you you you you Okay. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. Um, RISU. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Commissioner Joseph. Okay, good morning everyone. Thank you for being here. Um, RISU. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Commissioner Joseph. Here. Commissioner Syvacin. Here. Commissioner Viscarro. Here. Vice Mayor Lama is not present yet. Mayor Svetchen. Here. You have a former. Great. Thank you. Before we begin, uh, normally at workshops, we have a little bit, it's not as formal, but given the subject matter of this workshop, we're going to make this a little bit more formal. So I'm just asking the commission to please take turns speaking and wait until you recognize so we can get your comments on the record. Also, as with all workshops, there is no public comment. So you are free to reach out to the commissioners individually or anyone on staff to give your input But there will be no public comment as is normal with the workshops, okay? Please come on Before we get Mr. Manages you have anything you wanted to say? No mayor. thank you. Okay, thank you. Good morning, Mayor and commissioners. Back in January, we had a workshop that kicked off the Sunny Isles Beach vision planning for tomorrow project. And since January, city staff, along with the project consultants, have completed the public engagement piece of the project as well as conducted significant analysis of the study areas. So today the consultants are here to lead a workshop with you where they will present the feedback that we received from the community as well as the analysis of the areas development regulations. Today we are specifically seeking your guidance and direction in order to move forward with the project. For the benefit of anyone who is not familiar with the consultant team, Jeff Cadams and Caitlin Forbes are with the complete cities planning group. And they were chosen for this project because they have extensive experience working directly with municipalities in the south for the region. A combined 40 years of experience. Their past clients include our neighbors, such as Aventura, Holland Hill Beach, North Bami Beach, North Miami, and beyond, and West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Delveray Beach, and more. They are specializing in comprehensive planning, urban design, and zoning code of reform, all of which are applicable to this project. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Jeff and Caitlin. Thanks, Amy. Good morning, Mayor and Commissioners. City Manager and City Attorney and City Clerk. We're here today because Sunny Isles Beach has gaps in its regulations and conflicts in its regulations. It has an area of the town known as Townsend or North that has a clearly established vision but the development controls to implement that vision are incomplete, not clear. So, the challenge is to reconcile the conflicting development regulations, which is maximum intensity and density. And whenever we say intensity, we mean floor area ratio. In the comprehensive plan and the code, our role is to facilitate a public outreach program, which we have done, and we're going to share the results with you today, to determine if the original town center north vision is still desirable, and present those findings to the commission, which we're doing this afternoon and this morning. Following this, we hope to get your direction as far as how, to what extent, if at all, you believe that the towns that are North vision is still desirable, feasible, and it's important that that drive all the discussions because getting to the towns that are north vision requires certain level of development allowance and where the commission goes with those regulations, those standards, has a bearing on whether towns on our north can be realized. Following this, we will articulate the direction in a vision plan. We plan to do a visual preference survey with the commission and ultimately implement that direction in the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations so that we have a legally viable set of regulations that work together and accomplish the city's objectives. As well, we also sought public input on the Northern Business Districts, which is those business districts, North of Town Center along Collins, generally north of 170 second, and they have conflicts as well, between the code and the comp plan, and there are some overbuilt projects right now. Those will also be addressed in the vision document and the amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Okay, so this morning we're going to touch on the study area, the original vision, the current standards in the Code and the Conference of Plan and which ones govern today. We'll talk about commercial parcel redevelopment analysis, get into the public feedback at a high level, and potential actions and implications. We'll also touch on the Northern Business Districts. Tell you more about the vision document and the upcoming schedule. And we would like to guide the commission through questions and discussion to sort of structure, structure you are feedback. This is the study area. It is town center north. It is north of 163rd. South of town center park. The intercoastal is the western boundary and Collins is the eastern boundary. The original vision for the town center is very different than what's on the ground today. The town center is intended to be, is intended to be in the comprehensive plan, a true community center that serves as the focus of social and economic life in the city. It's an urban village and town center strategy that has components that are necessary to get there, such as the mix of uses that are vertically integrated, high retail activity, employment, strong emphasis on pedestrian circulation. May I ask, how far back are you going as far as the original vision that you mentioned? This is what's articulated in today's comprehensive plan. Right, but how far back was the planning? I believe approximately 2003, is that correct, Amy? The original comprehensive plan was adopted in the year 2000 and the town center particularly was added in 2002. Thank you. Okay. Okay, this vision that's articulated in the comprehensive plan also has an emphasis on structured parking, shared parking, park once to sort of an economy of scale with parking that minimizes the overall amount of parking because you can park once and walk. Creation of central public spaces and plazas, and an area that doesn't shut down at six o'clock at night, or even nine o'clock at night, but offers after dinner type of entertainment options. The words in the comp plan are that this would be an international destination. So this was an extremely ambitious plan. This is the 2005 area of Town Center North, and you can see that it's the same development pattern. And there are various reasons for that. And development intensities are key part of that. So it is very important that we reconcile the various regulations that exist today and in line with the commission's vision. Townsend or North has an overlay on the Lane Use Plan map. The overlay, however, aside from identifying this area as part of Townsend or North and tying it to the vision does not establish a floor area ratio and it does not establish density limitations. So in order to decide, determine what is allowed, we have to default to the limitations. So in order to decide, determine what is allowed, we have to default to the underlying zoning districts and excuse me, underlying land use plan designations, which are mixed use business and medium high residential. So in this slide, this is a synopsis of current regulations. And- Can I just interrupt you for a moment? This is really hard to read. I imagine whoever is watching it is going to find it hard to read as well. Can you just read some of this for the benefit of the people? Yes. Thank you. Yes. I'm going to outline the key differences. And importantly, which ones control? In the mix, the medium high density residential, which is the current area behind the shopping centers on Collins, we have a maximum density allowed in the comprehensive plan, a 50 units to the acre generally. There's a little bit of difference for those properties that front the intercoastal but for the interior areas it's 50 units to the acre and the comprehensive plan and 60 units to the acre in the town center zoning regulations. The stricter controls which means the 50 units to the acre and the comprehensive plan is the limitation on density that is effective there. On the waterfront, there's a 60 in it to the acre allowance in the comprehensive plan and there's an affordable housing bonus up to 65 units to the acre. That is not achievable because the zoning is limited to 60. The floor area ratio in the medium-hydensity residential is 2.0. There's a 2.5 allowance for waterfront sites. The land development regulations, however, establish a base floor area ratio of 2.5. So that is higher than is allowed in most of the residential areas and is not achievable because the comprehensive plan would control here. In addition, the town center zoning regulations allow bonuses to get up to a 5.5 FAR, which again is not achievable because the 2.0 in the comprehensive plan controls. The town center north, the Comprehensive Plan is not a get into height, that is a zoning, that lives in the zoning regulations, and the town center north allows heights of generally up to 17 to 19 floors. For the mixed use business, which are the commercial centers lining Collins and the Newport parking lot and the old Epicure site. There's a base density allowance of 25 units to the acre with up to 85 through bonuses that's allowed in the comprehensive plan. In the zoning regulations, again, it's limited to 60. So the base of 25 units to the acre without bonuses is what controls if there are no bonuses applied the 60 units to the acre and the code does not because it exceeds the comprehensive plan 85 units to the acre is achievable through the bonuses in the comp plan but can't be realized because the zoning code limits density is 16 it's to the acre. As far as the intensity there's a 2.0 floor area maximum and that's in the comprehensive plan compared to a base FAR of 2.5 in the zoning and again a 5.5 that can be achieved through bonuses but is not effective because it's limited to 2.0 in the comprehensive plan and that controls. It's come up before at the commission discussions about the floor area ratio and how that's measured in the city and the city measures floor area ratio through the definition of gross floor area and gross floor area excludes parking. So structure parking does not count towards a floor area ratio, meaning that if the floor area ratio is 2.0, the habitable parts of the building are subject to the 2.0 and the parking is on top of that. And there is no right or wrong way to define gross floor area, but it really does depend upon the combination of how you define it and what your maximum FARs are to get the city, the types of development that it wants to see. I know this is hard to read but I'm going to summarize this for you. It's a summary of existing conditions and this is taken from the CGA report that was done years ago and we just added a couple of columns to it to show what's allowed today. But essentially the developments, the condo and apartment developments in the medium-high residential category are generally built within density allowances, with some notable exceptions, which are the properties along the water, along the intercoastal, where the FIRs and the densities far exceed the allowance. And in some cases, those were approved by Miami-Dade County under different regulations and not these. But in general, we see that 65 units to the acres allowed with bonuses. And that is, and the 60 units to the acres allowed in the zoning. So the 60 is what controls and we see that the densities are 25, 69, 69, 49, 54, are 184, which is the Intercoastal Yacht Club, 43 and 46. So the interior properties east of North Bay Road are generally built within the allowable density. And the floor area ratios are also within the allowable 2.0 to 2.5 or 2.0 rather for interior. But along the intercostal, they exceed that significantly with a 4.65 for Porto Abelagio West, a 2.17 for