Loading...
2003-25223 ResoRESOLUTION NO. 2003-25223 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA EXPRESSING THE CITY COMMISSION'S OPPOSITION TO ANY PROPOSAL THAT WOULD WEAKEN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. WHEREAS, Section 21-28 of the Miami-Dade County Code prohibits unnecessary and excessive noise and is the ordinance which is in effect and enforced in the City of Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, in order to safeguard the interests of the residents in the City of Miami Beach, the Mayor and City Commission support the current noise regulations which protect the quality of life in the City and oppose any proposal that would weaken the effectiveness of the Miami-Dade County Noise Ordinance in the City of Miami Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that the Mayor and City Commission hereby oppose any proposal that would weaken the effectiveness of the Miami-Dade County Noise Ordinance in the City of Miami Beach. PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of/~Xlqa~ ,2003. ?0R ' ATTEST: CITY CLERK fiXatto\tum~resos~noise ordinance preservation.doc APPROVED TO & & -OR EXE rI'IOI Meiia, Dolores From: Sent: To: Subject: Fwd - Richard Steinberg Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:26 AM Mejia, Dolores Fwd: May 21 Meeting Have a resolution stating that the Commission is against any proposition that would weaken the County's noise ordinance effectiveness on Miami Beach draftedand added to the agenda for Wed. --- Forwarded Message --- From: "noisecontrol" <noisecontrol©the-beach.net> Sent: Sat 7:45 pm To: "David Dermer" <mayordermer@miamibeachfl.gov>, "Simon Cruz" <simon@miamibeachfl.gov>, "Luis Garcia" <luis@ci.miami-beach.fl.us>, "Richard Steinberg" <richard@miamibeachfl.gov>, "Jorge Gonzalez" <jorgegonzalez@miamibeachfl.gov>, "Matti Bower" <matti@miamibeachfl.gov>, "Saul Gross" <saul@stream-line.com>, "Jose Smith" <lgator73@aol.com> Subject: May 21 Meeting 05.17.03 Dear Mayor and Commissioners: On May 21, the City Commission will, as you know, deal with legislation focused on South Pointe. The residents are trying hard to protect the residential character of the area while commercial/entertainment interests are trying to cross the red line, i.e., Fifth Street. We are currently trying to stem direct and collateral damages associated with the operations of Joia/Pure, Opium, Ted's Hideaway, Nikki Beach, I1 Piagga and the Marriott. The non-controversial issues have to do with a ban on new outdoor/open-air entertainment establishments south of Fifth. However, residents are deeply concerned by Jeffrey Bercow's/Savoy Hotel's request to change the current zoning laws to allow the Savoy at 425-455 Ocean Drive, and other places, to operate as a Neighborhood Impact Establishment (NIE), which they cannot do now. I hope that you will oppose that request. Here's why: 1. The decision to put Mr. Bercow's proposal on the agenda came at the very end of the last commission meeting at a moment of parliamentary disorder. Somebody just shouted, "Put it on the agenda!" This is a proposal that has not been considered by the Planning Board, whereas the outdoor/open-air issues were. The true underlying issue, of course, is the right to operate nightclubs in RPS-4. And, can the disruption of a residential neighborhood be consistent with the aims of the South Pointe RDA? 2. The Savoy property is nestled between two large condo buildings: the Royal Atlantic, where I live, and The Presidential. Each condo contains 238 apartments. The area is zoned RPS-4: residential, high intensity. 3. The Savoy is located about 200 feet from the intersection of Fifth and Ocean Drive. That intersection is practically gridlocked now on weekend nights. 4. The Savoy, under its current management, is not sensitive to the concerns of its neighbors. For example, on Friday, May 16, it was necessary to call the police for excessive noise. Even after two instructions to turn the noise down, nothing was done. Only after a direct threat to turn the music totally off, did management respond. One resident, an absolutely credible witness, said he saw topless waitresses serving alcoholic beverages to the patrons. 5. While Mr. Bercow spoke of the Savoy's desire to operate a large restaurant, since there currently is no effective way to stop a restaurant to turning itself into a nightclub (in legal terms, a dance hall), that is precisely what will occur. For example, Pure at 150 Ocean Drive, one floor above Joia, applied to operate a bar-lounge. In a couple of weeks, ! it'had a disk jockey and a dance floor. Ail it needed to do was put in a kitchen and thereby become a restaurant with entertainment. (As far as I know, the city has no plans to determine if most of its gross comes from food sales. Anyway, why would a genuine restaurant put up the cash for a 5 a.m. liquor license? And, why would Pure compete with its downstairs neighbor, Joia, which also claims to be a restaurant? This is one of those common instances where a good prima facie case can be made for the existence of an intention to deceive the Planning Department and exploit legal loopholes. FYI, Joia/Pure is now beginning to rival Opium as the #1 nuisance in South Pointe, not only for noise, but for public disorder on the street. 