Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

OK, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the July 7th planning board meeting. We're missing Elizabeth Latone, but otherwise we have a full board. So first, can I get one of my fellow members to approve the minutes from the June 2nd, 2026 meeting? Approve the meeting. Okay. Can I get a second? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. So moved. Mr. City 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 staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. Those wishing to participate via Zoom may dial the toll-free number, which is 877-853-5257, and enter the webinar ID, which is 861-4342-6327, 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 star nine if participating by phone. Before I swear in those who are testifying, I'm going to read into the record the city's notice regarding lobbyist registration. If you are appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, including as an architect, attorney, or representative of an applicant or an objector, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office before 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 or opposition to an item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall, prior to appearing, disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they are communicating. These rules apply whether you are 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 the Commission chambers and intends to testify, virtual speakers will be sworn in one by one before addressing the Board. So if you will be testifying today, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will be giving is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We'll start with requests for continuances. The first is Planning Board File PB250776, Liquor Store Prohibition on Lincoln Road.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there's a series of ordinances on the agenda this morning requesting a continuance to the March 2027 meeting. This is in response to Senate Bill 180. So we have been preempted from adopting certain regulations. So with the first application, we are requesting a continuance to the March 2027 meeting.

Okay. Anything we need to do?

You do need to vote on that.

Okay. Can someone move it to the March 20th? Motion to move to the March meeting. March meeting. Okay. Can I get a second?

I'll second it.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. So moved. Next one is planning board file 250777, 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? All right. All opposed? Okay, so moved. And these are all to March?

Those two are to March.

Okay, the next one is Planning Board File PB 260827, North Beach Residential Incentives LDR Amendment and Companion Planning Board File 260828, North Beach Residential Incentives Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

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 to September. Okay. I second it. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. So moved. And the last one is planning board file 260826, Alton Beach Bayfront Overlay Temporary Sales Center.

The sponsor of this item as well is requesting a continuance, so we would recommend the September 8th meeting for the continuance, and we have no objection to that.

Motion to move.

I'll second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. All moved. All right. Progress reports, file number PB260846. PBOA 0716-042, file number 1819, whatever all this is, 6946 Reuven Dome, 1021 Beeritz Drive and 997 Beeritz 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. The existing CUP was issued to Le Petit 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 CUP conditions. Staff is recommending the board hear from the new owner and conclude the item. Sir?

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. I'm here representing Alpha School with the new owner of the Le Papillon Montessori School on . I'm here appearing as a condition of the CUP to inform you that we are the new 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 to dismiss it. Move to dismiss. I'll second it. Okay. Do you have any comments about this one?

No, we're actually very excited and happy to support this new school coming to North Beach.

So all in favor of, I guess, dismissing it from future reports, right?

Yes, concluding the item.

Okay.

Okay, he's moved it second. Yeah, can't get a second All in favor aye opposed. Okay, sir. Thank you. Thank you Okay revocation modification hearings planning board file 21044 2743 Washington Avenue

Mr. Chair, we did receive a request for continuance from the applicant's representative, their attorney, James Rowe. He advised us that he has a medical appointment this morning. He should be here between 10 and 11 a.m. So if we could skip this one.

Oh, okay. I thought you said to continue it. Okay.

Well, he has requested continuance, but.

Let him make it? Yeah. Okay. All right. We'll skip by that one. We'll go to the second revocation hearing. Claim board file 210448. 235 23rd Street. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. This particular establishment, Baccarat, is a nightclub located in the Collins Park neighborhood. The initial CUP goes back to 2006, so it has quite the history. There was a series of progress reports in 2025 for this property due to violations. On May 1, 2026, the Planning Department sent a cure letter to the property owner and tenant of the space. That cure letter was in response to several violations which are outlined on page two and three of your staff report. Primarily those violations centered around their valet operations. So the approved CUP has a couple conditions specific to their valet operations, which was part of their operational plan when the board approved the CUP. At some point, their valet company did not renew their BTR. So the valet company was operating without a valid business tax receipt. That led to violations being issued of the city code operating without a business tax receipt. as well as violations to the CUP, since the CUP contains specific conditions about the valet. So since May 6th, the property has received two violations, multiple days, totaling 44 violations. We also note that we have been working with the applicant and the valet company I'm happy to report that after, you know, a good amount of time, unfortunately, the valet did resolve their issues and they now currently have a BTR and their violations are pending review by the special magistrate in August. You know given the issues 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 And bring them back in September so we can determine if you know, there's any additional violations Or if they are in compliance with all their conditions of the CUP Okay, thank you

Good morning, Mickey Marrero here on behalf of Baccarat Nightclub. My address is 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, the law firm Burkhart, Riddell, Fernandez, Larkin, and Tappanus. So again, we were here last month and we heard a lot from the board, which I have conveyed to my client. The thing that Debbie spoke of, and I just want to mention that a little bit more again, this was, these violations, every time they would open, and I've been in touch with code and I understand what happened, they would issue two violations. And we appealed them every time because, frankly, we felt that this had nothing to do with anything that they did or could control. The valet company that they have used and have a contract with and that services many, many restaurants, I think it's like 60 or so different restaurants, businesses in the city, somehow their license lapsed. We had no way of knowing that that was happening or doing it. So they were just cited for that third party issue. We appealed them because, again, had we just decided to close until the valet company resolved that issue, that paperwork essentially issue, they would have gone out of business. Because a business like that, five, six weeks, they lose all their employees. It doesn't operate with the widest margins. And again, it was not something that they could even fix. So we were in constant touch with the valet company. We offered to help. Their attorney did get involved and do everything as quickly as they could. Losing the contract with the valet company and seeking a new valet company would have taken longer than what was allowed to happen here. And we've been in touch with Code and the city attorney's office. They've been great to deal with. They understand that it really wasn't anything that we could control or even fix. So we're working. And they were the ones that continued our appeals to August to allow us an opportunity to resolve that, potentially with a settlement or something reasonable, just because we did everything that we could to solve it. And the other thing that was brought up, and I discussed last time the two violations that did bring us here in the beginning. One was related to an event that they allowed. And obviously, when they allow a third party to use the venue, they're going to be more careful, and they've been more careful since. But in November, there was a charity event for a breast cancer charity that they allowed 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 that was, you know, but again, it was a result of them allowing a fee for charity. That's in question. The other thing 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 going to be present in the venue, one time they were late. They were late. They paid the violation, but again, that happens multiple times a week, and they're pretty judicious about getting that right. Another thing that wasn't in the staff report that was mentioned by several board members, there was an individual social media personality who had a partnership, a marketing partnership with the venue. There was a lot of concerns raised, not just on this day. I see Mr. Mark shaking his head because 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. I explained to them, you know, 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 was good enough reason to break that relationship. And that's since basically a couple days after that hearing, that is nonexistent. And that's obviously, you know, there was a little bit of social media on that because that individual was upset that he was taken away from the club. But nevertheless, he's no longer involved. And I think things have straightened out. AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS I THINK IS REALLY A MISNOMER HERE BECAUSE IT WAS ONE THING THAT A LICENSE BY A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR WAS LAPSED. THEY MOVED QUICKLY. THESE LICENSES TAKE WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS TO SOLVE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH ALL NEW PAPERWORK, ALL NEW 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 hope you all see that but we're happy to come back in september or whenever you feel appropriate to make sure that things continue on the right path

Did you say a BTR was issued? Because my understanding is it's still under review.

We were advised by the applicant late last week. It was approved.

Code is here.

The Assistant Director of Code Compliance is here.

So BTR has in fact been issued?

That's correct, sir. The BTR for the valet company has been issued and they are authorized to now operate.

Okay. Just wanted clarification on that. Were they operating... Were they operating, or were they not there for the last two months?

They were not there. The valet company was not there because their BTR was not issued.

So you were operating with knowledge of violating the CUP.

Right. Let me clarify.

The valet company- Before you, 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 a BTR been issued for this location?

Yes, the one blanket BTR has been issued so they can operate.

For this location, though? Yes. But this company had a BTR for other locations? Is that what you're saying?

So it's one BTR, and in that one BTR, they have to list out all the locations that they're approved to work for.

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? operate with an invalid valet or get another valet?

I'm not aware of the other locations that they were operating out of there. Do you?

Yeah, look, again, I'm only speaking to the valet company. I don't represent the other venues and, you know, I just use the number, but it's something like that. But you mentioned. Yeah, 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 .

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. We were here last month. No, no. You didn't cure it between May and June. Well, now in July. I was seeing the other venues.

The other venues didn't even get violations, so they didn't know they were operating. Our operation, we appealed to every one of them, because we don't feel that it was just, frankly. We didn't do anything. And they did not have valet. The reason it's an issue is because the CUP back in 06, when it was originally issued, when valet was a major way that people got to nightclubs, required, so there wouldn't be parking issues, that valet be required. Frankly, and something I'd like to explore, and I know today's not the day, but 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 honor it. They pay a valet company. They pay at a premium because it's required, right? But they, even when it's operational, valet four to six cars a night. The business has changed. In 06, everyone valeted to these clubs. Now everybody Ubers. That's the reality, and I think we all recognize that. So they told me, we don't need a valet, really. It's something that is constantly creating paperwork problems for us. 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 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 was very important in 06 to have. But in 2026, it's a very different business. But again, the valet company, Mr. Marks, was not operating in the location. They were not. They were. They were not during that time.

Does CO know if they were operating illegally in other locations? I'm not aware. Can you find out?

If they didn't have a BTR, how would they not be?

Why would you give them a BTR if they've been operating for months illegally?

Without at least knowing that. Sure. I think what happens is that, I mean, just from seeing this happen with some of our valet operators, there are times where they're operating, they might have had a BTR, it lapses for whatever reason, 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 procedural, you got it, now you're good to operate. So, I mean, I think it's somewhat normal that it happens.

So, that information, the information that I do know is that they were issued, they reissued their BTR on June 30th.

But you don't know when they reapplied?

No, I wouldn't have that information. That information goes to our finance department, which handles all business tax receipt applications.

And you're certain that this location has been approved for it?

Absolutely, yes. What about the pyrotechnics violation? So that was something that... What about all the police violations? Hold on, let me ask just about this one.

By the way, do you have your records that verify what you're saying? That they were issued at BTR on June 30th? Yes. Where are you getting that from?

From our system, our Energov system.

You looked at that, this before you came today? Okay, all right. Because my understanding is it was still pending.

For the valet, no. The valet, it clearly says on the system, issued June 30th, active status. Do you swear?

You're under oath. I just wanted to make sure you're accurately not assuming that you actually know that for a fact.

How often is code out there on CNN? Are they getting called or is it just random checks like they do with other nightclubs?

Well, routinely it is just random checks, random proactive checks that we do at different clubs. But since we knew that this location was in violation, we wanted to make sure that they were either in compliance or not. So we would do regular checks at this particular location.