Porto Abelagio East, 5.14 for Golden Bay, and a 7.16 for the Intercoastal Yacht Club. Good morning, commissioners, Caitlin Forbes. The next portion of our presentation will talk about the public outreach process that we conducted, which of course was a foundational piece of this project and really drove the first several months of this project. The various types of outreach that were conducted included the focus group, of course, a critical piece that included with the commission on the selection of those members. Everyone was very interested in the project and we got a lot of great applicants. We ended up with a great group that had really good ideas and gave us some very valuable insights. So we're very appreciative of that focus group and all the time that the members put into that process. We did have three iterative meetings with that the members put into that process. We did have three iterative meetings with that team to keep driving different details and drilling in on some of the more important pieces and working with them to understand different implications of various scenarios. So again, a big thank you to that focus group. We also did conduct two open houses that were available to the general public. We had over 400 respondents for our online survey. The city staff also graciously coordinated some pop-up events through the city's existing events at a couple different events that the city was hosting. And the senior round table was another great meeting that we had and got some great insight from those folks as well. So we're going to walk through a couple of the key questions that were taken from the online survey and these will also come back up for the guided discussion questions with the commission as well. You'll see two slides. Back to back, one is the larger overarching city response followed by the responses that were pulled out from just those folks who identified themselves as living within town center north. So we largely see that the town center north residents and survey respondents, they tended to follow or mirror the larger city responses. So there wasn't too much distinction, but we did wanna separate those out for you to review separately. So the first question that we wanted to bring forward for you to review the responses for was regarding the expansion of the commercial uses westward of the current shopping centers. You'll see on the pie chart in green and in blue the responses were somewhat split but the majority at 44% voted that they would like to see the commercial uses limited to the current locations generally meaning West of what we've been calling the alley there between Plaza of America so you think of the former uppercure site the archaes in the Newport parking center there those are the areas that were Generally identified as being the preferred location for commercial. At 33% of the votes, there was a good portion of the residents that did indicate that they supported the expansion of retail throughout most or all of town center, meaning beyond the current restraints now, so that would push back into what we know is more of the residential area. And so those would push westward. So again, the general consensus at 44% was to see commercial use is limited, but there was also a significant portion at 36% that thought that retail might be acceptable in other portions beyond the existing limitations. And again, the next slide is going to show you the town center north response. So you'll see similar votes there at 45% in the green. I'd like to see the commercial uses limited in at 35%. So just within a percentage point of each other voting for the expansion of the retail through all of town center. Going to the next question here, this question was asking the respondents about the potential new residential units in town center north and the overwhelming majority indicated that they would like to see a limitation of additional residential units throughout all of town center north as much as possible. And again, you'll see that mirrored here at 51%. However, notably on this question, the towner North residents at 24% did indicate that again at that same percentage that they would support more residential units throughout Townsender North including the maximum allowance on commercial parcels. So this one did have a little bit bigger vote for additional residential from the Townsender North respondents. I have one question if you don't mind. Yes. Is this presentation any different than our individual review that we receive from you? To some degree, for example, some of the pie charts and things that we wanted to present to you would be additional information beyond what you saw at your one on one. And there's, of course, the guide to discussion at the end. A commission of the purpose of this the guide a discussion at the end. Commission of the purpose of this is to bring it to the public so obviously we've seen most of this and then also just get our input on the record. Right. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you. So the next question is talking or was requesting feedback regarding the current commercial shopping centers if Townsend or North would be redeveloped. Here again the citywide consensus at 42.5% was that they would like to see height and residential units limited as much as possible on those parcels. And then at 20.6%, which is the next popular vote, the response there was that they did support a limited amount of residential on the commercial parcels as long as it weren't to be developed as tall towers. And again, following that is the town center north resident opinion. Similar results at 51 percent they'd like to see the height and residential units limited as much as possible. And then at 27 percent of the town center north residents they did support a limited amount of residential on those commercial plazas. This last graph that we wanted to share with you was talking about the orientation of, oh, is that picking up? Okay, thank you. Okay, so this last question here was regarding the physical form and the design of the commercial centers upon redevelopment. And this was a topic that we worked with the focus group on quite a bit. And they would prefer to see what the focus group and the larger city population would prefer to see more of an interior facing commercial center design, meaning that there's a creation of new internal streets and less emphasis on orienting towards Collins just to create more of that pedestrian scale development. So overall, in summation, what was the public opinion or the takeaway from this outreach process? It can be summarized by using the term that came out of the focus group, beachy village. And when we say beachy village, they didn't really mean south beach. They meant more of the quaint and quieter, small-scale beach type of retail environment. So again, some of the key takeaways were the concept of don't repeat the east side at beachy village, keeping it more low scale pedestrian oriented. The public did really enjoy the fact that the existing retail environment was more neighborhood serving it met their daily or weekly needs as opposed to being So high end that maybe you only visit once a year a couple times a year That was something that was very important for them to maintain and There were some notable concerns with the existing commercial clauses and developments in terms of maintenance aesthetics, parking and circulation, of course, were a topic of much discussion. The public and largely the focus group really would prefer to see some notable open space, whether that's green space or hard-skate clauses, just places to gather and places that are kind of buffered from Collins Avenue in terms of physical screening and reducing noise and just the visual appearance of Collins. That was something that was very important and then enhancing the Collins Ave, the street treatment. Again, whether that's something, one of the concepts that came out of the focus group was kind of continuing what used to be at the former epicure site all the way along Collins, meaning that wide sidewalk condition, that's really more of a plaza condition without or dining, that was something that everyone was very interested in rather than having in a narrow sidewalks in then large parking fields behind that. So the ideal condition or the preferred condition from the public would be to reduce the development allowances as in limit residential as much as possible. Of course, that's a legal question to have feedback from the city attorney on. Generally, the public was comfortable with the scale, meaning the amount of commercial, but they'd like to see it kind of rearranged again into something that's more pedestrian, friendly, more interior focused, more streets to make it more walkable, things like that. However, if the current regulations were maintained, because we walked through various iterations and potential scenarios with the focus group. The focus group did provide a set of guiding principles. A few are noted on the slide here. I talk about kind of pushing the height away from Collins. Prioritizing open space. Again, pedestrian experience. You'll hear that repeat at a lot. Those internal streets and incorporating structured parking as opposed to surface parking to really maximize those centers there and the design potential. So what does that look like? Here's just some character images that were used in the discussions. Again, you can kind of see that a lot of the retail type environment is kept at a lower scale and towers are kind of pushed back behind that. So it's really maintaining that lower scale at the retail level, at the pedestrian experience level that is of utmost importance for the residents. So of course as Jeff mentioned, the other piece of this project is addressing the inconsistencies in the Northern Business Districts. These were generally the study areas on this map here that we worked throughout this process. Again, the inconsistencies between the land use and the zoning in the Northern Business Districts is something that we will be addressing. There is generally similar consensus from the public in terms of how they would prefer to see the redevelopment occur on these parcels. The impacts of the inconsistencies between the comp plan and the zoning regulations is that there are some existing non-conformities or the potential to create non-conformities depending on the direction that we go with the revisions. Notably here, the land use category for neighborhood business, which is in blue on the land use map on the top, and the B1 zoning district, which is the pink areas on the zoning map on the bottom. That's where the inconsistency lies. In the land use category, the FAR is at a 2.0 and a 25-unit per acre limitation at the land use level, whereas the B1 exceeds that of the land use at 3.45 FAR with bonuses and 85 dwelling units per acre within the B1 zoning. So moving forward, there's several different paths that the commission could choose to follow. The important piece here is that we establish the vision first and the regulations to follow. Again, myself and Jeff won't be making formal recommendations on which path to follow. And these are just some potential starting points for you to consider. So the implications or some implications rather of each different scenario are kind of outlined on this slide for discussion. And when we went through these in your one on ones, we talked about the opportunity to follow the comprehensive plan and revise the zoning. We talked about the option of keeping the current zoning regulations and revising the comp plan. We talked about a hybrid option as well as number four, which would probably be the preference of the public would be to reduce the density and intensity to the maximum extent that's legally possible. Again, a legal question for the city attorney's office to weigh in on or five would be to increase the allowances beyond the current standard, which would be the option that would of course most likely spur redevelopment in the soonest manner, but probably would have the least public support. And we will come back to those options as well as we move through the guided discussions. So this is all teeing us up for the vision document that will follow. The vision document is