HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Luis Garcia-Noise Level Survey PacketCONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
Submitted into the public
record or it n3(s)
on City Clerk
Document A
Survey February 2021
10q45? Soom:.114A -Lois 1A-teJA 00:x_ ukAzil Suet.
pArclifL4-
Submitted into the public
record foriter(s) r -
on 10�. g )-1 . City CIerk
BOR SURVEY REPORT
RIVERSIDE NOISE ISSUES
FEBRUARY 2021
Riverside Noise Survey --- Sumrriary of Findings
Submitted into the pub
record /or items)
on
City Clerk
This survey which commenced on February 22, 2021 and ended the next day, February
23, posed 8 questions to the Brickell on the River community, North and South Towers,
relative to their experience of the operation of the neighboring entertainment complex
known as Riverside. The Boards of BOR wanted to ascertain the extent of the problem
and this survey was developed to capture a broad perspective of residents' views. A
total of 199 responses were received by the cut-off time, with two additional responses
arriving after it.
The results of the survey are summarized in text and graphs below. Unedited, verbatim
comments are included in Appendix A.
Question 1:
Participants were asked to identify which Tower in the community they live in. This was
expected to be useful in identifying the spread of the noise issue. The responses to this
question are summarized in the pie chart below.
Which tower do you live in?
149 responses
• North
• south
137 participants live in the North Tower and 62 live in the South Tower,
1
Question 2:
Participants were asked to indicate if their Unit faced West, facing Riverside. This
question was designed to assist with issue analysis. The responses to this question (200
data points) are summarized in the chart below. 67.5% of the respondents live on the
West side of BOR.
Submitted into the pu lic
record f or itFm(s)
City Clerk
Is your Unit on the West side (facing Riverside)?
200 responses
/ Yes
• No
nn ,Q
135 of the respondents are from the North Tower and 65 from the South.
Question 3:
Participants were asked to identify which floor in their respective building they lived on.
This question was designed to determine if the noise issue was confined to lower floors
or if it was broader. 198 responses were received and analyzed. Floors were grouped
into categories as illustrated in the graphs below. The results show that in the North
Tower the respondents were not just concentrated on lower floors.
2
9
N
2 - 10
Submitted into the public
record or it m(s)
on , 0 -L• City Clerk
FORTH TOWER RESPONSES
DISTRIBUTION BY FLOOR GROUPING (N 133)
20-29
30 - 39
cY
40 - 43
SOUTH TOWER RESPONSES
DISTRIBUTION BY FLOOR GROUPING (N = 61)
A
2 - 10
20-29 30-39
I♦
40 - 43
3
Question 4:
Submitted into the public
recur for i em(s) .
on City Clerk
This asked participants to indicate if they had experienced any inconvenience or
disruption in their unit due to sounds emerging from Riverside. 199 Respondents
answered this question though not all responses were usable. In the aggregate, 60.0%
of respondents indicated that they had experienced inconvenience. There were
differences in experiences between the towers as illustrated in the charts below.
IS Riverside Noise an issue?
North & South Combined (n = 195)
■ Yes ■ No
IS RIVERSIDE NOISE AN ISSUE?
RESULTS BY TOWER
■ Yes s No
NORTH SOUTH
4
Question 5:
Submitted into the public
record 4for i. em(s) Q _ ,9
an City Clerk
This open-ended question invited respondents to describe their experiences relative to
Riverside noise issues. 142 aggregate responses were provided which were reviewed
and classified and some comments contained multiple issues. These are summarized
below using those 8 classifications. The unedited verbatims responses are reported in
the Appendix (with identifying information removed). The classifications are Morning
Noise (trainers using a microphone), Night Noise (Music and DJ), Sleep Disruption (as
reported by participants), Base Too Loud (thumbing / vibrations), None/ Not an Issue
(where participants had no complaints and had positive things to say), Crowd Behavior
(loud sounds / screaming after events, loitering), Garbage (either facility dumpsters or
litter strewn about), Other (cars an sidewalks, traffic, blocked entrance to BOR, loud
boats).
Verbatims Classified
Count of Issues Raised
33
24
MORNING NIGHT NOISE SLEEP BASE TOO NONE NOT CROWD GARBAGE OTHER
NOISE DISRUPTION LOUD AND ISSUE BEHAVIOR
5
Submitted into the public
record or i erri(s) �� Clerk
on jG7 ��9City
Question 6:
This question asked respondents to indicate if they had been to riverside as a customer.