And I think to attempt to answer Mr. Marks' question on the timing, the minute we found out, and frankly, the valet company found out about this issue, from me. I found out who they were. I contacted them. I said, guys, we're having an issue with this venue because of your license. They're like, what issue? I mean, they didn't even know. So then we got them. I don't represent the valet company. My client does not control the valet company. They were telling us, we don't know what happened. We're going to get on it right away. We had weekly calls. Ultimately, they did. We believe they started the process pretty much immediately. They were caught by surprise, and again, None of the other venues, and I don't understand why, and I'm not here to explain it because 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 the valet company, so 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 appealed it because, again, I think us not appealing it and just closing down would have just meant the business closes because the valet 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 through licensing process, it does take sometimes months to get a license. When you let it lapse, it's not just make a payment. You've got to show new paperwork. And it takes time. But they did it. We were constantly offering support and urging them on. But I think we're in a much better place now. And that's why I think we've done everything that we could do. And again, it's worth my time.

Is there anyone in chambers to speak on this? No? Yes? Are you? Come on up.

Ray Breslin, president of Collins Park New York Association. And I just want to go on record to say we're very concerned about 23rd Street. It is arguably the busiest street in our neighborhood. 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 Anamar. 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. In front of the property that we're talking about, there's... 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 going to have that outside area that's all clean. blocked off and nice sofas and everything else that was going to be open during the day or early evening and offer something to the neighborhood that's never happened you know they want to 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 going to get out of that so i think you have to look at all of that when you're doing this and i appreciate her 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?

Well, the question is it was requested of staff to have police discuss the issues.

So sorry to interrupt. I missed someone. We do have one person on Zoom.

Okay.

Sorry, Mr. Marks. We have Brewster Knott.

Brewster, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

You there? Hello. Yes, I do.

Can you hear me now?

Thank you. First.

All right. Sorry. Again, my name is Brewster Nod. I represent the Anamara Collins Park with the Miami City Ballet School. as dormitory dwelling and workforce housing for the city of Miami Beach. Aside from all of the discussion about valet, I brought this up last month on this call. Our concerns and my concerns as a property manager for the developer side and everyone involved is the safety of residents, safety of students, and the activity that's going on at that nightclub. It's been said multiple times that 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 a.m. and 5 a.m. when that club shuts down, there are people all over the streets. They are crossing the sidewalks. They are partying in the middle of the streets. 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 than what they would normally do because of 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 that the police department attend today's meeting. We have not. We reached out to them again today. We have not heard back from them for a while. So I don't know if we are going to have any updated information. But the previous discussion included the calls for service. Numerous calls. Correct.

Noise.

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. And, right, it could be, you know, that they assign an address, but it's happening outside the nightclub and, you know, It appeared that there were several of the police citations that were during the hours of operation of the nightclub.

But what Mr. Knott has mentioned, it seems that there's noise violation happening where the noise seems to be excessive. Do we have any record?

I don't have any recent noise violations or noise warnings. I don't believe code has cited or given a warning for any noise violations within the past several months.

And if it's okay, Mr. Chair, I can speak to that as well. So again, I'm happy to reach out to Mr. Knott. I can try and find his contact information and work with him. you know I mean first of all code is there every night that they're open I mean that's evidenced by 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 is very active and they have a very good code enforcement department if there are complaints they get there pretty quickly in the issue these violations can I there are those code director sir are you knowledgeable on the last two months of code being

You've been checking on valet that you could check on them at midnight. What activity has code had proactively to look at that place between 2 and 5 AM? Any?

Yes, proactively, absolutely. We are out there. We're not out there the entire time.

No, but between 2 and 5.

Between 2 and 5, we have randomly gone out proactively. In the last several months. Correct, since May. Since May. Since May. And we have received noise complaints. When we have received the noise complaints, it depends if it's on a Wednesday. We don't have officers working until 5 a.m., so we would get the complaints after the fact. And that's not something that we're able to issue a notice for because our officers need to observe it firsthand. Now, when it's been on any other days that our officers are working, we are very quick to issue a notice for excessive noise. However, in the last two months, we have not issued a notice of violation, so we have not physically observed firsthand any noise violations.

Do you know how many calls for noise you've had in the last?

I don't have that exact number on me now, but a guesstimate, a fair guesstimate, I would say between five, five, five, maybe five to seven, perhaps in the last two months.

As far as the court usage, can you both clarify whether or not that's what Mr. Knott said?

Is it being used illegally? Is that correct? From my perspective, again, as Edgar said, they're there pretty regularly. There's one night a week because of the shift. They can't be there at certain hours, but they're pretty much there a lot. You can see proactive investigation on the intergov. They're there pretty regularly. If that courtyard is 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. MAYBE THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, STAGING THAT GOES ON. 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, BUT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE USING IT AS PART OF THE NIGHTCLUB, THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING IN SPEAKING TO MY CLIENT AND THE EVIDENCE FROM THE VIOLATION SHOWS THAT'S JUST NOT HAPPENING. But again, if there's something that's impacting him and his residents, I'd love to talk to him and understand. And I want to point something else out, as has been said. And again, I know Ray Breslin for years, and I'm happy to speak to him and maybe address some of his concerns about the neighborhood. But as mentioned, a lot of these properties are vacant. We just happen to be one of the only open places in that area. So if something happens a block away, the address you put, because I've seen this many times, is the address of Breslin. 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, vagrancies 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. But I think to say that it's all related to this venue is not fair because it's an area that's just underlit and underactive.

So I think there's a couple things. Just so we move things along here. So I think we've addressed the valet issue. I think that's resolved. And so based on what they're here for today, that's a section that we could probably move. We do have a lot of issues, and I just would call on to, like, Ray and Mr. Knott, we've got to make sure that you guys call in, and I know it's not on you guys to do this, but I think we are all wanting the neighborhood to be representative of the city, especially when you have an institution like the city ballet school across the street. I think that bringing 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 there are some issues and that we've got to make sure that the residents call in some complaints if there's violations of noise so that we have something to base ourselves on to make a decision in the next hearing. Make the motion.

I have more questions. I guess what is the number one? I'm looking at the CUP. Is this the one that was originally issued for Mokai? And then transferred over to Baccarat?

Correct.

Okay. I mean, I don't see anywhere in there that they can't use the courtyards. There can't be entertainment out there.

They did come back for a modification, I believe, too. There was a previous revocation modification hearing. where the planning board did remove that courtyard, that outdoor area from the venue.

The courtyard is outdoors. Correct. It says no outdoors. Correct. Item right there on item six.

Correct.

So they wanted to use that. No, I'm sorry, but it says no outdoor entertainment shall be permitted. 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 use of it, even as just an outdoor cafe, was removed.

Yeah.

As part of their CPN.

I guess. 21, I believe.

So currently, if they are using it, even if it's just for, you know, quiet, passive service 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 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, XYZ, then code is not looking, you know, they're looking at the CUP, and if it doesn't say that, they're not going to issue a citation, even though technically, as, you know, the planning department's intent and some of the lawyers involved said, you know, the intent of this isn't, you know, is so that it's not going to, there's no noise out there or it's not going to be used because it was supposed to be a cafe and that's stricken. Code doesn't see that, and they're not going to 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?

My understanding, and I've raised this to them in reference to the one violation they received back in November.

I'm sorry, what? Your mic wasn't on. Oh, I'm sorry.

They turned it on. Okay. It's on. It was that it's just not being used. Again, to your point, are some people using it, like, as an outdoors, like, if, like, like the sidewalk when they're.

Are they pulling, are there cars, like, are there cars back there? Like, it can't.

There's no service there. There's no entertainment. 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 we all do continue. How do you get to it? Is the only way through the venue? You can get to it through the venue, and there's an opening outside as well.

I guess the question is, you know, how, number one, I do think it's concerning about the noise that pours out. You know, we've had that issue 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 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 a Obviously there's no company like formal violation of that other than that one. I think in October but I mean, there's a problem here, and it's not going to get fixed until it gets fixed. So tell me about the pyrotechnic thing.

So let me just, I will answer this question first so I can get my train of thought. So again, when there are violations, we figure out, we reach 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 going to reach out to the gentleman, and if it means that We explain 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 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.

Well, I think unless we want to change the cop, which I wouldn't mind, we should make them lock that area up.

If they can't fix it themselves and handle the issue... Of course they can fix it themselves.

We're just hearing about the issue, so we're happy to address it. There are no violations that... I wasn't prepared to address it in a 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. Well, I'm saying it may be something for staging, but look, yeah, absolutely. That's the goal. We want to solve this. They don't use it. They're not making money in that area. They're not selling drinks in that area. So if there's an issue that we're hearing about, we want to fix the issue. The pyrotechnics thing, that's something you've seen with a lot of the, there was one of these VIP birthday party things. Somebody brought those sparklers. Their employees are trained not to do that. Somebody did it. It was a one-time thing. And by the way, that occurred prior to us being here last time. It was something that, and I said, listen, you guys are on second strike, nothing. And the employee was addressed. It's something that happens far too often, and it's a fire issue, and they recognize the concern. But 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 out of left field, and it really disrupted everything, and we got it solved, and we helped it.

To me, the most troubling of all of them is the pyrotechnic issue because it's a safety concern. It's a really big safety concern. You've got a packed, tight club. We've seen what's happened at other clubs. You've got an old building. That's 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 where this is heading, and they figure, let's go out.

In my understanding, just to go with what, because I think this board was very, very much correct, 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 I think...

It's still on their Instagram that... He's been moved back. Well, I know, but his name is still on their main profile on the clouds list.

I can tell you that there was a vote. You can also see on Instagram where this individual was, you know, publicly upset that he was removed. But he's no longer a part of the club.

Yeah. 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 so, I would hold it over till, you know, the January planning board meeting. I'd second that. Give some time. Seems to be a long period of time.

Any violation will bring us back?

Yeah.

Any CP violation?

All right, so after we do that, move it to January. But if a complaint comes in, we could reschedule it sooner?

Yes, if we're alerted to any type of violation, we will bring it back sooner. And I'm also happy to bring it back. Hopefully, you know, they'll stay out of trouble and we'll bring it back in January.

Is there anything else that could be? I mean, I think if we come back, I mean, we're definitely going to want to hear from the police department.

And we will make that request again. Yeah, it's strange, yeah. The one question I had is because this, you've discussed the courtyard area, we could clarify that condition today. Because I think the condition is everyone, you know, the applicant's understanding that that area cannot be used by patrons of the establishment. And that's, you know, when I read the CUP, that's my understanding. But maybe if you wanted to clarify that in the order, we could 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 5 a.m. and most of their activity probably starts at 2, I think that's imperative that that ends and that it I'd like to put a motion that that's part of the CUP. I have a critical just because and I think we can certainly explore that but I'm not exploring I'm making a motion to modify the CUP to require the owner to secure that location and

and that it is no one, including employees, go out there. My concern, just to your motion, if I may, I think that's 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 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. I think it would create more problems.

