Sep 08, 2026 Planning Board

OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. HOPE EVERYONE HAD A GREAT SUMMER.

[00:00:03]

WE HAVE A FULL ATTENDANCE TODAY. I'M PROUD OF EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU. FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA. I NEED SOMEONE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE JULY MEETING.

[1. JULY 7, 2026 MEETING ]

OKAY. ALL APPROVE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY.

THOSE ARE APPROVED. MR. CITY ATTORNEY. THANK YOU.

[CITY ATTORNEY UPDATES]

AND APPLICANT STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPEARING EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM.

THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE TODAY VIA ZOOM MAY DIAL THE TOLL FREE NUMBER, WHICH IS 877 853 5257, AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH IS 861 4342 6327# OR LOG INTO THE ZOOM APP AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH AGAIN IS 861 4342 6327. INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST CLICK THE RAISE HAND ICON IF USING ZOOM OR DIAL *9 IF PARTICIPATING BY PHONE. BEFORE I SWEAR ON THOSE WHO ARE TESTIFYING, I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE CITY'S NOTICE REGARDING LOBBYIST REGISTRATION.

IF YOU ARE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS, A CORPORATION, OR ANOTHER PERSON, INCLUDING AS AN ARCHITECT ATTORNEY OR A 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 AND NOT ANY OTHER PARTY, YOU ARE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL OR OTHER SPECIALIZED INFORMATION IN THIS MEETING OR YOU ARE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION FOR YOUR APPEARANCE.

TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR OR OPPOSITION TO ANY ITEM, EXPERT WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHALL, PRIOR TO APPEARING DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK THEIR NAME, ADDRESS AND THE PRINCIPAL ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY ARE COMMUNICATING.

THESE RULES APPLY WHETHER YOU WERE APPEARING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN ITEM, OR ENCOURAGING OR ARGUING AGAINST ITS PASSAGE, DEFEAT, MODIFICATION OR CONTINUANCE. I WILL NOW SWEAR ON EVERYONE WHO IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN CHAMBERS AND INTENDS TO TESTIFY.

VIRTUAL SPEAKERS WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN ONE BY ONE BEFORE ADDRESSING THE BOARD.

SO IF YOU WILL BE TESTIFYING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL BE GIVING IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? OKAY. FIRST ITEMS ARE REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES AND WITHDRAWALS.

THE FIRST IS COMPANION ITEM PLANNING BOARD FILE 26-0827 AND 26-0828.

[2. PB26-0827, NORTH BEACH RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVES – LDR AMENDMENT.]

[3. PB26-0828, NORTH BEACH RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVES – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE SPONSOR OF THESE ITEMS IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 3RD MEETING IN ORDER TO HAVE MORE COMMUNITY OUTREACH.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THAT. NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER 3RD.

CORRECT. DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT OR? YES. OKAY.

MOTION.

OKAY. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION? MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. NEXT ARE OTHER COMPANION.

[4. PB25-0808, SOUTH POINTE OVERLAY DISTRICT – LDR AMENDMENT. ]

[5. PB25-0809, SOUTH POINTE OVERLAY DISTRICT – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE OCTOBER 6TH MEETING, AND STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THIS IN CHAMBERS? ANYBODY IN ZOOM? OKAY. MOTION. MOTION TO CONTINUE.

SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE PASSES. ALL RIGHT. REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARINGS.

FIRST ONE IS PLANNING BOARD FILE PB21-0442, 743 WASHINGTON AVENUE.

MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE A PROGRESS REPORT PRIOR TO THE REVOCATION HEARING.

DO YOU WANT TO CAN WE TAKE THAT FIRST? ON THE SAME VENUE? NO. THIS IS FOR 801 SOUTH POINTE DRIVE. OH. I'M SORRY.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I PASSED RIGHT BY THAT. MY BAD.

YEAH. SORRY. WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH PLANNING BOARD FILE. 26-0850 AND PLANNING BOARD 2025 0775 SOUTH POINTE DRIVE.

[6. PB26-0850 A.K.A. PB25-0775, 801 S. POINTE DRIVE, CU-2. STANDARD PROGRESS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE CUP.  ]

THE RESTAURANT HAS RECENTLY OPENED AND THIS IS THE REQUIRED 90 DAY PROGRESS REPORT.

NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND NO VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED SINCE THE RESTAURANT BEGAN OPERATING, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PROGRESS REPORT BE CONCLUDED.

GOOD MORNING ALL. NICOLAS RODRIGUEZ, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, HERE REPRESENTING GAIA MIAMI BEACH, LLC. I'M JOINED BY ALEXEI POLYAKOV, THE PRINCIPAL OF GAIA, AND THE GENERAL MANAGER, FRANK SEVERAL.

ALWAYS HAPPY TO BRING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF A NEW RESTAURANT.

THEY OPENED IN THE END OF APRIL, AND THEY OPERATED FULLY FULL HOURS OF OPERATION FROM APRIL THROUGH JUNE,

[00:05:04]

AND NOW HOPEFULLY FOR HIGH SEASON, THEY'LL BE OPENING UP AT FULL CAPACITY AGAIN, AS STAFF MENTIONED, NO ISSUES ASIDE FROM THE FIRST FEW DAYS, THERE WERE SOME HICCUPS WITH THE LOADING AND TRASH PICKUP THAT THEY COORDINATED WITH MARIA.

SINCE THEN, THERE'S BEEN NO ISSUES. AND AS YOU ALL REMEMBER, WE MODIFIED THE CUP WITH SOME ADJUSTED NOISE BARRIERS.

AND THERE HAS BEEN NO ISSUES WITH NOISE WITH THE WITH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

SO WE'RE VERY PLEASED WITH THAT. AND IN TERMS OF VALET OPERATION, THEY'RE PARKING WITHIN THE MARIA CONDOMINIUM BUILDING ITSELF.

THEY HAVE SPACES RENTED OUT THERE. WE DID AN EMPLOYEE SURVEY AT THE REQUEST OF MR. BALATONOV, WHO I THINK MAY JOIN VIA ZOOM JUST TO HAVE AN IDEA.

MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE ARRIVING BY PERSONAL CAR, AND THEY'RE RENTING SPACES FROM THE SAME VALET OPERATOR, NOT FROM THE VALET SPACES THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR THE FOR THE RESTAURANT, BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY PAYING FOR PARKING.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CONTRAST TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM OTHER RESTAURANTS, BUT THAT'S HOW THIS ONE'S WORKING SO FAR. AND WITH THAT, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO CLOSE OUT THE PROGRESS REPORT SINCE THERE'S NO ISSUES. AND WE'LL, I BELIEVE WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE ANNUALLY NOW.

SO WE'LL PROVIDE THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE CUP ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS. ANYONE ON ZOOM.

ANYBODY ON ZOOM? OKAY. WELL WHO'D YOU SAY WAS GOING TO SPEAK? MATTHEW? WE HAD BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH MATTHEW BALATONOV ABOUT JUST, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIAN.

SO THERE ARE SOME BIKES, SOME MOTORBIKES, SOME SCOOTERS AS ALWAYS, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU HAD REDUCED THE HOURS, BUT IT'S ABSOLUTELY QUIET AND SPOTLESS OPERATIONS FROM EXTERNALLY.

SO GOOD JOB. YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO CLOSING? YEAH, I'LL MOVE TO CLOSE. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE TO REVOCATION MODIFICATION HEARINGS.

743 WASHINGTON AVENUE, PLANNING BOARD FILE 21-0442.

[7. PB21-0442, 743 WASHINGTON AVENUE.]

VENDOME RECEIVED FOR VIOLATIONS IN 2025 FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF A PROMOTED EVENT.

ALL FEES FOR THE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN PAID AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS ISSUED AT THIS TIME.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AND CONCLUDE THE MODIFICATION REVOCATION HEARING, AND WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD SCHEDULE A PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE JANUARY 5TH MEETING.

OKAY. THANK YOU JAKE. I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE DID RECEIVE SOME INFORMATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THAT WAS AFTER WE HAD SENT YOUR PACKAGES, SO WE PASSED THAT OUT.

THIS MORNING WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HERE IN THE CHAMBERS, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SEE THE APPLICANT.

I WAS GOING TO SAY, IS ANYONE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT OR THE VENUE? WHAT'S THAT? I THINK THEY WERE ASKED TO SHOW UP.

I MEAN, I THINK IT WOULD BE, YES.

IS THERE. ATTORNEY I CAN. WE COULD PAUSE THIS.

BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE HER HAND RAISED. ADRIANNE, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND A MINUTE? IS SHE ON ZOOM? YEAH. YOU WANT TO SEE IF SHE CAN.

ADRIAN, ARE YOU? OKAY. JIM SHOULD BE THERE PROBABLY IN ABOUT TWO MINUTES.

OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL PAUSE.

THAT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL PAUSE.

[8. PB21-0448, 235 23RD STREET.]

SO THIS PARTICULAR REVOCATION HEARING WAS LAST HEARD BY THE PLANNING BOARD AT OUR JULY MEETING.

DURING THAT MEETING, IT WILL WE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THERE, THE VALET ISSUE THAT HAD BEEN THE

[00:10:04]

22. WAS RESOLVED SHORTLY AFTER THE MEETING. IT TURNED OUT THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

I MEAN, IT WAS THE CASE AND THEN IT WASN'T THE CASE. AND THEN THE VALET WAS REMOVED FROM THE FROM SERVICING THE BACARA NIGHTCLUB.

THEREFORE THEY WERE BACK IN VIOLATION CODE COMPLIANCE DID GO OUT TO THE SITE.

A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER THE JULY PLANNING BOARD MEETING ISSUE, ANOTHER VIOLATION STAFF AT THAT POINT ISSUED A NEW CURE LETTER BECAUSE THE BOARD HAD ORIGINALLY CONTINUED THIS HEARING TO THE JANUARY MEETING, BUT WITH A CAVEAT THAT IF THEY RECEIVED ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS, WE WOULD BRING THEM BACK SOONER. SO TODAY'S MEETING WAS THE SOONEST WE WERE ABLE TO BRING THEM BACK AFTER THAT ADDITIONAL VIOLATION.

SINCE THAT TIME, HOWEVER, AS OF JULY 29TH OF THIS YEAR, THEY DO HAVE A RESOLVED VALET SITUATION.

SO THERE ARE NO NEW VIOLATIONS BEING ISSUED. THERE ARE NO NOISE VIOLATIONS OR ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE.

IT WAS JUST THE VALET WHICH ARE STILL PENDING.

THEY HAD A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING LAST WEEK, AND THE MAGISTRATE IS DELIBERATING AND WILL BE ISSUING A, A ORDER WE EXPECT IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO. WITH THAT, I DO SEE THE APPLICANT HERE.

AGAIN, WE ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HERE.

GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, STAFF MICKEY MARRERO. 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD HERE ON BEHALF OF BACARA NIGHTCLUB, 235 23RD STREET. AS DEBBIE SAID ALL THE THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW NOISE VIOLATIONS.

NO, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE SPRINKLER THING, NO VIOLATIONS.

IN FACT, THEY HAD TO, BASED ON THE ORDER YOU ALL GAVE, I BELIEVE IN JUNE, THEY MODIFIED THE ENTRANCE.

THAT'S BEEN A HUGE CHALLENGE BECAUSE THAT ENTRANCEWAY WHERE THEY USED TO QUEUE IS THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE THERE.

NOW PEOPLE ARE ENTERING FROM THE BACK, LIKE WHERE THERE'S A DUMPSTER.

SO SOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO REVISIT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THERE. BUT FOR NOW, THAT'S HOW IT'S OPERATING. THERE HAVE BEEN, AND I CHECKED AS OF THIS MORNING, NO NOISE VIOLATIONS ISSUED, NO OTHER, YOU KNOW, NUISANCE VIOLATIONS OF ANY KIND.

AND I WANT TO JUST SPEND A LITTLE TIME. I KNOW DEBBIE GAVE A LITTLE SUMMARY. WE APPEALED ALL THOSE VIOLATIONS.

THEY WERE NOT NOTHING THAT OUR CLIENT COULD CONTROL.

WE FOUND OUT AT THE END OF MAY THAT THERE WAS SOME ISSUE WITH THE VALET OPERATOR'S LICENSE THAT TRIGGERED OUR CLIENT GETTING VIOLATIONS, BECAUSE THE CUP SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE VALET. THE REALITY IS THEY VALET ABOUT 5 TO 8 CARS PER NIGHT.

SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT LIKE 20 YEARS AGO WHERE VALET WAS THE PRIMARY WAY PEOPLE GOT TO THIS VENUE.

IT'S NOW UBER. AND SO THERE'S VERY LITTLE VALET ACTIVITY, BUT THE CONDITION IS THERE.

AND THEY WERE PAYING THAT COMPANY, YOU KNOW, MONTHLY FOR THEIR VALET SERVICES.

WE APPEALED THEM. I WAS ON THE PHONE. OTHER FOLKS WERE ON THE PHONE.

THEIR VALET COMPANY OWNER WAS ON THE PHONE AT ONE POINT CRYING ON THE PHONE WITH ME BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO REINSTATE HER LICENSE.

I WANT TO STATE AGAIN WHAT I SAID LAST MONTH, OUT OF THE 40 OR SO VENUES THAT THIS VALET COMPANY SERVICES, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT RECEIVED VIOLATIONS FOR THIS, EVEN THOUGH THEIR LICENSE WAS SUPPOSEDLY IN JEOPARDY.

NOT UNTIL. AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT I KNOW THEY WERE ON HUNDREDS OF CALLS AND PROBABLY AT CITY HALL MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK, WE FOUND OUT AT THE HEARING LAST WEEK AS WE APPEALED ALL THESE VIOLATIONS.

