Frank Del Vecchio: “There’s more development in the cards and we know about it.” Photo by Erik Bojnansky

In an hours-long discussion Tuesday, the Miami Beach Planning Board voted to continue an item proposing an ordinance restricting “accessory use bars and restaurants” in the South of Fifth Street neighborhood of South Beach.

In recent years, area residents have expressed much dismay over the proliferation of bars and restaurants that are allowed to operate on the ground floor of hotels, some of which have ballooned in size, but were originally intended to be “accessory” bars and restaurants for that hotel. A trend of upsizing those restaurants has mushroomed out of control, so much so that it has really become the other way around — the hotels have become accessories to the bars and restaurants, many residents said during the meeting.

“These should not be destination restaurants,” said Erika Brigham, an area resident and Historic Preservation Board member. “The idea is ‘accessory use.’”

Take the Browns Hotel, for instance. Perhaps the most-touted example of the trend, the historic nine-room hotel’s ground-floor restaurant, Prime One Twelve, an upscale steakhouse, has become an infamous South Beach hotspot, complete with long waiting lists that have boasted a chi-chi inventory of well-known names. Built in 1915, the Browns Hotel was the first hotel on Miami Beach. Now with room rates starting at $350 per night, the Prime One Twelve popularity explosion has residents in an uproar over the real definition of the term “accessory.”

And so those residents, led to City Hall by South of Fifth Neighborhood Association organizers, descended on the Miami Beach City Commission on July 11 to plead for help. That elected board kicked the item down to the Planning Board, which heard a lot of testimony Tuesday.

“This is not about the hotel industry,” said activist Frank Del Vecchio. “Every hotel lobbyist in the city is here today. We’re faced with a backdoor loophole to bring in nightlife. There’s more development in the cards and we know about it.”

“Hotels have practically abandoned their hotel functions,” said activist and SOFNA member Morris Sunshine. “Do good planning and let the City Commission take the heat.”

SOFNA is calling for an ordinance that will allow only one restaurant seat for every two hotel rooms in any given hotel. When the item came before the City Commission in July, the measure was outlined in a memo from Commissioner Saul Gross to City Manager Jorge Gonzalez requesting the item be referred to the Planning Board.

A Planning Department staff recommendation tweaked that formula: Allow one seat in a restaurant for every two rooms in a hotel, but with an allowable base number of 30 seats.

According to Planning Board staff analysis, “The current regulations do not have a provision to relate the size of the accessory use restaurant or bar to the size of the main use.”

Early on during the Planning Board meeting, it wasn’t hard to imagine the item would be continued.

From the start there were calls from many representatives of the Beach’s bar and restaurant industry to continue the proposed ordinance to a later day in order to allow time for residents and business interests to hash out an off-dais amicable solution. Some board members asked planning staff right away if the item could be continued. But Chairman Marlo Courtney, in usual chair fashion, wanted to give everyone a turn at the microphone.

“No one envisioned the … success of Prime One Twelve,” said Stuart Blumberg, president of the Greater Miami Beach Hotel and Restaurant Association. “Turnover is a very interesting discussion. It would take seven turnovers in a night” for some restaurants in the area to be financially viable, he said. “That’s physically impossible.

“Currently Miami Beach is spending $450,000 on its ‘25/7’ campaign,” Blumberg added, referring to the city’s recent ad drive hyping Miami Beach as not just a city that never sleeps, but actually has to restructure time to inject another hour in the day to fit in all of the stuff folks will want to do here.

“‘Don’t let the skinny models fool you. There’s plenty to eat in Miami Beach,’” Blumberg recited from the city’s 25/7 ad copy before asking the board for a continuance.

But SOFNA shot back with an ad tactic of its own: a relatively professionally produced documentary-style video that attempted to depict the adversities of life in SoFi created by these restaurants and bars. In it residents and activists, most of whom were also present at the meeting, described how their families and lifestyles have been adversely affected by the noise, traffic, crime and patron debauchery created by the burgeoning restaurants.

Also in the film: writers Trisha and Gerald Posner, attorney and former Planning Board Chair Victor Diaz, Del Vecchio and architect Arthur Marcus.

The prevailing sentiment was quite possibly summed up by one of the video’s stars: “This is a nightlife district with accessory hotels,” said Miami architect Jan Hochstim.

Many restaurant supporters who spoke afterward chided the board for allowing the video, a stance relatively echoed by First Assistant Attorney Gary Held, who warned the board against considering testimony of residents who were not sworn in.

“I also brought an eight-minute DVD from Club Madonna,” joked Steve Polisar, chairman of the city of Miami Beach’s Nightlife Industry Task Force, before reminding the board of the city’s precedence of work-shopping this type of issue.

Carter McDowell, attorney for the proposed Bijou hotel, argued that he would not be opposed to some kind of limitation but the measure before them was not only going to be ineffectual, it was also unfair to both businesses and residents. “There is no reason to move forward with this when there hasn’t been a rational discussion,” he said. McDowell also argued that in light of the way the areas under consideration for the ordinance were mapped out, only his client would be impacted. “One property owner gets screwed by this ordinance, to be blunt,” he said. “This ordinance needs work.”

Attorney Michael Larkin pushed for the board to consider grandfathering in projects that were already entrenched in the paperwork process — those that already received approval to build a restaurant.

The ordinance limiting the size of accessory use restaurants would affect a nine-square-block area south of Fifth Street, which currently contains about 87 properties, including residential and other nonapplicable properties.

“This is an area that policy makers have clearly identified as different,” Planning Department Director Jorge Gomez said.

Attorney Neisen Kasdin, a former mayor of Miami Beach, asked the board to conduct more studies on how the measure would affect area businesses. He also requested grandfathering and asked the board to “consider large hotels a little differently” than small ones.

David Kelsey, president of the South Beach Hotel and Restaurant Association, number-dropped the “$25 million in resort taxes” the city enjoys thanks to bars, clubs and restaurants, which was soon countered by SOFNA Treasurer Bryant Kirkland’s mention of “$60 million in tax revenue” that is generated by residents.

Eventually the item was continued anyway, amid the unanimous board consensus that more information on the situation was needed. That worked years ago, they reasoned, when the issue of noise violations from similar restaurants and bars came up.

“What’s clear from these discussions is that we don’t have enough information to be aware of the effects on this district,” said board member Robert Kaplan.

The item was continued to be heard at the Sept. 25 meeting. The Planning Board’s scheduled pre-meeting workshop time, which usually starts around 1:30 p.m. on that day, is slated to be devoted to hearing the details and some alternative formulas with their predicted effects.

Once it became apparent that the item would be continued, the crowd at City Hall became increasingly anxious. A woman in the audience became visibly irate and started hollering at the board.

“Is this issue a surprise? Are you so unprepared?” she yelled from her seat, at which point Mercy Lamazares, principal planner, motioned for a police officer in attendance to come over.

Kaplan motioned to continue the item, seconded by board member Richard Kuper, and the item passed unanimously.

“This was not our vision, people,” Judy Clayton said earlier in the meeting. “This was not our vision. Who put their blood, sweat and tears down there? We did. Give us some consideration.”

Comments? E-mail angie@miamisunpost.com.