Three answer options were provided. This question was included to highlight to Riverside
that there is no inherent bias against their operation and to estimate what proportion of
BOR residents were customers of their business. Responses were provided by 201
participants, with 62.7% indicating that they had been to the premises as a customer.
Have you visited Riverside as a customer?
201 responses
• Yes, I go there regularly
• Yes, but infrequently
'7, No, I have not been there
Submitted into the public
record 1for item(s)
on
Question 7:
This question asked if respondents were willing to take part in any public action initiated
by the Boards at BOR in relation to noise or operational issues at Riverside. Responses
were provided by 196 participants, as follows:
Are you willing to participate in any public action by BOR (e.g. Signing a petition lever, attending
City Commision Meetings, etc) related to Riverside?
196 responses
• Yes
• No
Question 8:
This question was a follow-on from Question 7 and invited people willing to participate in
public action to provide their Unit Number and Name. 91 responses were recorded, and
the information will be provided confidentially to the Property Manager to crosstab and
verify the names and units against existing records.
7
CONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
Submitted into the public
record for tem(s) pity clerk
{
on I.rJ�—•
Document B
Survey May 2021
Submitted into the public
record for it m(s)
on City Clerk
RIVERSIDE SOUNDS
[Document subtitle]
MAY 6, 2021
VINCENT MCHUGH
Submitted into the pub c
record or itern(s) City Clerk
on • ��. .i.�
Riverside Sounds — Follow-up Survey Results
Participants were invited to report their experiences, inside their units, of sounds
generated at the neighboring property, Riverside. Questions focused on three time
periods as follows: before February 2021, from February up to the lifting of the City curfew,
and the period since the lifting of the curfew. This survey was designed as a follow-up
survey based on a meeting with the owners of Riverside in early February.
Responses were received, in whole or in part from 157 participants.
Residence:
Participants were asked to identify what tower they lived in, to help identify where noise
was most problematic. The graph below identifies the distribution, with 69.4% being from
the North Tower. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate if their unit was West
facing onto the Riverside property. In this case 72.6% indicated their units faced West.
1. Which tower do you live in?
157 responses
■ North
• South
1
2. Is your Unit on the West side (facing Riverside)?
157 responses
Submitted into the public
record for itgm(s)
on
• Yes
• No
City Clerk
Participants were als❑ asked what floor their unit was located on, to again identify if any
noise issues were correlated with floor location.
Responses were categorized into clusters of 10 floors each. There was a relatively
uniform distribution of respondents across floors.
2
Perception of Noise — Period 1 (Pre -February 2021)
Submitted into the public
record fqr items) f
on
Participants were asked if they experienced inconvenience or disruption due to sounds
emerging from Riverside in the period prior to February 2021. (This was the period
covered by the initial survey on this topic.) The N for this question was 155, with 57.4%
indicating they experienced inconvenience or disruption.
4. Did you experience incovenince or distruption in your unit due to sounds emerging from
Riverside PRIOR to February 2021?
155 responses
Yes
• No
Participants were asked, in addition, if they had participated in the initial survey on this
noise topic. Of the 154 Respondents, 57.8% had participated in the first survey.
5. Did you participate in the initial survey on this topic in February 2021?
154 responses
i Yes
• No
3
Submitted into the pu lie
record f r ite (s) _
on tO 3 (?ax City Clerk
Perception of Noise — Period 2 (from February 2021 to Lifting of the Curfew)
Participants were asked if the sound levels in this period were at an acceptable level in
their units. This period (March and part of April) followed the meeting with the Riverside
owner where commitments were made to address sound issues. There were 155
responses to this question with 55.5% indicating that noise was at an acceptable level.
This level of response suggests an improvement in perception compared to the prior
period.
6. In the March / April period (i.e. AFTER our February Meeting with Riverside Owners and BEFORE
the City Curfew was lifted), were the sounds emerg...t an acceptable level of comfort inside your unit?
155 responses
• Yes
• No
Those who answered No (meaning noise was a problem) were asked to provide verbatim
comments to describe their experiences. 67 Respondents provided information. The
responses were reviewed and categorized under the following headings: Problems with
the Base, General Loud Music, Guest Behavior, Problems with Traffic, Sleep Disruption,
Improvement and No Improvement. Many respondents reported more than one issue in
their replies, resulting in 102 identified responses.
4
Submitted into the pub
record fpr items)
on
City Clerk
The table below summaries the distribution of answers across the prevalent categories
based on verbatim statements.