THAT RULING HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED YET, BUT AT THAT HEARING IS WHEN I FIRST FOUND OUT AND WHEN I CALLED THE VALET COMPANY, THEY FOUND OUT THE ONLY REASON THIS WAS EVEN ISSUED WAS THERE WAS A $65 OUTSTANDING FEE THAT THE VALET COMPANY JUST SOMEHOW CLERICAL ISSUE HAD TO PAY $65. MICKEY. YEAH, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MAGISTRATE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED A GUILT OR NOT GUILTY? THAT'S CORRECT. WE HAD A HEARING LAST MONDAY, AND SHE WANTED TO TAKE TIME TO MAKE A DECISION.

SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED YET. IT WASN'T A MATTER OF PENALTY.

IT WAS THEY HAVE NOT DECIDED WHETHER THERE'S GUILT OR NOT. CORRECT. AND LOOK, YOU KNOW, IT'S I WILL TELL YOU FACTS.

THEY OPENED THE VALET COMPANY'S LICENSE WAS AT ISSUE.

SO THOSE ARE FACTS. THE QUESTION IS WHY THAT HAPPENED.

AND ALL THE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THAT. BUT AGAIN, THEY'VE BEEN ADJUSTING TO THE OPERATION.

THEY'VE MOVED THE ENTRANCE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO NOISE VIOLATIONS.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO OTHER VIOLATIONS. THE ONLY VIOLATIONS WE'VE HAD ALL SUMMER, HAVE BEEN THIS VALET THING, WHICH WAS A THIRD PARTY ISSUE, WHICH NOT UNTIL LAST WEEK DID WE FIND OUT, COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED WITH $65 AND THAT WE DON'T.

HAD THEY KNOWN THAT IN END OF MAY OR JUNE, WE WOULDN'T PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE HERE.

BUT HERE WE ARE. THEY'VE BEEN DOING THE BEST UNDER VERY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO WE'RE OKAY WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO COME BACK IN JANUARY AND SEE WHERE THINGS ARE.

BUT I GOT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, DEALING WITH A LOT OF THESE VENUES, THEY'VE REALLY POWERED THROUGH SOME VERY DIFFICULT SITUATIONS HERE.

[00:15:01]

WHEN IS THE SPECIAL HEARING? THE HEARING WAS LAST MONDAY.

BUT THE ONE UPCOMING ON THIS ON THIS RECENT ISSUE.

NO, NO, THAT WAS IT.

IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. SORRY. HOLD ON. KEITH. SORRY. I'M JUST GOING TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY EXPARTE DISCLOSURES BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

NONE. OKAY. SO BEFORE I GET INTO THE PARTICULARS OF THE VIOLATION YOU SAID THERE WAS NOTHING AFTER 7/29, AND YET I SEE VIOLATION. CITY CODE VIOLATION.

82 82 88 89. YES. SO THOSE WERE DISCUSSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THE HEARING.

THEY WERE ISSUED BECAUSE CODE WAS NOT, ACCORDING TO MR. ROTHSTEIN AT THE HEARING LAST WEEK. THEY WERE ISSUED BECAUSE CODE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE LICENSE HAD BEEN REINSTATED, BUT IT WAS REINSTATED AT THE END OF JULY. THOSE WERE DISMISSED BY THOSE WERE REMOVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THE HEARING.

AGAIN, WE'RE STILL WAITING ON THAT ORDER, BUT THE ONES IN APRIL WERE, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, IN AUGUST WERE REMOVED AND WITHDRAWN FROM BY THE CITY.

SO THOSE AREN'T ACTUAL VIOLATIONS. SO YOUR. YOUR APPLICANT.

YOUR BUSINESS OPERATION OWNER IS AWARE OF BECAUSE IT WASN'T BURIED IN THE CUP.

THAT ITEM 4 SAYS THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE VALET AND THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE VALET STORAGE FACILITIES, OF COURSE.

TO OPERATE 83 DAYS. YEAH. 83 DAYS IN VIOLATION.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS 83 DAYS. I THINK IT WAS TWO ISSUED PER DAY. IT WAS IT WAS 5/6/2026 NOW THIS IS THE MINIMIS.

THIS IS THE FIRST VIOLATION. 5/6/2026 I WAS TOLD BY STAFF, YOU CAN ARGUE IF IT'S WRONG.

NOW I RELIED ON AI, BUT IT SAID THAT'S 83 DAYS.

CALL IT 83. I'LL TAKE IT. THAT'S FINE. SURE. OKAY.

WELL, I GUESS TO MY COLLEAGUES, YOU KNOW, IT'S ITEM NUMBER 4.

AND DOES THE CUP MATTER? IS IT MAYBE IS IT A WELL, IF WE LIKE TO YOU KNOW, WE CAME HERE ON 7/7 AND WE'RE TOLD THAT THEY HAD IT AND FOR WHATEVER REASON WE, WE LEARNED THAT THAT WAS ALTERNATIVE FACTS. AND THEY DID NOT HAVE IT UNTIL 7/29.

SO THEY MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO OPERATE FOR 83 DAYS.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, WHETHER IT'S SUPPORTED OR NOT, THAT THEY ARE REVOKED OR SUSPENDED FOR 83 DAYS BECAUSE RULES MATTER. UNLESS WE'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE WHY THIS HAPPENED.

A GOOD OPERATOR WOULD EITHER HAVE FIXED IT RIGHT AWAY, IN MY OPINION, TAKING IT WITH EXTREME SERIOUSNESS AND SHUT DOWN IF THEY DIDN'T FIX THIS. IF WE CONSIDER THESE CONDITIONAL VIOLATIONS, THEN FINE, BUT MY MOTION IS TO REVOKE FOR 83 DAYS AND THEN ON DAY 84 AND WHATEVER DAY THAT LEGAL SAYS, THAT CAN TAKE EFFECT, THEN TO HAVE A PROGRESS REPORT AFTER THREE MONTHS, 90 DAYS.

OKAY.

AND THEN. AND THEN EVERYONE CAN TALK, BUT I'M GOING TO PUT MY POSITION ON.

YEAH THE MOTION'S THERE AND THEN WE'LL GET A SECOND.

ANYTHING. I KNOW YOU'VE I MEAN, WE'VE HEARD QUITE A BIT FROM YOU OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS.

I DON'T THINK I'D BE IN FAVOR OF, OF THE MOTION THAT WAS JUST PRESENTED.

BUT OBVIOUSLY I'D WANT TO KEEP IT ON OUR, ON OUR RADAR.

IT DOES SEEM EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD THE ISSUE WITH THE VALET AND YOU DID OPERATE KNOWING THAT YOU WERE, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A VALET AND THAT VALET WAS NOT LICENSED, I GUESS CALL THEM NOT LICENSED AT THAT TIME YOU STILL OPERATED.

BUT YOU KNOW, THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES TOO, NOISE QUEUING AND ALL THAT.

AND I SEE YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THOSE ISSUES AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S WORKING.

THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY OF THOSE VIOLATIONS SINCE THE LAST MEETING.

[00:20:05]

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, IF YOU COME BACK HERE IN JANUARY OR BEFORE, THERE ARE VIOLATIONS AND IT'S A VALET ISSUE OR A NOISE ISSUE OR A QUEUING ISSUE.

I MAY GO ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUE, IF THAT'S BROUGHT UP AGAIN.

I DON'T KNOW IF I, I GET THE WHOLE VALET ISSUE.

I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK MY OPINION THAT'S SORT OF OUT OF YOUR I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN PUTTING AN EFFORT TO DEAL WITH THAT.

SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY MY ISSUE. MY ISSUE, YOU KNOW, NUMBER ONE IS AND THANK YOU TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS YOU'RE HERE FOR PUTTING THIS REPORT TOGETHER. SO SINCE JANUARY, THERE'S BEEN 39 CALLS TO THE AREA.

I GET, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM WERE HOMELESS PERSONS AND MAYBE UNRELATED TO YOU, BUT THERE WERE THERE WERE FIVE NOISE COMPLAINTS THAT WERE CALLED IN.

I ONLY SAW ONE, I GUESS, VIOLATION A WHILE BACK AND I GUESS MAYBE APRIL OR I'M SORRY, MAYBE THAT WAS THAT WAS ACTUALLY OCTOBER OF 2025. SO THIS WOULDN'T, THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE INCLUDED IN THESE FIVE CALLS FOR NOISE COMPLAINTS.

SO I'M CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE CITY HOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS GETTING CALLS FOR NOISE COMPLAINTS.

USUALLY EVEN JUST THE COMPLAINTS WE GET NOTICE OF YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

YEAH. BECAUSE THOSE ARE FOR THE AREA. SO WHAT, AND BY THE WAY, I'VE LOOKED AT THIS FOR OTHER VENUES IN THE PAST.

SOMETIMES IF YOU LOOK AT A HOTEL OR EVEN A RESTAURANT THAT YOU WOULDN'T THINK OF AS A HIGH PROFILE DISTURBANCE TYPE OF PLACE, THERE ARE ALWAYS SEVERAL CALLS WHEN THERE'S ACTIVITY IN THOSE AREAS.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT NONE OF THOSE HAD ANYTHING TO DO. YOU SEE.

THERE COULD BE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE UNRELATED TO YOUR VENUE, BUT IF IT'S A CALL TO THAT VENUE, THAT ADDRESS, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL SEPARATED OUT BY ADDRESS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE. I MEAN, I'M IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING IT TO JANUARY.

I MEAN THAT'S HIGH SEASON. SO IT'S ALWAYS THE.

THE BEST TEST FOR A LOT OF VENUES, BUT I'D LIKE TO YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THE.

YOU KNOW, POLICE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE REPORTS PULLED AT, YOU KNOW, ON THE FLY.

CAN WE HEAR FROM THEM? SHOULDN'T WE HEAR FROM THEM? YEAH, I DIDN'T BRING IT UP, BUT I, I AGREE, I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE POLICE.

WE CAN. THAT'S FINE WITH ME. IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR.

I MEAN, I GUESS MY WHAT I'M MY ONLY POINT. I'LL JUST FINISH ON THIS IS THERE'S BEEN 40 CALLS TO THE AREA.

I GUESS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SEVEN OF THEM ARE HOMELESS SINCE JANUARY ALONE.

OKAY. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM CODE AND THE POLICE AS WELL.

I REQUESTED THAT THEY.

I WOULD LOVE TO.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. NO PROBLEM. CAPTAIN LOZANO, MIAMI BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, SOUTH BEACH CAPTAIN.

SO TO GO OVER SOME OF THE CALLS. WE HAVE 39 CALLS FOR SERVICE AT 235 23RD STREET.

AS YOU MENTIONED, FIVE OF THEM ARE FOR NOISE COMPLAINTS.

I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC REPORTS ON THOSE. TYPICALLY, WE DON'T WRITE A POLICE REPORT FOR A NOISE COMPLAINT.

WE CALL CODE COMPLIANCE. THEY COME OUT OR WE REPORT IT TO THEM AND THEY FOLLOW UP AFTER THE FACT.

DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF THE DAY. SO I'LL LET CODE SPEAK ON THAT PART.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME OTHER CALLS. THERE WAS I GUESS SOME INFLUENCER CAUSED SOME OF THE BOMB THREATS THAT WE GET TO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S APPARENTLY A NEW TREND THESE DAYS WHERE PEOPLE FIND OUT THERE'S AN INFLUENCER SOMEWHERE, THEY DECIDE TO CALL IN A BOMB THREAT, WE GO THERE, WE FIND OUT IT'S A SWATTING CALL. SO THOSE ARE THOSE TYPES OF CALLS THAT YOU SEE HERE. THREE OF THOSE. WE'VE HAD SOME DISTURBANCES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CLUB.

A ROBBERY WHERE THERE WAS A CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A FIREARM INVOLVED.

SO, CAPTAIN, THIS IS YOUR THIS. THIS BAR IS WITHIN YOUR DISTRICT, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

SO WHAT'S YOUR GENERAL FEELING? IS IT A PROBLEMATIC VENUE? IS IT? IS IT RELATIVE TO YOUR EXPERIENCE ON THE BEACH? LIKE. YOU KNOW, ANYTIME WE HAVE A NIGHTCLUB, I WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT A PROBLEM.

IT'S YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THERE ARE FIGHTS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF CLUBS.

YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO COMPARE TO OTHER CLUBS IN MIAMI BEACH TO SEE IF WE HAVE OTHER ISSUES LIKE THIS AND SEE IF IT'S CONSISTENT ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND I DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW WITH ME. BUT I DID LOOK AT SOME OF THE REPORTS AND THERE WERE SOME FIGHTS INSIDE CLUB THIS ONE AND ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS RESEARCHED

[00:25:06]

I DON'T KNOW IF IT FALLS WITHIN THE POLICE JURISDICTION, BUT OF UNDERAGE DRINKING INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THAT CLUB? I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF CODE DOES, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP TO MY ATTENTION. OKAY.

GENERALLY SPEAKING ANECDOTALLY, I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT THERE'S 40 FOR VENDOME.

THERE'S 39 FOR BACARA. IS THAT GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT CLUBS WOULD EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THIS TIME FRAME, OR ARE THESE JUST TWO OF THE HIGHER ONES? LIKE I SAID, I WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH THE OTHER ONES ANECDOTALLY YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT THESE CALLS FOR SERVICE AND SEE THAT MOST OF THEM ARE ON THE MIDNIGHT SHIFT DIRECTLY RELATED TO, MOST LIKELY. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PERSON THAT OVERDOSED? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION WITH ME. SO A LOT OF TIMES WE GET CALLS FOR AN OVERDOSE.