What's that?

they can't close i think it's a required fire exit and and also it's one of the main entrances people don't congregate there there's no service there but it is a required access point and it's yeah the main entrance it's it's yeah 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 To get in and out, you need that open.

The gathering is the thing, too, just having people hanging out gathering just like on the sidewalk.

And I'm going to make sure that that's an important point made to them about congregation, but to lock it, I just don't think that's possible and would create way more issues as far as ingress and egress, and the main entrance would be now unaccessible.

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 used, the alarm goes off.

Think it's It's the main entrance. It's how both people get in and out.

I just think they go through the card yet to get into the but yeah Right right if you're gonna address the board we need you on them.

Yeah, please Thank you.

Yeah, obviously none of you've actually been to this property, but it's it's got a hedge all the way around and least five feet taller 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 is a double door entrance The only other entrance there is a VIP entrance off the parking lot in the back. All the way along 23rd Street, there is no entrance. And that was my complaint, is they don't keep that area clean. It's filthy.

All right. And so in light of the noise issues that we're having and the fact that we want to keep that area clear to no gathering, is there a way of wording it to make sure that there is no gathering happening there?

Certainly, you could require that the use of that courtyard only be for egress and ingress, and that there shall be no congregation of patrons within the courtyard area. There would be people there.

There would be a violation, and code compliance could be fining them. All right. Okay.

I'd make that motion. All right. So we have a motion that that area is restricted to ingress and egress. All right. No.

Or it's a coding egress.

You said ingress and egress.

It's only egress.

It's the main entrance. You have to go through there to the main entrance.

Well, I guess here's what I think that he's saying is that, well, number one, patrons have to queue inside of the property and no queuing shall occur on the sidewalk or any public right of way. 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 circumventing. So there's a lot of people gathering out there causing noise waiting to get in to the club. And that's problematic because that's causing noise for the neighborhood. And that's never, I mean, obviously, you don't want people out on the street for various reasons clogging up the sidewalk, but it's also so you don't bother the next door neighbor's I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN THIS, YOU KNOW, ALL THE TIME. I MEAN, THERE'S PROBLEMS. SO THAT IS WHAT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO FIX, BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE TO ENTER THE PROPERTY, THEN THEY CAN'T ALLOW QUEUING. I MEAN, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW HUGE LINES, OUTDOOR GALLERIES? I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK IT'S LIKE MOST OTHER PLACES, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PLACE INSIDE. A QUEUE 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 no queuing in the card yards because it could happen at 4 or 5 in the morning. And that if they have an overflow, it has to be adjudicated on the inside. That they check people, and if they're good to go in, they go in. If not, they don't hold them in that area. Otherwise, it's going to cause issues with the neighbors. That works. You can word it how you want. Can we get a second?

I need a second on that motion. Any seconds?

I'll second it. Okay.

All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed to that? Okay, now the second motion was by Jonathan. Move it to January, but with the exception that if there are complaints that come in in the interim, that we can schedule it sooner. Correct? Yes. Correct. Okay. All right. Can I get a second on that motion?

I'll second that one, too.

Okay. All in favor of that? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Unanimous. All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you all. James, are you ready? Okay. We're going to go back to... the other revocation modification hearing planning board file 210442743 Washington Avenue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick introduction. So this CUP is also, you know, quite old. It was originally approved in 2008. It was last modified in 2024. And we sent a cure letter in 2017. in April of this year due to violations associated with failure to notify the police department of the, you know, events or promoted activity at the nightclub. There were several of those violations issued. Since that time, let's see, the last violation we have on record was issued, let's see, I December 27, 2025. Since that time, they have not received any additional violations, and all fees have been paid. So when we wrote the report, they still had, I believe it was $11,000 in outstanding fees that has been paid. So we just want to thank the applicant for that. And we are recommending, however, that we continue this just to ensure that there are no future violations. So we're recommending a continuance to the September meeting.

James, hope your appointment went well.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, honorable board members. Thank you for letting me make it to my medical appointment. James Rao, Greensfield Martyr, office at 600 Brickell Avenue, here on behalf of the operator under this file. Our firm was just recently engaged, so we're requesting the same continuance the staff is recommending to September. As the staff indicated, there's no violations. There are no fines due in Owing, and so we're just asking it be continued, and we'll address anything that comes up in September, which we don't anticipate.

Anybody in chambers to speak on this item? Anyone on Zoom? Okay. Any questions? So we want to move it to September? Yeah, I'll move. Okay. Keith, can I get a second? I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. All right. We'll see in September. Thank you very much Okay on the previously continued application as planning work file I guess companion 2608 one five and oh eight one six 1775 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 seas enrichment hotels. This hearing is step three in a six step process for FAR increases. Last month we had the initial meeting and 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 RM3 oceanfront lots within the architectural district that exceed 100,000 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 100,000 square feet were aggregated prior to November 14, 1998 and are eligible for a greater 3.0 FAR. The proposed .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 can be distributed. The requested code amendments do not alter existing height or density maximums, and any revised design for the project will require review by the Historic Preservation Board. Given the size of the property 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. Gonzales.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Board. My name's Alfredo Gonzales, office of 833 Southeast 2nd Avenue with Greenberg Park on behalf of the applicant NALA Rally LLC. With me today, I have from ownership, Genghis Hadid. We have other representatives from the project team as well as from Kobi Karp's office, Matt McHardt. Well, we were here last month and we didn't do a full presentation. We're gonna try to do a shorter presentation since you've seen. We've had, since our last meeting, we've had our community meeting as staff has said and gotten feedback and we'll continue to work on this project. Today's request is, strictly a 0.5 increase of FAR and But before I start the presentation, I know Mr. Hadid had come in for the hearing wanted to say a few words the Developer so I'm going to introduce him and then I'll get into the PowerPoint

Good morning. Thank you again for the time today. Appreciate everybody's focus on this very important project. As I introduced last time and reiterate today, there is nothing more important in our business right now than the Raleigh Hotel. Our team has continued to work tirelessly. We have, since our June 2nd meeting, I guess in the past month, We have spent 25% more than I had told you at that time. We had invested 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 at a rapid pace. We do continue to believe that our request is appropriate given the size and scale of the project. We're fully dedicated to the preservation of the property and the hotel in line with this request as previously presented. There is nothing more important to us than getting this project going and not wasting any more time. And we're not wasting any time. We appreciate your attention to this. We appreciate Alfredo's work on this and Kobi Karp's team. Everybody's working weekends, nights, holidays to get this project off the ground as fast as possible. And with that, I'm here to answer any questions, and I'm here 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'll skip fast through the presentation. I know you've seen parts of it. Obviously, this is a historic rally and historic images. This is going back to the work that was done The restoration then you know this now the capital is the fifth owner in over 14 years and one concern when The new ownership took over was the fact that the Raleigh hadn't been boarded up or protected in over nine years And as I said the last meeting by May 1st all that was completed.

So short it's been open, right? Has it been closed or open?

It's been closed. It was closed in 2017 after when Tommy Hilfiger through two hours ago

So it's been closed for almost 10 years? It's been closed for almost 10 years? Yes, sir.

So for about 14 years, there's been several ownerships to redesign the Raleigh. Back in 2017, Tommy Hilfiger Group acquired development rights 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 continued until this year with the current ownership hearing their own concerns and the concerns of staff and the city that this building was being unprotected and God forbid there was some kind of storm. So that's why what you see now. 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 we've been working with the city ever since. So they went immediately to get permits and address. So you'll see the facade. All the interior bracing and shoring that was done in the interior as well was completed. And they've cleaned up the pool. And then one thing that I know staff has been for years or over a decade looking to have removed was there was a penthouse addition in the 90s. And while it was under permit, it had never been actually removed. Now the building has been braced and protected. The current ownership has gone and removed it. And then this was a Dune crossover behind the Richmond Hotel that was in disrepair for years. And again, they got it done before May 1st, so not to interfere with hurricane season. And it's now back in the public eye. That was one of the 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 I want to give you context. What this project is asking for is a .5 FAR. And as staff and James and Debbie mentioned, it would really apply to only large-scale sites within this area. It's about a five-block area that several other sites already are grandfather I guess at a much higher far and Just to give you a scope. This is an overlay of the arm three district and the May Beach architectural district oceanfront sites So you'll see that there is ready for sites. You have this a tie. I understand size over a 6.0 far that was done before the the the I guess the 1996 Downs only one is it's a tie that yes 2101 is this tie that's number one and then you have the short club and And the short code is 1901? Yes, sir. Short code 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 Shelbourne site, sorry, not Shelbourne, Shore Club, ARC at 3.15 FAR, which is the 3.0 FAR plus a bonus of up to 1.5. So out of the only large-scale sites in this area, and I didn't include all the way in the southern tip, the Lowe's. The Lowe's is at 4.25 FAR. The Los Cholos Hotel is in the RM3. The Royal Palm, that is part of the complex, is in the MXC. So since it was a little confusing, I left it out. But again, only the few large-scale sites. This does not open the door to other sites. And outside of this bracket, anywhere else on oceanfront property in RM3, 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, increase. We're not asking to be treated the same as the other two large sale sites in that area, which are at 3.15, which would have meant about 152,000 square feet of additional FAR. We stuck it to the .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 Seas and the three hotels had over 300 hotel units. It's been entitled since 2020 at 84 residential units and 86 hotel units. With this FAR, the current ownership is looking at having at maximum 52 units and under 80 hotel rooms. So still a reduction from what was entitled.

I was going to ask you, so the added FAR is going to go where?

The added FAR, I'll talk to you about that. Part of it's going to go into the new tower. There's a proposal to, and right now we're still working on massings. Remember, this project, once the FAR is approved, we will be able to submit to the HBB IN ORDER TO APPLY THAT .5 AND SO HOPEFULLY SUCCESSFULLY GET THAT .5 ALLOCATED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. SO AT THAT POINT WE'LL HAVE DETAILED PLANS, WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IS WHAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE FAR IS TO HAVE SOME AMASSING, TO HAVE GENERAL IDEAS OF WHERE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO GIVE THIS BOARD THAT INDICATION. THAT'S WHAT THE IMAGES I HAVE AND I'LL SHOW YOU. will have.

And remind me, is this just going to be a hotel or is it a condo hotel?

It's going to be a combination. So it's still going to have a rosewood flag, as I told you before.

Can I chime in on that? Yeah. Just to put some context, this is a three-acre site. So this is a very significant property. It was previously three hotels that have all been combined into one property, the Raleigh, the Richmond, the South Seas. 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. It'll be a residences. There'll be landscape gardens. But each three of the three buildings will remain. Absolutely. Absolutely. We're keeping the integrity of what the HPB has has requested. And our intention is preservation. Right. I mean, the goal is to keep the the soul of this property. It is not to demolish anything.

That's right. But all three that were one separate hotels will all be now run by one.

