Citizen Portal
Sign In

Design review of proposed Pier Park at former Nikki Beach draws objections over RFP compliance; board continues item

Design Review Board, City of Miami Beach · January 9, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Developers presented a two‑story Pier Park proposal at 461 Ocean Drive (former Nikki Beach). Objectors argued the new-construction plan departs from the RFP/resolution that authorized renovation and that requested variances are self-created; the board continued the design review to Feb. 12, 2026 to allow the applicant to provide revised materials.

Developers seeking to redevelop the city-owned beachfront site at 461 Ocean Drive (the current Nikki Beach location) presented plans for Pier Park, a two‑story, approximately 24,000-square-foot building with restaurants, a kids club, wellness center, pool and public restrooms. The design team — represented by Michael Larkin (counsel), Major Food Group and Kobi Karp Architects — said the scheme increases green space by pushing the building west, tucks parking under the structure and provides public plaza space and enhanced boardwalk connectivity.

Michael Larkin described the project as a significant private investment in city property "to make it a premier property, something that all of us residents will be able to enjoy for many years to come." Architect Kobi Karp said the proposal aims to create a "pavilion in the park" with porous pedestrian access and enhanced landscaping.

During public comment, Andrew Stearns, representing current tenant Penrod Brothers, urged the board to defer action and said the application "is completely noncompliant" with the RFP and award resolution because it proposes new construction rather than the renovation the RFP specified; he argued that the variances requested are self-created hardships and therefore legally infirm. Stearns asked the board to require resolution of procurement and land‑use discrepancies before design review proceeds. Applicant counsel responded that procurement and litigation issues are outside the DRB’s design purview and urged the board to limit its review to design criteria.

Board members raised detailed design questions about façades, material palette, permeability to the beach, pool and cabana use, circulation between public and private areas, and parking and traffic impacts. Several members said renderings and material boards were incomplete for thorough review; multiple members suggested the design show additional perspectives and material samples. The board voted to continue the Pier Park application to the Feb. 12 meeting and asked the applicant to submit revised materials in advance so staff can update the report.