Table 1: Summary of Categorized Verbatims
Issue Reported Percent of Total Responses
Base too Loud
General Loud Music
Guest Behaviors
Problems with Traffic
Sleep Disruption
Situation has Improved
Situation has not Improved
10.8%
46.1%
8.8%
6.9%
12.7%
8.8%
5.9%
Perception of Noise - Period 3 (Since Curfew was lifted)
Participants were asked if they had experienced any Riverside related sound or other
issues specifically SINCE the City curfew was lifted, if so to describe them briefly.
1 02 responses were received on this question with 57.8% indicating they had a problem
and 42.2% indicating they did not perceive any additional issues based on the lifting of
the curfew.
A review of the verbatim comments and explanations showed very similar patterns to
those cited above in Table 1. However, there were addition comments related to the
5
Submitted into the public
record or it r m(s)
on 10 .1a!
ex -tension of the problems experienced into the early morning hours resulting in more
sleep disruption issues, and more people behavioral issues.
Customers of Riverside:
Participants were asked if they had attended Riverside as a customer. This question was
included to determine the level of business Riverside gains from BOR residents.
157 BOR residents answered this question. if the '`Yes, I go there frequently" and the
"Yes, but infrequently" answer options are combined, it suggests that 61.1% of the
respondents have been a customer of Riverside at some time since it opened.
9. Have you visited Riverside as a customer?
157 responses
• Yes, I go there regularly
• Yes, but infrequently
t No, I have not been there
6
Submitted into the public
record or it m(s) �J
on r fl L �OZcI City Clerk
Conclusion:
The results of this survey show that noise from Riverside continues be a problem. in the
initial survey conducted in the January / February period 2021, the results suggested that
60.0% of the respondents had a problem with noise at Riverside, as shown in the following
graph.
IS Riverside Noise an Issue?
North & South Combined (n = 195)
■Yes allo
The results of this survey show that noise from Riverside continues to be a problem for
residents of BOR, though at a slightly reduced rate (57.8%) in the Post Curfew period,
compared to the initial survey. These results are slightly worse than the Period One
results for this survey (57.4%). It appears that in Period Two, perceptions of noise were
lower than Period One, but in Period Three noise exceeded the levels in Period One. If
anything the verbatim comments suggest that for those experiencing noise, the extended
hours have made the problem worse, resulting in greater levels of sleep disruption, and
general annoyance.
7
CONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
Submitted into the public
record f r ite (s)
on City Clerk
Document DL
Noise levels on Oct 8
CONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
Submitted into the pu c,
rec d f r ite (s}
an 1 1 City Clerk
Extremely Loud
118,7
Very loud
Loud
Faint
dB (A)
1
70
60
50
40
30
20
90
0
0000
Aircraft at take off
Car horn
Subway
Truck, motorcycle
Busy crossroads
Noise level near a motorway
Busy street through opera windows
Light traffic
Quiet room
Desert
bring threshold
CONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
Submitted into the public
record or it m(s)
4n City Clerk
Document DZ
Violations to the TUP
CONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
Submitted into the public
record r it m(s)
on , City Clerk
1, Violation to TUP Condition # 2 : Riverside main lounge behaves as a nigthclub, when the permit
explicitly says "Innovative,familily-friend and pedestrian -oriented culinary experience". It
is advertised in their own web site and several social media as the best nightlife experience
letting everybody know that it is a party place:
❑ "The Miami Nightlife Experience you're looking for on the River" (source
https://ri ve rsi de. rn iam ilj
M Pates ardznrsde lye % gi r.21) I:'^it.Vc x
fc
C
riveraideforii f
rrRr:Eeru
RIVERSIDE LOUNGE
The Miami Nightlife Experience you're looking for
on the fiver. Enjoy options for VIP Exclusive
options, including private events, celebrations,
and more.
RIVERSIDE LOUNGE
The Miami Nightlife Experience you're ionising fc
on the River. Enjoy options for VIP Exclusive
options, including private events, celebrations,
and more,
CONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
Submitted into the public
record for it m(s)
on�
City Clerk
a "The Best nigthlife experience" Source (Instagram riverside offcial account)
Posts
riverside.miami
Q V
58 likes
riverside.miami Let's Rock!
Riverside Lounge Is The Start Of the Weekend. Brickell's
Best Nightlife Experience.
0
2. Violation to TUP Condition # 8 (see attached TUP) : According to Miami Code Section 36-4. it
shall be unlawful for any person, in the city, at any time to allow any loud, unnecessary,.
excessive, or unusual noises, where the noise or music is plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet
from the building from which it is produced. Riverside has been cited 4 times and during
September 9 hearing the City Attorney stated that they had violated this ordinance and handed
down 3 tickets.