really the foundational piece that's going to setting the character and the qualities of the public realm largely. You can't really get into master planning private properties, right? But it's going to talk about the streets, the circulation networks, the open spaces, some of the massing, the step backs and step backs, things like that. So that would be the next step and we are, as Jeff noted, looking to schedule a workshop with the commission to come back in the fall to have a visual preference discussion to talk about some places that our team identifies is meeting some of the public requests as well as the output of today's discussion and so that will help us finalize that vision document and that will be the foundation for those text amendments to the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. So in terms of upcoming schedule, this is our last slide before we get into the guided discussion questions. Of course, we're here for the workshop today. Following in the fall, either in August or September, we will be bringing forward the comprehensive plan text amendments for the east side. Can I clean up that we've been working on with city staff as well as revising the bonus models and establishing the concurrency regulations that are requirement and missing piece from the existing regulations in the adopted regulations. And then in fall of the upcoming months here, as I mentioned, we'll be looking to schedule that visual preference workshop and then moving into the comprehensive plan, text amendments, second reading, and then approving the vision document by resolution. Hopefully we can get that consensus going starting today, followed by the text amendments beginning in the winter. So with that, we'll move into the guided discussion questions, Mayor. So we have a series of probably eight different questions that we'd like to get through with the group today that'll be in a foundational pieces for what we bring back to you at the next workshop and then Ultimately with the vision document itself I'm not sure if you're comfortable moving into that or if you wanted to take a break and Thank you first of all so this is how we're gonna do this we're gonna take turns Answering the questions and then as we bring up more comments through our discussion, we'll also take turns again. This is a really important conversation that is of utmost interest to our residents. So I'm certain that there's many watching. And if they're not watching now, they will be watching the recorded version. So I ask the commission to please just wait until you recognize and then let's just take turns answering the questions and then asking the questions of you. Commissioner Joseph can start. So if you want to start with the question and then we'll start with Commissioner Joseph and then move down the line. Great, thank you. And is it possible to have this slide show up as well? And before we go into that, if there's any questions that you all have written down, I know I have many. If you want to start with that as well, that may start the conversation going. So Commissioner Joseph, did you have conversations, questions to ask first? Or we could just start with the first question. I guess we could just start with the first question. Go ahead. Okay. Great. So the overarching question, of course, is does the original vision of this international destination, 18 hour city, all the things that Jeff noted that are currently in your comprehensive plan, does that vision still stand? And then the next question we'll talk about, if it doesn't, we have some follow-up questions on that. Okay, so as to the original vision, I believe regarding the development that we currently have that that vision no longer stands that it can be fulfilled. Be fulfilled so we have to basically go with what we have currently the and Taking into account a situation such as Gulf Stream if you you know where people are talking about interstreece and all and commercial Stores and things like that Just seeing over the years what's happened in Gulf Stream with the high rents and all, I don't think that would play out well here either. The last thing we want is to go into some construction of a development that has a failed history. Do you want to move on to the next question and could they go together? If we can just get consensus on the original. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm a little confused with something. It is with the timeline. Because you guys are not supposed to be given us recommendations, right? But you guys are going to be bringing a document in August, like in three weeks, for the first reading. So how those two things go together? Because if anything, we know that there is an issue that needs to be solved clearly. So my question is that it should be kind of simple that we want to be do the things that are legal without taking anybody's right. So that is for me what I would like to see happening to do what is legal and I don't want to take the rights of the property owners. I don't want to take out the rights of the residents or anybody else So and that is my confusion is with the product that you guys are gonna be developing because if you are not given us recommendation But in three weeks, we're gonna be voting for something Based on this discussion. I would like to get a little bit more clarification. Yeah, so just to clarify what's coming forward in, most likely September is the east side of Collins discussion, so it's not relating to what we're discussing today, which is town center north and the northern business districts. We are addressing the inconsistencies that specifically lie within the mixed use resort categories, which is the east side of Holland. So it's two separate phases of the project. So this is Townsend or North. And the Townsend or North process will be in a throughout the late summer early fall. And then what we're bringing to you more quickly is the east side cleanup. So two different tracks, but one overarching umbrella project and goal of cleaning up inconsistencies throughout the city. And on the east side, it's not a matter of what is it supposed to say in terms of how intense you can develop. It's just not, just needs to be cleaned up, consistent with the way it's been developed over the last 20 years, and then a retooling of bonuses to try to make them more meaningful. That'll be part of the discussion. Thank you. When we're talking about the East side, can you, again, especially for the public, to clarify which areas we're talking about, that that's what is coming in August, right? Yes, it's the mixed use resort, Lane use category, east of Collins along the beach. Okay. I don't have anything else right now. Commissioner Raskar. Will you, you're not answering the first question? Okay. You're not answering the first question? Yeah, I'm no issue with the original vision. Yeah, okay. How can the how can the original vision of still apply Commissioner Joseph that we're gonna do this in an organized way so I just wanted to To ask like that's just for, so we're all on the same page, the public outreach that you did and all this data that you've presented to us, that's based on people who live throughout the city, right, not just the people from that particular area. That's right, the focus group and the online survey was open to all residents and then separately just for informational purposes. We worked to separate out the survey data from just the town center north residents to see if there was a difference in the voting patterns since they are more immediately affected but generally they seem to follow the larger city opinion. And as the person who lives, the commissioner who lives in that area, I can tell you that it absolutely tracks with the feedback that I get. So I'm very comfortable with the data that you're presenting, something that reflects the will of the residents. To answer your question, does the original vision, the 18 hour town center still stand? I believe that it does. A lot of the good portion of the buildings that are in that area, which I assume you're familiar with, right, plus of the America's Beach Place, the west part of, no, the east part of Port Belagio. They all have access to the shopping like through back gates. So you can leave your apartment and open the little gate and you're right there at the supermarket, you're right there at the salon. And well, it may not be the prettiest walk through the parking lot or whatever. It's extremely convenient. So this is not an area that residents were like in other places where you might be like, oh, well, we really, it's the views that are important. A lot of these buildings have internal views like to the pools or to whatever. So that accessibility to the commercial side is very important. I would venture to guess that the chunk of people who would welcome the commercial off of Collins and going westward are either people who live on the base side or people who don't live in the area because I would say, I don't know if most of us live on you know have that access but we don't we don't need commercial if we have that easy access and we spoke in the in the original in our individual meeting possibly creating an access a pedestrian access that would open that to the people on the bay, and that might address that problem. I think by and large we enjoy that residential feel that we have, and inviting commerce would increase traffic, et cetera. And even though it's a very large road, a very wide road, it still feels that beachy village feeling to the extent you can have that with these tall buildings. I've always enjoyed being part of that and being able to get home without having to touch Collins if I'm coming from 163rd Street is also nice to be able to avoid that. So I do think we are lacking also there's no not that we want to become South Beach or we want clubs or whatever but there is limited adult night life kind of options that I know some people would welcome and the not being everything facing Collins also absolutely tracks it's not pleasant it's noisy it's also I know because of the options the way things are, are spread out, but it's not, I'm not gonna say it's common, but it's not unheard of of vehicles who, whether it's an elderly person who confuses the pedals or whatever the reason are, you have some medical condition and then the car actually ends up where the tables and the chairs are you have some medical condition and then the car actually ends up where the tables and the chairs are. If you have that reorientation of the commercial spaces, you don't have to worry about those things. I don't eat outside because I know that it's not on her stuff. I don't want to get hit by a car while I'm eating dinner, you know. So, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. I like the reorientation. I think the original vision and that broad scope does still hold, but obviously there's a lot of work between that and where we are now. Thank you. I agree with much of what has been said. I do also agree that the original vision stands. I just want to remind everyone that this is private property so it's not like we can just redesign it. In fact, the conversation that was had many years ago was very similar to this about having interior streets and having a more pedestrian friendly and having restaurants that you don't feel like you're going to be sitting bright abouting Collins. So I think that that is consistent and that probably stays. So and to Commissioner Riscar's point as far as the nightlife, you know, as our city continues to to the demographic continues to be younger compared to 20 years ago. I think that that's important as well and against to her point, not necessarily night clubs, but something that is, let's call it family friendly entertainment or something that is beyond what we have right now. Okay, let's go to the next question. Thank you very much for that discussion. So the next question would be, if not, then what would be the desired vision for the town center's, you know, function character and scale. So I think commission is showing us that you were the one that indicated that it did not stand if you could kind of speak to this question, please. Yes. So, um, let's. I believe that if there's going to be any redevelopment in the current buildings, I believe that the height restrictions should be as they are today that we should not allow for any higher buildings or density. Our infrastructure as it is today I believe is becoming overburdened and you know we have other cities like Fort Lauderdale that we've heard have had sewer breakages week after week, and that's something we don't want to have happened to us with over development. Just to clarify one point when you say, remain as it is today, do you mean like the one in two-story conditions or the existing allowances within the code and document? So in the, well, again, this is private property, so we can't tell RK what to do with his property. Would I like to see some redevelopment there to make, you know, to give his classes a fresh look? Yes. Yes, it would probably bring in more of the businesses that residents would be happy to see, but we can't force a private property owner to do anything they don't want to do. Sorry to ask one more time in terms of the desired scale in terms of redevelopment potential down the road they do redevelop was the Yes, I'm more to the vision of the scaling character for keeping the heights On the on the west side as they are today As they're currently not to have another Aurora Building on the on the west side. So for clarification you mean as they are built today not what is allowed. This is early. Correct. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Anyone else wish to speak on this question? I think the remainder of the commission have indicated that the original visions did still stand so I'll move on to the next question. Missionary, Ms. Gaskara? Just to add, Geri, even if the height increases, remember I could also be, you could have maybe four story buildings, but maybe fewer shops, right, which would accomplish the same thing. So you can accomplish upgrades. And even if you had three or four stories, it's still a lot less than what's allowed. It would be very, I think, could still be very pleasant. But there's, I'm just about that. Okay, so let me clarify, because I am on the West Side for development of no higher than four stories on Collins. Okay. Thank you. So the next question is kind of twofold here. So it talks about the trade off potential, right? So the public, especially through the focus group, identified concerns with the existing commercial centers, again, the aesthetics, lack of open space, the circulation and parking. So there were definitely some concerns with the commercial clauses as they were with a preference to see at least some redevelopment or enhancements of the existing centers if not total redevelopment. So the question here is, is it a worthwhile trade-off to the commission to allow for greater florae ratio or residential densities for potential redevelopment of the commercial plazas? Essentially getting to the question of how much, how important is redevelopment of the centers to the commission, given the known challenges and concerns with those clauses followed by what if the additional development allowances work and tied back to are connected to some of the characteristics that the public feedback indicated were highly desirable. Again, some of those open spaces, new street networks, keeping the podiums per se, so the first couple of stories, maybe the first, second, third stories, I had a lower scale with the towers pushed back so that it feels like a smaller scale environment, but the intensities are kind of still there that would accommodate redevelopment from a development perspective. So that's our question, which is, again, just generally, the discussion of how much of the redevelopment scenario is the commission interested in and what's the given take on accommodating redevelopment from a financial perspective when it comes to the needs from a development team. And I go ahead and move forward with that development. So before we get it, I have a question to you. I'm assuming that you looked at the original vision. So what prevented that from moving forward? Was it because there were not incentives? Again, bringing it back to this isn't anything necessarily new per se. Why has that not happened to this point? It's hard to answer this question without understanding what exactly what that mean if we did say we supported. So in the recent years it's likely been the conflicts between the code and the comp plan. There's not really that assurance or clarity from the city side and the developers' perspective of what they can do or what they're allowed to do. So I think in the more recent years people may be putting projects on pause until this process is played out in the past. It may have been more of land values and those other economic factors that push people to develop along the beach rather than interior to the city. So there are probably a couple different factors over the years, but it seems like a large majority of the city has experienced that redevelopment kind of a round town center. And this may be the next phase of redevelopment now that a lot of the city is built out leading a couple parcels along the beach. This is going to the next frontier of redevelopment opportunities given the fact that a lot of these parcels are underutilized in relation to the existing regulations that are in the complaining code. Great, thank you. Commissioner Russell had more Torriams. Right. They're a good point. Commissioner students, do you want to answer this question? First. OK. So the way I see it is that we want to bribe the owners, giving them more potential for more residential if they do redevelop. So I'm not okay with that. Okay. It's just. I don't see how, you know, unless we have higher buildings that, or there's a potential for some type of, you know, it all goes to profitability for the developer. I don't see how other than shopping centers, RK, would be anything other than that, unless it was going to be high rises. I don't see his desire to redevelop his existing properties or redesign his existing properties if there wasn't a large profit in it. So, in terms of your preference and the redevelopment of, let's talk about the potential for the RK pauses specifically since you noted those, noting the existing challenges within those centers and some of the public feedback would your preference be to kind of maintain or maybe just slightly beautify what's there and what's existing versus see total redevelopment that perhaps are accompanied by those greater intensities and densities. I'm not for the greater densities or intensities. I'm for to have a newer style plaza if that was at all possible. That would also lead to a lot of downtime. I don't know how that would even play out. To close down a plaza that just doesn't seem feasible in the city to do that. I don't know if that would even ever happen. Thank you. Mr. Riskard? I mean, this is a highly hypothetical question because it has a lot of variables. I don't... So I guess all of this is couched in in the concept of if the developer were to come forward and if the developer, there's a lot of ifs that we have to get through before our opinion, right? If all these ifs happen, which I don't know how likely it is, I think I'm a process person. I'm not usually like the just going right for the outcome, but I think in this case because there's so many ifs, I can't go through the process. So I'll just go through the outcome. If it's getting us the desired outcome, which is whatever the, you know, what the public has expressed, the lower, the lower height, we'll use Gulf string, but it's really not a Gulf string, it's because Gulf string is too big, but I used an example in our meeting, I think it was a Dural, the Dural version, you know, with a fountain or the open space, if it's giving us what we want and it's gonna get us there, I would certainly entertain the, you know, the, what are we calling them trade-offs? Yeah. And I mean, why not? If otherwise we could stuck with, with, you know, flooded parking lots as the rest of the city grows. So I'm not happy with the plus as they are, but again, we don't control them. So it becomes a lake when it rains for five minutes, it's a problem, we have problems there. So I would appropriate trade-offs, I would certainly consider them. appropriate trade-offs, I would certainly consider them. If I may, go ahead. The consideration is more density to promote redevelopment. That's what we're training of. More density for redevelopment. to Joseph A. Point to make him more feasible and for them to have their own AI, etc. So another thing is that we continue always talking about the public opinion, but remember the public opinion of the people who did answer the survey, I know of several people that answers several times the survey. And also I know people that didn't do the survey. And remember that we are talking about a medium to long-term issues. So those children and teenagers who didn't answer the survey that ones are going to be living in the city and continue living in the city by using those classes or those developments. So we are making decisions to the future based on whatever who answers today. So that we need to consider. The only way we could do it, right, that teenagers can't make those decisions now, so we have to do the best that we can. Right now there's no residential, anything there, right? There's no residential, anything where the classes are. And if there is, so any, if you add one apartment, it's an increase in that residential density because there's right now nothing. Now I, right, so I understand that if they may exist on paper but in reality there's nothing. That makes use, but they had it right to do it. It's not mixed use right now. It's strictly commercial. But they have the right to do it. I know. So what I'm saying is, again, because this is very hypothetical. So I don't know. I don't want a 20 story something there. My vision is a little village of the lower floors and that's how I envision it. If that means to make it happen that you add some residential components and if that would, in the end, we don't know what's going to be presented. But if ultimately what's presented is accomplishes the goal of what the people have expressed is something they would favor. And then they would have the opportunity to speak up at that time also. Given hypothetically, given if it's the right, for the right project, I would support it. But it's something ridiculous, I wouldn't. So then I have another question. As of right now, if they want to redevelop one of the places, can they have residential as of right now? The way it is written right now. That's correct. Yes. So it is existing already. So right now, if they want to redevelop, they can do residential and continue having commercial. Here the question, the way I see it on Lesson, really not wrong, is to give them more allowances, to give them the option to allow greater, flourier ratios and all residential density, is to increase what it is in the books today to make them more feasible for them to redevelop in the future. But as of today, if they come and present, not thinking about the moratorium, but if they present a project today, they can have that little apartment on top of the residence. Yes, they can. So it is in the books. Yes. Yeah. OK. I'm just going to add something because I think Commissioner Stimson makes a good point. Well, both of you, I agree with, to a certain extent. It's hard to visualize this without an actual design. And so we don't even know what would be there given what is already allowed. But it goes back to my question earlier. What has prevented them from doing it? And if it means that it hasn't been financially attractive, you know, that's a conversation we have to have. One of the things that I've heard over and over again from residents on the east side is they feel that the current commercial that we have does not live up to the standards that the city has grown into and and the kind of world-class city that it is and definitely an international destination that has been accomplished I believe more than probably anywhere else in South Florida. We talked about Daryngar our other workshop and I give the example of the Avengera development. If you can speak a little bit to that because I think that that helps frame this a little