Correct. Well, there'll be one flag, but they will remain independent buildings. They will not be building will have condos and hotels. No, the condos will be a separate separate building on the site because it's a three acre site. You have the space and it was previously.

I wonder if there's going to be a separate condo. Towers, that's right. That's from the three existing buildings will remain hotel. That's correct. Got it. Okay.

Thanks The of the picture you showed which one I'm going though, okay, you're going I'll wait no, no, I'm happy So just wanted to be clear that with this point five of our it's not also Requesting any type of height increase We're operating under the existing zoning on Iron 3, which permits up to 200 feet for sites, and 200 feet is typically found in a lot of oceanfront sites within the historic district, and more and more historic districts along the oceanfront. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE OWNER HAD PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS TO IMPROVE 18TH STREET OVER A MILLION-DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION. OBVIOUSLY WE WERE RESTORING THE THREE L. MURRAY-DICKSON BUILDINGS TO THE ORIGINAL 1940s facades because they had been altered in the 50s, especially the Richmond and South Seas, obviously added security in addition to the security that is provided for the Raleigh site, and introduction of an arts and cultural program that works within the Raleigh site and also the public right-of-way in conjunction with the city of local artists. But these are some of the renderings of what, Building the historic structures are not our 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 Here's a street straight on you see the Richmond the South Seas and the Raleigh and to answer some of your questions you were talking about so there'll be activations in the lobbies and of the Richmond, the South Seas, obviously the main entrance is the Raleigh Hotel, will be flagged under the Rosewood, but the whole site will be controlled. There are basements, 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 permitted building. So just the two top floors is what potentially in some iteration would come back with that .5 FAR. 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. It's 200 feet. It is permitted under code at 200. So, I mean, obviously it has to go to the HVB to approve it, but we're not asking for any, there's no text amendment, a greater height. I KNOW THERE'S SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED AND REVIEWED THROUGHOUT PARTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT ALLOW DIFFERENT HEIGHTS. THIS IS 200, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AND I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE NUMEROUS SITES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, OCEANFRONT SITES. 200 HAS BEEN THE STANDARD SINCE THE 90s.

BASED ON PRELIMINARY MASSING, HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU HAVE IN THERE?

ABOUT 52. That's just the street front view. At this point, what I'd like to do is just reserve to rebut. I know there's going to be a lot of discussions, and maybe I'll rebut, and then I can answer any questions that the Board may have.

Let me open the public hearing, and then we'll go from there. All right.

Anyone in chambers to speak on this? Are there any ex parte disclosures before we hear from the public? None.

Do we need disclosures on that code?

Oh, this. Yeah, actually, it's legislative, so we don't need to.

Yes, ma'am.

And I know you know this, but just introduce yourself and your affiliation. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Amanda Corrick-Hand with AQH Law Offices at 1395 Brick Lab, New Suite 800. I'm here on behalf of the Shelbourne Hotel. It's a budding property owner. My client is here, Mitchell Cohen. He's going to also speak on the record from a more personal basis. But from a legal perspective, I'd like to point out a couple of facts, because the board picked up on it right away. I think somebody said that the tower looks huge. The first page in the materials that I passed out, and I have given one to Mr. Gonzalez, is an aerial of what the site looks like as of the current Google aerial. It shows a relatively blank slate. Where we put the FAR is important, but it's flexible because this is a three-acre site. You have the Raleigh Hotel still standing, you have the pool, and then you have the facades of the two smaller hotels. So there is a lot of flexibility as to where you put the FAR. And on behalf of my client, 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. You can also see the height context from around 15th to 20th. That would be the tallest building. If you're looking at the rest of the buildings, they're all about one.

It's permitted though, correct?

There is a code provision that allows 200 feet, but that does not mean that it has to be. 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. I think at the last planning board hearing, he said, well, if we approve a building that was 200 feet, it would 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 a 175-foot building. That is not opposed. That was part of a resolution of previous debates between the Shelbourne Hotel and the Raleigh. So what we're asking for today... is for the board to add a condition onto the legislation. This is a proposed LDR, and the board has the ability to make 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 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, height greater than any of the abutting properties. As Ms. Hackett pointed out at the previous planning board meeting.

What do you consider the abutting properties?

The Shelbourne and the property to the south.

How high is the Shelbourne?

It's 150 with a 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've got Shore Club at 225, Ritz at over 200, Satay at close to 400, W at 230. 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 204. You're looking at the rest of the buildings. They're in the 150 range with little mechanical towers or something like that. There's nothing that's 200 feet in that range.

Just so you know, we can't modify it. What we can do is make recommendations. Yes, your recommendation could be... Just letting you know, 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 proposed legislation be modified such that the maximum height of any new construction would not be higher than the abutting properties. I think that would keep the height in context. It will also be a way for the developer to get the additional FAR that they want for their pro forma. There is no objection to the additional FAR. It is where the FAR is placed.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers? Sir?

Good morning, everybody, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. Shelburne Hotel, 1801 Collins Avenue. 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. Developing 101, you check out the property, you know what it's going to 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 my council 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, it's not right. 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, counsel 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 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 sun, shadow, the HBB went to great lengths to make this building 175 and fit in as best as it could. And this application unwinds 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 guidelines, on good justification, not somebody who discovered that the numbers just don't add up. I respectfully 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 your additional time. Thank you. Anybody else, ma'am?

Good morning, planning board members. My name is Meg Lustow. 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 and 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 RM3 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 oceanfront 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 oceanfront setting that makes this part of Miami Beach so special. We note that the two proposed additional stories atop 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 this 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. Go ahead. 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 will 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 Southeast 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.

One question. I know you're reading a script, and I appreciate that. But if you take away the hype for a minute, what is the concern about additional FAR? I know you said that after careful consideration, but what are the concerns? Do you know? Are you prepared to answer that?

Well, it's a large site. There's plenty of room on the site right now, and this is a condition.

But is the height the primary concern, or you just don't want any of this?

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 a tremendous increase in economic value for the property.

Okay, all right. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers, right?

Hi, I'm here to 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 the current zoning is for 200 feet, the commission can say, we want to change our mind. But that is what they currently have. And that is what was approved for the Ritz Carlton. 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 height. Thank you.

Anybody else in chambers? Anybody on Zoom? I'm afraid to 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? It's the evolution of that request of the request of to increase to 200 feet or was it always If I understood the original application you all made was 475.

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 and HPB is who decides or votes on whether or not the 200 foot is approved. So Shore Club got approved at 200 feet. 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, I mean, under the current ownership, the only request that's before you and the only request we've made at this point is a .5 increase of FAR. We're not asking for... Okay, yeah, because there was... No density?

There's no additional density request? No, let me talk. There were some representations that it was for 175 feet, and my understanding is that you're asking for additional. In fact, since the day your client has purchased this property, it's always been the expectation of 200 feet because that's what's allowed. I'm just trying to understand.

Yeah, and I could go through some of it, because there was a lot of things said, and I want to clarify some misstatements and just... Okay, go ahead. I think it would help. And then I'm happy to answer any questions. So this building and project is in the RM3 area. district where it allows up to 200 feet. That is what's in the resiliency code today. So we could go and file an application to modify the existing building, make changes, and go... Is Satai in the same district?

Huh? Is the Satai in the same district?

Yes, but that's pre-1996. No, no, I get it. I get it.

So back then, so the commission has lowered, obviously, the high restrictions.

In the 90s, there was a Save Miami Beach movement, 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 in the 90s. It was reduced, and the city made an evaluation decision at that time that the maximum height, standard maximum height, on oceanfront lots in the RM3, which is our most dense area, would be 200 feet. And that's what you find from the entire RM3 district. Within the architectural vision, some tweaks and changes, 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, 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 want it clear. Everything has to go through a hearing process.

And so, yes, sir. I'm trying to understand. The ordinances that we're being asked to recommend, they don't address the height because the height's already in the code. Correct.

Okay. It only addresses a .5, approximately 66,000 square feet of F.A.R.

It's not even before us then.

That's what's before you today. And what I wanted to make clear, because 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 because that's the venue where the city has determined these type of projects, any project once it's been developed, has to go through HPB or DRB depending on the zoning that this is HPB.

Right, but could HPB, if the commission leaves... Under the existing ordinances, okay, where you're allowed 200 feet, can HPB even reject the 200 feet? I know they can address other issues.

I can speak to that, Mr. Chair. The HPB, 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 increase even though the existing ordinance allows the 200 feet Yeah, they could they could do that on the basis of their review criteria Okay, Brian, can I jump in sure I can I sat on the HPD and we did have a number of meetings and

The concern was, at least my concern, and I think the concern of the board was, was the proposed tower is probably further east than any of the other adjoining buildings, or far east. That was the concern at the time, and it was thought that it would sort of overwhelm the beach walk and the beach. And even though the height was, the approved, the allowable height was 200 feet, what we decided was, or what the board came up with was, 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 set back a little bit So there's a little bit of a step That was the concern and that's why it wasn't approved at 200 feet back then Honestly, you know that I sat on the board then that's still a concern for me and I know what you're proposing is 200 feet and probably getting rid of that step back. Personally, I can't see myself going back on that. I'm not opposed to a .5 FAR increase. It's that height and it's the location of that tower that I have a concern with. I'm looking at the package that where they this that was handed out with the site And it is rather large site and it there does seem to be some room on there. It's maybe Move the tower push it back a little bit or do something Quite honestly again. I'm not on the HPB now, and I couldn't really answer this question Definitively unless I saw a plan, but if that tower was pushed quite a bit back from the beach I you know, I'd be okay with the 200 feet there. It's located now So close to the beach the beach walk It just it would go against everything that we talked about years ago over the course of many meetings on the planning board and

Hold on. I'm sorry. On the HPV. Give me one second. Before we get into questions. One second.

Nick and Debbie. So I want to understand. I mean, they're concerned about height. But if this ordinance that's before us doesn't address height, I just don't understand what our even ability is. It doesn't provide for height in this ordinance. We can make a recommendation separately. But that's to go back on what the existing ordinance are, have nothing to do with this ordinance.

But you could condition your recommendation on this change. Because what you're looking at is, you're right, this change before you does not include a modification to the height. It's only FAR. But you could recommend that for a project that Seeks to avail itself of the additional if they are that the height has to be reduced You could you could recommend that as a condition of the far increase All right.

I just want to make sure I understood what our power is go ahead before you open up the questions I'd really like to do a rebuttal I want to I want the board to understand and be clear on a lot of things you heard some of which are inaccurate so Just so you understand, and it's true, the HPB 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 this board and ultimately the commission grants it. We'll have to go back to historic preservation, and they'll have to evaluate. When they evaluated back in 2020 and 2019, they did. We had a lot of discussions of where the tower should be located. Actually, this tower, part of the requirement is it's set back 100 feet from the property line, which is a greater setback than what would have been required had that not been done. So the building was moved back further from the ocean. There was a competing challenge because HVB had extensive conversations, not only on some people who were concerned about the shadows on the beach, which is 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 a 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 200 feet is appropriate, is it 185, whatever that, you know, is it a fatter building, thinner building, all those things will be taken into account at HBB. But I also wanted to...

