, WANT AS MANY ATTAINABLE UNITS IN THE BUILDING AS POSSIBLE. AND OF COURSE WE SUPPORT THE ELDERLY, THE ELDERLY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. SO THESE ARE JUST MINIMUMS IF THEY WANT TO INCREASE, UM, THE NUMBER THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY TYPE OF AMENDMENT. SO WE ARE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS GONNA REMAIN A, A MINIMUM OF THE 15%. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? AND CAN I CLARIFY ONE THING? SURE. I'M SORRY. CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING. GO AHEAD. UM, AND, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT DEBBIE SAID, BUT THE, THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ELDERLY HOUSING THAT THE CITY'S ALSO WANTING TO SEE IN THE PROJECT IS, IS, IS PART OF THE OVERALL SCOPE. IT'S, THERE'S NO TAX AMENDMENT OR REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE ANY PERCENTAGE OF ELDERLY HOUSING. SO IF THE CITY ULTIMATELY, AGAIN, IT'S THE CITY DECIDES TO CHANGE, CHANGE IT UP AND MAYBE HAVE MORE ELDERLY, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT, I WANTED TO GIVE 'EM THE FLEXIBILITY AT 10%. SO THEY SAY FINE IF THE OVERALL, THERE'S, THERE'S AN OVERALL CAP OF HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE ELDERLY YOU COULD PUT INTO A PROJECT AND STILL MAKE IT A VIABLE PROJECT IN ANY, IN ANY, IN ANY STANCE, FINE DECIDE IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR SO LONG. SO, UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN IF IT'S 10% OR 15 WE'RE, WE CAN'T DICTATE THAT CHANGE IT, WE'RE THE, WE'RE WE'RE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, THE CITY COULD MAKE THOSE CHANGES THEMSELVES AND SUGGEST IT. AND WE'RE NOT COUNTING, YOU KNOW, LIKE THERE'S 22% RIGHT NOW ON THIS PROJECT BEING PROPOSED THAT'S GOING TO EITHER ELDERLY OR, OR RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL. SO IT'S HELPING THOSE IN NEED OVER 22%. UM, THAT MAKES BETWEEN, SO YOU SAID, YOU SAID HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN HERE ARE, ARE PROPOSED 105 UNITS? OH, FIVE. 105. OKAY. 105 UNITS ARE PROPOSED AND 22% OF THOSE ARE EARMARKED. THREE, THEY'RE ELDERLY AND DISSATISFIED. 57%. CAN YOU EXPLAIN, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND. UM, WHAT BENEFITS IF, OKAY, SO THEY'RE ELDERLY, THEY'RE A CERTAIN AGE. ARE YOU GIVING, IS THERE GOVERNMENT MONEY GOING TO HELP SUBSIDIZE IT? ARE YOU LOWERING THE RENT? UH, EXPLAIN WHAT, HOW THAT SURE AFFECTS THEIR RENT. UM, ARE YOU THROUGH THE HOUSING? I'M 20 AND I'M 65. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SO IT'S A VOUCHER PROGRAM THROUGH THE CITY AND HOUSING, HOUSING AUTHORITY. SO THEY WANTED TO HAVE EARMARKED CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY COULD USE THROUGH THEIR PROGRAM. UHHUH, . SO THEY'LL BE BUILT, THEY'LL BE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY'RE ALL MIXED THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING. SO RENT WOULD BE THE SAME. THOSE WOULD BE SET BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, MAYBE BE HOUSING AUTHORITY. OKAY. IN, IN THE CITY'S HOUSING PROGRAM FOR ELDERLY. YEAH. SO THOSE UNITS WOULD SOMEWHERE, YOU KNOW, YEAH, THOSE UNITS ARE BASICALLY, THE COST WILL BE SET BY THE CITY. AND, AND THE VOUCHERS, JUST THE QUICK CLARIFICATION. SO THE, THE SENIOR UNITS WOULDN'T GO ABOVE 80% OF A MI. OKAY. SO IT'S 80%. I GOT THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S GOOD MOTION. AND THESE ARE ALL SIX MONTH OR MORE? I THINK IT'S 12 MONTHS. ONE YEAR FOR WORKFORCE OR ANYONE. RIGHT? THEY'RE, THEY'RE ONE YEAR RENTALS. ONE YEAR RENTALS. BEAUTIFUL. I'D, UH, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT KEEPING THE 15% IN THERE. OKAY. WHERE ARE WE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OR THE LDR? WHICH ONE HAS THE UH, 15% THE L-D-R-L-L-D. JUST THE FIRST ONE ALL. OKAY. MOVE TO SEND THAT FAVORABLY WITH 15% LIFT. OKAY. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT? AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. I GUESS WE NEED TO WAIT FOR MELISSA, RIGHT? OH WAIT, WE HAVE FIVE, I GUESS IT PASSES. THREE. WE HAVE FIVE. OKAY. PASS. ALRIGHT. AND THEN NEXT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, PB 26 DASH OH 8 34. I'LL SECOND. SECOND. YEAH. KEITH? YES. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU GUYS. HAVE A GOOD DAY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, SO BEFORE WE GET DISCUSSION ITEMS, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UM, NICK, I JUST SENT NICK THE, UH, BTR FOR THAT VALET COMPANY. YES. AND UM, IT DOES NOT APPEAR DESPITE THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD FROM THE CODE, THAT THAT LOCATION, THE MR CAR LOCATION IS IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THE, UH, PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THEY ARE APPROVED. I SENT IT AS AN EMAIL TO YOU GUYS TOO. OKAY. BECAUSE I GOT, SO I, I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE I THEY ARE NOT THERE. I DRILLED DOWN ON THAT SPECIFICALLY AND THEY