bit more since the area is much the size is very similar to the size that we're talking about here. Yes, Mayor, thank you for referring to a development in a venture called Park Square. And it's a very popular among adventurer residents. It's a different format for development because it's not a parking lot with shops behind a parking lot. And it's not a pedestrian mall either, like Lomans Plaza is set up. Instead it's- I haven't heard Lomans Plaza in a couple of times. I know, it's not called that anymore, but that's how I still think of it from back in the day. And those pedestrian-only centers haven't been terribly successful. But what is successful and what the residents really love about it and what I think you like about it is that it's set up in an urban street format. It's got shops lining the streets. You can park on the streets. You can park in the garage that's behind it. And it's a mix of uses. You've got retail. you've got restaurants, got services. There's some residential there. There's some office, there's some hotel. I believe there's some senior living and medical related things there. And so it's just a nice environment to be in. It's the same thing that we've heard from multiple commissioners in terms of a place you want to walk around in. It's the same thing that we've heard from multiple commissioners in terms of a place you want to walk around in. The buildings are not especially tall, I think maybe there eight stories or ten maybe. So you're not baking in the sun, you know, it's comfortable to walk around and it's compact. So you park, you walk, you dine, et cetera. It's small compared to, we've heard good things from people about Doraal City Center, our city place rather, and downtown Doraal. Two different developments with different formats. Downtown Doraal is like one story shops, set up in a bunch of crisscrossing shopping streets and it's got towers but they're pushed back so it's not in your face to quote somebody. And then City Place is a retail street with restaurants and the kind of stuff that you want to walk around and visit as opposed to necessarily daily shopping needs, but it's got residential above it. It's got, I think, five to seven stories of residential above it. And they're just nice places to walk around and to be. And some of those images of the downtown derail are shown on the screen here, we wanted to include those for discussion purposes. After Mayor, you have a chance to respond. You can just speak to kind of follow up on the concept of this type of development, which would likely meet some of those public requests in terms of potential format. Again, as Jeff noted, the retail environment has kept lower scale. The garages are wrapped and then the towers, which would be likely necessary for a developer to achieve their ROI on the project. I'm going to push back and not necessarily felt at the same scale at the pedestrian level. So there's a balancing act there. So I'll go back to that slide for you, Mayor. And then if we can kind of follow up with the discussion on some of those character images there. For me, it's very hard to answer this question because it all, how much are we talking about? What exactly does that mean? What is the actual trade-off? very hard to answer this question because it all, you know, how much are we talking about what exactly does that mean? What is the actual trade-off? Because if it hasn't been enough now, how much more are we willing to allow? And I think there has to be a different sort of trade-off, not necessarily with more FAR, because I think that that is a dangerous road to go on, especially given what we know now and how we do have projects that regrettably are out of line with what they were supposed to be Aurora being that one that we all know about. So for me it would be different sort of incentives. And I don't know what that looks like, but certainly the flooding and the leaky roofs and whatever other issues that RK plots us have is not the kind of, it's not representative of our city. And we have to find a way to incentivize that property owner to, at the very least, beautify it, but ultimately to bring it to a standard that we can all be proud of. Thank you, and then I'll kind of switch back to the images slide here. Just going back to some of those, maybe known places that you've been. Again, this is the, just one example of downtown Teral, but the key point here is that at the pedestrian level, the scale has kept much more mild at this particular center. It's one story. It could be two to three stories, something of that scale, and then the towers are pushed back, the garages are wrapped. So this would be something that maybe would be more supported in terms of kind of looking at the balancing act process, of allowing the entitlements that are necessary to redevelop, but keeping the pedestrian environment more of that lower scale, which is the key takeaway from the public process. If we can walk through a discussion on this concept and then we'll move into the next question. Can I just ask one more question? Yeah, I'm assuming that representatives from the arcade plasas were a part of this conversation. We did speak with the property owners independently and we had about an hour long discussion with them. Can you provide some of that feedback so that we have an understanding of what their position is and what's prevented them from redeveloping? Sure, generally, of course, the centers are very well-leased. They have a good mix of tenants that they're happy with the least structures with the percentage of the spaces that are leased. So at this point, since the centers are doing so well, just like any other developer probably would in the same situation, I think they're struggling to, and it wrapped their heads around the concept of shutting down a lot of those spaces for however many months, years it would take to redevelop the plazas. So maybe not speaking for them, but maybe down the line if the economy were to take a turn and they weren't having as much success with those spaces being leased up. Maybe that would be a time for them to consider redevelopment more from their perspective. But at this point, they're happy with the current leasing. Okay. And just looking at shopping center holdings throughout South Florida, they're buyers and holders. They've had the RK Plases to develop tears since I think 1995. And they have some properties throughout South Florida that are fairly valuable in real estate where redevelopments happening around them. But that's not their business model at this time. Got it. Thank you. OK. Next question. Sorry, if we can just revisit the images there and whatever order you'd like to discuss them. Who would like to go first, kind of take in turns, Commissioner Roscarra? I don't go. So what's the top and what's the bottom? So they're both from downtown or out. And this is just one character example, right? The concepts being the lower scale at the pedestrian level with the towers pushed back, being again kind of the balancing act of the entitlements that are necessary to spur redevelopment, but maintaining or achieving some of those focus group in larger resident objectives. I like the bottom one better. I mean, obviously for us it would be very different. We don't have that level of opportunities. But anything that separates the pedestrian from the vehicles as much as possible. That's both a pedestrian safety concern, but also just a noise issue. It's just a more pleasant experience to not deal with traffic because we have to deal with it. Basically, the moment we step out of our homes. So to not have to deal with it, I think, would be a nice thing. Sorry, just to interrupt and clarify. So they're both actually the same center. The bottom right image, they're kind of having a special event. So they shut that street down as a pedestrian only event. But it is generally, you'll see the bottom right just a street right now. I like it with the event. No, it is. I just want to separate the people from the traffic. Maybe this isn't the most work for my priorities. These may not be the best images. I know you're showing us, well this is what residential on top of commercial might look like. So I really wouldn't even know what to say to that. What you were saying before about the adventure that it was like maybe seven to eight floors. I don't know if that's what this is. But I would support the lowest possible with the best pedestrian experience possible. Commissioner Staminson. I have no comments about the pictures. I only have a comment about maybe if we want to hear directly from the people from RK Plaza, we could invite them to one workshop and hear directly from the people from RK Plaza, we could invite them to one workshop, and here directly from them, I don't feel comfortable paraphrasing their conversations, or also I don't feel comfortable about talking on behalf of what may or not be their business model. I feel better having them directly the address or questions if they want to come. But this workshop is open to the public. I'm certain they knew about it. But they can try now participate because it's a workshop. So if we want them to also be able to have a conversation with us, maybe they need a formal invitation. I don't think they, I mean, they're welcome to meet with us individually as well, but, because if we were gonna start having, and perhaps we can, we can have a workshop to include all of the business owners, because not just we're not on cats, we also have beach plays, which is a significant owner, as well as the intercoastal. But I see your point. Commissioner Joseph, can you have a call? I just say it's an awkward conversation because it's what would you like to see with something over which we have zero control? Yes. We don't own it. It's private property. At the same time, it's where we have to, you need direction as to how to amend our documents so that we have working documents. And I think that needs to be the focus. This is not really about, you know, how are we going to redevelop this? This is, how are we going to draft the documents so that if and when redevelopment comes to the table and we're going to be long gone, in my opinion, I think we're all, none of us are going to be here anymore. There is a path to go forward. So it'd be nice if they were here to answer questions or whatever. But who knows what their situation is going to be, maybe 10 years from now, which is when I think it's, this is going to be maybe 10 years from now, which is when I think it's this is going to happen. Maybe it will happen next year. I mean, they'll probably be around. But I agree. They've been very clear that they have no intention to redevelop anytime soon. I mean, the last time I think Mr. Katz was here publicly. He said as much. Maybe that changes. Right. But for now, I think we've, let's focus on the real job here is the documents. So we have to have working documents so that if and when they come forward, we have something to work with. And we're not saying, well, let's have to interpretation what we do with this or with that. We want to be clear on what can be done. And it might not even be them at that point anyways. Right. Like I said, because that's what makes this so difficult because it's largely hypothetical, but the goal is the documents that future commissions can work with. Commissioner Joseph, you're coming on the pictures. Sure. So as far as the pictures, that's just these are dream scenarios that I don't think will occur for many, many years, if ever. And for me, as I said, for many years, I would like to do away with the Earth-A-Cake scenario that we have, the higher as you go back off Collins to do away with that scenario, and also to have eventual development on Collins itself on the west side to be no higher than four stories. And regarding the pictures, it's also hard for me to imagine because it's not, it looks nothing like we do. So you'd have to put the east side behind it for us to be able to make that sort of determination. And I also agree that it couldn't be anything that intense. And it's hard to tell because you're looking at it from the bird's eye view rather than from where you would see it as a pedestrian. But in either way, I wouldn't want anything like that