So, Scott, what's your view on that? I mean, should we be usurping the HPB's role? Because, see, for me, the tough part is that, yeah, if you look at the immediate vicinity, it looks out of context. But if you take that whole district, it's not. And yet, HPB will...

I agree with that. And, yeah, I mean, you heard from the city attorney. We can recommend. You know, it's in our purview to recommend. Right. But, yeah, I'm saying, look, like I mentioned before, I sat on the HPB back then, and I did go through all these meetings. You said usurping their authority. It would be like usurping what I did before and what the board did before. So that's why I just feel that... You know, I couldn't, again, I don't have an issue with the FAR increase. Right.

It's just that other than one objection, it seems like nobody has a problem with the FAR.

Yeah, that's the only concern I have with the project. And I just don't want to go back on what we did before.

And I respect that.

And again, we're just a recommendation. Yeah, yeah, I get it. I have one question for the architect.

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. 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, 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. The length of the shadow would be reduced. It may only go to the end of 18th Street to the north, but it would much bigger.

That was discussed years ago.

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. But you know, I don't remember if that was ever, maybe they at the time They considered it, but I mean I know I said I remember suggesting that instead of going so high just make it a little wider north-south 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 at

with the setbacks on the south, so you kind of have this natural setback to the north, which is the sight line of the Raleigh. You want to maintain and preserve that. So there are ways to make it wider if we push into that sight line.

Yeah, I mean, again, I'm looking at this that was handed out, and it does seem like it's almost a blank slate.

But that... That exhibit has a lot of inaccuracies, 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 a fatter tower, a 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 were concerned about impacts on the Richmond South Seas and Raleigh historic building and 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. it will be fully vetted at the Historic Preservation Board that ultimately approved the 2019 and 2020 HB order that this is running under. So, but I wanted to be really quick and clarify a couple of things. So it is a blank, it's not a blank state. There's a building permit there today of a 175 foot tower. And the, oh, I already talked about the second page. There were statements made about how the Shelbourne'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 erased the tall heights. So you lost the reference to 171 feet at the Shelbourne, the 150 at the SLS, the 185 at 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 feet. 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. No one's entitled to have 100% non-shadow. Actually, some of the shadow is caused by their own building. and their own site conditions that they've created. So I wanted to be clear, this makes it seem like if you put a 200 foot tower, it's gonna also create a new condition. That's not accurate. Yes, we do have an impact of shadows, slightly increased impact from 175 to 200 in January. But again, this is a masking study that we started with. And for HPV, 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. But I did also want to refer that the historic Raleigh pool, yes, and it's an accurate statement, it was made at HPB, it was shown that prior to this project even getting underway and the demo permits that were issued after 2020, The Raleigh since the 40s, the 50s, when there was additions done by the Richmond, had an eight-story towers five feet from the property line and 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 for a good part of the day. So with the tower placement, considering where you place the tower, the board looked extensively, the openness between the tower and the historic buildings, you ended up creating, and our shadow studies showed it in HPB, 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, was getting more sun and light and air with this project than leaving the existing conditions. I did, you know, so at the end of the day, I also wanted to make one comment that we're not using the majority, the vast majority as it's quoted in a letter you received. on those 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 where the FAR, so it's inaccurate to say that 44,000, we can't. Our footprint, largest case, is 15,000. So that suggests that we're putting two floors at 22,000 square feet. doesn't meet the code. And we're not asking for a tax amendment to do that, to make our building taller and wider. I also wanted to, I know there was a lot of statements made about my client on his acquisition. He did want to make a quick rebuttal statement on things that were made on his decisions to acquire the property and move forward.

Let me add one more quick, Dick, I want to make sure again, I'm sorry about procedure. I want to 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. Is that an accurate statement? Yes. Okay. All right. Because my view, I mean, this is just me, that we let HPB decide if that's appropriate or not. Go ahead.

No, I just appreciate the commentary today and the consideration. You know, I just want to reiterate, right? I've had the fortune and opportunity to develop in cities like Miami Beach that are very preservation conscious. And that's why when we approach projects, we don't approach them with requests that would be viewed quite controversially. 300 feet and for 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 going to 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, 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 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 square footage being requested is significant in the scale of the site. It's a three acre site. So 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 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 going to 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, And and and allow us to continue to move this forward so that this project can can get going.

Thank you All right, I just want to thank you. All right, so I know we gotta move on I know you said two more quick points number one you do have a list of support letters before you and Notably the first support letter is the Marseille the only abutting property to the Raleigh site is the Marseille They are supporting the FAR increase, and they supported the 200-foot building when it was proposed in 2020. And if ultimately HPV approves, they're supportive of HPV supporting a 220-foot building again if we propose that to HPV. So that letter is there. And I also wanted to make it clear, this amendment would... proposed by the Shelburne's Council would mean that we would have to lose 50 feet of the permanent building to take the FAR because it clearly says abutting oceanfront lots. Well abutting oceanfront lot and abutting properties have to under the city definition have to be abutting. Abutting 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 Marseille 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. And again, I really think that the appropriate venue to debate and to see what makes sense, where should we locate the building and what the appropriate height, looking at all the factors, is going back to the Historic Preservation Board and let them have the detailed plans and staff have the detailed plans and make an evaluation. And ultimately, that board will decide how to use it. And with that, I...

Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Besides you, one second. Anybody else in here to speak on this? All right. I'm going to give you the last minute, and then we're going to close the public hearing.

Just only to speak on the comments about the requested amendment. If the amendment language is problematic because of the interpretation of abutting properties, you can just make it 175. A BUILDING PERMIT FOR 175, WE DON'T OBJECT TO 175. WE DON'T OBJECT TO THE 2.5 FAR. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE 2.5 FAR, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO AGREE TO THE 175 HUD HEIGHT. IT'S AN ASK AND THEN A CONCESSION. SO THAT IS THE REQUEST.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. AGAIN, MY VIEW IS THAT I WOULD RATHER THE HPB ADDRESS THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY WELCOME TO YOUR COMMENTS.

It's a question of whether or not we want to make a recommendation towards the height.

Well, I mean, it depends on the recommendation. I would not be in favor of saying only recommending it favorably if you lower the height. I would rather say we recommend it favorably. Please take a look at whether you believe this is in context. Something a little more benign. 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 them... And that's their decision.

Right, I think HPV tends to be... Just in front of us is the FAR conversation.

Right, and HPV tends to be conservative in a lot of these issues, more than the planning board, so I think that our job today is to decide if we want to... That's my view, so... Right, right, so I can make a motion, if unless anyone wants to.

Go ahead, John. Just looking at fall. Yeah, I mean, I'm very troubled by the blockage of the Shelbourne's pool... You know, they put $100 million into it. They preserved all the historic elements of the pool. They, you know, the Morris Lapidus Diving Board. I mean, it's beautiful and it's well run. And 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 project's benefit to save the, perhaps to save the shadow, the shade in your pool. And so I have big problems with that. I don't think that's right. I don't think it's fair. And we're talking about giving you guys a public gift to help you guys make more money. And I don't see it as a benefit to the community to be taking, and the Shelbourne Hotel is part of the community. the nearby community, whether it's immediately adjacent or just across that small street. I think it's important to not do things to the detriment of the neighbors who did do everything the right way. They put in all this money. And I don't think that's right. And so I commend you all for coming in and saving the day. But I just think that there's got to be a way to protect the surrounding properties. I agree it looks to me too far east, the current building. So I'm not... totally unopposed to the 200 feet. I just think there needs to be more coming back to, we've seen this issue in the past, right? People buy these properties, these old antiquated buildings that are historic landmarks for us, Something happens, the financing falls through, the buildings sit in a really bad state for years, they crumble, and then 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've seen that all up Collins Avenue. And so there's a problem with that. And 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 going to be to the detriment of others in the surrounding area, I don't think it's necessarily right, unless the benefit to everybody around, you know... overshadows the detriment. Exceeds. Yeah, well, whatever. You wanted to use that one. I wanted to throw in the overshadow. These are my thoughts. I think it is a huge property, and so I think there's a way this can work. I just think 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'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 affect or impact obviously the beach shadowing but the neighborhood pool. I don't think the issue is with the building putting a shadow on the structure of the Shelbourne. That's fine. I think it's where a majority of their food concessions sold. I know they've got memberships. I mean, you know, who's going to buy a membership to the pool if it's covered for the prime time of the day? And so, you know, those are my thoughts. So I would, I don't know exactly how I, you know, because I hear what you're saying. You shouldn't really condition any of this on it. But I think I would move, you know, I guess it would be a separate discussion. you know, proposed amendment, I would make a motion to, you know, say that if it, you know, I guess here's the, the proposed amendment is really broad, right? So I don't think anybody's you know, posing a certain height if it's properly placed.

So would it be a proposed amendment or a recommendation?

It would have to be a recommendation. We can't propose it.

But just to be clear, you can recommend that the commission amend the ordinance. So that can be part of your recommendation.

That's what I'm going to say. So my, I guess, motion would be to separately recommend that they amend the ordinance to, you know, the maximum height of the existing structures on the abutting oceanfront lot. But I'm also not totally opposed to it being higher if it's, you know. Again, but shouldn't that let HPB decide that? Well, I think, well, but then here, I have a. They're going to see the project. I don't know what they're going to do. And we have an obligation to, you know, in terms of the planning,

I think we all know what the issues are. So someone make a motion.

I would make a motion to approve this with a favorable recommendation. Hold on.

We're still at this procedurally. We're starting with the first LDR amendment, right? We have to do them individually?

I would do the comp plan first.

Okay. So we're going to start with the comprehensive amendment, which is planning board 80816. Please make your motion.

I would make a motion to approve this with a favorable recommendation. Let's go from the 175 to the two.

If they are out second, okay, okay all in favor of that motion aye aye anyone opposed No, you're opposed. That's just on the Okay, just to just to be clear.

It's a 2.5 2.5. Sorry Yes, it's yeah extra 0.25.

All right, so it's sorry extra 0.5 5.5 going from That's just on this motion so that's a 5-1

Who was no Scott Scott, thank you All right now Let's go to the LDR amendment 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, I Can I get a second? I'll second. Okay. All in favor of that? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Scott. Okay. Same, 5-1. Okay. Now, if somebody wants to make a motion on a suggested request to the Commission, go ahead. Yes.

I'll make a motion that I guess if to recommend an amendment that if anybody is going to take advantage of the 2.5 FAR or the .5 FAR increase, the height of any new structure cannot exceed the maximum height of the I guess the next closest oceanfront lot. Well, what would that be? I would say, I mean, 175. We can just say 175. Yeah, I wouldn't do it.