Submitted into the pu
record r it (s)
on I+D
CONFIDENTIAL & RESTRICTED
3. Violation to TUP Condition # 10 (see attached TUP) : Section 10 of their TUP states that " the
Venue shall comply with the city's waterfront stands set forth by Miami 21. Miami 21 states that
"Waterfront Walkway Standards should remain open to public access during all times, but at a
minimum, shall remain open to the public between 6 am through 10 pm." Riverside does not
keep their walkway open and when residents complain they slightly open it. Riverside has tables
and chairs along the walkway making it incredibly difficult for residents to jog or enjoy the
waterfront. Residents have asked to please open it up and have them comply with Miami 21 and
their TUP.
a . Now, It has been stated that they are concerned that things will be stolen. Section 12
states "the venue shall provide 24-hour on -site security." Nothing should be stolen if
they comply with section 12 and if they have on -site security.
Violation to TUP Condition # 17 (see attached TUP ,Site Plan and and current photo for
comparison): If you look at the site plan. You'll see Area B is supposed to be astroturf, instead, it seems
to be a little undone or perhaps a loading zone. Take a look for yourself via the photos below.
Submittal into the pub
record for it-,ni(s)
t7[r4
City Clerk
June 25, 2019
Riverside Miami LLC
800 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33031
f
2.piergIX 4ing3..,waretama,Hh
r••,Y..s6Cie, .VLLxa 9ff anut Na rmnt.
w.
PZ-18-580
RE: Temporary Use on Vacant Land Permit- 431 and 451 S. Miami Avenue {Permit No.
PZ-18-580)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please be advised that your application for a Temporary Use on Vacant Land Permit ("Permit")
for the property located at 431 and 451 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33130 ("Property") has been
reviewed and approved with the following conditions:
1. The Permit is valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Use. It may be extended annually by the Zoning Administrator for a maximum of three (3)
years. The Permit may be further extended beyond the three-year maximum by the Miami
City Commission.
2. The Property is approved to be temporarily used and occupied as an "innovative, family -
friendly and pedestrian -oriented culinary experience along the Miami River" ("Venue"), with
the following approved uses: Food Service Establishment, General Commercial, and Event
Space (Place of Assembly).
3. A Temporary Certificate of Use must be obtained from the Office of Zoning prior to occupying
the Property, as required pursuant to Section 62-535(c) of the Code of the City of Miami,
Florida, as amended ("Code").
4. All vendors, as a condition precedent to engaging in or operating in the City of Miami ("City"),
shall obtain a Business Tax Receipt from the Department of Finance, as required pursuant to
Chapter 31 of the Code..
5. Separate Building Permit applications and plan submittals for different items/elements shown
on the Site Plan dated March 19, 2019, signed and sealed by Registered Architect, Mr. Omelio
Arrabal (License No, AR11606), are required along with reviews and requirements by different
trades/departments involved in each application.
6. The Venue's hours of operation shall be limited to:
➢ Sunday through Thursday from 11AM to 12AM (Midnight)
Friday and Saturday from 11 AM to 2AM
PZ-18-580 OFFICE OFZONING Page 1 1 3
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 2nd Floor 1 Miami, Florida 33130 1 Phone: (395) 4416-1499 Fax (305) 416-2156
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708
p.5) tA INIST,
a.
Submitted into the pu
record or itgrn(s)
on
( City Clerk
7. The maximum occupancy load of the Venue shall be 830 persons at any mome
both employees and guests. Any event that is expected to exceed 830 persons s
Special Event Permit, as set forth in Section 54-6.3 of the Code,
4-
0
r
A
kom aceaq 1, qpwroad Fistv n.m 11,e1 1.5%0 Va
aiN?�gAfrga v.r3n,94*�'rG+H nT�e+r wn
n"i•'f .g �fl%S1 sx wtd��HYk.bAvsw
voe.o nu..a xfW=a+�vn�u.Y�t�'us�0
PZ-18-580
\ 111D3120
-1-A4ENT i7
8. The Venue shall at all times comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, as set forth in Chapter
36 of the Code.
9. The Venue shall at all times comply with the terms of its Operating Plan, including the Parking
License Agreement,
10. The Venue shall at all tunes comply with the City Waterfront Standards as set forth in Miami
City Charter and Article 3, Section 3.11 of the of the Miami 21 Code.