IT COMES OUT AS THAT. WE GET THERE AND IT'S EITHER AN INTOXICATED PERSON OR SOMEBODY POSSIBLY ON DRUGS FIRE'S WHO CHECK THEM OUT AND THEN THEY EITHER TAKE THEM OR THEY DECIDE NOT TO. SO THAT'S ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

ARE YOU SEEING BOMB THREATS A LOT? EXPLOSIVE THREATS MORE AND MORE OR IS THIS JUST/ I'M REALLY.

IT'S UNFATHOMABLE TO ME THAT SOMEBODY WOULD JUST.

YEAH, WE'VE HAD WE'VE HAD SEVERAL IN DIFFERENT AREAS.

IS THERE A OFF DUTY ASSIGNMENT THERE? DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAVE OFF DUTY? MAYBE THAT'S FOR MICKEY, BUT DO THEY HAVE OFF DUTY POLICE ON THAT? THEY HAVE SECURITY. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE OFF DUTY POLICE. THEY DO NOT HAVE OFF DUTY. THEY HAVE SECURITY. BUT I YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST, I THINK WITH PRIOR MANAGEMENT I FORGET THE NAME OF THE CLUB BEFORE THEY HAD AT SOME POINT WE RECEIVED THESE NOTIFICATIONS THROUGH EMAIL WHEN THEY HAVE A PERFORMER I FORGET THE EXACT TIME FRAME THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE NOTIFIED, BUT WE GET THE NOTIFICATION AND THEN ON THERE IT SAYS WE DO NOT NEED OFF DUTY.

SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. WE HAVE THIS AMOUNT OF SECURITY GUARDS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE USUALLY RECOMMEND OFF DUTY FOR ALL NIGHTCLUBS TO PREVENT SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. AND THAT'S JUST ACROSS THE BOARD.

LET ME ASK YOU WHEN IT SAYS A BATTERY OR A ROBBERY ARE THESE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING INSIDE THE CLUB OR THEY'RE OUTSIDE OR? A COMBINATION. THE ROBBERY, I KNOW FOR A FACT, WAS OUTSIDE AND THE FIGHTS, MOST OF THE FIGHTS WOULD BE INSIDE.

SO A BATTERY IS JUST A FIGHT. IT'S NOT LIKE A BOUNCER BEATING SOMEBODY.

IT'S TWO PATRONS THAT WOULD CALL IF IT'S. IF THERE'S A FIGHT INSIDE THAT'S CONSIDERED A BATTERY? YES. OKAY. I MEAN, IT COULD INVOLVE THE BOUNCER, BUT YEAH.

I'M JUST. I COULD I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHO TOOK IT. THEY DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ANOTHER PATRON OR ANYBODY.

OKAY. SOMETIMES ALSO THEY LOSE THEIR PROPERTY.

AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A THEFT, BUT WE REPORT IT, AS THEY SAY, UNTIL WE CAN CONFIRM OTHERWISE.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I LET THE OFFICER GO? [LAUGHTER]. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. EDGAR ESTRADA, ASSISTANT CODE COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR. SO PRETTY MUCH THE MAIN VIOLATIONS THAT WE'VE ISSUED OR THE GRAND MAJORITY HAVE BEEN THE CUP VIOLATIONS AND THE ASSOCIATED BTR VIOLATIONS.

OTHER THAN THAT SINCE JANUARY 1ST TO SEPTEMBER 3RD, WE'VE RECEIVED TWO NOISE COMPLAINTS THAT WE HAVE RESPONDED TO AND BOTH HAVE RESULTED IN NO VIOLATION. WE HAVE RECEIVED OTHER COMPLAINTS VIA EMAIL, BUT THAT'S TYPICALLY THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN FRONT OF THE CLUB AFTER THE CLUB LETS OUT THE PATRONS THAT ARE INSIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT.

THEY LOITER OUTSIDE, THEY MAKE NOISE. BUT NOTHING THAT WE HAVE RESPONDED TO AS FAR AS LOUD MUSIC OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO AND ARE YOUR OFFICERS AWARE ABOUT THAT? THERE'S CANNOT BE ANY QUEUING OUTSIDE.

YES. AFTER THE CUP WAS MODIFIED AT THE LAST HEARING WE DID TOUCH BASE WITH THE CLUB ESTABLISHMENT.

THEY HAD SOME TABLES AND CHAIRS THAT WERE INSIDE THAT LITTLE COURTYARD AREA, WHICH DID CONTRIBUTE TO PEOPLE STAYING OUTSIDE AND TALKING OR, YOU KNOW, MAKING NOISE. BUT WE DID GO BY A NUMBER OF TIMES TO REMIND THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THE CUP CONDITIONS CHANGED.

THEY HAVE SINCE REMOVED THOSE TABLES AND CHAIRS AND THEY AS FAR AS OUR OBSERVATIONS ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY QUEUING TAKING PLACE THERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS DON'T WE GET KNOW, LIKE DO WE?

[00:30:02]

BUT WHEN WE COME FOR A STATUS REPORT, I THOUGHT WE GET NOTICED, YOU KNOW, IN THE IN THE STAFF REPORT IT'LL TELL US IF THERE WERE COMPLAINTS AND THEY WERE UNSUBSTANTIATED OR WHATNOT. YEAH, WE TYPICALLY DO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AND I APOLOGIZE IF IT WASN'T IN HERE, BUT WE REALLY FOCUS IN ON ANY VIOLATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED PRIMARILY.

THAT IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, BRINGS THEM BACK TO THE BOARD AND NOISE COMPLAINT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD, WE WOULD BRING AN APPLICANT BACK BEFORE, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES A WARNING IS ISSUED WARNINGS.

WE DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, WOULD INCLUDE IN OUR STAFF REPORT IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT, BUT THERE'S NO NOT EVEN A WARNING ISSUED SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T FIND THAT THAT INFORMATION IS VERY RELEVANT.

YEAH. BECAUSE I MEAN, LIKE LOOKING AT THE WHAT WAS IT? I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS THE ONE FOR VENDOME. BUT THERE WAS A YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS SOMEWHERE WHERE I SAW THAT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THE THERE WAS A CALL FOR, YOU KNOW, THE POLICE WENT, SOMEBODY WENT.

IT WAS CODE WHO WENT. THEY DIDN'T ISSUE A WARRANT.

THEY DIDN'T ISSUE A ANY VIOLATION. BUT THERE WERE PEOPLE QUEUING OUTSIDE AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE CLUB RESPONDED TO THAT AND TRIED TO, YOU KNOW, MANAGE THE CROWD.

AND I GUESS MY POINT IN SAYING THAT IS THAT IT SORT OF GOES INTO THE WHOLE PICTURE OF THINGS.

IF THERE ARE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE CALLING AND COMPLAINING AND THE POLICE ARRIVE, OR CODE ARRIVES AND THEY SEE PEOPLE CONGREGATING, AND IF MANAGEMENT JUST, YOU KNOW, FIXES IT REAL QUICK, NOBODY EVER HEARS ABOUT IT AGAIN.

BUT WHEN THEY'RE COMING BACK TO US FOR OTHER VIOLATIONS, IT'S I THINK IT'S PART OF THE PICTURE.

I HAVE A QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S FOR THIS CUP OR WHETHER MAYBE WE PUT IT ON A SPECIAL AGENDA TO DISCUSS REQUIRING OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICERS FOR, YOU KNOW, NIGHTCLUBS.

YOU KNOW, TO I MEAN, 40 CALLS. I MEAN, I GET IT.

YOU KNOW, SEVEN WERE, YOU KNOW, HOMELESS PERSONS, YOU KNOW, NINE OF THEM, I GUESS WERE FOR BACARA WERE DURING THE DAY.

SO MAYBE PROBABLY WEREN'T WHEN THEY WEREN'T EVEN OPEN. SO PROBABLY OTHER THINGS.

BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S STILL 30 CALLS IN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS EIGHT MONTHS OR WHATEVER.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ONLY OPEN CERTAIN DAYS A WEEK.

SO 14 OF THOSE CALLS WERE ON THURSDAYS. SO IF YOU DO THE MATH, I MEAN, IT'S NOT ONCE A NIGHT, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, ONCE A WEEK. BUT I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S PREDICTABLE.

AND SO I'M WONDERING WHETHER REQUIRING SOME HAVING SOME SORT OF OFF DUTY REQUIREMENT.

I MEAN, IT ENDS UP BEING A BURDEN ON THE CITY, THE TAXPAYERS TO SEND THE POLICE OFFICERS, TAKE THEM AWAY FROM OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON.

YOU KNOW, AND OBVIOUSLY PUT THEM AT FURTHER RISK.

AND SO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT JUST NOW SAID THEY RECOMMEND HAVING OFF DUTY OFFICERS FOR NIGHTCLUBS.

I DON'T SEE WHAT THE DOWNSIDE IS, OTHER THAN I'VE HEARD IN THE PAST.

YOU KNOW, NIGHTCLUBS, IT'S EXPENSIVE AND IT YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IT'S HARD, YOU KNOW, FINDING OFF DUTY SHIFTS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TO TAKE THAT SHIFT SINCE IT'S OVERNIGHT AND NOT EVERYBODY WANTS TO TAKE IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS WELL.

I MEAN, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE FONTAINEBLEAU HAS, YOU KNOW, NON-MIAMI BEACH POLICE OFFICERS THERE.

AND SO ANYWAYS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD IS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, DOING ONE OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING AN AGENDA ITEM WHERE IT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM TO DISCUSS RECOMMENDING THAT TO THE, TO THE, TO THE CITY, TO THE COMMISSION. I WOULD SECOND THAT.

CAN THAT CUP REQUIRE OFF DUTY POLICE? WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN HAVING THIS BROADER DISCUSSION.

LET'S SCHEDULE THAT FOR YOUR NEXT MEETING.

[LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GIVE NICK THE TIME.

SO ANYWAYS SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE JANUARY YOU KNOW, I DON'T EVEN, I WOULDN'T EVEN MIND PUSHING IT TO FEBRUARY, GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BECAUSE I ASSUME THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY OTHER CALLS OR ISSUES WITH THE VALET, SO IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. [LAUGHTER]. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO FEBRUARY, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE IT TO FEBRUARY BUT.

WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS. BUT WE'LL FINISH WITH ANY BOARD QUESTIONS.

ANYTHING FROM YOU? NOPE. MELISSA. NO. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE RUNNING A CLUB OR A BAR IN MIAMI COMES WITH ITS ISSUES.

AND I FIND IT A LITTLE HARD TO YOU KNOW, MAKE A DECISION WHETHER THIS IS ABNORMAL FOR A CLUB, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMPARISONS OF HOW MANY CALLS OTHER CLUBS GET.

AND IT'S GOOD TO HEAR FROM OUR CAPTAIN TODAY DESCRIBING WHAT THESE MEAN BECAUSE SOME OF THEM SOUND REALLY SCARY UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT

[00:35:06]

IF IT WAS DISTURBANCE OF, OF QUEUING AND DISRUPTING THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, HAVING A, YOU KNOW, DIRECT EFFECT ON PEOPLE'S WELL, YOU KNOW QUALITY OF LIFE, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO.

AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO GIVE SOME DIFFERENT WEIGHTS TO DIFFERENT ISSUES, ALL VIOLATIONS, BUT SOME OF THEM REQUIRE GIVING YOU ANOTHER CHANCE.

AND SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR TO MOVE THIS AS JONATHAN PROPOSED TO JANUARY WITH YOU.

OKAY. I'M JUST BOTHERED BY ALL OF IT. [LAUGHTER] I OBVIOUSLY THE WORLD IS NOT THERE TO SHUT IT DOWN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I JUST THINK THAT THAT THIS IS A I MEAN, EVERYTHING THAT I SEE ONLINE, EVERYTHING THAT I SEE ON INSTAGRAM, IT'S JUST A CONSTANT PROBLEM. I MEAN, JUST IT'S WHAT ARE THE RED. I DROVE BY THERE THE OTHER DAY AND THERE'S SOME RED SIGNS ON THE DOOR.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? THE VIOLATION RED POSTERS.

IF IT'S RED, IT'S PROBABLY THERE WAS A VIOLATION FROM THE PRIOR OPERATOR FOR SOME WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.

WE'VE GONE TO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WE'VE GOTTEN EXTENSIONS. THERE ARE NO FINES. USUALLY THE RED ONES ARE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS. AND IT WAS SOME MODIFICATION SOMEONE DID IN INTERIOR REMODELING. THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A PERMIT APPLICATION IN AN ARCHITECT, SO THEY'VE GOTTEN TIME FROM THE MAGISTRATE TO RESOLVE THAT. THOSE THINGS TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS. BUT IF IT'S RED, I'M JUST GUESSING. IT'S USUALLY BUILDING CODE.

AND IT WAS JUST AN INTERIOR REMODEL, WASN'T ANYTHING LIFE SAFETY OR ANYTHING. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT AS WELL. IT MAY ALSO BE IF THERE WERE MULTIPLE SIGNS, IT MAY ALSO BE THE NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING, BECAUSE OUR LAND USE BOARD HEARING POSTINGS ARE ALSO RED.

OKAY. I FEEL LIKE. I DON'T FEEL, I THINK THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE OPERATIONS KNOWING THAT IT WAS IN VIOLATION AND IT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE.

JUST LOOK AT ALL OF THESE SINCE JUST JULY AND JANUARY THROUGH SEPTEMBER.