Yeah, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. You're saying 175. All right. Do I have a second on that motion? I'll second that. Okay. I want to do a roll call on that one, please.

Okay. Mr. Marks?

No.

Mr. Frieden? Yes. Ms. Beattie? No. Mr. Needleman? No.

Yes.

Mr. Cement?

No.

Mr. Elias?

No, only because I want the HPB to decide that. Yes. Agreed. All right. I agree with that. So that fails. Yeah. I guess we're going to move on then. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Is it possible to send it in the referral to the HPV and whenever they get it to have the 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 wasn't the consensus of the body. I'm just asking if that's something that we could pass a like a note to you know, like as part of the I think that it given the planning boards role in planning and policymaking I think that if you were going to make a recommendation it should be that it be part of the of the regulation itself.

But to you all, you know, because I appreciate all your concerns, but obviously you're going to participate in the HPB hearing, and 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 HPB.

Yes.

All right, next is Previously Continued Application Files, PP 260838, One Ocean Drive Session Agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to give a brief introduction and then turn it over to Ozzie Dominguez, who is our Director of Asset Management, who's really been working on this particular agreement. So, as noted in the report, it was in 2023 that the Mayor and City Commission adopted a resolution approving a concession agreement with the Boucher Brother for the Pier Park site. Since that time, there were disputes. The City was involved in a dispute, and there were the existing occupant of the site, and the Boucher brothers were involved in a dispute, that settlement agreement has been approved, which is really why this concession agreement is coming back to you. That settlement agreement included an initial 10-year term and extension terms. That period of time triggers planning board review. So any concession agreement or lease agreement that is 10 years or more does require the review of the planning board.

So that's why it's here before you. The settlement, if I read it correctly, so they're going to keep it under current management until August 27, is that correct?

That is correct. That is correct. Okay, sorry. Sorry, Deb. No problem. Staff has reviewed the terms, and we are supportive of this agreement. Again, they would have a... a 10-year period with an extension of five years and then an additional extension that would be possible of three years. They are committed to making a significant financial investment in the site, $50 million, and the plan has already been reviewed by the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board had comments, so it hasn't been approved yet, but it will be going back. Believe this month to the design review board So with that I can turn it over to the real experts in the room on the terms But planning staff is supportive and we're recommending That the Planning Board issue a favorable recommendation and mr.

Chair before you turn it over I just want to point out that nothing about the program of the uses is has changed. The planning board, you may recall, held a hearing on the approval of the use, since this is GU property, and the planning board transmitted a favorable recommendation. Nothing about the program of the use as proposed has changed.

Thank you. Yeah, I just would like to also include, because there was some concern that SOFNA had in our meeting before last or the last meeting we had a attorney representing Boucher up just informing our community that there might be a settlement. There might be a settlement, but he gave actually no other than informing people that there could be a possible 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 I had 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 a Resolution and support for against the settlement. It's not in our lane 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 in planning so thank you no conflict thanks mr terry if i can just say my name is aaron tandy

I am the general counsel for Boucher Brothers. I was the person that Mr. Marks was mentioning. I was the attorney who went to SOFNA, just so the record is clear.

Just so I'm clear, so Neeson is outside counsel. You're actually their general counsel in-house?

I'm general counsel in-house, and I've been asked to appear here today by Nick and Ozzy as a sort of subject matter expert. I've registered, but I'm a subject matter expert in case you have some questions about the concession agreement that Ozzie would feel more comfortable I answered about our intentions or the terms.

Good morning, Ozzie Dominguez, Division Director ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. PLEASURE SEEING EVERYBODY HERE THIS MORNING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO AARON SO THAT HE CAN GIVE YOU A QUICK REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT. I don't know.

Anybody have questions? Go ahead.

If there's no questions, I'm going to do what judges usually say. I'm going to just be silent.

Yeah, be quiet. Yeah, I mean, unless... Any comments? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Anyone here to speak on this? Anybody on Zoom? See, I knew that.

I'm proud of you. Someone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve with a favorable recommendation.

I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? Anyone oppose? Okay, 6-0. Easiest job you ever had.

Yes, indeed. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Debbie, thank you very much for the introduction. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, new applications. Planning Board File 260844, 1940 Park Avenue Lease Agreement. Did you all look that together?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. I think many of you know this is the site of the Barclay Plaza. It's a contributing building located within the Collins Park neighborhood in the Museum Historic District. So this property has had a very long history. Over 10 years ago, we started with RFQs. for the redevelopment of this site. It was previously owned by the Miami Beach Housing, what was it? The CDC.

The Community Development Corporation.

The Miami Beach CDC. They were involved in some difficulties and the city actually acquired the property.

over 10 years ago.

Since that time, we have issued, I believe, three different RFQs, RFPs, and none of those projects actually were able to move forward. So most recently, the city issued, it was in 2022, an RFP. We had one proposer, And we have that's the current project you see today so that the idea of the project is to construct a multifamily building this multifamily building will have a small percentage of units that will be dedicated for elderly workforce and a small percentage that will have up to a 160 AMI rents so the rest of the building will be will be market rent. There's total of 105 units in the building seven will be the elderly workforce and I believe 15 or 16 are proposed to be restricted to an AMI rent of 160 or less and They've also proposed a transient use restriction, so they are agreeing to a covenant that would, in perpetuity, prohibit any type of short-term rentals or transient use. They've also agreed, given the poor structural condition of the property, that if total demolition is required, which from my experience, my perspective, it may be that they will reconstruct The historic facades, both on Park Avenue and Washington Avenue. So we are generally supportive. They have agreed to a $2 million upfront rent payment, and then they've also agreed not to request any city subsidies for the facades. FOR THE PROJECT. THE INITIAL TERM IS FOR 51 YEARS PLUS TWO 24-YEAR EXTENSIONS. SO THIS DOES REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, A REVIEW AND A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD, AND ULTIMATELY IT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION. BUT I SEE STEVEN ANTHONY, OUR DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, IS HERE, AND I BELIEVE, STEVEN, ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW A PRESENTATION?

That presentation will be with the council for the development.

Okay, great. But with that, if you have any questions for staff, we're here and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Gentlemen? Well, Director Tackett, Stephen Anthony, again, Stephen Anthony, Economic Development Director for the City of Miami Beach. It's a pleasure to meet the board. I actually don't have any additional comments. Director Tackett did a fantastic job of going over the general terms of the ground lease. So, again, as administration and staff, we are certainly approval of the terms of the ground lease.

Believe this was a great opportunity to activate this parcel and really get it back into into use for for the community Good morning Alfredo Gonzalez on behalf of 940 1940 Barclay partners LLC and I think that director Tackett and director I have Really highlighted that we've been working together. The Commission approved the term sheets last year, and we're very close to having a final lease ready to go to the Commission, highlighted by all the points on the term sheet. So I'll have more of a presentation when we talk about the LDR amendments that we're seeking that would go in line with the ultimate lease that would be approved by the Commission. So happy to answer any particular questions.

Okay. Ray, are you speaking or this letter speaks for you? Are you commenting on this item? Yes. Okay, come on up. I just read it out.

Mr.

Chair since this project it will be coming before the HPB that yeah I'm just simply saying that the Collins Park Neighborhood Association is thrilled to finally have this property be Developed that's important Nick.

What are we gonna say?

Because it's coming for HPB what the so what's before the Planning Board today is a the review pursuant to the city charter of the proposed lease agreement, and the text 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 HPB.

Can I ask a curiosity? Be careful. Legal, actually. Aren't city leases over ten years required to have a public vote?

Yes, so that's current. So the charter was amended in November of 2024 to require a referendum prior to the sale or lease of 10 years or longer of any city property. This lease was awarded prior to the charter amendment. So the charter amendment has a carve out for any leases that were awarded prior. But good question.

anybody else in chambers speak on this anybody on zoom okay any other questions i want to move it question 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 rebuild the same facade do they get any additional height do they get anything else that Is a company with this?

We're going to talk about that in the next application, but they are 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 would, for the most part, be rebuilt to pretty similar spec?

I don't know if they've finalized the design yet, but, you know, they are looking to maximize the FAR and the allowable. I think they're actually a little bit lower than the allowable height, but I think that will be part of the next presentation. They probably have some visuals for the board to show what the initial project is masked out as.

I guess my only question would be is 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 existing structural systems of the building. But they're anticipating demolishing and reconstructing, which I think is a good anticipation to have because that's likely, from my experience, to be required. So the numbers are based on that assumption. it's it's based on the rebuilding assumption yes so that's how the rent payments were structured based on what they're 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 PROJECT KIND OF INSERTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.

SO DOES RENT GO UP IF THEY BUILD MORE? I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION. SO IT IS JUST THE SINGLE PAYMENT. SO IT'S THE SINGLE UP FRONT $2 MILLION PAYMENT. SO WOULD THEY HAVE TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT IN THE EVENT THAT THEY ULTIMATELY END UP BUILDING MORE? SO RIGHT NOW, AS IS, THAT'S THE STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN SET FORWARD AS THE CURRENT PLAN IS POSSIBLE.

Yeah, 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 could clarify on behalf of the applicant. All the negotiations have been taking place on the anticipation of most likely having to demolish the building and do replication and restore elements. I mean, this building has been set for demolition by an emergency that's been stayed over the years. We have not had we just recently got access to the site. We've been working with the city You can actually surveys are about to be done. So the architect who's here with me today will be able to kind of start having a real plan, but we anticipate 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 lease is negotiated then we're going to come back and say oh we want more units no we're up front that we want about 100 need about 105 units and the breakup between the different uses that the city 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 LDR and the COP plan amendment up for a vote and the final approval of the lease altogether. So the intent is for it to all be at the same time. And it's clear, we're looking for 105 units to be built. So it's... The next presentation won't be something that's not part of the discussions of the lease.

David, quick one question on that. And you mentioned, I guess, a covenant for no transient uses. Includes hotel use, I assume, and there's no chance that they would want to come back and ask for that?

So the current agreement requires no transient use, including no hotel units. If they were to want to amend that to include any type of short-term rentals, that would have to be brought back before this board as well as the city commission. And the city's commission's direction for this project was to increase our residential housing stock, long-term residentials.

All right. Someone want to move it? I'll move it. Favor? Yes. All right. Can I get a second?

I'll second it. Okay.

Thank you.

All in favor of this one? Aye. Anyone opposed? Nope. All right. 6-0. Thank you. All right, so I'm assuming, Alfreda, you're staying for this. Debra, are you going to present on that? Sure.