here anyways. Thank you. So we'll move into the next question. Again, this was one that was asked of the online survey respondents, which is, should residential uses continue to be allowed on the commercial properties, again, keeping in the back of your mind that some residential allowances or a minimum threshold of that would likely be required to see redevelopment of these parcels because that's where the return on investment is made especially in the current market. So without that type of allowance, the likelihood of redevelopment on those commercial parcels is greatly reduced. So I'll open that up for discussion and comment. Okay. Can you just feel on the start? Yes, sure. So I would think that, well, I would like to see more restaurants in our city. So taking into account that procure, I would like to not have that be any ever, any substantial high rise. And again, if there were to be a structure of no more than four stories being that it's directly on Collins. Even a one-story restaurant, I believe, would be ideal for our city. Did you get an answer to your question? So in terms of the four-story limitation, typically, of course, there's two-story commercial in the RK centers right now, but it's going to be atypical for current development. So, with four stories, would you assume that the first story is retail and the upper three would be residential? As far as the four stories, that would be, say I'm not even considering the arcade properties because if arcade were to be redeveloped, I would like it to be, and I believe the developer himself in one discussion I had a couple of years ago would also like to maintain the two-story. I don't believe that at that time they were not looking to go any higher than that, which would be keeping with my idea for the city. As far as new commercial property there, there are examples of newer, if you go down 167th Street, as you get close to 95 over there. And there's a new development that you see. I believe it's martial. There's a martial's there. And a Wawa gas station, that type of development. That would be nice to see in our city. But as I said, these and with the ratio of rental and all, I can't see the RK would ever shut down one of those plazas to redevelop. It would be a crazy loss of income and it would not serve him well to do that at any time in the future. As far as the poor stories, that would have to be way back off Collins. I'm not looking for any high development anywhere on the West Side close to Collins Avenue. Commissioner Scar. I think, I mean, it says, should residential uses continue to be allowed on commercial properties. That's the, so right now that's the mixed use. I think if we're looking to, it depends on what you are pushing for. If redevelopment is the goal because we don't like what's there, I think keeping the flexibility of the mixed use is helpful. It doesn't mean it has to be mixed use. just it could be redeveloped in a hundred percent commercial right they don't have to use it But I think flexibility is It's helpful if that's the goal right do we do we want to encourage redevelopment or not? I think given you know the current housing crisis I It's a reasonable expectation that we would be adding residential units. But again, if this doesn't happen for another 30 years, we may not have that crisis, we may have different needs. And since we don't know, I think keeping the flexibility is a good thing. Mr. Strickson. To continue to be allowed, right now is allowed, right? Yeah, absolutely. I don't want to take anybody rise, like I said at the beginning. Plus that will be probably a legally challenged. If we were not allowed, it is right now. So yeah, I'm okay with continuing. As it is. I agree, let the market decide if it's allowed. It hasn't happened, so clear release or reason. And for clarification, beach plays for instance, if that was redeveloped, that would allow for commercial with how high residential. So for beach place specifically, the current zoning regulations actually require that a certain percentage of the ground floor would be developed as a mixed use building so that there would be some sort of commercial on the ground floor. I believe a 70 percent minimum. So any new development. Any property that were to redevelop within town center would have to meet that minimum requirement. So it's essentially the zoning regulations require a mixed use building at this point. In terms of height on beach place, Amy, do you know the question for Plas of America as well. Let me pull up the zoning regulations. There's about a little bit different. The commercial regulation is only for the first floor. Only for the ground floor, 70%. Not 70% of the hope is. Yes, yes, yes. So it's not like having two Ramolis coming here or something. Okay. I like having tour of more is coming here something okay The the height regulations are key to street street types that don't exist on the ground today In a lot of town centers so it's hard to say in all cases How much height is allowed in a given location? But the maximum You have to go about 230 feet off of Collins before you can get up to 15 stories. And something between 10 and 15 stories, let's say, is allowed in the interior portion of town center and maybe higher on 163rd. Amy can verify that. But I think that's the overall just. Okay. There's a map of proposed street network that's currently in the zoning regulations. That's what all the height is based off of. It's like 12 different types of streets. It's very complicated and that's why part of this whole conversation is what's in the town center Zodiacode today would be difficult to develop as it's so complicated. Well, that's That's the other question. So this this process should clean that up that's right. Yeah, so then it's More consistent and so it's not different every street has a different rule. Mm-hmm. Okay, and so I'm sorry I don't have the map with me. That's right. That's right. No, we can we can probably it's a range from 15 to 19 Okay, yeah, we can move on to the next question. Thank you. Okay. So, and to the same point that we were just talking about, flipping the question around again, a question that the public was asked through the public survey process, should retail be allowed to expand into the existing residential areas noting that currently it is required upon redevelopment within the town center zoning district. And if so, should it be allowed as a principal commercial use, meaning that it's a commercial only building or should it be required to be integrated with a residential component, likely resulting in ground floor commercial upper story residential. Open up that. And what is the current rule? The current zoning regulations would require that a ground floor at least 70% is developed as commercial and then you could put your residential uses above it. So the real question would be, do you continue to require that? Or do you leave it open as an option for people or do you eliminate the retail opportunity altogether in the current residential portion of the town center in North area? Great. Commissioner Stoen, do you want to go first? Yeah, I want to keep an as an option, as a requirement actually as it is right now. When we talk commercial we can also be talking about for example a childcare place. So we should be very well received for many residents including me. So to have the requirement of commercial in the ground floor, as it is right now, I'm okay with keeping it. I'm sorry, just add one more point as you kind of think through this. There are situations in other cities where there is a requirement for ground floor commercial and a lot of times that might sit empty depending on how the market's doing at that time. So you kind of check the box of providing the ground floor retail but it doesn't end up contributing to the neighborhood or the pedestrian environment because it's empty storefronts but the developer was able to do the residential project which they were actually interested in doing and again the retail was kind of a box checker. So it's one thing to keep in mind if it's a requirement. There's a likelihood that it sits empty and the implications of that in the neighborhood and the character. Just keep that in mind as well. Got it? Commissioner Joseph? Well, in that regard, I would keep the code the way it is that the requirement for the retail and hope that we can have enough effort to have that storefront may it be developed. And just as a reminder through the public process, the concerns from the public were additional traffic in the neighborhood, which perhaps Commissioner Viscarra could speak to, and the residents can enjoy that separation so that the traffic is a little less in the rear of town center north and the western portions. It's residential traffic primarily, if you were to add the retailer, require the retail throughout, you know, there's traffic impacts and that may disrupt the character of some of those existing residential portions of Town Center North, so I just wanted to add that as well. There's also another fundamental consideration. This retail requirement is based on a completely different urban form. It's not based on condos sitting deep into a property behind hundreds of feet of lush landscaping and parking lots. It's based upon buildings, front and wide sidewalks. So that's a related question. Is that something, is that kind of urban form, something that the commission would want to see if condos are redeveloped or is the current style in favor. Okay, yeah, I'm a hard-know on this one. Because I mean, I expressed my views at the beginning of the meeting. It's, and I find it a little confusing because it's for redevelopment purposes. Because right now, none of that exists. I think maybe an intercostal, I think there's a little store. I don't know if it's still there. But by and large, we don't have commercial nor are we missing it again because we have access to from the back. And if we can, you know, add access maybe to the, to the bay facing buildings that that would also, I mean, I don't know if they're missing it, but it would certainly be an option for them. So I, I would not support keeping, keeping this. I think we're going to make the changes to the plan. This is one of those changes, I think we're going to make the changes to the plan. This is one of those changes I think we should absolutely make. So I'm going to go in the middle. I'd like to keep it open. I think that allowing the commercial, especially as it would incentivize other business owners, because it would provide for more opportunities for potential commercial developers to come into an area that has been dominated by one owner if there's a need for it and a desire and again going back to the market requires it but again to your point about having an empty storefront, that never looks good and to force someone to do it just because they want to develop their condo, I think it's just ingenuous, it's just if it was never meant to be, it's never meant to be. So for me, it's allowing there to be more flexibility. If I may, so yesterday I was in the Santa Fe building and they have that Santa model in the bottom is the commercial and residential on the top and they don't have parking, I mean you have to pay for parking in there and they don't allow beach parking and it's very successful. So if it's a requirement right now, and I, like I said, I would like to see the minimum changes possible. So we don't get big legal challenges, because they're going to probably come anyway. So I think the more we change, the more we open ourselves to the challenge. If it's a requirement right now and the idea that the prime real state is going to be empty that will depend on the market clearly but I think even for the right prices people will have their offices in there. It might have your office in the bottom of your building. So I like to clean up what is going on with a cooperation plan, et cetera, but with the less changes possible. So I'm okay to keep in the requirement. It would change the character of that area. Introducing the commercial there. I mean, I understand the business focus, but the residential focus, I think, here should dominate because that is right now 100% residential. I mean, this is where a lot of our families