YOU'VE GOT 39. I'M ACTUALLY INCLINED, NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, TO GO ALONG WITH BRIAN AND KEITH.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS WE'RE GOING TO START WITH.

ON A VOTE ON KEITH'S MOTION. START AND YOU CAN GO ONE BY ONE IF YOU DON'T MIND.

KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE CUP ITEM 4. AND THEN ON THE 84TH DAY, THEY CAN COME BACK IN OPERATION.

AND THEN WE HAVE A 90 DAY CYCLE TO REVIEW. MR. CHAIR, COULD I RESPOND? I HAD RAISED MY HAND BEFORE.

NOW THAT YOU'RE ALL DONE. YEAH.

WANTED TO POINT OUT. SO ON THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS AND YOU KNOW, WHAT MR. LOZANO SAID IS CORRECT. BUT THERE ARE 39. SEVEN OF THOSE WERE HOMELESS.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US JUST IN THE AREA.

SEVERAL OCCURRED WHEN WE WEREN'T EVEN OPEN. THAT'S NINE.

SO IF WE TAKE OUT THOSE 16, JUST THOSE ALONE, WHICH ARE CLEARLY NOT OURS, WE'RE DOWN TO 23 OVER THE COURSE OF ALMOST TEN MONTHS.

AND THE OTHERS. AGAIN, WHILE SOME OF THEM MAY BE RELATED TO THE CLUB, IN FACT PROBABLY ARE, THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT ARE NOT. YOU KNOW, SOMEONE REPORTING A LOST PHONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GETS ATTRIBUTED TO THE NEAREST ADDRESS.

SO I THINK IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT IT, IT'S A COUPLE OF INCIDENTS PER MONTH OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR.

JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS. NOW AS TO THE INFLUENCER, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE JULY MEETING.

THERE ABSOLUTELY WAS AN INFLUENCER THAT WAS A PART OF THE PROMOTIONS OF THE CLUB. THEY HAD A DEAL. IT CREATED A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL BEING INVOLVED CREATED ALL SORTS OF ISSUES. THEY CUT TIES WITH HIM PRIOR TO THAT LAST MEETING.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU PROBABLY SEE A LOT LESS NOISE, I DON'T MEAN NOISE LIKE NOISE, BUT NOISE FROM ACTIVITY AND COMPLAINTS BECAUSE THINGS HAVE FRANKLY CALMED DOWN.

THAT BOMB THREAT, SOMEBODY MADE A COMPETING INFLUENCER KIND OF CRAZY STUFF, BUT HE'S NO LONGER ASSOCIATED.

THINGS HAVE SETTLED DOWN QUITE A BIT. IT WAS A DECISION THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE THAT WAS PROMOTING THE CLUB NO LONGER THERE. AND AGAIN, THE WHOLE CONFUSION WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST TIME.

MR. ESTRADA AND MYSELF WERE UP HERE. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE VALET THING WAS RESOLVED BY THE CITY,

[00:40:04]

ALL THIS WAS A THIRD PARTY VALET LICENSE. WE WERE JUST RELYING ON INFORMATION WE WERE GETTING.

WE WERE FRANTICALLY TRYING TO SOLVE IT, AND TO FIND OUT MONTHS LATER THAT IT WAS A $65 FEE THAT COULD HAVE SOLVED IT IS KIND OF FRUSTRATING.

BUT AGAIN, HAD WE SHUT DOWN ALL THAT TIME FOR THIS, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE WE'D BE CLOSED.

THERE WOULD BE NO BUSINESS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. AND THAT MOTION OF 83 DAYS EFFECTIVELY DOES THE SAME THING, THAT THAT'S NOT AN 83-DAY CLOSURE. THAT IS A SHUTDOWN OF THE CLUB BECAUSE ALL THERE.

THEY WOULD LOSE ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEY WOULD JUST BE OUT OF BUSINESS. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT MOTION IS TO CLOSE THE CLUB DOWN. IT'S NOT A TEMPORARY THING. IT'S THREE MONTHS. CLUB DOESN'T EXIST. AND HAD WE NOT OPERATED BECAUSE OF A THIRD-PARTY VALET MIX UP OVER OUR $65 PAYMENT, WE ALSO WOULD NOT EXIST. JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

SO I THINK WE AS A CLUB AND AS A BUSINESS, DID EVERYTHING WE COULD TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND THAT VALET OPERATOR TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. AND THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER ISSUES DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME OTHER THAN THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. CAN I ASK STAFF, CAN I ASK A QUESTION IN RESPONSE TO HIM? DEBBIE. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS APPEARED IN THE LAST THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX MONTHS THAT HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH VALET AND THEIR BTR? I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT HAD THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE BTR WITH THE VALET COMPANY.

INTERESTING FACT. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO THAT POINT.

VALET. IT'S THAT THE VALET DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT PERMIT.

THEIR VALET LICENSE, WHICH THEY HAD BEFORE WAS TEMPORARILY REVOKED, I GUESS, BECAUSE THERE WAS THIS FEE THAT WAS OWNED BY THE VALET COMPANY, BUT THEY WERE STILL PAYING THAT COMPANY. THEY HIRED A COMPANY. BUT THEY WERE. WERE THEY STILL OPERATING THERE? YES. AND AGAIN, IT'S FIVE CARS A NIGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I MEAN, FROM MY STANDPOINT, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION AND I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, BUT.

CHAIR. JUST TO POINT OUT THIS BECAUSE WE WE'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, WE DID HAVE SOMEONE ON ZOOM THAT JUST RAISED THEIR HAND FROM THE NMR AT COLLINS PARK. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.

OPEN THAT. BREWSTER KNOTT YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF.

BREWSTER DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.

THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. HI, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING PRESENT TODAY, BUT I HAVE 34 STUDENTS MOVING INTO THE MIAMI CITY VALET SCHOOL.

SO I'M OVERSEEING OPERATIONS TODAY AT THE PROPERTY.

I JUST WANTED TO CALL IT OUT BECAUSE I HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS FROM MY RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE BUILDING THAT THAT COURTYARD THAT THEY HAVE SAID HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FROM USE FOR CONGREGATION AND OVERFLOW. WELL, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

THE FURNITURE IS MOVED OUT BACK BEHIND THE CLUB, BUT IT CAN BE EASILY MOVED BACK INTO THAT COURTYARD AREA.

AND JUST OVER THE PAST WEEKEND, I RECEIVED REPORTS THAT FURNITURE GOT REMOVED OR GOT PUT BACK IN THAT COURTYARD SO PEOPLE COULD HANG OUT AT COCKTAIL TABLES AND IN LOUNGE FURNITURE. AND SO I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS HERE.

AND THEN I ALSO HAVE VIDEO FOOTAGE FROM TENANTS IN THE BUILDING AFTER THE CLUB SHUTS DOWN THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS LOITERING TRAFFIC IN THE STREETS, AND THEN THE BURNOUT AND THE NOISE FROM DRAG RACING AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THEY'RE STILL PERSISTENT.

IT'S WAKING THE RESIDENTS UP, SO MUCH TO THE POINT THAT I'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED NOTICES TO VACATE FROM PEOPLE THAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE RENEWING.

BREWSTER WERE THERE ANY CALLS MADE TO CODE COMPLIANCE FOR THOSE COMPLAINTS? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. I THINK THE RESIDENTS HAVE GOTTEN KIND OF EXHAUSTED WITH MAKING PHONE CALLS ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S BECOME MORE OF THE NORM FOR THEM.

AND SO THEY'RE JUST KIND OF PUTTING UP AND I ENCOURAGE THEM TO CALL CODE EVERY TIME THEY SEE IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY'RE NECESSARILY CALLING THEM EACH TIME.

BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO USE THIS FULLY.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IF WE DON'T HAVE CODE COMPLIANCE OR SOME WRITTEN REPORT, BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES HEARSAY.

I'M NOT SAYING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS NOT TRUE, BUT IT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DECISIONS IF WE HAVE ACTUAL CODE COMPLIANCE VERIFYING. I UNDERSTAND. YEAH. AND I'LL JUST SAY BREWSTER THAT IF YOU CAN.

I MEAN, IF YOU CAN SEND THOSE PHOTOS OR VIDEOS TO THE CITY YOU KNOW, TO THE PLANNING BOARD SO WE CAN HAVE THEM FOR OUR NEXT ASSESSMENT OR EVALUATION, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. BUT YOU KNOW, IF THIS DOES GET CONTINUED TO JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, IF YOU IF THERE IS A NEW VIOLATION THAT IF YOU CALL IN A COMPLAINT AND IT'S SUBSTANTIATED AND THERE'S A VIOLATION, THEY'LL BE BACK BEFORE JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.

[00:45:03]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. I TRY TO REACH OUT TO THEM, BUT I WASN'T ABLE TO.

OKAY. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE ROLL. YES.

OKAY. MS. BEATTIE. NO. MR. CIMENT. NO. MR. FREIDIN.

NO. MS. LATONE. YES. MR. NEEDLEMAN. NO. MR. MARKS.

YES. MR. ELIAS. YES. IT FAILS. OKAY. THE NEXT MOTION IS JONATHAN'S, AND I NEED A SECOND ON THAT.

THAT WAS TO POSTPONE IT.

CAN WE. SINCE THAT DIDN'T PASS, CAN WE TALK ABOUT ROLLING BACK THE HOURS? ANOTHER MOTION ON THE FLOOR. NO. NO? NO NOT TODAY.

OKAY. LET'S JUST GO WITH THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS TO CONTINUE IT TO FEBRUARY.

BUT THE BUT TO COME BACK SOONER IF THERE'S A VIOLATION.

I'LL SECOND THAT. AND IN THE MEANTIME, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO GET SOME DATA FROM CODE AND POLICE IF POSSIBLE, JUST HOW THIS COMPARES TO OTHER NIGHTLIFE ESTABLISHMENTS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A SECOND. I'M GOING TO DO A ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE.

AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? NO. OKAY. SO 6 TO 1 ON THIS MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. AND CAN I? IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT ON AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM FOR.

DO I HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR DISCUSSION ITEM OR.

I THINK IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD WE'LL ADD THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'LL SECOND IF YOU DO THAT. MR. CHAIR, JUST THE GENTLEMAN THAT CALLED. I JUST WANT TO GIVE HIM MY EMAIL ADDRESS IF HE'S HERE, BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET AHOLD OF HIM. MR. KNOTT. I TRIED CALLING THE NMR. I LEFT A COUPLE MESSAGES. JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU'RE STILL LISTENING, MY EMAIL IS M MARRERO, M-M-A-R-R-E-R-O @BRZONINGLAW.COM.

PLEASE CONTACT ME, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU OR MY CLIENT TO MEET WITH YOU TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. LIKE I SAID, I TRIED CALLING, COULDN'T GET AHOLD OF HIM, BUT HOPEFULLY HE CAN REACH OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

CAPTAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU EVERYONE.

THANK YOU TO CODE. THANK YOU TO POLICE.

OKAY, NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE PRIOR PROGRESS REPORT.

I THINK HE'S HERE. OH, THERE YOU ARE. OKAY. PLANNING BOARD FILE 24-0442, 743 WASHINGTON AVENUE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REVOCATION, MODIFICATION OR IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THIS MODIFICATION REVOCATION HEARING WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JULY MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.

VENDOME RECEIVED 4 VIOLATIONS IN 2025 FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF A PROMOTED EVENT.

ALL FEES FOR THE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN PAID AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS ISSUED.

AT THIS TIME WE RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AND CONCLUDE THE MODIFICATION REVOCATION HEARING.

WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD SCHEDULE A PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE JANUARY 5TH MEETING.

GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. HONORABLE BOARD MEMBERS, JAMES RAO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS OPERATOR. AS THE STAFF INDICATED.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS SINCE LAST YEAR.

SO THAT'S OVER EIGHT MONTHS WITHOUT ANY VIOLATIONS FOR ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.

CUP OR NOT. GOING THROUGH THE REPORT AS YOU MAY RECALL, THESE VIOLATIONS THAT HAPPENED OVER EIGHT MONTHS AGO WERE FOR ESSENTIALLY EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT HAVING DJS THAT'S BEEN SOLVED CURED LAST YEAR. AT THIS STAGE, AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN NO VIOLATIONS.

AND WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING AND BRING THE APPLICANT TO YOUR JANUARY MEETING FOR A PROGRESS REPORT, AT WHICH TIME WE'RE CONFIDENT WE'LL REPORT THERE ARE STILL NO VIOLATIONS.

OKAY. ANYONE IN CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? NO. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? I DO. GO AHEAD. ANY EXPARTE DISCLOSURES BEFORE YOU.

TO START THAT. ANY DISCLOSURES? ANY CONTACT WITH THE APPLICANT? NONE. NONE. I WOULDN'T WANT TO CLOSE THE MODIFICATION REVOCATION.

I WOULD RATHER POSTPONE OR PUSH THAT OR CONTINUE IT UNTIL I GUESS IT'S WHAT? THE FEBRUARY WITH BACARA. THIS WAY WE CAN LOOK AT THE DATA.

HOW THE 40 HOW THE 39 COMPARE WITH OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS AND THEN TAKE IT FROM THERE.

DID WE JUST CONTINUE THE LAST ONE OR DID WE JUST NOT CONTINUE? CONTINUE.

TO THE SAME FEBRUARY MEETING. THAT'S A MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO TABLE FOR NOW UNTIL

[00:50:02]

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'VE HAD NONE IN JANUARY AT ALL.

YES, MA'AM. AND IN THIS CASE, THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT ACTUALLY VIOLATIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDER.

SO I MEAN THE ONE THING THAT.

SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. GO AHEAD. BUT YES, IT'S BEEN EIGHT MONTHS WITH ZERO VIOLATIONS.

THE ONE THING I'D SAY IS IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT TALKS ABOUT FROM JULY 4TH, 2026, OBVIOUSLY 4TH OF JULY.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE THERE WAS LINING OR QUEUING OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CERTAINLY A CROWD.

AND IT SAID NO VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED, BUT IN THE DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, THE REPORT BASICALLY IT'S DESCRIBING A VIOLATION.

SO I DON'T KNOW FROM CODE IF YOU HAVE MORE INPUT ON THAT? BUT JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT, SPOKE TO OUR CLIENT ABOUT THAT, THAT THERE WAS NO QUEUING OUTSIDE.

PEOPLE STAND SOMETIMES STAND IN FRONT OF NIGHTCLUBS.

THAT DOES HAPPEN. THERE'S ALSO A DIFFERENT NIGHTCLUB NEXT DOOR.

ONE OF THE PHOTOS THAT WAS TAKEN IN COATESVILLE WAS FROM THAT NIGHTCLUB.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLACE. NOT NOT THIS VENUE.

THEY DO THEIR QUEUING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE A SET UP FOR THAT.

BUT CERTAINLY PEOPLE DO WALK BY, THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO PHYSICALLY MOVE PEOPLE OFF THE SIDEWALK.

THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE ON THE SIDEWALK. IT WAS 4TH OF JULY.

THEY ACTUALLY CHOSE NOT TO PROGRAM. DJ OR, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT AN EVENT, THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW IT PROBABLY COST THEM MONEY.

THEY KNEW IT WAS 4TH OF JULY. THEY WANT TO BE EXTRA CAREFUL. SO THEY KEPT SO THEY, THEY DID NOT DO THAT.

THEY KEPT JUST A REGULAR OPERATION. BUT, AND THEY ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO HAVE RECENTLY CHANGED UP THEIR SECURITY COMPANY.

ACTUALLY JUST AFTER THAT AND THEY'RE VERY AWARE OF BEING EXTRA DILIGENT WHEN IT COMES TO QUEUING AND THEY DO WHAT THEY CAN IN TERMS OF CROWD CONTROL, EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN'T PHYSICALLY MOVE SOMEONE OFF THE SIDEWALK, THEIR SECURITY PERSONNEL WILL INTERACT WITH PEOPLE OUTSIDE, TRY TO GET THEM TO MOVE ALONG OR, OR, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE PLACE CLEAR.

BUT THERE WAS NO QUEUING. AND YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, LIKE I SAID, THE ONLY REASON WE, WE ASKED AND WE ASKED THE SAME THING THE STAFF RECOMMENDED IN TERMS OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING WAS BECAUSE THE VIOLATIONS HAD TO DO WITH AN EMAIL NOTIFICATION.

THEY HIRED SOMEONE FULL TIME TO HANDLE THAT EMAIL NOTIFICATION PROCESS SO THAT THEY, THEY CURED IT BEFORE THE CURE LETTER WAS ISSUED.

BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S OVER EIGHT MONTHS AGO NOW, WHICH AGAIN, ARE NOT ACTUALLY VIOLATIONS OF THE CUP.

WELL, THEY'RE QUEUING PROBLEMS BEFORE AT VENDOME AND WE AND THAT WAS PART OF IT.

NO. JULY 4TH. THERE'S A THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT IT.

THERE WAS A SMALL CROWD GATHERED IN FRONT OF THE CLUB.

MYSELF AND CCA RUSSELL CAME INTO CONTACT WITH SECURITY AND EDUCATED THEM ON CROWD CONTROL.

WE REMINDED THEM TO KEEP THE LINES IN ORDER TO PREVENT PEDESTRIANS HAVING TO WALK INTO ONTO THE STREET.

THE WHOLE IDEA AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE CUP, IS TO HAVE ANY QUEUING TO BE INDOORS.

NOT IN THE STREET, NOT IN THE SIDEWALK. LEGALLY, THE LAST LINE SAYS AT THIS TIME, NO VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED.

IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE. SO WERE THEY ISSUED A ANYTHING TO ACT UPON? NO, NO THEY WEREN'T.

WE DIDN'T HOLD SOMEBODY WHO VIOLATED 83 TIMES.

AND YOU WANT TO HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR CONSISTENT TREATMENT.

WHAT I'M SAYING, NUMBER ONE, I WANT TO MAYBE HEAR FROM CODE AS TO WHY THERE'S NO VIOLATION IF IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS A LINE OUTSIDE.

SO MAYBE. WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE IT SAID THAT THEY COMPLIED IMMEDIATELY.

LOOK, I'M NOT TRYING TO I'M NOT SHUTTING THE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT TO SHUT THEM DOWN OVER THIS ONE NON-VIOLATION WHAT I'M SAYING.

REALITY, JUST I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT IN THE PAST, THE ISSUE WASN'T JUST THE PROMOTIONS THING.

THE ISSUE WAS ALSO QUEUING OUTDOORS. AND AS RECENTLY AS JULY, THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUE THERE,

[00:55:01]

I'D LIKE YOU TO RESPOND. BUT THE FIRST QUESTION IS, HAS THERE BEEN A VIOLATION IN 26? NO. WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED, NO.

THERE IS NO NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT.

RIGHT. MY ONLY QUESTION I GET THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNEW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE ASKING.

STOPPED THE QUEUING. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS REGARDING THAT, THAT PARTICULAR INSPECTION. IT DID. THE RESULT WAS IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT WHATEVER WAS OCCURRING AT THE MOMENT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS FIXED ON THE ON THE SPOT. IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT OUR, OUR SUPERVISOR, BECAUSE CCA RUSSELL WAS ONE OF OUR SUPERVISORS HE SAW AS, AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE MET THE PARAMETERS OF A VIOLATION. SO BUT AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS REGARDING THAT.

THAT ONE. RIGHT. I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION, YOU KNOW, AND SO MAYBE BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING, WE CAN LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS BECAUSE I JUST IF THE IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE IS GETTING THEM INTO A LINE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY THAT THAT'S NOT COMPLIANCE.

SO BECAUSE LINES OUTSIDE ARE NOT IN. THE CUPS IS NO QUEUING OUTSIDE SO.

AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE EITHER. RIGHT.

OUTSIDE AND JUST KIND OF HANGING OUT, WHICH I'M SURE THAT PROMPTED THE PROACTIVE INSPECTION IN THIS CASE.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY ONE THING I SAID JUST SO I WASN'T UNCLEAR.

WHEN I MENTIONED THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE FOR NOTIFICATIONS.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS PROCEEDING FOR THE CURE LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED THAT LED TO THIS PROCEEDING.

PROCEEDING IS ABOUT. AGREED. THAT'S IT. OKAY.

SO I DON'T WANT TO. I DON'T WANT TO MISCONSTRUE WHAT.

WELL, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. YES. YOU MADE A MOTION.

FEBRUARY MEETING. I WOULD SECOND THAT. AND BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, HOPEFULLY POLICE CODE CAN COME TOGETHER WITH WHAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER NIGHTCLUBS JUST SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THE FULL PICTURE. OKAY, SO THAT'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO HAVE A SECOND.

YEP. YES. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY.

THIS IS JUST TO BRING THEM BACK IN FEBRUARY. OKAY.

TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. AND WHAT ABOUT ELIZABETH'S? WELL, RIGHT NOW WE'VE HAD THAT MOTION, SO WE GOT TO SEE IF THAT PASSES.

OKAY. ELIZABETH'S WOULD BE TO CLOSE IT. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OPTION.

SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE MOTION THAT SURE. MR. FREIDIN. YES. MS. LATONE. NO. MR. MARKS.

NO. MR. NEEDLEMAN. YES. MS. BEATTIE. YES. MR. CIMENT. YES. MR. ELIAS. YES. OKAY. SO HE'S GOING TO COME BACK IN FEBRUARY.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS NEW APPLICATIONS PLANNING BOARD FILE 26-0868,

[9. PB26-0868 725 N. LINCOLN LANE – CONCESSION AGREEMENT.]

I SPOKE TO THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL COMRAS ON THE PHONE FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES.

ANY OTHER DISCLOSURES? OKAY. OKAY THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO THIS IS A CONCESSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND MAC 719 LR, LLC, MAX 741 LR, LLC, AND MAC 723 LL LLC FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF LINCOLN LANE NORTH CONCESSION AREA PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.03(B)(3) OF THE CITY CHARTER, WHICH REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCESSION AGREEMENTS HAVING A TERM OF TEN YEARS OR LONGER.

SO THIS PROPOSED CONCESSION AGREEMENT IS RELATED TO WHAT HAS BEEN COINED THE VIA NOLI PROJECT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC PRIVATE EFFORT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING VEHICULAR CORRIDOR INTO A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED PUBLIC SPACE.

AND SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS THE AREA OF LINCOLN LANE NORTH BETWEEN MERIDIAN AVENUE AND MERIDIAN COURT.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ON THE ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTIES, BOTH TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ALSO TO DO IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC IN THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES.

[01:00:02]

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE IN LINCOLN LANE INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS, RESURFACING OF THE OF THE ROADWAY, INSTALLATION OF REMOVABLE BOLLARDS UPGRADED HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE AND THE INSTALLATION OF RETAIL OR CAFE STRUCTURES WITHIN THIS AREA.

A PORTION OF THIS AREA IS ALSO PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.

SO FROM AN URBAN DESIGN STANDPOINT, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS, IS EXTREMELY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, WHICH WE BELIEVE YOU KNOW, WILL ACTIVATE THIS REALLY IMPORTANT CORRIDOR.

OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO REALLY ENHANCE BOTH LINCOLN LANE NORTH AND LINCOLN LANE SOUTH IN TERMS OF CREATING ENTRANCES AND PASS THROUGH.

SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PHILOSOPHY OVER THE PAST A COUPLE OF DECADES TO ACTIVATE THIS AREA, AND WE ARE SUPPORTIVE. DOES THIS REMOVE ANY PARKING? DOES THIS TAKE ANY OF THE PARKING LOTS? IT DOES.

NOT THE PARKING LOTS. BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME ON STREET PARKING THAT WILL BE WILL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS.

BUT OZZIE DOMINGUEZ IS HERE FROM ASSET MANAGEMENT WHO CAN MAYBE TALK ABOUT MORE PARTICULARS, BUT THE TERMS ARE LISTED STARTING ON PAGE FOUR OF THE REPORT.

MORE SPECIFICALLY. GOOD MORNING.

YES. THERE ARE 13 PARALLEL PARKING SPACES IN THIS AREA OF NORTH LINCOLN LANE BETWEEN MERIDIAN AVENUE AND MERIDIAN COURT THAT WILL BE ELIMINATED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. ARE WE TRYING TO MOVE THOSE TO EITHER OR ARE WE OPENING UP ANY OTHER SPACES FOR THAT OR NOT? WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE PARKING DEPARTMENT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR RELOCATION.

SO FOR NOW, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE ELIMINATED.

BUT I'M SURE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE LOOKED INTO.

I JUST THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING IF WE'RE DOING THINGS TO REVIVE LINCOLN ROAD, WHICH MEANS ATTRACTING MORE PEOPLE.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION OF WHERE SOME OF THOSE PARKING SPOTS ARE GOING. ALL RIGHT.

GRAHAM, ARE YOU? OKAY.

[LAUGHTER] I DO HAVE WE DO HAVE SOME SLIDES TO SHOW EVERYONE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WILL KIND OF HELP INFORM IT. SO IF YOU GUYS COULD PUT THAT UP, I'LL TAKE US THROUGH IT.

AND THEN MR. DOMINGUEZ CAN ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE I.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT. SO IF YOU GUYS COULD PUT THOSE UP, I'LL JUST SHOW EVERYONE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AND AS THE DIRECTOR INDICATED, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY BOTH THE DRB AND THE HPB BECAUSE THERE'S A SPLIT JURISDICTION THAT SPLITS LINCOLN LANE NORTH ITSELF. SO WE HAD TO GO TO BOTH BOARDS.

SO ALL RIGHT GUYS, WHENEVER. WE CAN DO IT. THERE WE GO.

OKAY, SO HERE'S OUR AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE THE PORTION OF LINCOLN LANE NORTH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LAID OUT IN PINK THERE BETWEEN THOSE TWO LITTLE GUYS THAT ARE. SO IT'S BETWEEN MERIDIAN AVENUE, MERIDIAN COURT.

MY YOU CAN SEE IT BETTER OVER THIS. I GUESS YOU GUYS PROBABLY HAVE A CLEARER VIEW, BUT THE VIA, WHICH DEBBIE TALKED ABOUT IS A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BETWEEN LINCOLN ROAD AND LINCOLN LANE THAT WILL BE THROUGH THOSE EXISTING STRUCTURES.

AND THEN AGAIN, THAT WILL REALLY OPEN UP THE CONNECTIVITY IN THIS AREA.

ANYONE. WHO, WHO'S PARKED IN THE 17TH STREET GARAGE.

QUESTION NUMBER ONE THAT TOURISTS HAVE IS WHERE IS LINCOLN ROAD? RIGHT. AND YOU COME OUT AND, AND WHAT YOU SEE OUT OF THAT GARAGE RIGHT NOW IS THIS RIGHT? YOU SEE THE BACK OF [LAUGHTER] BACK OF HOUSE.

SO THOSE EXISTING STRUCTURES. YOU CLEANED IT UP FOR THE PRESENTATION AND THIS LOOKS BETTER [LAUGHTER] THAN IT HAS.

RIGHT? AND, MR. COMRAS, I DID. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE.