So this, the next application is the LDR amendment plus the companion comprehensive plan amendment. So that's Planning Board File 260833 and 260834. The comprehensive plan amendment is being requested because this particular application Number one is proposing to increase density. 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 bonus if the project meets certain restrictions in terms of a percentage of affordable or attainable housing. They are 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 are requesting an amendment to allow 400 square feet regardless of whether the unit is income restricted or not. They're asking to reduce the setbacks for their new construction. They're asking to eliminate the parking requirement, the vehicular parking requirement. They are still proposing to maintain the required bicycle parking. Additionally, they are proposing micro mobility infrastructure within the site. They are asking for an amendment to allow the Historic Preservation Board to waive the loading requirements. Currently, the Historic Preservation Board does have some ability to waive loading with an existing contributing building on the site. So they're just asking if they have to reconstruct the property to allow the board to also waive the loading zones. They're asking for some exemptions from the resiliency and adaptation standards. They're asking for a reduction of the minimum landscape standards. They have a yard encroachment with the driveway. So even though they're not providing Parking for the units on the site. They are providing Some parking for loading and drop off and pick up. So I think there's there's a maybe four parking spaces that they are Proposing which would need either a variance or a code amendment. So they're asking for an amendment that would allow driveways to encroach and into that required yard. Finally, they are asking for a zoning map designation change and also a future land use map change. When a property is purchased by a government, it automatically gets rezoned to a GU. However, the future land use map does not become automatically changed. So the applicant is just clarifying that this will be a GU zone site, which it is automatically since the city has owned it. But the future land use map as part of the comprehensive plan amendment is also being requested to change from currently RM2 to public facilities. And staff is very supportive of that request. And we're hopeful that some of these zoning amendments will make the project feasible because we really do need to get this particular property back to active use. It's been a real concern for preservationists, right? As someone who was on the preservation board as staff for a long time, it's always been a concern. This building in its current condition, but also It's become a real nuisance to to people who live in the neighborhood. We've had significant issues with break-ins There's been a lot of police activity on this site And I know you know the certain neighbors have reached out to me directly really Encouraging the city to try and move forward with the viable project so with that I can turn over to applicant, but I'm also here for any questions. You may have thank you

Good morning. Again, Alfredo Gonzalez on behalf of 1940 Orkley Partners LLC. I'm here today with Associate David Butter, also the architect on the project from Brooks, Scarpel, and Huber. Jeff Huber is here as well. These LDR amendments help bring this site into conformity. We've worked with staff on them. I'm gonna go through a quick presentation to get you a bearings on what we're asking for. Can we put the presentation up, please? SO JUST TO ORDINARY, EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, JUST IN CASE, THE BARCLAY IS LOCATED JUST OFF THE EAST OF THE CONVENTION CENTER AND PARK. IT'S ALMOST TO THE DIME. IT'S AN ODD-SHAPED LOT. AND YOU'LL SEE FROM THE IMAGES OF THE BUILDING THAT IT'S BEEN THIS WAY SINCE I GUESS FOR THE LAST ALMOST 12 YEARS. THE CITY ACQUIRED IT. THERE WERE FIRES AND ARSON. This building will likely have to come out, but there are part of the negotiations to restore and save whatever elements we could save off the building to be reused. And the comp plan amendments is going to be allowed for residential uses, because technically, as a government site, you can't have residential uses. So this is going to be a mixed-use project, as you heard before. so on the comp plan we'd like to it to be residential you know add residential uses and also the residential density because it is a government site it has an far greater than a 2.37 that's the far that the site has uh typically in the rm2 it's two or less so it it creates a disparity that now, 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 housing earnings, no more than 160 AMI. There's also an elderly component, which we don't have to make a tax amendment, that's part of this project as well. So in the land development amendment, We also are doing the residential density. We're requesting the minimum unit size to be 400 square feet to allow for more. We're not trying to do high-end luxury units. There's going to be this workforce market rate units that are more for providing a need in the area. At this board, at commission, at many boards, there's a discussion of trying to find affordable housing, even at full market rate. So we're also, setback encroachments, because we're trying to keep, you'll see that this is the site, and then trying to keep the format of how the Barclay used to be, and keeping the facades in the historic element, we're gonna need relief from some of the setbacks. And can I show you on the higher floors? 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 HPP for that review. Obviously, we can't include the parking without also replicate the facades because there'd be no way other than this driveway on the northern portion to enter or exit the property. We're asking for the frontage standards and the landscaping to get some relief because of the site. Again, ultimately all this will be approved by the Historic Preservation Board. And just so, and that's really at this point what we have because we don't have development drawings at this point. We just recently got access, worked out with the city. We've been working with, you know, we're partners with the city and we have access and our first step is getting surveys so I could provide the survey to our illustrious architect and then have design plans starting to be prepared. But I just wanted to point out that And I know it was pointed out previously, but we're looking to have about 105 units. Right now there's about 16 units would be restricted residential. Another seven will be about elderly housing. And that will bring the total set-asides in the building to over 22% of the overall building. I know the staff recommendation, we call for 10%, being a minimum of 10% to be this restricted residential. Staff is calling for amendment 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 we could do 10% and the city doesn't want us to do 10%. It's dictated in the lease terms. Now, I wanted to leave that flexibility there, so if as it goes along the way, sorry, gets to the City Commission, if there were some changes in 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 at 10 versus um moving to 15 even though i understand that ternary 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, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Can you comment on that, Debbie?

Sure. Yeah. I mean, the lease agreement, it does require a 15%. So to be consistent with that, we are recommending that the text amendment also have the 15%.

Right, so I understand. What's the argument about how it gives you more flexibility?

Yeah, I don't, well, you know, I think what the attorney is saying is that if we wanted to reduce the units that are restricted to 160 AMI and increase the number of actual affordable units, by the legal definition of affordable units, then that might throw off the percentage of the regular income restricted versus the actual affordable. From staff's perspective, we want as much attainable housing and affordable housing as possible. Increase the number of elderly housing in retain the number of the the 15% number so from from our perspective we want as many attainable units in the building as possible and And, of course, we support the elderly affordable housing units. So these are just minimums. If they want to increase the number, that wouldn't require any type of amendment. So our recommendation is going to remain a minimum of the 15%. Okay.

Anybody else in chambers speak on this? Anybody on Zoom?

And I agree with what Debbie said but the issue is that the elderly housing that the city is also wanting to see in the project is It's part of the overall scope. It's there's no text amendment or requirements to have any percentage of elderly housing So if the city ultimately, again, if the city decides to change it up and maybe have more elderly, they have the right, I wanted to give them the flexibility at 10% so they'd say fine. If the overall, there's an overall cap of how much affordable elderly you can put into a project and still make it a viable project in any stance. It's been vacant for so long. So at the end of the day, even if it's 10% or 15, We can't dictate that change it with it We're entering the lease agreement with the city the city could make those changes themselves and suggest it and and we're not counting You know like there's 22% right now when this project being proposed that's going to either elderly or restricted residential So it's helping those in need over 22% That makes how many units are in here are proposed I 105 units are proposed, and 22% of those are earmarked for either elderly and dissatisfied with 15%.

Can you explain, I don't understand, what benefits, 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? Explain how that works. Sure. Affects their rent.

Through the housing?

I'm 20 and I'm 65. What's the difference?

So it's a voucher program through the city and the housing authority. So they wanted to have earmarked certain number of units that they could use through their program. So they'll be built. There's a requirement that they're all mixed throughout the building. So the rents will be the same. Those would be set by the housing authority, maybe the housing authority and the city's housing program for elderly. So those units would, you know, those units are basically the cost will be set by the city and the vouchers.

Just a quick clarification. So the senior units wouldn't go above 80% of AMI. 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 two-months. One-year. For workforce or anyone, right? They're one-year rentals. One-year rentals. Beautiful.

I'd make a motion to approve, but keeping the 15% in there.

Okay. Are we on the comprehensive plan amendment or the LDR? Which one has the 15%? The LDR. Okay, LDR.

Which is the first one.

All right. Okay. Move to send that favorably with 15% left. Okay. Second? Second. Okay. All in favor of that? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. I guess we need to wait for Melissa, right? Boy, we had five. I guess it passed. We had five. Okay. Pass. All right. And then next is the comprehensive plan amendment?

I'll make a motion to approve PB26-0834. I'll second.

Second? Yeah. Keith? Yes. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, guys. Have a good day. All right. So before we get to discussion items, I just want to point out that Nick, I just sent Nick the BTR for that valet company. Yes. And it does not appear, despite the testimony that we heard from the code that that location, the Becerra location is identified as one of the properties for which they are approved.

I sent it as an email to you guys too.

Okay, so I just want to point that out because I drilled down on that specifically and they kept telling me yes, they're approved, they're approved, they're approved. it doesn't appear that was the case so um i i guess staff can do that as they may but it kind of concerns me that if it's true well 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 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 Valley operator.

But if it's in fact they don't have a BTR, can we put something in that says that this isn't just a clerical error that then we can come back in September and review with them? Because how do we know if this isn't cleared up in September when we come back? I mean, this whole premise, the whole premise of which I agreed with of January had to do with the fact that they were covered and that we would not see reoccurrence of the valet issue.

So the board voted to continue today's hearing to the January meeting unless a new violation is issued before that. Well, hold on.

There's going to be new violations. Hold on. That was under the assumption that what they told us was correct. Yeah, I understand that.

You could, conceivably, you could move to reconsider your vote.

Well, I want you to confirm that what I'm looking at is accurate. From what I'm looking at, they are not approved. That was the whole discussion.

Yeah, I can't tell you that decisively without doing the research.

But here's the thing. You guys are going to look at it. If it's not proper, they're going to get another violation and we're going to be back in September. We probably shouldn't be talking about here when they're not here as part of it since we ended that meeting. I'm just saying it. It's not about discussing it, it's a fact.

It's a fact, that's what I'm saying, let's go through that.

Even if there is no violation, if after doing the research, we could maybe bring this back as a progress report in September, if necessary.

Yeah, I mean, it's up to you, but it looks like what was represented to us was inaccurate. Let us look into that, yeah. We need to know if that's a clarifier or not. And that was the germane issue of the hearing.

And sorry, just one point. If it does prove to be false, can you bring it back as a modification slash revocation instead of a progress report? Or do I have to go progress report first and then?

No, I mean the board, unless a violation is issued. If a violation is issued between now and then, then we could schedule the modification revocation hearing for September.

If it's true, we're going to get a violation next week or this week. If the code goes on, does it?

Well, code better go on. I just want you to be aware of it, okay? And if it's true that they're not approved, then you need to let code know that. Because he stood there, and I'm sure it wasn't 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 we don't have.

That's all I'm asking is for you to look into it. All right, discussion item, single-family residential zoning regulations. Can you remember who requested that that be? Remember who asked for that discussion item? It could have been me. Yeah. Yeah, it was me. So we have a, there's a document.