6. After the last commission meeting, I asked the Savoy's law firm, Bercow and Radell, if the owner of the Savoy property, Craig Spencer/Arden Group, would send me a letter explaining why he needed this proposed zoning change. I made clear that my major concern was that the proposed restaurant would become a nightclub. Later, 1 was told Mr. Spencer decided that he did not want to put anything in writing. Can it be any plainer: Savoy Restaurant=Savoy Nightclub, or RPS-4=MXE? 7. At the present time, the Savoy hotel is operating a restaurant in its north building, i.e., the old Arlington. Mr. Bercow wants a zoning change that would apply to Craig Spencer's 75 feet-high new building, i.e., a building that does not now exist. Thus, Commissioners are being asked to speculate about a non-existent restaurant in a hypothetical building. Of course, the only thing that is not hypothetical is the high probability that Savoy Restaurant=Savoy Nightclub. 8. In January, the Commission firmly instructed the City Manager to use every legal means to stop the excessive noise coming from Opium. In April, the Commission firmly told the City Manager and the Chief of Police to use all their resources to put an end to street disorder. The Planning Department was put on notice to be proactive in protecting South Pointe residents' quality of life. But the passage of an ordinance changing the zoning laws governing the assignment of NIE status to hotels in RPS-4, would be seen as a step backward; actually it would be ten steps backward. While the City Manager, the police and Code Compliance are now trying to protect our quality of life in South pointe as best as they can, lowering the requirement for NIE status would reduce their efforts to a nullity. 9. You will surely be told that even if the NIE requirements are lowered, the residents will be fully protected by the Planning Board's review process for issuance of Conditional Use Permits. In fact, some members, maybe a majority, of the Planning Board and officials in the Planning Department realize that the review process offers illusory protections to residents. As far as I can tell, the only predictable effect is an increase the burdens of Code Compliance. In fact, the recipients of Conditional Use Permits treat them as if they exempted them from provisions of Dade 21-28, the county noise law; they don't treat it as a conditional use permit. Hence, the increased load on Code Compliance officers who cannot understand why the application for such a permit was not instantly rejected in the first place. To firm up this point, at a recent meeting of hoteliers that I attended, a number of speakers strongly complained about Dade 21-28. They demanded that the Director of Code help them get Conditional Use Permits for Outdoor Entertainment, which they believe, with some reason, would exempt them from the provisions of Dade 21-28. Basically, the message was, give us those permits or we will overturn that law. 10. You will also be told, I suppose, that no enterprise, even one with a Special Event Permit, can violate Dade 21-28. Hence, residents are protected against excessive noise of any kind at all times. A convenient fiction. First, in the absence of stern enforcement against habitual violators of the noise laws, and the very generous policy of Code in issuing warning notices before a club is actually taken before the Special Master, noise citations are treated by hotels and clubs, for the most part, as an inconvenience, despite all the screaming. Second, there now is a lively movement afoot among hoteliers and club operators to (a) pressure the City Manager not to enforce that law, or failing that, to (b) pressure the County Commission to create a special hole in the law for the convenience of Miami Beach. So, while you are being told by the special interests that residents can fully rely on Dade 21-28, those very same special interests are openly working to destroy that law. 11. I am not privy to lawyerly strategies of Opium's attorneys as they confront the city 2 · in'c~urt, but surely they must be thinking about legal benefits that Opium would derive when they take public note of the fact that this Commission, when given an opportunity to choose, did not oppose the establishment of nightclubs in residential areas in South Pointe, despite the anxieties and opposition of residents. Would a judge fail to grasp the similarity between Opium and the Savoy's new club and their respective neighbors? Thanks, and best wishes. Morris Sunshine, Ph.D. 03 M~¥ 19 ~1 I0:06 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR & COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: CC: FROM: DATE: RE: JORGE GONZALEZ CITY MANAGER MURRAY DUBBIN CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD STEINBERG COMMISSIONER May 19, 2003 Resolution stating the Commission's Opposition to any Proposition that would weaken the Effectiveness of County's Noise Ordinance in the City Miami Beach Please refer to the attached email. I would like a resolution drafted stating the Commission's opposition to any proposal that would in effect weaken the effectiveness of the County's Noise Ordinance in the City of Miami Beach. I would like this placed on the May 21st Commission agenda for action. If you need anything further, please feel free to contact my Aide, Ms. Dolores Mejia, at extension 6834. RLS/dm Agenda Item ~?/~7 Date 5-~/-0_~ June 11,2003 COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 6 Robert E. Parcher City Clerk, City of Miami Beach City Hall 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FI 33139 Dear Mr. Parcher: Thank you for advising me that Resolution Number 2003-25223 to oppose the weakening of the Miami Dade County Noise Ordinance has been passed. Please be informed that I support the City of Miami Beach Mayor's and City Commission's conclusion to pass this new ordinance. I believe that every action should be taken to protect the quality of life of all residents- accordingly, I hereby support Resolution Number 2003-25223 of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. District 6 6 6429 S.W. 8TM STREET ~' MIAMI, FLORIDA 33144 ~, J305] 267-6377 * FAX (305J 267-6366