HE IS STUCK IN TRAFFIC. I MEAN, NOT TRAFFIC IN PLANE FLIGHTS COMING BACK DUE TO THE AMAZON CRASH.

THINGS GOT REALLY MESSED UP AND HE'S BEEN DELAYED. SO THIS IS A VIEW NOW, RIGHT? YOU CAN SEE AGAIN, THAT AREA RIGHT NOW IS JUST BACK OF HOUSE GARBAGE JUNK.

NOW THIS IS WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE WHEN IT'S DONE.

SO THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHWEST. YOU CAN SEE THE VIA THERE PEOPLE COMING RIGHT THROUGH LINCOLN ROAD.

AND AGAIN FROM A, FROM A VISITOR'S POINT OF VIEW.

AND AGAIN, WE THINK THIS IS GOING TO BENEFIT LOCALS TOO SIGNIFICANTLY.

BUT WHEN YOU COME OUT OF THAT 17TH STREET GARAGE NOW, YOU'LL, YOU'LL BE WELCOMED WITH THIS INSTEAD OF THIS, RIGHT? SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'RE GOING, YOU KNOW WHERE LINCOLN ROAD IS GOING TO END UP BEING BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THAT ACTIVITY.

AND AGAIN, THIS ALLOWS, FROM A COMMERCIAL POINT OF VIEW, ALLOWS THE ACTIVATION OF, OF LINCOLN LANE NORTH IN A WAY THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

THE I'LL GO BACK THE. WE HAVE. AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE IN THE APPROVALS IN THE BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE,

[01:05:04]

SO IN THE, IN THE DEVELOPMENT BOARD APPLICATIONS, WE HAVE TWO TRASH ROOMS ON THE SOUTH AND THAT THE TRASH WILL BE WHEELED TO THAT CENTRAL AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CENTRALIZED AREA BRINGS IT TO ALL THE OTHER SPOTS.

CORRECT. AND SO THAT SO THE TRUCKS CAN COME DOWN MERIDIAN COURT SERVICE, ALL THE BUSINESSES AT ONCE.

WE THINK IT'S GREAT. SO AND I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION THAT TREE IS AN ACCURATE TREE.

WE HAVE FIVE LARGE LIVE OAKS GOING IN THIS THING.

THEY'RE 25 BY 25 MINIMUM. THAT'S PROBABLY BIGGER THAN 25 BY 25.

BUT WE'RE NOT PUTTING LITTLE STICKS THERE. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S THIS LEVEL OF EXCITEMENT AT THE BOARD LEVEL.

AND WE THINK AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL, AND WE HOPE AT THIS BOARD'S LEVEL OF GETTING THIS DONE.

SO BRIEFLY, THIS IS THE CURRENT LAYOUT IN THE AERIAL.

YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING SPACES.

AND THEN THE THIS IS THE OVERALL PLAN THAT THAT RED AREA SHOWS THIS.

THE PATH THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR FIRE. BUT WE'RE WORKING WITH FIRE TO TO ADJUST THAT.

SO WE MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE TO PUT THAT IN THERE. BUT YOU CAN SEE AGAIN, THAT FULL ACTIVATION, OUTDOOR SEATING, NEW LANDSCAPING, ALL THOSE LITTLE MINI RETAIL USES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ULTIMATELY HERE.

AND THIS IS A VIEW WITH THE, WITH THE LANDSCAPING ON TOP OF IT, SHOWING JUST THE KIND OF THE, THE ZONES THAT WE'RE LAYING OUT IN THE PROJECT CAFE SPACE, RETAIL, TRANSIENT RETAIL.

AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AS MR. DOMINGUEZ WILL ATTEST TO, THIS IS COMPLETELY BEING FUNDED PRIVATELY.

THERE'S NO CITY MONEY BEING USED FOR ANY OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS. AND OF COURSE, THE.

AND THAT AGREEMENT WILL BE THROUGH THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. THAT WILL ALLOW OUR CONCESSIONAIRE TO PROGRAM THIS SPACE FOR THE FOR THE PERIOD OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT. AND THEN THERE ARE THE EXTENSIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT ARE CONDITIONED UPON ADDITIONAL MONEY BEING SPENT ON ADDITIONAL CITY IMPROVEMENTS.

SO WE THINK THAT THIS IS A GAME CHANGER FOR THIS AREA OF THE CITY.

WE THINK IT'S GOING TO ENHANCE WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING WITH THE HOTEL, WITH THE PADEL X ON THE ROOF OF THE 17TH STREET GARAGE.

AND AS TO MS. BEATTIE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT PARKING, 17TH STREET GARAGE HAS SURPLUS PARKING ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT, 365 DAYS A YEAR. YEAH, IT'S FUNNY, IT DOESN'T GET USED THAT MUCH, RIGHT.

I DON'T THINK PEOPLE.

RIGHT? YOU'VE GOT THOUSANDS OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE OPEN ON MOST DAYS.

AND MAYBE WITH THE PADEL X IT WILL SORT OF ACTIVATE MORE OF THAT PARKING LOT PEOPLE START KNOWING THAT IT'S SOMEWHERE IN A PARK. SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT ALL THAT ACTIVITY.

NO. OH YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 7TH. THAT GARAGE.

THAT'S MY LITTLE SPIEL. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. DOMINGUEZ HAS MORE TO ADD, BUT WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT, AND WE CAN MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION IN OCTOBER.

OKAY. ANYONE IN CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? I HAVE ONE, JUST ONE QUESTION. I LIKE THE PLAN.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO REALLY CHANGE THAT WHOLE AREA.

JUST ONE CONCERN. AND I GUESS IT'S FOR THE CITY.

ONE OF THE BULLET POINTS CONCESSIONAIRE HAS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO OPERATE, MANAGE, PROGRAM, MAINTAIN AND ACTIVATE ALL USES WITHIN THE AREA.

AND I KNOW PART OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THE UNDER GROUND, WHATEVER WORK NEEDS TO GO IN THERE. BUT I'M JUST THINKING, WHAT HAPPENS IF IN 10, 20 YEARS FROM NOW, FOR WHATEVER REASON, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, IT HAS TO BE DUG UP AND CITY NEEDS TO PUT A WATER LINE OR SEWER LINE OR SOMETHING IN THERE. DOES THIS. GREAT QUESTION. SAY THAT THAT THE CITY CAN'T DO THAT? YEAH. THE AGREEMENT IS A 20-YEAR AGREEMENT AND IT DOES HAVE 3 10-YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS.

BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME SAFEGUARDS ALONG THE WAY THAT WE HAVE THE CITY'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE.

BUT IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY HAS TO DO ANY WORK THERE, THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT HOLDS THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO GO IN AND DO THE NEEDED EXCAVATION, REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS OR ENHANCEMENTS THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR ANY UNDERGROUND OR SUBSURFACE UTILITIES.

IS IT CONSIDERED AN EASEMENT? IT IS. IT'S A CONCESSION AGREEMENT.

NO. BUT SHOULDN'T THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEANING.

YEAH, FOR THE CITY. THE CITY. THE CITY MAINTAINS THE UNDERGROUND ACCESS AT ALL TIMES SO.

OKAY. IN THE EVENT THAT.

RESPONSIBLE FOR UNDERGROUND. THE CITY IS. AND THE CITY WILL RECOMPACT THAT LAY THAT OUT AND THE TENANT WILL HAVE TO THEN COME BACK AND TAKE CARE OF ANYTHING THAT.

[01:10:07]

I SEE. AND REFILLING. IF THERE'S PAVERS, IT'S GOING TO BE THE CONCESSIONAIRE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT THE PAVERS BACK.

AND IF IT'S AN OUTSIDE UTILITY LIKE FPL OR GAS? SAME THING. SAME THING? THEY'LL WORK THROUGH THE CITY. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE CITY WOULD RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THIS OF THIS PROPERTY.

YES. THIS IS CITY LAND. IT WILL REMAIN. THIS IS NOT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

IT'S TO FEE SIMPLE PROPERTIES AND QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO ASSUMING THEY'RE NOT PAYING ALL CASH FOR THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF LENDER.

IF SOMETHING WERE TO GO SOUTH, LENDER TAKES CONTROL.

THEY'RE STILL BOUND BY THE SAME TERMS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT LIKE THEY OWN IT AND THEY KIND OF JUMP AHEAD OF THE CITY.

CORRECT? SAME THING? YEAH? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SOMEBODY WANT TO MOVE IT FAVORABLY? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. SO IT'S TO MOVE IT FAVORABLY TO THE COMMISSION.

ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GRAHAM THANKS. PLEASURE. OKAY. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS.

FIRST ONE IS PLANNING BOARD FILE 26-0839, SONY AND ARTS DISTRICT.

[10. PB26-0839, WOLFSONIAN ARTS DISTRICT.]

FIRST, THE PROPOSAL ADDS A NEW PARKING CATEGORY, CLARIFYING THAT MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT HAVE NO PARKING REQUIREMENT.

AND SECOND, THE AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-STORY ROOFTOP ADDITIONS.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ANY PROPOSED ADDITIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO REQUIRE THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CRITERIA.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE PROVIDES GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO THE MUSEUM FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD TRANSMIT THE ORDINANCE TO THE COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

SIR. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD. MY NAME IS CARLOS MARKOVICH.

I'M WITH THE LAW OFFICES OF BERCOW RADELL FERNANDEZ LARKIN AND TAPANES AT 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD.

WE'RE REALLY EXCITED HERE. WE'RE REPRESENTING THE FIU WOLFSONIAN, AND WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BRING THIS PROJECT FORWARD.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF OUR PROCESSES TO GET AND REJUVENATE THE WOLFSONIAN.

THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR TWO DISCRETE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO ENABLE THE EXPANSION OF THE WOLFSONIAN TO REALLY MOVE IT FORWARD INTO THE NEXT COUPLE OF DECADES. WITH ME TODAY IS MY COLLEAGUE PAUL SAVAGE REPRESENTING FIU, CASEY STEADMAN, AND OUR SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED, IF YOU COULD PLEASE BRING IT UP.

THANK YOU. SO CAN WE GET NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? OH, HERE IT IS.

THANKS. SO THE WOLFSONIAN, AS YOU KNOW, IS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS.

IT IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY FIU. IT IS A FREE GENERAL ADMISSION TO ALL FLORIDA RESIDENTS.

AND IT HOUSES MORE THAN 200,000 DIFFERENT ITEMS. THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE WOLFSONIAN IS TO REFLECT HOW DESIGN SHAPES SOCIETY, AND IT'S CATERED TO THE FLORIDA AND FLORIDIAN ENVIRONMENT. THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT EXHIBITS, SOME PERMANENT, SOME MOVING AROUND.

AND THESE AMENDMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO BRING A NEW EXPANSION TO THE SITE.

THIS IS THE CURRENT WOLFSONIAN ARTS DISTRICT THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

THIS IS THE EXISTING WOLFSONIAN SITE HIGHLIGHTED FOR US IN YELLOW IS THE EXPANDED SITE SHOWING A LITTLE BIT OF THE AREA WHICH THE ZONING WILL BE MOVING INTO.

IT CURRENTLY IS ON THE CORNER OF 10TH AND WASHINGTON.

IT'LL GO OVER TO 1031 AND 1045 WASHINGTON. THIS DISTRICT ALREADY EXISTS.

WE'RE JUST AMENDING ONE PORTION OF THE RESILIENCY CODE IN THIS PART AND WE'RE ALSO AMENDING ANOTHER PART OF THE RESILIENCY CODE THAT AFFECTS THE PARKING.

AND AGAIN, THESE AMENDMENTS ARE DISCRETE AND ARE THERE SPECIFIC TO AMEND THE.

AND GET THE DISTRICT TO DO WHAT THE DISTRICT WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT TO OPERATE AND DO.

SO HERE WE GO. THE TWO REQUESTS ARE TO ADD MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT. THIS IS TO RESOLVE AN EXISTING GAP IN THE CODE WHERE MUSEUMS ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.

THEIR. MUSEUMS ARE GENERALLY NOT REFERENCED MUCH IN THE RESILIENCY CODE, SO THIS WAS A NEW ONE FOR RESILIENCY CODE TO REALLY KIND OF BRING MUSEUMS AS A CONCEPT,

[01:15:08]

OKAY. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS? THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT YEAH. AND WITHOUT THIS THERE, THE PROJECT WOULD BE UNFEASIBLE SO. WHERE'RE THE CURRENT PARKING USES FOR THE MUSEUM? THERE IS CURRENTLY PARKING IN THE REAR ON THE ALLEY ON THE EAST SIDE.

THERE'S CURRENTLY PARKING THERE. IT'S MOSTLY USED BY STAFF. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS.

IT'S HOW MANY PARKING SPACES? IT'S EIGHT? EIGHT AND THEN THE OTHER LOT IS PROBABLY ANOTHER TEN.

IT'S ABOUT 18 SPACES IT IS FOR ENOUGH FOR STAFF. BUT WE HAVE FOUND THAT MOST PEOPLE COME TO THE MUSEUM EITHER FROM THE GENERAL AREA OR THEY'RE TOURISTS WHO ARE STAYING NEARBY OR THEY UBER THERE.

WHEN WE HAD AN EVENT HERE WHERE PEOPLE PARK, YOU HAVE TO HAVE VALET THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING NEARBY. SO THERE'S ALSO PARKING AT THE 11TH STREET PARKING GARAGE NEXT TO THE OLD CITY HALL, NEXT TO THE POLICE STATION. AND THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER NEAR NEARBY PUBLIC.