KEPT TELLING ME UNDER OATH, YES, THEY'RE APPROVED, THEY'RE APPROVED, THEY'RE APPROVED, AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT WAS THE CASE. SO, UM, I, I GUESS STAFF CAN DO WITH THAT AS THEY MAY, BUT [02:25:01] IT KIND OF CONCERNS ME THAT, WELL IF IT'S TRUE, I THINK WE SHOULD COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER. WELL, IT'S CONCERNING THAT IT WAS, THAT WAS THAT THEY BOTH TESTIFIED THAT THAT BTR, THE BTR WAS ISSUED. THAT'S A FACT. YEAH, BUT THEY'RE NOT LISTED. THAT LOCATION IS NOT APPROVED. IT DOESN'T APPEAR FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. I MAY BE WRONG, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO REVIEW INTERNALLY AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER RECORD EVIDENCING THAT THE YEAH, I JUST WANNA THAT THE VALLEY OPERATOR, BUT IF, IF IT'S IN FACT THEY DON'T HAVE A BTR, CAN WE, CAN WE PUT SOMETHING IN THAT SAYS THAT THIS ISN'T JUST A CLERICAL ERROR THAT THEN WE CAN COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER AND DIS AND UH, AND REVIEW WITH THEM? BECAUSE HOW DO WE KNOW IF, IF THIS ISN'T CLEARED UP IN SEPTEMBER WHEN WE COME BACK? I MEAN BOARD MEAN THIS WHOLE PREMISE, THE WHOLE PREMISE OF WHICH I AGREED WITH ON ON JANUARY HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THEY WERE COVERED AND THAT THEY, WE WOULD NOT SEE RECURRENCE OF VALET ISSUE. SO THE BOARD VOTED TO CONTINUE TODAY'S HEARING TO THE JANUARY ME MEETING, UNLESS AVAL A NEW VIOLATION IS ISSUED BEFORE THAT. SO, WELL, BUT HOLD ON. OH, THAT WAS UNDER, SO THERE'S GONNA BE NEW VIOLATIONS. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. THAT WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT THEY TOLD US WAS CORRECT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS TRUE. UM, UNDER OATH YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY YOU COULD MOVE TO RECONSIDER YOUR VOTE. UM, WELL I WANT YOU TO CONFIRM THAT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS ACCURATE. YEAH. BUT FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, THEY ARE NOT APPROVED. I MEAN, I CAN, AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE DISCUSSION. YEAH. I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT DECISIVELY WITHOUT DOING THE RESEARCH. OKAY. UH, BUT, BUT, BUT HERE'S THE THING. IF IT, YOU GUYS ARE GONNA LOOK AT IT, IF IT'S NOT PROPER, THEY'RE GONNA GET ANOTHER VIOLATION VIOLATION AND BRING 'EM BACK AND WE'RE GONNA BE BACK IN SEPTEMBER. SO YEAH, SO LET'S, AND WE COULD ALSO, WE, WE, WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT HERE WHEN THEY'RE NOT HERE AS PART OF, SINCE WE ENDED THAT MEETING. I I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT ABOUT DISCUSSING IT'S A FACT. I JUST, THAT'S WHAT I'M, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. CITY PT R EVEN IF, EVEN IF THERE IS NO VIOLATION, IF AFTER DOING THE RESEARCH WE COULD, WE COULD MAYBE BRING THIS BACK AS A PROGRESS REPORT IN SEPTEMBER'S IF NECESSARY. WELL, YEAH, I MEAN IT'S UP TO YOU, BUT IT'S, BUT LET US, LET US LOOK INTO IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT WAS REPRESENTED TO US WAS INACCURATE. LET US LOOK INTO THAT. YEAH. AND THAT WE NEED TO KNOW IF THAT'S, AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE GERMAN ISSUE OF THE HEARING. SO, AND SORRY, JUST ONE POINT. IF IT, IF IT DOES PROVE TO BE FALSE, CAN YOU BRING IT BACK AS A MODIFICATION SLASH REVOCATION INSTEAD OF THE PROGRESS REPORT? OR HAVE TO GO PROGRESS REPORT FIRST AND THEN NO, I MEAN THE BOARD, UNLESS THE VIOLATION IS ISSUED, IF A VIOLATION IS ISSUED BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, THEN WE COULD, WE COULD SCHEDULE THE MODIFICATION REVOCATION HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER. IF IT'S TRUE, WE'RE GONNA GET A VIOLATION NEXT WEEK OR THIS WEEK IF THE CODE GOES OUT AND DOES IT. YEAH. IF THE WELL CODE BETTER GO OUT, I JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF IT. OKAY. AND, AND, AND IF IT'S TRUE THAT THEY'RE NOT APPROVED, THEN YOU NEED TO LET CODE KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE'S, HE STOOD THERE AND I'M SURE IT WASN'T IT ON PURPOSE, BUT HE CONFIRMED AND I SPECIFICALLY SAID I UNDERSTAND THE BTR IS ISSUED. IS THIS LOCATION APPROVED? YES. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT MAY NOT BE TRUE AND HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE. LET US LOOK INTO IT IN CASE THERE'S SOME OTHER RECORD THAT, THAT WE DON'T HAVE. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING IS FOR YOU TO LOOK INTO IT. ALRIGHT, DISCUSSION ITEM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING REGULATIONS. [16. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING REGULATIONS ] CAN YOU REMEMBER WHO REQUESTED THAT THAT BE A, YOU REMEMBER WHO ASKED FOR THAT DISCUSSION ITEM? IT WAS USUALLY, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ME. IT'S USUALLY YOU. YEAH. . YEAH, IT WAS, IT WAS ME. SO WE HAVE A, UH, THERE'S A DOCUMENT. YES. I, I, UM, WE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE A COMMISSION MEMORANDUM BECAUSE THIS IS, UM, THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ALREADY, UM, AT THE LAND USE COMMITTEE. UM, SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS OVER THE YEARS HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, POINTED OUT THAT OUR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, THE MOST COMPLEX OF ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY. AND THE, UM, YOU KNOW, PLANNING STAFF HAS, HAS OFTEN, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSED THE ISSUES WITH, WITH PERMITTING, UM, OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES STAFF TO REVIEW A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS ARE EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX AND THEY'VE BEEN LAYERED OVER TIME. UM, AND SO WE, WE SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER LOOK AT THESE REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO, TO SIMPLIFY, STREAMLINE, UM, YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT IS PERMIT REVIEW. SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE CURRENT DISCUSSION, UH, PENDING, UH, CITY COMMISSION IN WHICH WE HAVE KIND OF TWO OPTIONS. WE HAVE OPTION ONE, WHICH WOULD REALLY BE, UM, A DRAMATIC CHANGE BASICALLY ONLY HAVING, YOU KNOW, ALLOWABLE SETBACK OR MINIMUM SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM HEIGHTS. BUT THE VOLUME OF THE, THE HOME, YOU KNOW, COULD REALLY BE ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT'S CONTAINED WITHIN THAT KIND OF ENVELOPE THAT WE PROVIDE. THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE MOST EXTREME AND THE SIMPLEST, UH, [02:30:01] FORM THAT WE COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, ADOPT. WE ALSO HAVE OPTION TWO, WHICH IS MORE SURGICAL IN TERMS OF GOING THROUGH OUR REGULATIONS, SEEN WHICH ONES ARE REALLY CAUSING THE, THE ISSUES IN TERMS OF OUR DIFFICULTY IN REVIEWING AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AMENDING THAT TO SIMPLIFY. UM, WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION TWO BECAUSE WE DO BELIEVE THAT A LOT OF OUR REGULATIONS ARE ACTUALLY RESULTING IN, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE COMPATIBLE HOMES. UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A GOOD ARCHITECT, THE GOOD ARCHITECT IS, IS GONNA USE THESE TYPES OF, YOU KNOW, THE SETBACKS AND THE STEP BACKS, UM, INNATELY BECAUSE THEY, THEY ARE GONNA BE LOOKING TO BREAK DOWN THE MASSING, BUT IF YOU HAVE A BAD ARCHITECT, THEY MAY JUST COME IN WITH A BOX, UM, WITHOUT ANY MOVEMENT OR ANY RELIEF FOR, FOR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. SO WE THINK THERE'S, THERE'S LIKELY A MIDDLE GROUND, UM, BETWEEN OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS, JUST A VOLUMETRIC REGULATION, UM, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROCESS SIMPLER FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT ALSO ENSURE, UM, THAT THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF COMPATIBILITY WITHIN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. QUESTION NEIGHBORHOODS. YEAH. SO THIS IS GONNA GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION OR LAND USE COMMISSION? IT'S CURRENTLY, IT'S CURRENTLY LAND USE HAS, HAS GENERALLY DISCUSSED THIS ALREADY. IT'S CURRENTLY PENDING A DISCUSSION ITEM AT CITY COMMISSION. IT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE, UH, JUNE AGENDA. GOT IT. UM, SO YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT, THAT IT WILL COME UP AT THE JULY MEETING. SO MY, AND THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD REQUEST THAT THE LDR AND THE PLAN CODE AMENDMENT COME TO US? YES, POTENTIALLY THEY COULD, THEY COULD REFER. ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS MORE INFORM, SO THIS IS INFORMATIVE FOR US TO KNOW WHAT MAY BE COMING. CORRECT. OKAY. SO WHAT, I MEAN, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE OPTION ONE, NOT THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED FOR IT, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY TO INCLUDE IN WHATEVER THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO VOTE ON WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE, I GUESS, OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS TO REHAB OR REDO EXISTING PROPERTIES? BECAUSE AT LEAST WHAT I'M FINDING IS THAT THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, MANY PEOPLE BEING PRICED OUTTA MIAMI BEACH BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SELLING OFF THEIR HOMES. THERE, THERE ARE A LOT, WHATEVER IT IS. PEOPLE COME IN, THEY BUILD A BIG BOX, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING I'M AGAINST, BUT THAT CREATES A WHOLE NEW PLAYING FIELD. SO YOU CAN'T REALLY GET SOMEONE MOVING INTO MIAMI BEACH FOR 2 MILLION OR EVEN 3 MILLION. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMES THAT ARE GOING FOR 5, 6, 7, 8 MILLION DRY LOTS, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE FOR JUST A LOT OF MONEY. SO IS THERE ANY WAY TO INCLUDE IN HERE SOME TYPE OF INCENTIVE FOR REHAB AND, AND REDO? I DUNNO IF THAT'S, YEAH, WE LAR LARGER, YOU KNOW, LOT COVERAGE RATIO, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE A LARGER KIND OF MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO 50%, MAYBE IT'S 55 OR 60% IF YOU'RE REDOING YOUR HOME WITH AN EXTENSION. SO WE, WE CURRENTLY, THAT'S, THAT IS PART OF THIS. WE CURRENTLY DO HAVE INCENTIVES FOR ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOMES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO 1966 THAT REQUIRES A PROPERTY OWNER TO GO THROUGH AN ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION BY STAFF. UM, IT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT A DIFFICULT PROCESS, BUT THAT'S JUST ONE MORE STEP, RIGHT? THAT'S ANOTHER DELAY IN, IN THE TIMEFRAME. SO WHAT WE, WHAT THIS WOULD ALSO DO IS, IS NOT REQUIRE THAT ADDITIONAL STEP. SO BASICALLY IF YOU HAVE A HOME BUILT PRIOR TO 1966, YOU WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THOSE INCENTIVES. AND WHAT IS THAT INCLUDING THAT THE LOT COVERAGE, THE UNIT SIZE REDUCED SETBACKS IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, EVEN FOR ADDITIONS. THAT WOULD TO WHAT? SO IT GOES FROM 50% TO WHAT? 50% TO 60%. OKAY. AND THE LOT COVERAGE, JAKE IS 40%. SO COULD THAT BE SOMETHING, LET'S SAY THAT'S INCLUDED FOR HOMES THAT ARE NOT, LET'S SAY THAT OUR PRE 1990 OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THAT IS. MEANING CAN WE, WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, I MEAN I, WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT. WE DON'T REALLY SEE, WE SEE MOST OF THE HOUSING STOCK IN MIAMI BEACH IS, IS I THINK HALF OF IT IS PRE 1950. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING. AND THEN WE HAVE A GOOD CHUNK FROM 1950 TO 1966. I THINK A LOT OF THE EIGHTIES AND NINETIES HOMES HAVE, HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED. UM, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT INCREASING THAT FOR ANYONE. JUST HOW, HOW DO WE KIND OF ALLOW FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON MIAMI BEACH WHERE PEOPLE CAN STAY, YOU KNOW, IT GIVES THEM AN OPTION OF THEY'RE MOVING INTO A REDONE HOME INSTEAD OF A NEWLY, YOU KNOW, REBUILT HOME. WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCREASES THE COST. THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD ALL JUST BE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. YEAH, CLEAR. YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THESE HOUSES LOST OR BOUGHT WITH LIKE ONE BELOW OR SMALLER HOUSE SIZES ARE KEPT THAT WAY AND THAT THERE'S INCENTIVE FROM THE CITY TO PROVE THAT THEIR OFFERS, BUT THE PEOPLE ARE NOT NECESSARILY KNOCKING IT DOWN. SURE. BECAUSE LET'S SAY I, I WANNA SELL, NOT, NOT MEANS SOMEONE WANTS TO SELL A HOUSE THAT RIGHT NOW IS FOUR THOU, IT'S A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. RIGHT? INSTEAD OF KNOCKING IT DOWN, REBUILDING, RIGHT. THEY CAN GET UP TO LET'S SAY 5,500 THAT ANOTHER HOUSE COULDN'T GET, BUT THEY HAVE TO KEEP [02:35:01] IT WITHIN THE SAME, LET'S CALL IT FOOTPRINT, WHATEVER THAT IS, BRINGS DOWN THE COST. AND AGAIN, I THINK IT INTRODUCES A NEW PRICE POINT. OR MAYBE IT'S NOT THE MILLION OR 2 MILLION, MAYBE IT'S 3 MILLION. IT'S, BUT IT'S NOT THE 7 MILLION. RIGHT. IT'S IMPORTANT. 'CAUSE MOST OF THE TIME THEY, THEY LOOK AT IT AND THEY LOOK AT THE MONEY THEY HAVE TO PUT IN TO FIX IT UP AND IT'S JUST YEAH, EXACTLY. YOU KNOW, THE MONEY THATL, ALL THESE THINGS, A SQUARE FOOTAGE IS MUCH MORE PROFITABLE THAN JUST DURING THE WORK. SO, SO MAYBE THEY MAKE UP THAT MONEY BY BEING ABLE TO BUILD A, A LARGER HOME, BUT IT'S NOT THE NEWLY REBUILT HOME. HMM. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE, WE COULD CONSIDER SOME, SOME INCENTIVES THAT THE CITY CAN INCLUDE. YEAH, WE, I MEAN WE CAN CERTAINLY INCLUDE MORE YEAH. INCENTIVES FOR THE RETENTION OF HOMES. WE CAN EXPAND THAT, UM, AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THESE INCENTIVES. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I'M MOVING FOR. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ONE? NOPE. OKAY. THE NEXT IS [17. SWALE MAINTENANCE AND USE OF SWALES IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS ] SWALE MAINTENANCE AND USE OF SWES IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT WAS DEFINITELY MINE . UM, SO, UM, I, WE DID, I DID PROVIDE YOU, UH, WITH THE CODE SECTIONS. I HAVE REACHED OUT, UM, TO RODNEY KNOWLES, UH, ASSISTANT, UH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. AND YOU KNOW, BASICALLY JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHAT'S IN THE, THE EXISTING, UH, CITY CODE IS THAT SWELL MAINTENANCE IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, RIGHT? THE CITY DOES NOT, UM, ACTIVELY MAINTAIN, UH, THE SWALES, UM, IN FRONT OF AN ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO THAT IS CURRENTLY THE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, THE TREES. I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT PLANTING TREES AND, AND SHRUBBERY IN THE SWALES THAT IS, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO DO THAT THROUGH THE COORDINATION WITH THE CITY'S URBAN FORESTRY DEPARTMENT. SO, UM, THE, THE URBAN FORESTRY DEPARTMENT WILL ALLOW FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF TREES. UM, BUT THAT AGAIN, ANY NEW TREES OR ANY NEW SHRUBBERY IS GONNA BE DEFAULT TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO MAINTAIN THAT. UM, PUBLIC WORKS ALSO LOOKS AT, UH, YOU KNOW, SIGHT LINE TRIANGLES AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO, UM, THERE ARE NO SAFETY ISSUES WITH, WITH ANY LANDSCAPE THAT'S ADDED. UM, AS FAR AS PARKING IS CONCERNED, THEY, UM, YOU KNOW, I RECEIVED A, A, UM, RESPONSE THAT THEY DO NOT, UH, REGULATE PARKING ON THE SWES. UM, ALL THEY WOULD REGULATE IS THE ABILITY TO INTRODUCE PAVING, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PAVE THE AREA IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PARKING IN THE SWALE, THE CITY WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT. UM, BUT AS FAR AS PARKING ON THE GRASS, THE, THE ONLY ENFORCEMENT THE CITY WOULD HAVE WOULD BE IF BY, YOU KNOW, PARKING THERE THAT SOMEHOW CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE SWALE OR THE LANDSCAPE, THEN IT WOULD BE THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR ALL OF THAT. SOMETIMES IF YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, LARGE WORK TRUCKS AND THINGS, THEY DO KIND OF RIP UP SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING. SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CORRECTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO I THINK WHAT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR LAST, UH, LAST MEETING WAS, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OBSTRUCTING THE USE OF THEIR SWALE AND BY DOING SO, THEY WERE INTRODUCING PARKING ON THE STREET, WHICH IS RESTRICTING VEHICULAR ACCESS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DOWN, DOWN THE STREET. SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO ENSURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN? WHEREBY EVEN IF THE MAINTENANCE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, FINE, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE SWELL, SPECIFICALLY PARKING OR, OR WHATEVER THAT IS. 'CAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHAT PEOPLE DO IS THEY PUT THOSE BIG ROCKS, THEY PUT THE SIGNS, NO PARKING ON GRASS, AND THEN THEY HAVE GUESTS OVER AND THEN IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE, THEY'RE JUST PARKING ON THE STREET. RIGHT. AND, AND WELL, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, YOU, YOU TALK ABOUT THE ALLOWING THE CITY ALLOWS SOME, SOME SHRUBS OR TREES TO BE PLANTED. I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION BASED ON WHAT'S SAYING NEIGHBORHOOD, A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT THE CITY IS REQUIRING AT THIS POINT THAT THEIR TREES BE PLANTED ON THE SWELLS OF THESE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO INCREASE, I THINK IT WAS ONE OF MINOR'S INITIATIVE TO INCREASE SHADING. AND SO IT'S NOT EVEN RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT A, A, A, AN OPTION TO NOT, AND SO WE'RE BACK TO TO, TO HIS POINT IS WE'RE ENDING UP WITH SWELLS THAT ARE NO LONGER, UH, BEING USED OR CAN BE USED TO BE PARKING. AND SO WE END UP WITH ALL THESE CARS ON THE STREET INSTEAD OF THE SWELLS LIKE IT TRADITIONALLY USED TO BE. SO THERE WAS AN INITIATIVE FROM THE CITY OF INCREASING TREES, UH, BEING PLANTED ON SWELLS THAT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. OKAY. AND THAT, THAT'S ACCURATE. SO THE, FOR FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, UM, WE DO REQUIRE, UM, SHADE TREES THAT IS A MUCH LARGER CITY INITIATIVE, UM, TO INCREASE [02:40:01] OUR SHADE CANOPY. UM, THAT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY REQUIRED FOR AN EXISTING HOME THAT WAS GOING THROUGH A RENOVATION. NO, ALL IN CONSTRUCTION. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD COULD CERTAINLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MODIFY THAT POLICY. UM, ANOTHER, ANOTHER ISSUE IS IF PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON THE STREET AND BLOCKING TRAVEL LANES, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED EITHER. SO THAT WOULD BE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE THAT I THINK WE COULD ALSO LOOK INTO. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE, RIGHT? SO HERE'S A RESIDENTIAL STREET THAT A NEIGHBOR SENT TO ME, IT'S MY STREET. THEY SENT ME THE PICTURE. YOU HAVE A HOUSE HERE WITH BIG BOULDERS BLOCKING USE OF THEIR SWALE. THEN THEY HAVE SOMEONE IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE WHO'S PARKING ON THE STREET. THEN ACROSS THE STREET YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S RESTRICTING PARKING ON THE SWALE. SO THERE'S LITERALLY NOWHERE TO DRIVE. AND THEY, THEY CALL ENFORCEMENT, THEY CALL CODE, THEY'LL COME OUT, THEY GIVE 'EM A WARNING, PLEASE MOVE YOUR CAR. BUT THAT'S NOT FIXING THE UNDERLYING ISSUE WHERE THERE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE RESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE SWALE AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PARK THERE, WHICH WOULD OPEN UP THE VEHICULAR ACCESS. SO I GUESS WHAT COULD WE DO AS A PLANNING BOARD TO TRY AND INTRODUCE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOME TYPE OF CODE WHERE YOU CANNOT RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE SWELL. SO ARE THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO PUT PRIVATE ROCKS ON THE, ON THE CITY PROPERTY? MM-HMM . THAT'S SUBJECT TO PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK TO A SPECIFIC PROPERTY WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER OBTAINED. YEAH, NORTH BAY ROAD'S THE SAME. THERE'S ALL THESE FLAGS. DON'T PARK HERE. IT'S THE SAME THING. WE HAVE THAT CROSSING. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WORK TOWARDS INTRODUCING LANGUAGE TO PREVENT THAT TYPE OF OBSTRUCTION? RIGHT? BUT THEN, BUT THEN DO YOU WANT PEOPLE PARKING ON FRONT OF PEOPLE'S LAWNS. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. I THINK, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. IT'S BETTER THAT THEY PARK IN ON THEIR LAWN THAN IN THE STREET. SO AT THIS POINT THEY'RE OPTION AND IF YOU DON'T WANT, BY THE WAY, THE OPTION IS NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT PARKING. THEY ARE PARKING. RIGHT. RIGHT. AND THEY HAVE THEIR STAFF DOING IT BECAUSE THEIR DRIVERS ONLY ALLOW FOR ONE OR TWO CARS. SO THE MOMENT THEY HAVE STAFF EVERY DAY, YOU HAVE THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOOD IS STRUGGLING WITH WHAT HE'S SHOWING. UHHUH, WE HAVE THE SAME THING, THE VENETIAN, AND WE CALL ENFORCEMENT SOMETIMES WHEN IT'S AN ISSUE, EVERYONE GETS TICKETED AND THEN EVERYONE'S UP AND, AND THEY'RE LITERALLY PARKING ON THE STREET. RIGHT. THEY'RE PARKING ON THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S THIS, THERE'S NOT NO SWELL SPACE BECAUSE EVERYONE'S WALKING THROUGH SWELLS. SEE, WELL, YOU CAN'T TELL IF THAT'S DRIVING OR PARKED. UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THE LIGHTS ARE OFF. THAT'S, THAT'S DEFINITELY A PARKED CAR. AND HERE'S THE REALITY OF IT. LIKE YOU, YOU, THE SWELLS DO GET BEATEN. LIKE I, I DON'T BLOCK OFF MY SWELLS IN ALL, ALL THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY AND THEY'RE BEATEN TO S**T. AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU GOTTA ACCEPT. LIKE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE PARKED PARKED. WELL, THAT'S THE QUESTION. SO YOU, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THE RESIDENTS ARE GONNA GO CRAZY ABOUT THE RIGHT. BUT THAT'S PART OF, OKAY, SO, BUT THE OTHER IDEA THAT, THAT THE NO, WHAT I WOULD ALSO SAY THE SWELLS SUPPOSED TO BE PARKED ON. I MEAN, I DON'T, NO, THEY'RE NOT AUTHORIZED PARKING SPACES, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ACTIVELY REGULATES. RIGHT. AND THE CITY, UNFORTUNATELY. ALSO, I GUESS WITH THEIR, I GUESS THE CODE RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF CARS THAT GO IN A DRIVEWAY, WHICH WE'VE ADDRESSED I THINK IN A PREVIOUS MEETING, IT'S ALSO JUST GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN ONLY FIT TWO CARS AS IT IS IN, IN YOUR FRONT DRIVEWAY AREA. WHICH HOPEFULLY IS GONNA GET BETTER. BUT I MEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD, I GUESS, GUESS INTRODUCE OR PUT IT AS A FUTURE ITEM TO INCLUDE IN THE CODE THAT AGAIN, RESTRICTS, OBSTRUCTING THE SWALE? SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULDN'T BE PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION. SO THAT WOULD BE IN, IN OUR PUBLIC PROPERTY, UM, SECTION OF THE CITY CODE. AND YOU COULD CERTAINLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION THAT THEY LIMIT ANY OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE SWES TO FACILITATE, YOU KNOW, PARKING OF TEMPORARY VEHICLES FACES. OH, I'M JUST, I JUST WANNA CAUTION THE BOARD TOO, BECAUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHO SHOULD BE PARKING THERE AND WHO SHOULDN'T BE. IT COULD, IT COULD REALLY LEAD TO A FREE FOR ALL. YEAH. IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE. IT ALREADY IS LIKE THAT. YEAH. YOU CAN'T CONTROL ANYTHING. THEY'RE STILL PARKING. THEY'RE JUST PARKING ON THE STREET. . I, I THINK THERE'D BE, THERE'D BE SOME PUSHBACK. PEOPLE WHO WANNA KEEP THEIR SWELLS NICE. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IT SOLVES A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE ALWAYS DEALING ANYWAYS WITH. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU AT LEAST YOU'RE SOLVING ONE OF THE TRUE PROBLEMS BECAUSE YEAH. THE AMOUNT, I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE WEEK ON OUR CHAT IN THE VENETIAN ISLANDS THAT WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT ALL THESE CARS PARKING ON THE STREETS. AND, AND WE CAN'T DO MUCH ABOUT IT BECAUSE OUR, OUR STREETS ARE NARROW, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF A LOT OF THESE STREETS WHERE YOU CAN'T APPLY FOR ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL PARKING BECAUSE THE STREETS ARE NOT MADE WIDE ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY, UH, HAVE LEGAL, UH, PARKING ON THE STREETS. SO, I MEAN, UM, IMAGINE AN AMBULANCE WANTS TO GET THROUGH IMPOSSIBILITY. LEMME DEAL WITH THAT ALL THE TIME. LEMME WHEN YOU DO, WELL, AGAIN, IF YOU'RE BLOCKING A TRAVEL LANE, THAT IS A, A VIOLATION. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT'S HAPPENING. BUT IT'S, SO LET ME ASK, I KNOW YOU DO A CODE AMENDMENT. WHO GETS NOTICE OF THAT? JUST A, A REGULAR AMENDMENT TO THE, TO THE CITY CODE? WE, IF THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT ANY BLOCK OF, OF, OF THAT WOULD BE, I'M JUST SAYING, 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE NEIGHBOR, LIKE I'M TELLING, I LIVE RIGHT NEAR THE NORTH BAY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WILL GO WILD ON THAT, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'RE [02:45:01] AWARE OF IT. THAT WOULD, UM, THAT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A, A, A NEWSPAPER NOTICE, WHICH WE NOW DO ON, ON ONLINE AND NOBODY WANTS. UM, AND NOTICE ON OUR, ON OUR WEBSITE, NOW YOU COULD, IF YOU WERE GOING TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU COULD, YOU COULD RECOMMEND THAT ADDITIONAL NOTICE BE PROVIDED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO EITHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN SPECIFIC AREAS IF THIS IS GONNA BE FOCUSED ON CERTAIN AREAS OR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS MAY NOT REACH EVERYBODY HERE. RIGHT. BUT IT WOULD BE WITH CITYWIDE. SO EVEN IF IT WASN'T A PROBLEM ON A PARTICULAR ROAD, IT WOULD BE CITYWIDE. RIGHT. WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ARE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS. RIGHT. RIGHT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THEM WHERE IT'S REALLY NOT A PROBLEM AND OTHERS WHERE IT IS. YEAH. RIGHT. AND I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I KNOW NEIGHBORS THAT ARE GONNA GO BALLISTIC 'CAUSE THEY TAKE GREAT PAINS TO PUT THINGS ON THEIR S SOIL SO PEOPLE AREN'T, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S THE GRASS AND PARKING IN FRONT AND TO MAINTAIN THEM SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ILLEGAL. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT IF, IF IT WOULDN'T BE A CHANGE TO THE CODE RESTRICTING, OBSTRUCTING YOUR SWALE, THEN MAYBE IT KIND OF SWITCHES FROM THERE BEING A VIOLATION TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR TO NOW IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER, SOMEONE IN FRONT OF THEM. AND I, I MEAN THAT'S EVEN WORSE. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MANAGE, BUT THE STATUS QUO DOESN'T WORK. OKAY. WELL WHAT'S WEIRD IS THAT IF IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL TO PARK ON THEWELL, RIGHT, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. OH, IT'S NOT, NO. THE STREET, I MEAN, WELL THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT PARKING SPACES. RIGHT. SO TECHNICALLY IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ENCOURAGE. YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE IT. BUT YOU GUYS DON'T ENFORCE IT'S PROHIBIT. LIKE CAN THEY GET TICKETS FOR PARKING ON THE LIKE, UM, I DON'T THINK SO. I, I THINK THE ONLY ENFORCEMENT OF LAST WEEK, 'CAUSE I JUST DEALT WITH THE CITY WITH THAT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THAT UNLESS A LITTLE BIT TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, UN TECHNICALLY, UNLESS THERE IS A CAUSE THAT IT'S, IT'S BLOCKING, IT'S CREATING, IT'S PART OF THE SIDEWALK OR IT'S CREATING SOME OBSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF THE SWELL, UM, OR YOU KNOW, THAT A, A SPECIFIC, UH, RESIDENT, YOU KNOW, MAKES A COMPLAINT OF, YOU KNOW, OF THAT LIVES ON THAT PROPERTY, THAT SOMEHOW, UH, THEY WON'T COME AND ENFORCE EVER. AND SO, UM, SO AT THE VERY KNOW, BUT, BUT, BUT THAT'S MY QUESTION. IS THERE SOMETHING TO ENFORCE IF THEY'RE BLOCKING A TRAVEL LANE? YES. OKAY. BUT JUST SOMEONE PARKED UP ON THE GRASS, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE REGULATE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA REGULATE. NOW IF THEY'RE, IF PART OF THEIR VEHICLE IS IN THE TRAVEL LANE, THEN THEN WE WOULD, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE THAT TOO. SOMETIMES THEY'RE HALF ON, HALF OFF, UM, THE SWA AREA. SO, AND JUST AS A VISUAL, I UNDERSTAND LIKE SOME OF THE PUSHBACK FROM SOME, FROM SOME PEOPLE, BUT JUST AS A VISUAL, IT IS MUCH NICER TO SEE EVERYONE PARKED ON THE SAME SWELL, ALL ON THE SWELLS AND HAVE SOME ON THE SWELL, SOME ON THE STREET. YEAH. AND YOU HAVE THE ZIG, WE PROBABLY ON THE STREETS COMPLETELY. IT'S JUST, IT'S KIND OF A MIND FRAME. AGREE. WE HAVE TO CHANGE ABOUT THAT. MM-HMM . AND, AND EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO AS A SECOND STEP, MAYBE ALLOW DIFFERENT MATERIALS THAT COULD BE USED THERE JUST SO IT'S NOT A BUNCH OF GRASS THAT'S TORN UP. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD COMMON SENSE TOO IF YOU'RE PARKING ON IT WHEN IT'S AFTER IT RAINED, OBVIOUSLY YOU JUST TEAR EVERYTHING UP. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR WHERE THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. BUT I THINK THAT, UM, IT'S, IT'S A REAL PROBLEM IN A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. WE'RE GONNA UPSET A FEW PEOPLE TO PUSH IT MAYBE IN THAT DIRECTION. BUT IN OVERALL, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WILL BECOME A NEW NORMAL THAT THEN, UM, WORKS BETTER FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND IT'S A SAFETY, IT'S A SAFETY THING TOO. RIGHT. BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE GONNA, IF YOU'RE GONNA PROHIBIT PEOPLE FROM BLOCKING THEIR SOIL WITH ROCKS OR WHATEVER, THERE SHOULD ALSO BE SOME RULE THAT YOU CAN'T JUST RANDOMLY PARK ON. LIKE UNLESS, SO MAYBE IT'S, MAYBE IT'S A SERVICE VEHICLE. WELL, BECAUSE IT, IT IS TECHNICALLY THAT PROPERTY IS NOT OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S CITY PROPERTY. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT YOU CAN'T SAY IT'S JUST MY PEOPLE. NO, BUT YOU DON'T WANT JUST RANDOM RESIDENTS BEING ABLE TO PARK ON SOMEONE'S SOIL. RIGHT? WELL WE HAVE THAT ALREADY. YOU HAVE, LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY YOU LIVE IN THIS HOUSE, YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE FROM DOWN THE BLOCK IS' HAVING A PARTY AND SOMEONE FROM THERE IS PARKING AS WELL. BUT I THINK THAT JUST HAPPENS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF RIGHT. MOST OF THE TIME IT'S PEOPLE'S OWN STAFF LIFE, LIFE. RIGHT. AND IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS IT'S KIND OF UNDERSTOOD YOU'RE GONNA TRY TO USE THE SPACE IN FRONT OF YOUR, YOUR CORRECT. IT DOES HAPPEN. AND USUALLY THERE'S LITTLE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, YOUR HOUSE, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHY DOES THE CITY, IF THE CITY OWNS THE SWES, WHY DID THEY ALLOW PRIVATE RESIDENTS TO PUT LIKE THEY'RE ON NORTH BANK? 'CAUSE I JOGGED THERE AND EVERYTHING. THAT'S THE ONLY EXAMPLE I CAN, PEOPLE PUT FLAGS ON THEM. THERE'S ROCKS ON THEM. THERE'S, WHY IS THAT ALLOWED? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ISSUING CITATIONS FOR THAT. UM, BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE SWALE, YOU SHOULD BE COMING INTO THE CITY AND AND DISCUSSING THAT WITH PUBLIC WORKS IN GREEN SPACE. OKAY. UM, I THINK MO MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF WE, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE, THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, IF WE CONTINUE THIS TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING SO THAT I CAN HAVE SOMEONE FROM PUBLIC WORKS HERE. OKAY. AND MAYBE EVEN SOMEONE FROM CODE. BECAUSE IF, IF THE ISSUE IS OCCURRING IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND NOT CITYWIDE THROUGHOUT THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, THEN MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT [02:50:01] THAT THE CITY COULD STEP UP. IF IT'S LIMITED TO, YOU KNOW, IF THE REAL PROBLEM IS LIMITED TO JUST A FEW NEIGHBORS, I WANNA DO THIS. BUT AT A VERY MINIMUM, I WOULD LIKE US TO, UM, UH, PUSH FORWARD THE FACT THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW TREES, UH, FOR SHADING ON ALL THESE NEW PROPERTIES BE REVIEWED. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S CAUSING A REAL PROBLEM. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT ALSO BE CONTINUED. I THINK THAT REQUIREMENT IS IN THE LDRS. UM, BUT THE, THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE SETS MINIMUM STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW. WE CAN EITHER FOLLOW THEM OR BE STRICTER, BUT WE CANNOT BE LESS RESTRICTIVE. SO, SO THIS IS THE COUNTY, BECAUSE I I WAS ONLY IMPRESSION IT'S BOTH. OKAY. SO THE COUNTY SETS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR, FOR ALL INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF MIAMI-DADE. AND THEN IN SOME AREAS OUR CODE IS STRICTER. RIGHT. SO, UM, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THE BOARD, I UNDERSTAND, SCHEDULE THAT FOR, FOR AN UPCOMING MEETING. ALRIGHT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WE'LL MOVE THOSE BOTH TO SEPTEMBER YES. FOR YOU GUYS TO GET SOME INFORMATION. YES. AND THEN COME SEPTEMBER, IDEALLY WE, WE WOULD BE IN A MO IN THE POSITION TO MAKE A MOTION, I GUESS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. CORRECT. I RECOMMEND THAT THEY FORWARD A, A, A, AN AMENDMENT TO US. RIGHT. WELL, ON THE S SWALES IT PROBABLY WON'T REQUIRE AMENDING THE LDR R SO YOU CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ORDINANCE WILL NECESSARILY COME BACK BEFORE YOU, BUT I THINK THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING THIS TO SEPTEMBER IS TO ALLOW STAFF TO COME IN, PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND MAYBE THEN THE BOARD CAN, UH, BETTER DEVELOP ITS RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE, GUYS? LADIES? WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * 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.