live. So I think if they've expressed in the, you know, the data reflects that they don't want it, and I'm the commissioner who lives there, I'm telling you like it would affect us. You know, I'd like that to not, I mean, me, I would eliminate the requirement, but at the very least, you know, make it not a requirement, and if you can want to keep it flexible, but I really think that that would harm the area I really do. It's like everybody, you know, we know that people like the Wal-Mart, we heard that in the transportation debate, but you wouldn't necessarily want it in the middle of Poincyana, right? So it would affect your community, and'm telling you requiring the commercial here would absolutely affect that community. So even if people would like shops then we can increase the access to the shops but I wouldn't introduce them. But on the other hand I almost think that perhaps that's the reason it hasn't been redeveloped. Is that requirement? There's nothing really. And that's the other thing. It's already developed. It's really only to the smaller Salem house and Avila that maybe might be up for redevelopment. So again, this is something that maybe it's in 20 years, or who knows. up for redevelopment. So again, this is something that maybe it's in 20 years, you know, or who knows. But I can tell you that looking at the picture right now, those of us who live there, we like the neighborhood feel of it. And introducing commercial space would change that. Yeah, you have the two. Go ahead. And maybe the reason why it has not been redeveloped is because it doesn't need the redevelopment. Maybe because it is function as it is, and it's not needed. Maybe successful. Now, everything is redevelopment. It can get better, clearly, anything. But we can also say that, I mean, we can, I guess, why it's not, it's being redeveloped, yes or not. So my point is that maybe it's just because it's successful enough, because most of those buildings are full capacity. So maybe that's the reason why it has not been redeveloped. Right, similar to why the RK plus has not been redeveloped. All right, I think you got two, yes, for requirement Right similar to why the the arcade classes have been read it all all right I think you got to yes For requirement and to leaving it open is that what you heard? I'm more of a no you're more to know all right So no hard no, but if we have to compromise I you know It is what it is but if we're just taking tallies I'm a no. Yes and I just did want to reconfirm because I know we added a couple talking points after the first two commissioners had their chance to speak so I want to confirm that you're still both on the side of maintaining the requirement as opposed to making it an option or removing it all together. No, I'll say that I'm for the commercial option, sorry requirement. Let's leave it as a requirement. I'm also for having in our code to have only replacement height of the existing building if there is a redevelopment? I think on the question that I throw out there or the consideration rather as to the form of redevelopment in the residential area, Commissioner of Scara I think is clear that she likes the way, and she feels a lot of the residents like the way it is today, would bringing buildings to the street versus setting them back and having sort of a more active ground floor potential, is that something you would want to leave as an option? Something to require? Looking for some feedback on that. Can you clarify what you mean the street? Where exactly are we talking? Yeah, so, for example, on North Bay Road, you have the option of, I think the code right now calls for buildings to be built right to the edge of a sidewalk, to have like additional sidewalk area dedicated and then the building like right there to function more like a park square for example or some of these other downtown lifestyle centers and what not that you've seen and liked. I think the vision, the public vision, I think the commission's vision for the commercial centers is fairly clear. You know, you want something off Collins with an open space, you know, usable event space and gathering space and an improved shopping environment. But for the residential area, should you see redevelopment there, should it stay the way it is as building, set deep back into properties that are sort of self-contained, or should these building contribute to more of an urban form where they're pushed to the back of the street, whether it's North Bay Road or a new street that's created internal to some of these parcels and have more of an urban form. Should that be a requirement? Should it be an option? Is it not desirable at all? Commissioner Joseph, you wanna go? Okay, so are you talking about a development such as Port of Elagio, where it's right up to the street, the building. I'm not happy with that scenario. I would like to see a nice setback. I would need to see a rendering and consider case by case. Commissioner Scott? I do not support the urbanization with that be the word. I really think that I really feel like the character of that area is under attack with these edits. The residents have spoken, you've gotten your data. They've said that this is what they want and we are ignoring them. So let's, you know, I'm very comfortable with the feedback that we've gotten. It reflects what I know. And I would favor keeping the character the way that it is. I would agree. So just to be clear, you're okay with having a building right up to the sidewalk. That's what we have right now. What happens is... What? What do you don't have that in class of the Americas? We have a little bit of grass, which is everybody's dogs grass now. But yeah, you do. I mean, you have the, the plots of the Americas is walled off, and you have some grass, and then you have the sidewalk. I mean, you have the, along 163rd Street, you have the wall, you have some grass, and then you have the sidewalk. It's, and the buildings inside are separated. But my understanding of the question is, how set back they are from the sidewalk itself, right? I mean, so we do have space, but it's not, but it's still residential, right? It's garden area, it's pool area, it's, you know, you have the garage in the back that separates us from the marshals and everything else. So. So it's a question of setback, but it's also a question of orientation and function. So you know right now the buildings whether regardless of how far they are from the street They are in self-contained properties. You know you have to enter internally to access everything There's no interaction between the building and the street. Right. That's really the question So it's a setback question, but it's also a building orientation and function does the building and the street. Right. That's really the question. So it's a setback question, but it's also a building orientation and function. Does the building have those commercial ground floor uses? Does it engage the street? Is there interaction with the street or is it just walled off, fenced off, and a development unto itself? Right, the way that currently there is, it's very walled off. Yes. well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well the same. And it's not like, you know, Fort Knox security, but it's nice to have that separation because what happens? What are we not considering? If plus of the Americas didn't have that gate, that again, anybody can tell, get you in or whatever. People, right, kids that don't live there, they like to use the basketball court, we understand that. But if you didn't have something so simple as a gate that closes, that would become the beach parking for everybody. And then we would have the burden of ticketing, of towing, of whatever. And it becomes an expense for everybody else. And then when you show up or your guest shows up, there's no parking for them, right? So we pay our maintenance, we know what to expect, and it works. It's working. So I don't see why we would just open it up to make it more urban and flow in that way because it would really disrupt the way that that part of the neighborhood is set up to function. Okay. And just one final point on this for the two commissioners who did agree with maintaining the requirement. Thoughts on allowing commercial uses as the principle use, meaning that it would be a retail only building or would you want to see that retail integrated with residential or another use above it. Mr. Joseph. And which question are we working on? About the requirements for commercial use. It's a follow up to the first question that was talking about the requirements for commercial use. It's a follow up to the first question that was talking about the requirement for non-residential uses on the ground floor to reflect the current zoning regulations for town center north. The follow up to that is since you're interested in the commercial uses in the Western portions of town center north would you be comfortable with commercial as the only use in that building around that property or would you want to see residential or another use integrated with it? No residential integrated. Right now is a mix, mix yours, right? That's correct. Okay. I will keep it like that. Thank you. Getting down to our last two questions or three questions here. The streetscape and you know what happens along Collins Avenue was a big discussion through the public outreach process. Here you can see an example of the epicure plaza or outdoor dining rather from years back. And that was something that a lot of the residents seem to enjoy. They really liked that feel, that character essentially is, you know, 20 plus feet of hard-scaped sidewalk with nicer landscaping that served as a buffer. It was something that was discussed as being the preferred treatment throughout the length of town center north as you go from north to south along Collins. So there were different options that were talked about. Obviously currently a majority of Collins isn't reflective of the former Epicure site. It's largely large surface parking lots that front columns with kind of narrow or more standard sidewalk conditions. It's not protected with landscape, things like that. So the, again, the preferred condition was something like the images on the left, particularly the bottom left, a lot of the focus group members like something like that, where again, it's a hard-scaped plaza type condition that extends the full length. There's options for seating, but there's also shade and landscape and is it kind of buffer you from Collins. But the other types of considerations would be something like the bottom right, which would be more of a standard condition where you might have a narrower sidewalk and a small portion of street lawn with trees. It gives you a little bit of a buffer, but it's not as design intensive as the bottom left image or something like the top right, which would allow for a limited amount of convenience parking. So for the 15, 20 minute in and out retail parking that would service those retail buildings along Collins benefit from that perspective, but perhaps not as favorable from the public outreach process. So there's some different considerations. I'll go back to the question slide though. Essentially, what would you like to see happen between the building line and the street line upon redevelopment of the commercial properties along Collins? Commissioner Buscarri, I want to go first. I would like to see us much space or barriers as possible between the people and comments. So that means wider, the widest sidewalks we can manage or the biggest setbacks we can manage. The trees or, you know, like, but I think, you know, we acknowledge on the east side the ship sailed, we gave bonuses and extras and whatever, and we have these massive buildings, and it's true another part of the city too, like intro-coastos are good example. I always used a porch building for for Collins, that's the example where it's this massive building. All the way up to the sidewalk, and you have this little row of like little flowers. And then a tiny sidewalk, and that's it. And it really doesn't think, it didn't seem, I don't think that when commissions were looking at those projects that they were really thinking about the pedestrian. It was all about from the