YES. [LAUGHTER]. HOPEFULLY SOON. YEAH. SO WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE VALET OUT FRONT OR? WE. IT DEPENDS. SO WE OFFER ALL OF OUR. WHEN WE DO AN EVENT GENERALLY FOR OUR OWN PUBLIC EVENTS, WE DON'T PROVIDE VALET. WE PROVIDE A. WE HAVE A WEBSITE OF FINDING AID THAT SAYS HOW TO GET HERE.

WE ENCOURAGE RIDESHARE, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

OF COURSE THEN EVERYONE CAN FIND THEIR OWN PARKING IN THE BEACH AREAS FOR EVENT RENTALS.

WHEN WE'RE WORKING WITH OUTSIDE CLIENTS, THERE IS AN OPTION OF VALET, AND PART OF THIS BUILD OUT WILL ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO CREATE A LOCATION FOR VALET TO HAPPEN OFF-STREET. SO IT'LL BE EASIER IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT OF THIS WHOLE ENDEAVOR, NOT ONLY TO BRING MORE CONTENT TO THE BEACH, BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN EARN REVENUE, AS MANY DO, TO SUPPORT WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE.

SO WE'LL BE LOOKING AT WAYS THAT THAT WILL WORK.

I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THE, THE DOLLARS FROM GOVERNMENT, THE DOLLARS FROM.

AND PART OF THAT IS BY EARNING REVENUE FROM EVENT RENTALS.

THAT'S A BIG, SIGNIFICANT MODEL OUT THERE. SURE.

THANK YOU. IF WE COULD GET THE SLIDE BACK UP, I'D APPRECIATE IT THANK YOU. SO THAT'S OUR FIRST REQUEST. AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, COREY DORMAN FROM KIMLEY-HORN.

HE'S HERE. THEY'VE DONE A COUPLE STUDIES AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE.

JUST TO KIND OF RECAP AS WELL, THOUGH, WE WILL BE COMING BACK FOR A CUP IN DECEMBER.

SO LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. BUT AGAIN, TODAY IS JUST THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WILL ENABLE US TO PROCEED.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE A ROOFTOP ADDITION. THIS IS KIND OF A FIXING A LITTLE BIT OF A GLITCH IN THE CODE WHERE THERE IS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO A ROOFTOP ADDITION TO A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. YOU'RE LIMITED TO ONE STORY.

WE ARE RETAINING AN EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE AT 1031 WASHINGTON.

THAT STRUCTURE WILL BE CANTILEVERED OVER BY THE ADDITION.

IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE IN THE WAY IT'S CANTILEVERED.

IT WILL BE MUCH HIGHER. SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S KIND OF ENCROACHING ON IT TOO MUCH.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD TO CONSIDER TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THIS APPROVED WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES OR STUFF LATER ON.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER REQUEST. AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES IN HEIGHT OR FLOOR AREA OR CHANGES IN USE.

THIS IS ALL ALREADY WITHIN THE WOLFSONIAN ARTS DISTRICT SO.

OFF-STREET PARKING THIS IS KIND OF HOW THE CODE WILL READ WITH SOME MORE COLORS, BUT WE'RE AMENDING SIX.

SECTION 5.2.4.1 WHICH SETS THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CIVIC USES.

AGAIN, WE'RE ADDING THE UNDERLINED THERE IN THE CHART WHERE IT SAYS MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY USES WITHIN THE ZONING ARTS DISTRICT.

SO IT'S LIMITED TO THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT WITHIN THE CD-2 ALONG WASHINGTON AVENUE.

AND IT'S GOING TO ALLOW FOR NO PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THESE USES.

SO THIS IS THE, THE OPERATION OF THE CODE AMENDMENT.

BUT AGAIN, KIND OF WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. ON-SITE PARKING RIGHT NOW IS NOT FOR PATRONS.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE REMOVING PARKING OR WE'RE JUST KIND OF CONTINUING WITH THE OPERATIONS AS, AS THEY OPERATE NOW AND EXPANDING THE LOCATION.

AND THERE ARE ALREADY SEVERAL FACILITIES IN THE AREA LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT, THERE'S THE P13 LOT AT 10TH.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE ONE ON 11TH AND THERE'S METERED PARKING THROUGHOUT, AS YOU KNOW.

SO, AND THEN THIS IS THE ROOFTOP ADDITIONS. THIS IS LIKE I MENTIONED, IT'S 1031.

IT'S A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. WE'RE GOING TO RETAIN IT.

SO I THINK WE'RE ENABLING REALLY THE RETENTION OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

[01:20:08]

SO THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE INTO THE RESILIENCY CODE.

IT'S TIED TO A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE WOLFSONIAN. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO APPLY TO THE WOLFSONIAN ARTS DISTRICT. IT WILL APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO THE LOTS WHERE THE WOLFSONIAN SITS. THERE'S NO NEW HEIGHT, AND THE HPB WILL BE REQUIRED TO REVIEW AND APPROVE IT FOR ALL CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS CRITERIA.

THIS IS THE LOCATION. HERE'S AN ISOMETRIC OF THE PROPERTY.

THE WOLFSONIAN BUILDING IS ON THE RIGHT WITH THE NEW ADDITION ON THE LEFT.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A PORTION THAT CANTILEVERS OVER.

THERE'S A NICE SCREENING THAT YOU SEE THERE WE THINK WILL BE A WONDERFUL ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT DOES CANTILEVER OVER THAT 1031, WHICH CURRENTLY I THINK IS A GIFT SHOP OR IT'S A SURF SHOP, RIGHT? IT'S A GIFT SHOP. IT'S A GIFT SHOP. SO IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA SO THAT'S THE TRIGGER.

AND AS YOU KNOW, THE WOLFSONIAN ARTS DISTRICT ALREADY EXIST, AND THIS KIND OF RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED FOR OTHER SITES.

IF YOU MAY REMEMBER, THESE ARE JUST TWO DIFFERENT ONES.

IT'S BEEN DONE IN THE CD-3 ALONG 16TH AND 17TH.

SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING NEW. RATHER WE'RE JUST KIND OF LOOKING FOR THE SAME RELIEF THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED FOR OTHER APPLICANTS IN THE PAST. SO WE THINK THAT THIS PROVIDES A WONDERFUL WAY FOR THE WOLFSONIAN TO DO ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON SITE, EXPAND INTO THE FUTURE AND REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND CONTINUE TO REDUCE AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE RESILIENCY CODE AND CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN OUR COMMUNITY.

LIKE I SAID, WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING BOARD. WE'LL BE BACK BEFORE YOU IN DECEMBER. WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO CITY COMMISSION FOR FIRST READING AND SECOND READING AFTER HERE.

AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT. AND THEN WE'LL ALSO HAVE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. WHAT'S TRIGGERING THE CUP REQUIREMENT? WHAT? A COUPLE OF THINGS. THEY WILL BE A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STRUCTURE.

THEY WILL BE OVER 50,000 SQUARE FEET. AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SALE OF ALCOHOL ON THE ROOF, OR AT LEAST SOME TYPE OF OPTION TO SERVE ALCOHOL ON THE ROOF.

SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW, ARE THERE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA? THERE ARE. OKAY. THERE ARE. THEY'LL GET NOTICE.

YES, OF COURSE. THEY'LL GET NOTICE. AND WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON REACHING OUT. OKAY.

AS SOON AS WE CAN SO. ALL RIGHT. AND WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF TO FINALIZE OUR FINAL SUBMITTAL.

SO THAT'S AN ACTIVE, ONGOING PROCESS THAT WE'RE ENGAGED IN AT THE MOMENT.

SO RESPECTFULLY, WE REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF THESE OR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

WE THINK IT IS IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING THE CITY STANDS FOR EXPANDING OUR CIVIC USES AND MAINTAINING HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND REDUCING AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY.

SO WITH THAT, I YIELD MY TIME. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? YES, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER. JOHANN MOORE.

HERE WE GO LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING THAT WHILE THIS IS NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN FLAMINGO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD THERE IS A SINGLE OUTSTANDING CONCERN REGARDING THE IMPACTS OF THIS.

AND LET ME SAY THAT I'M ENTIRELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE WOLFSONIAN AND ITS EFFORTS TO SOLIDIFY ITS, ITS INSTITUTIONAL PRESENCE. ROOFTOP ALCOHOL IN LIGHT OF PAST EXPERIENCES WITH GOOD TIME.

AND I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT SHERRY SIPPING AFTERNOON TEA TIME PATRONS OF THE MUSEUM, BUT THE AFOREMENTIONED NEED TO RAISE FUNDS, QUITE UNDERSTANDABLY, FOR THE MUSEUM BY HAVING.

WHAT WAS IT? WELL, WHAT WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS THAT SORT OF AN EVENT.

AND I'M WONDERING IF THE HOURS ON SUCH POSSIBLE NOISE IMPACTS ACROSS TO THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE COULD BE ADDRESSED. THE OTHER ISSUE IS ONE THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD ADDRESSED AND, AND I'M WONDERING IF I'VE GOTTEN SOMETHING WRONG HERE, BUT 7.5.2.1.D SECTION 8 WOULD APPEAR TO ALSO AUTHORIZE ROOFTOP ADDITIONS ON THE BLOCK WHERE 1600 WASHINGTON IS LOCATED.

A DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? AND B WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE WOLFSONIAN MUSEUM? THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER]. AND TO YOUR FIRST POINT, I'LL LET STAFF COMMENT ON THE SECOND.

[01:25:01]

SO FOR ANOTHER TIME.

CHAIR, IS THE APPLICABILITY FOR THESE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD JUST BE FOR THE EAST SIDE, WHERE THE ACTUAL ADDITION AND THE WOLFSONIAN MUSEUM ARE EXISTING.

SO WHERE THE ADDITION IS PROPOSED AND THE MUSEUM IS, IS EXISTING IS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE REGULATION, THE LARGER OVERLAY. THE ARTS DISTRICT OVERLAY ALSO INCLUDES PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IS SPECIFIC TO THE EAST SIDE WHERE THE MUSEUM IS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE ON ZOOM? ALL RIGHT.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING QUESTIONS. YEAH. I SEEM TO REMEMBER.

TELL ME IF I'M WRONG. I MEAN, I LIKE THE IDEA.

I THINK THIS IS. YOU KNOW. I KNOW IT'S A LONG TIME IN THE WORKS, A LONG TIME.

BUT I THINK WHEN THE GO BONDS WERE ISSUED AND YOU GOT THAT MONEY FOR THAT, I THINK IT WAS PRESENTED AS THE ADDITION. I THINK THAT BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEW BUILDING THERE WITH THE GROUND FLOOR OPEN. BASICALLY, PEOPLE WALK RIGHT IN OFF THE STREET. SO WAS THAT THE IDEA? AND WHY DID THAT CHANGE? I MEAN, I APPRECIATE SAVING THE CONTRIBUTING BUILDING THERE, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT HOW THAT TRANSPIRED.

WE'RE PRESERVING THE FACADES. THOSE WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU AND ALSO TO THE HPB.

WE ARE MOVING THE CENTRAL ENTRANCE FOR THE WOLFSONIAN.

IT'LL MOVE DOWN THE BLOCK AND THERE IS AN ENTRY THAT COMES IN ON THE STREET.

WE ARE KEEPING OUR DESIGN STORE. SO THERE'S ANOTHER 100FT PAST THE DESIGN STORE WHERE WE'LL BE CREATING THAT OPEN COURTYARD, THAT ABILITY TO COME IN. BUT WE SAW NO REASON TO DESTROY A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BUILDING.

AND AS YOU KNOW FROM THOSE GO BOND HEARINGS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS.

AND SO WHY TEAR DOWN OR CHANGE SOMETHING THAT'S WORKING NOW? SO THAT WAS THE IDEA OF THE CANTILEVERING OVER.

IT WOULD GIVE US THE LARGER FLOOR PLATE ONCE WE GOT HIGHER UP TO GIVE US MORE SPACE.

OKAY. AND I THINK JUST TO MR. CHARLES BENSON NOTED AND WANTS TO CORRECT THAT.

1031 IS NOT HISTORIC. IT'S 1045. THAT'S HISTORIC.

BUT NONETHELESS, WE'RE RETAINING THIS BUILDING WHICH I THINK IS A NICE ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE ARE RETAINING THE FACADES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WASHINGTON AVENUE SIDE.

SO WE'LL BE RETAINING THE FACADES AT 1045 AND 1041 WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS OR RATHER RESTAURANTS THAT ARE THERE NOW SO.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? [LAUGHTER]. NO MORE COMMENTS.

WE'RE READY FOR YOU.

I'LL SECOND THAT. YEAH. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS.

EVENTS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE VALET OR WHATEVER IT WAS THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THE CUP. CORRECT? CORRECT.

YEAH. AND THAT WE ANTICIPATE THAT COMING IN NOVEMBER? SEE YOU THEN. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. THE NEXT IS PLANNING BOARD FILE.

[11. PB26-0853, LDR AMENDMENT COMMISSION MEMORANDUMS.]

THE RESILIENCY CODE GOVERNS HOW AMENDMENTS TO THE LDRS IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE CONSIDERED, BUT FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF AMENDMENTS, IT MAY BE UNCLEAR WHICH INDIVIDUALS OR PROPERTIES MAY BE AFFECTED.

TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRANSPARENCY, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE THAT EVERY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM FOR AN LDR OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF AFFECTED OR BENEFITED PARTIES. THE STATEMENT MUST SPECIFY, WHEN KNOWN, WHETHER THE ORDINANCE BENEFITS A PARTICULAR PERSON, BUSINESS OR PROPERTY AND IDENTIFY THEM ACCORDINGLY.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD TRANSMIT THE ORDINANCE TO THE COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY.