Yes, I, we included in your package a commission memorandum because this is a, This is a discussion that we've had already at the Land Use Committee. Several commissioners over the years have 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, you know, planning staff has often, you know, discussed the issues with permitting 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. And so we support, you know, another look at these regulations in order to simplify, streamline, you know, really what is permit review. So I thought it would be helpful to provide you with the current discussion pending city commission, in which we have kind of two options. We have option one, which would really be a dramatic change, basically only having, you know, allowable setback or minimum setbacks. and maximum heights, but the volume of 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 form that we could, you know, adopt. We also have option two, which is more surgical in terms of going through our regulations, seeing which ones are really causing the issues. in terms of our difficulty in reviewing and amending that to simplify. 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 You know if you have a good architect The good architect is going to use these types of you know the setbacks and the step backs Innately because though they are going to be looking to break down the massing but if you have a bad architect they may just come in with the box and without any movement or any relief for adjacent neighbors. So we think there's likely a middle ground between our current regulations, just a volumetric regulation in order to make the process simpler for property owners, but also ensure that there's some level of compatibility within existing single-family homes. Neighborhoods. Yeah, so this was gonna go in front of the Commission or 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 June agenda So, you know what?

We're hopeful that that it will come up at the July meet so much and they would they would request that the LDR and the plan code amendment come to us and

Yes, potentially they could refer.

So this is informative for us to know what may be coming.

Correct.

Okay.

So, 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 OUT OF MIAMI BEACH BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SELLING OFF THEIR HOMES, THEIR 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 TWO MILLION OR EVEN THREE MILLION. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMES THAT ARE GOING FOR FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT 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 redo? I don't know if that's a larger, you know, lot coverage ratio. I don't know maybe a larger kind of maximum unit size things like that. So 50 percent maybe it's 55 or 60 percent if you're redoing your home.

So 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. That's not a difficult process, but that's just one more step, right? That's another delay in the timeframe. So what this would also do 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, including the lot coverage, the unit size, reduced setbacks in certain instances, even for additions.

And that would go up to what?

So it goes from 50% to what? 50% to 60%. 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 are pre-1990 or, you know, whatever that is? I mean, 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. 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 it 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 you're trying to make sure that some of these houses are bought with like

on lower, smaller house sizes are kept that way and that there's incentive from the city to prove that there are offers that the people are not knocking it down.

Sure, because let's say I want to sell, someone wants to sell a house that right now is 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 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 where maybe it's not the million or two million, maybe it's three million, but it's not the seven million.

Right, it's important because most of the time they look at it and they look at the money they have to put in to fix it up.

Yeah, exactly.

To demolish it and add square footage is much more profitable than just doing the work.

So maybe they make up that money by being able to build a larger home, but it's not the newly rebuilt home. Yeah, so I don't know. I mean, if that's something we could consider.

Some incentives that the city can include. I mean, we can certainly include more incentives for the retention of homes. We can expand that and make it easier for people to avail themselves of these incentives.

Yeah, that's all I'm hoping for.

I think that's important.

Okay.

Anything else on this one?

Nope.

Okay. The next is swale maintenance and use of swales in single-family neighborhoods. That was definitely mine.

So I did provide you with the code sections. I have reached out to Rodney Knowles, Assistant Public Works Director. And basically, just to summarize what's in the existing city code, is that swale maintenance in single-family neighborhoods is the responsibility of the property owner, right? The city does not actively maintain the swales in front of an adjacent private property, so that is currently the requirement of the property owner. The trees, I know there was a question about planting trees and shrubbery in the swales. Property owners are eligible to do that through the coordination with the city's urban forestry department. The the urban forestry department will allow for the introduction of trees But that again any new trees or a new shrubbery is going to default to the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to maintain that Public Works also looks at you know sight line triangles and things like that to make sure that there is no There are no safety issues with any landscape that's added. As far as parking is concerned, I received a response that they do not regulate parking on the swales. 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. But as far as parking on the grass, the only enforcement the city would have would be if by 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 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 owner.

So I think what we were trying to solve for last meeting was the people that are obstructing the use of their swale. And by doing so, they're introducing parking on the street, which is restricting vehicular access kind of 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 swale, specifically parking or whatever that is. Because 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.

Well, and I would like to add to that you don't walk you talk about the allowing the city allows some some shrubs or trees to be planted I'm under the impression based on with seeing a 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 was one of miners initiative to increase shading And so it's not even right now, it's not an option to not. And so we're back to his point is we're ending up with swells that are no longer 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's an initiative from the city of increasing trees being planted on swells that has become an issue in our neighbourhoods.

Okay, and that's accurate. So for new construction projects, we do require shade trees. That is a much larger city initiative to increase our shade canopy. That wouldn't be necessarily required for an existing home that was going through a renovation. But that's something that we can, you know, the planning board could certainly make a recommendation that we modify that policy. Another issue is if people are parking on the street and blocking travel lanes, that's not allowed either. So that would be an enforcement issue that I think we could also look into.

Here's an example. 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 call enforcement, they call code, they'll come out, they give them a warning, please move your car, but that's not fixing the underlying issue where 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, Some type of code where you cannot restrict access to this will so those people are allowed to put private rocks on the on the city property 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 That's the same thing so so is that something that we could work towards introducing language to a

PREVENT THAT TYPE OF OBSTRUCTION.

BUT THEN DO YOU WANT PEOPLE PARKING IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S LAWNS?

ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

IT'S BETTER THAT THEY PARK ON THEIR LAWN THAN IN THE STREET. THE OPTION IS NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT PARKING. THEY ARE PARKING.

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 NEIGHBORHOOD STRUGGLE WITH WHAT HE'S SHOWING. WE HAVE THE SAME THING IN THE VENETIAN. And we call enforcement sometimes when it's an issue. Everyone gets ticketed.

And then everyone's up in- And they're literally parking on the street? Right.

They're parking on the street because there's not enough swell space because everyone's blocking their swells.

Well, you can't tell if that's driving or parked. I mean, the lights are off. That's definitely a parked car.

And here's the reality of it. The swells do get beaten. I don't block off my swells in all the areas where we have the property. And they're beaten to shit. It's just something you've got to accept. Like you're going to have to park there.

Well, that's the question. So you, as residents, are going to go crazy about that.

Right, but that's part of, okay, so the other idea is that they have to park there.

No, what I would also say is... Is the wheel supposed to be parked on? I mean, I don't...

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 GONE TO THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN ONLY FIT TWO CARS AS IT IS IN YOUR FRONT DRIVEWAY AREA, WHICH HOPEFULLY IS GOING TO GET BETTER. BUT, I MEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD, I GUESS, INTRODUCE OR PUT 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 our public property section of the city code. And you could certainly make a recommendation to the mayor and commission that they limit any obstructions in this Wales to facilitate, you know, parking of temporary parking. Vehicle faces.

Oh, I'm just I just want to 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 already is like that.

But yeah, they're still parking. They're just parking on the street. I

I think there'd be some pushback, people who want to keep their swells nice, but I also think that it solves a lot of the problems that we're always dealing anyways with. At least you're solving one of the two problems because 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 we can't do much about it because 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 have legal parking on the streets. So, I mean...

Imagine an ambulance wants to get through. Impossibility.

Well, again, if you're blocking a travel lane, that is a violation. That's happening.

So, let me ask you, when you do a code amendment, who gets notice of that?

JUST A REGULAR AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE?

IF THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT ANY BLOCK OF... THAT WOULD BE... I'M TELLING YOU, I LIVE RIGHT NEAR THE NORTH BAY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WILL GO WILD ON THAT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE AWARE OF IT.

THAT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A NEWSPAPER NOTICE, WHICH WE NOW DO ONLINE. AND NOTICE 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 going to be focused on certain areas or to the neighborhood associations but you know the neighborhood associations may not reach everybody city-wide so even if it wasn't a problem on a particular road it would be city-wide Well, it sounds like what you're really talking about are single-family districts.

Right, but there's a lot of them where it's really not a problem and others where it is. And I'm just telling you, I know neighbors that are going to go ballistic because they take great pains to put things on their swale so people aren't...

You know why we made grass and parking in front and to maintain the only like it's illegal The only other thing that I would say is that 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 mean that's even worse that's impossible for them to manage but The status quo doesn't work

Well, what's weird is that if it's already illegal to park on the swill, right? It's not illegal. It's not illegal. Oh, it's not? No, on the street it is.

I mean, well, they're not parking spaces, right? So technically it's not something that we encourage.

You don't encourage it, but you guys don't enforce it.

Oh, but it's not prohibited. Like, can they get tickets for parking on the swill?

I don't think so.

My understanding as of last week, because I just dealt with the city with that in our neighborhood, is that unless, a little bit to what you're saying, technically unless there is a cause that it's blocking, it's creating, it's part of the sidewalk, or it's creating some obstruction outside of the swell, or that a specific resident makes a complaint that lives on that property that somehow... they won't come and enforce ever. And so at the very...

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 going to regulate. Now, if part of their vehicle is in the travel lane, then we would. So, you know, you see that too. Sometimes they're half on, half off. this swale area.

And just as a visual, I understand some of the pushback from some people, but just as a visual, it is much nicer to see everyone parked on the same, all on the swales and have some on the swales, some on the street, and you have the zigzag. It's just kind of a mind frame we have to change about that. 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 it's a real problem in a lot of our neighborhoods. We're going to upset a few people to push it maybe in that direction. But overall, it's one of those things that will become a new normal that then works better for these neighborhoods. And it's a safety thing, too.

Right, but I think if you're going to prohibit people from blocking their soil with rocks or whatever, there should also be some rule that you can't just randomly park on them. Like, unless maybe it's a service vehicle.

Well, because it's technically that property is not owned by the property owner. It's city property, so 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.

I mean, let's say you live in this house. You could have someone from down the block who's having a party, and someone from there is parking your swell. But I think that just happens in the normal course of neighborly life.

Right, and in most neighborhoods, it's kind of understood you're going to try to use the space in front of your... Correct. It does happen, and usually there's little discussions between neighbors.

Well, let me ask you this. Why does the city, if the city owns the swells, why do they allow private residents to put their... North Bank, because I jog there and everything. That's the only example I can. People put flags on them. There's rocks on them. Why is that allowed?

Yeah, I don't know if it is. I just don't know if we're issuing citations for that. But if you are going to put something in the swale, you should be coming into the city and discussing that with Public Works and Greenspace. I think what might be helpful if we, you know, after the end of this discussion, if we continue this to the September meeting so that I can have someone from Public Works here, and maybe even someone from code because 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 that the city could step up if it's limited to, you know, if the real problem is limited to just a few neighborhoods.

At a very minimum, I would like us to push forward the fact that these requirements of new trees 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. But 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 this is the county. I was under the impression. It's both.

So the county sets the minimum standards for all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Miami-Dade. and then in some areas, our code is stricter. So, but I would recommend the board schedule that for an upcoming meeting. All right.

Okay.

All right, so we'll move those both to September for you guys to get some information. Yes.

And then come September, ideally, we would be in the position to make a motion, I guess, to make a recommendation to the commission?

Correct. No, to recommend that they forward an amendment to us.

Well, on the swales, it probably won't require amending the LDR, 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 better develop its recommendation.

Okay. Sounds good. Anything else, guys? Ladies? All right. We're adjourned. Thank you.