11. Any signs or banners shall be under separate permit.
12. The Venue shall provide twenty-four (24) hour on -site security.
11 All dumpsters must be enclosed and screened to conceal view from the public right-of-way.
14. All lighting must be directed towards the Venue and away from surrounding areas.
15. The Venue shall not allow any vehicle to be parked so as to obstruct traffic.
16. The Venue shall not obstruct the free passage over, on, or along a street, sidewalk, or public
right-of-way.
17. All conditions detailed by the applicable Departments in their review shall be conditions of
this Permit including, but not limited to, the following:
Office of Code Compliance
D No Food Trucks, as defined in Section 31-51(2) of the Code, shall be allowed unless the
Site Plan is revised and approved to reflect the same.
Department of Solid Waste
The Property, as well as the abutting right-of-way, including any curb, gutter, or swale,
shall be kept free of debris and litter at all times.
➢ The City's Recycling Programs, as set forth in Section 22-21 of the Code, shall be complied
with at all times.
Department of Resilience and Public Works
➢ Permit is approved with the following conditions which must be complied with at time of
building permit, BD19-007940-001, or any related building permit:
a, Approval is conditioned on corrections to the Boundary Survey.
b. Site Plan shall be updated to show the property boundary conforming with the
Boundary Survey, and shall include Lot Lines, numbers, and dimensions,
c. Provide locations of ML and CL and their dimensions in relation to the Base Building
Line ("BBL"), and/or PL on all plans for all streets involved, if any,
PZ-18-580 Page 2 1 3
Submitted into the pub
record fpr ite n(s)
on
City Clerk
d. Existing right-of-way conditions and Lot dimensions shall be coordi
Boundary Survey,
e. Show existing Sidewalk and Driveway approaches, along with their co
dimensions and annotations,
f. Refer to existing right-of-way conditions as shown on Boundary Survey (Si
Curb and gutter, Driveway approach, swale, handicap ramp, trees, and planters), and
g. On -site Stormwater retention is mandatory. A method of on -site stormwater retention
shall be required,
rhOnlido.obrv,
'pe.-Q.,:��,. ..,.. =
nnwY.gms.0 o-amNomnexsx:m.we.c
w... q sua rusir.203,4V.05Z
PZ-18-580 1
11 /O3/2'O
18. A copy of this Permit shall be displayed in the office or some other conspicuous place within
the Venue or on the premises thereof and shall be displayed to the general public or any police
department personnel, code enforcement inspector, or other official of the City upon request
during normal business hours,
19. This Permit may be modified at any time at the sole discretion of the City.
20, Any duly authorized representative of the City, may, at any reasonable time, enter, monitor,
sample, test and inspect, as often as may be necessary, the Venue to ensure compliance with
the conditions of this Permit, as well as all other applicable 'Federal, state, and local laws, rules,
regulations, codes, and ordinances.
21. All violations shall be subject to enforcement via Chapter 2, Article X, Code enforcement, and
any other remedies as are provided by law, jointly and severally, including but not limited to
the revocation of the Permit, Certificate of Use, or Business Tax Receipt.
The terms and conditions of this Permit are non-negotiable and must be fully complied with at all
tunes. If you have any questions. please email Ms, Suhey Rojas at srojasmiamigov.com
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Ruiz, Esq.
Zoning Administrator 11 Zoning Director
Office of Zoning
PZ-18-580 Page 3 1 3
Submitted into the public
record r ite (s) •
on(} City Clerk
Waterfront Walkways Design Standards:
1. Waterfront walkways shall be designed and constructed within the
waterfront Setbacks in accordance with these Waterfront Walkway Design
Standards and should remain open to public access during all times, but at
a minimum, shall remain open to the public between 6am through 10pm.
Waterfront walkways are not required within Transect Zones T3, T4-R, D1,
D2 and D3 unless the site is a new Commercial retail, Office or restaurant
Use.
2. Waterfront walkways shall feel public, meet all Americans with Disabilities
Act (A.D.A.) requirements throughout the entire length of the waterfront
walkway and provide unobstructed visual access to the water.
3. Waterfront walkways shall connect to abutting public walkways,
neighboring walkways, and Open Space at a consistent A.D.A. compliant
width and grade to allow clear pedestrian circulation along the water's
edge.
111.20
MIAMI 21 ARTICLE 3. GENERAL TO ZONES AS ADOPTED — MAY 2010
4. The waterfront walkway surface shall remain at a constant elevation and be
accessible to handicapped persons throughout the entire length of the
waterfront walkway. Walkways should have a slight grade away from the
bulkhead edge for stormwater retention within the transition zone.
5. The total width of a waterfront walkway shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25)
feet and built to the standards and guidelines outlined in Waterfront Design
Guidelines, on Appendix B