NO ONE. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS IN CHAMBERS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? I HAVE A QUESTION. SURE. JUST WHAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THAT? MEANING, LET'S SAY FOR THE MOST RECENT CONCESSION AGREEMENT WE HAD.

RIGHT. SO THE IF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT OR THE WOLFSONIAN IS A GOOD EXAMPLE TOO.

BUT THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT ALSO INCLUDED COMPANION LDR AMENDMENTS.

[01:30:03]

RIGHT. IT'S, IT'S ASPIRATIONAL TO GET EVERYTHING RIGHT.

STAFF, YOU KNOW, IS LIKELY A LOT OF TIMES NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PINPOINT THE EXACT INDIVIDUAL PERSON.

WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THAT PROPERTY IS LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED EITHER NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY, BUT IT'S ASPIRATIONAL IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, UNLESS IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THE WOLFSONIAN, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH WE WOULD KNOW WOULD BE THE WOLFSONIAN MUSEUM, THE STATE OF FLORIDA WOULD BENEFIT FROM THAT.

SO I GUESS SO. SO TWO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS TO THAT.

NUMBER ONE IS THE INTENTION HERE. I GUESS ULTIMATELY JUST SAYING, HEY, WHO'S BENEFITING FROM THIS? WHO'S NOT? BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME COMPLAINING ABOUT WHO'S ACTUALLY BEHIND THE APPLICATIONS. A AND THEN B IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, CITY STAFF WERE TO MISS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES, WHICH IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, YOU CAN'T PINPOINT EVERYONE DOES THAT NOW OPEN UP SOME TYPE OF LEGAL LOOPHOLE WHERE IT'S BROUGHT BACK? YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO BE HEARD AGAIN OR WHATEVER.

SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES? AND WE WERE. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

SO THE LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS, IS SOMEWHAT BROAD.

AND IT COUNTS FOR THE FACT THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFY EVERYONE WHO IS BENEFITING OR IMPACTED BY THE ORDINANCE.

THE INTENT WITH THIS OR THE REASON IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT EXACTLY? I THINK THE INTENT IS, IS PRIMARILY TRANSPARENCY.

WE HAVE. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS. WHEN WE ARE AMENDING OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, YOU CAN EITHER A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAN SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY.

AND THAT'S EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT BECAUSE WE REQUIRE DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS AND OTHER THINGS.

OR ALTERNATIVELY, A MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION CAN SPONSOR LEGISLATION.

SO I THINK THE INTENT BEHIND THIS IS TO CAPTURE, WHEN IT IS A CITY SPONSORED PIECE OF LEGISLATION, TO CAPTURE ANY AFFECTED PARTIES BY PROVIDING THE STATEMENT, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR CITY SPONSORED LEGISLATION THAT, IF IT'S BEING PROPOSED OR ADVOCATED BY A LOBBYIST, THAT THAT LOBBYIST BE DISCLOSED AS PART OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM.

HOWEVER, NOT ALL .THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE BENEFITING ARE NOT ALWAYS LOBBYISTS.

THEY MAY JUST BE, YOU KNOW, BUT ALSO AFFECTED PROPERTIES. SO, SO STAFF WOULD INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF WHAT PROPERTIES WOULD ACTUALLY BE AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE.

MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. [LAUGHTER] SECOND. SECOND.

OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? OKAY. UNANIMOUS.

KEITH MADE THE SECOND. ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS PLANNING BOARD FILE 26-0854 DRB APPEAL PROCESS.

[12. PB26-0854, DRB APPEAL PROCESS.]

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD SHIFT DRB DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS TO A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SIMILAR TO HOW HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD APPEALS ARE HANDLED.

ONE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE COULD SERVE BOTH BOARDS, AND THIS CHANGE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO FUTURE APPEALS FOR CASES INVOLVING CITY OWNED PROPERTY OR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD CONTINUE TO REVIEW APPEALS, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD TRANSMIT THIS ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. AND WHAT'S THE MOTIVE BEHIND THAT? THIS WAS ACTUALLY SPONSORED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER SUAREZ.

POLITICS AND ALSO TO FAST FORWARD THE PROCESS A LITTLE BIT MORE.

YEAH. I MEAN, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PROCESS ALREADY EXISTS FOR DESIGN APPEALS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.

SO I THINK IT WAS JUST A STREAMLINED THINGS AND.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ON CHAMBERS TO SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY.

UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PLANNING BOARD FILE 26-0857 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION,

[13. PB26-0857, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND PARKING]

[01:35:10]

MAYBE IT'S AN EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT'S OWNED BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO ACTUALLY SHIFT A LOT OF THAT BURDEN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTO, INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. AN EMPTY LOT.

AND THERE WAS A HOUSE BEING BUILT THREE DOORS DOWN.

THEY COULD ACTUALLY RENT THAT EMPTY LOT TO USE AS PARKING AND STORAGE? IN AREAS WITH THIS IS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS. SO THIS IS THIS CURRENTLY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO CITY OR YOU KNOW, STATE PROJECTS.

WELL THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND WE'RE SEEING THAT ON WEST AVENUE.

I KNOW I GET SOME BUSINESS OWNER CONCERNS, RESIDENT CONCERNS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY USING THE ON STREET PARKING SPACES.

AND THEN IT'S CAUSING, YOU KNOW, IT'S CAUSING HARDSHIP TO, TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, TRAFFIC FLOW, PARKING ETC. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THE CITY, AGAIN, VACANT LOTS OR EXISTING PARKING LOTS OWNED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO ACTUALLY USE THOSE SPACES TO GET IT OFF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND GET IT INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE IT WOULD HAVE LESS.

RIGHT? CORRECT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE CITY WOULD NEGOTIATE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WITH PRIVATE.

YOU'RE SPEAKING IN THE PAST, IT'S STILL GOING ON.

[LAUGHTER] BUT I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO. STILL THERE. IT'S STILL THERE.

YEAH. WHY DO I PUT IT IN PAST THEN? [LAUGHTER] IF THIS PASSES, THEN THEY WILL FIND PEOPLE WHO CANNOT LIVE THERE AND CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO PARK.

THEY'LL GIVE THEM WE THINK THIS WILL BE A HUGE BENEFIT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND WE HAD INCLUDED AND WE PASSED OUT, I THINK, A LIST OF, OF PROJECTS THAT ARE UPCOMING THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO BE UNDERTAKING THAT WILL LIKELY IMPACT WITHOUT THIS ORDINANCE YOU KNOW, CORRECT. CORRECT. NORTH BEACH. NORTH. SO WE DO SEE THIS BEING ABLE TO BENEFIT NEIGHBORHOODS.

GENERALLY REALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS. THE ONLY QUESTION IS THEN ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS SAYING, OH, WELL, I'M TRYING TO GO SHOPPING OR WHATEVER IT IS, BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE ALL THESE TRUCKS ARE TAKING UP THE PARKING SPOTS.

SO ARE YOU KIND OF DAMNED IF YOU DO? I HEARD FROM A BUSINESS OWNER THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, MY BUSINESS IS SUFFERING BECAUSE ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION CREWS ARE TAKING UP ALL THE PARKING. BUT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW THAT PARKING TO BE ON A VACANT LOT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT PERMITTED TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING.

SO IT MAY NOT SOLVE 100% OF THE ISSUES HERE, BUT WE DO THINK THIS WILL THIS WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT.

OKAY. ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS SPEAK ON THIS? ANYONE ON ZOOM? MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND THAT ONE. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? GREAT.

I THINK WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM ON MEMBERS.

THE PARKING ON THE YOU KNOW THE STREETS AND WORKING ON THE SWALES AND WHATNOT.

IS THAT HAPPENING IN A FUTURE MONTH? WE WILL BRING THAT BACK IN OCTOBER.

OCTOBER. YES. OKAY. THAT'S FOR THE SWALES. WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS GREEN SPACE MANAGEMENT.

AND WE STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT WE WILL BRING THAT BACK IN OCTOBER ALONG WITH THE DISCUSSION ITEM WE SPOKE ABOUT TODAY, WHICH WAS THE SECURITY, THE NIGHTCLUB SECURITY.

YEAH OFF DUTY POLICE. YEAH. AND PARALLEL WITH THAT.

AND WHAT WE JUST WE JUST APPROVE RIGHT NOW IS.

WHAT? HOW DOES IT STAND WHEN THERE IS A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT'S RESIDENTIAL AND THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PARKING PLAN? ARE THEY ALLOWED TO USE A VACANT PROPERTY, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO PARK THEIR CARS AND TO STAGE? NOT CURRENTLY, NO. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS.

SO IF WE IF WE WERE LOOKING AT A PRIVATE PROJECT THAT WAS IMPACTING THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS, THIS BOARD COULD TALK ABOUT AND MAYBE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION TO ALSO INCLUDE, TO EXPAND THIS ORDINANCE TO ALSO INCLUDE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE.

THE ABILITY OF PRIVATE PROJECTS. THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD HELP.

AGREE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OBEYED, WITH WHICH THE PROBLEM IS WITH THESE PARKING PLANS.

WE ONLY HAVE ONE PERSON IN THE CITY THAT'S ASSIGNED TO REVIEW THESE TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY DISPLACE THEMSELVES, TO REVIEW IF THIS PARKING PLANS ARE BEING RESPECTED OR NOT.

AND SO ALTHOUGH THE FINES ARE HUGE, THERE'S NO ONE REALLY, YOU KNOW, IMPLEMENTING OR GIVING VIOLATIONS.

SO I THINK IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, CREATE SOME EASE IN SOME OF THE PARKING FOR THESE PARKING PLANS AND SUPPLYING PARKING SPACES ON VACANT LOTS,

[01:40:05]

YOU KNOW. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. ON A WEIRD SITUATION, MAYBE NIKKI'S BEACH, THE PARKING LOT, THE WHOLE AREA IS CITY, BUT IT'S A PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION.

THEY'RE GOING TO DEMO IT. THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE PARKING LOT.

SO WILL THIS SHIFT THE COST OF OFF-SITE PARKING FROM THE APPLICANT TO THE CITY WHEN THAT LOT IS CLOSED? BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS THE ONE THAT'S CLOSING THE LOT TO RECHANGE THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PARKING STRUCTURE.

RIGHT. BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OTHER COSTS.

SO IF IT'S NOT A CITY PROJECT. A PRIVATE PROJECT.

WHAT MELISSA WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVATE ASPECT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THEIR 40 YEAR CERTIFICATION AND THEY'RE REPAINTING AND THEY'RE DOING ALL THESE THINGS AND WE DON'T HAVE THE PARKING ABILITY OR THE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THESE.

EVEN THE RESIDENTS WHEN THEIR PARKING LOTS ARE CLOSED DOWN.

IS THERE SOME SORT OF WAY THAT, THAT WE CAN MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING ALSO TO ADD THAT, THAT THERE CAN BE SOME SORT OF A QR CODE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BECAUSE I THINK RIGHT NOW OUR PARKING, IT'S REALLY CONVOLUTED.

YOU'RE HAVING TO GIVE YOUR THE COLOR OF THE CAR, THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, THE WHO'S DRIVING, YOU KNOW, YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER, THEIR LICENSE PLATE, EVERYTHING.

AND, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION SITES ARE ROTATING WITH WITH CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL, THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME.

AND SO THAT'S A REAL BURDEN ON RESIDENTS. IT'S A BURDEN ON BUSINESSES THAT ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE.

SO THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SORT OF REFORM THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT.

I THINK THAT. 100% I LOOK AT IT ON A RESIDENTIAL CHAT.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A WEEK THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT FREAKING OUT ABOUT ALL THE CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS AND CARS AND EMPLOYEES PARK ALL OVER THE STREET.

AND WE GO THROUGH IT WEEK AFTER WEEK AFTER WEEK, AND THERE'S NO SOLUTION OUT OF IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE TO ENFORCE THE PARKING PLAN.

SO WE NEED TO MAKE THE PARKING PLANS EASIER. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO ALLOW THESE PEOPLE TO USE PROPERTIES TO PUT EMPLOYEES. OR WE NEED TO START ENFORCING LIKE CRAZY, BUT OUR COMBINATION OF THE TWO, BUT I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO RETHINK THIS OVER BECAUSE WE'RE A CITY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING UNDER A LOT OF RENOVATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION IN EVERY SINGLE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF. AND I THINK THAT THE QR CODE WOULD, IF YOU INSTEAD OF HAVING THIS CONSTANT LIST OF, OF CHANGES, IF YOU'VE GOT A QR CODE AND THE PERSON HAS THE QR CODE, THEY, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO WHEREVER THEIR PARKING THEIR DESIGNATED PARKING IS RATHER THAN, THAN JUST RIDICULOUS PERMITTING OF EACH CAR.

I MEAN, YOU CAN'T HAVE A MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND HAVE AND KNOW WHO, WHAT.

WHAT CAR AND WHAT PERSON AND WHAT IT CHANGES DAILY.

YOU KNOW, THESE CONTRACTORS COME FROM EVERYWHERE.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR RESIDENTS, FOR EVERYONE.

OKAY. SO WOULD YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE PART OF YOUR, YOUR MOTION TO SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ALSO BE THAT THAT TYPE OF ORDINANCE ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS? EVERYONE SUPPORT THAT? YEAH PERFECT. GREAT. THAT'LL BE A RECOMMENDATION ALONG WITH THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE EXPANDED FOR PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS WELL.

CORRECT. WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS, EVERYONE.

ALL RIGHT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU EVERYBODY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.