buildings in. Similar to what I was just saying, protecting, like whatever you live in that space from the gate in. But when it comes to the pedestrian experience, it didn't really take that into account. And so when you're walking on Collins, which I try to do as little as possible for that reason, if there's somebody, there's like one jogger or one stroller or one scooter, you move to one side and you're gonna get the dust in your face from the bus that's driving by or that because I'm telling you because it's happened to me, it's why I don't do it. And it's why I'm, it's important to me to preserve that, that neighborly part, you know, behind, behind the plazas and to limit traffic as much as possible in that area because you can't get away from it on Collins. So to the extent that we can mitigate that, even if it's in this little piece of sunny aisles where we can widen sidewalks, we can add like in Holland Hill, I remember walking there, you know, not that long ago. And how nice it was that even on the sidewalk, I had palm trees between me and the traffic. Just where you plant the trees even. It's a nice thing. It's literally safer. We know that we have distracted drivers. I, you know, we have teenagers. I dread the day that they become drivers, but they will. So anything that improves the pedestrian experience and their safety, and that protects us from distracted drivers and all of that, I would favor that level of allowances or whatever. Mr. Stanford? Yeah. We there is too many people sharing that space. It's true. Bicycles, scooters, you name it. So I'm okay widening the sidewalks anywhere in the city that is possible. Anywhere, okay? So for new development, 100%. To put some requirement to make a wider, safer, et cetera, I'm very good with that. As far as I advocate for Epicure being the way it is. I like that scenario where you have protected area and then you have seating and a restaurant that would be very nice. If we could see that more within the town center area, I would be happy with that. So regarding your bottom left picture, whatever it is that we can do as a commission to incentivize that sort of design, I think that we are all supportive of getting as much protection for pedestrians, but also for it to be beautiful and as far away from Collins as possible if you as far as seating for restaurants And having you know the option and I know this is a tough one so I'm but I'm just throwing it out there because in case it's possible You know the top left with the bike lane You know Seems like that ship has sailed but perhaps there is still an opportunity. I'm protected by Glean as well. Again, that's FTOT. Okay. We'll move into the second to last question here, which we've kind of discussed and there's probably a consensus on, but in terms of redevelopment of retail, the inward facing streets, you know, eliminating the emphasis on Collins Avenue, creating those new pedestrian-oriented internal streets, looking for some feedback and reassurance that is the consensus of the commission that we would prefer that inward oriented additional pedestrian streets type of redevelopment scenario. I think we're in agreement but just in case commissioners do. I don't want to agree for an internal design of a new development. I think that should be case by case. I don't want to put requirements, like we're putting a lot of requirements as it is. So designing for them or forcing them to design a way or the other one, I don't feel comfortable doing that. I won't. Mr. Joseph. Again, this is a dream scenario that I don't think could ever occur because most of our area is the arcade plazas. So this isn't the main thing that could be written into our code. So with the comprehensive plan, we have to think 20, 30 years out, while it might not be favorable currently with the economic conditions, are there RK cells or down the line there interested in the economic incentive of redeveloping for whatever reason. We're trying to get to that 20, 30 year vision here noting that it might not happen in the next five to 10 years but perhaps the next 20 to 30 years so the concept would be if and when it does redevelop eventually and the buildings will just be obsolete and they will need to redevelop them would we prefer this inward scenario or maintain something that's more externally focused and maintaining more of a status quo where Collins is the highlight street. So this vision you're looking to have written into our comprehensive plan. The goal of this project is to amend both the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations correct. If I may, if we are widening the sidewalks as it is, it is going to have to be pushed inward anyway. So why do we need to put an extra layer of more requirement? That's my question. So it's one consideration you certainly don't need to require it, but out of the public process there was a strong desire to create these new internal pedestrian streets where right now you have a very standard strip center development where it's the street, the sidewalk and a very large parking field with surface parking that is not remotely pedestrian oriented. And so the output of the public process was to take those large parking fields, those large centers and orient the redevelopment to create new internal streets that are more walkable, that create that more pedestrian friendly environment. That's what the public feedback garnered and looking to see if that is reflected at the commission level. And those restrictions can be written in the code. It would be integrated through the code requirements. No, I'm not in favor of that. We are developing and designing for the future. I'm totally unknown. It's not our property. Exactly. It's not even realistic. Okay, so that's why if we want to have new development or redevelopment there by putting all these requirements, it's going to be even less possible to happen in the future. Like I said, think that makes sense. Like, widening the sidewalks. Of course we want it. I mean, we happen in the future. Like I said, think that makes sense. Like, why don't you decide what, of course we want. I mean, we live in the city. I actually do walk out my song one for three years in a row to the school, from the south to the north, in a bicycle. So, and we had tried it as well, in fatalities. So, anything that is gonna increase safety and security, I wanna speak on behalf of security, I want to speak on behalf of everybody, I think we will agree to that. But when we are taking the rights of the people, when we are putting extra requirements on top of a requirement that we already have, then I feel that we are designing for the future. And I understand that this has to be a vision planning, which is for the future, so clearly, but my point is that we are putting so much requirements that in my head the opposite effect of incentivating more, a new development. So of course, now I'm not okay with this. Commissioner Miss Garry. I like the pedestrian emphasis. I mean, looking at this photo, I don't like the presence of vehicles. Like when I think about like the inward oriented plazas, I don't imagine cars in the middle of it. So I guess my, I keep going back to that Doral thing where it has a big fountain there and cars are allowed to sort of like just to drop people off and then there's a garage but there's not vehicles like driving through. I imagine little roads, but full of people, not cars. So I just wanted to clarify that. When I say the oriented inward, in my mind, it does not include vehicles. So. And, you know, that's the question. Should new retail developments be oriented inward? I think so. You know, if we get to make the rules, I would, I like that idea because Collins is not a pretty thing to look at, so why not extend that, that neighborly feeling that we enjoy in that area. And the people have expressed that this is what they want. And again, it reflects the input that I get in my area. So I do give a lot of weight to the public engagement piece. So if this is what was expressed, I would support it. Back to the point about this being a vision workshop and we are talking about 20, 30 years from now, I strongly support anything that is pedestrian friendly. And back to the design that we've seen in Avanchara, I wish you all had some pictures of it. Perhaps for the next time, the idea of drop off lanes and then separate area for cars solves, I think, for actually a lot of problems that we have with towing because people don't realize they park there thinking it's public property and for the beach and it's just especially in the summer, it's just not nice walking on that parking lot. Besides it being very hot, it is very dangerous. So the fact that we can write the rules right now, my vision is to make it as pedestrian-friendly as possible. Thank you. And... Okay, got it back. All right, so our last question is regarding building heights within Town Center North and I kind of break this out into two questions. Hight within the commercial properties and then height within Town Center North overall. I will note that within, again, the public outreach and the focus group process generally there would have preference to keep height off of Collins to avoid what they called the Canyon effect, which makes sense based on what's on the east side, right? And then generally within town center north overall, outside of just the commercial properties that height would be pushed for this towards the west along the bay, and then generally it would taper in height as you get closer to Collins. So overall, the concept of pushing height westward, both within the commercial properties, and then within the overarching town center north area. Looking to see if that has consensus with the or if there's different direction regarding building heights So before we answer that question. This is something that I wrote at the beginning of your presentation that I wanted to ask our city attorney You know the question of def legally viable What exactly are our limitations or could we just rewrite the rules? Well there's certainly no bright line determination. There's a lot of factors that go into it, but obviously the more you deviate from what you currently have, the greater the risk. So you have some vested rights and property owners that they may already have and you have those that may not have developed yet but have investment backed expectations that they were able to rely upon. So you take it to an extreme, what do you say? Okay, only one story, only commercial, no residential. You're gonna get challenges, obviously. Right. So the more you deviate, it's not that you can't change obviously. You have to, in looking at 20, 30 years, you have to look at a variety of factors, obviously, the growth of the city, populations and things of that sort. So you can accommodate for that. But again, if it's too, I don't want to say draconian, but if it's too much of a deviation, you will get challenges. And you can reasonably expect, you know, we've talked a lot about the arcade centers and then we seem to know what their plans are for the near future and possibly longer. So that, I'm less concerned about that, but certainly when you look at it, I'm sure where there is an interest in development. Those types of properties would be ones that I'd be focusing on to see that we don't go too far straight from what is currently in the code. Okay. Commissioner Joseph, if I may ask. Yeah, please go ahead. And part of this process, I'm assuming. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. which is not what we're saying. You couldn't write that into the code, right? I mean, I'm assuming that we would, this is, this is you're getting our input, but then you have to read it, you take it, and weave into it, legal exposure, and not just exposure, but whether it's even allowed. We can't ask you for things that are not allowed. So this is, just, it's your, it's the commission engagement piece, I guess. Is this that I say? I think you captured that well. We're looking for the overall vision and then working with Alan and understand, obviously, the legal implications of meeting those expectations in that vision and it might change the direction slightly or depending on that type of legal feedback but we are looking to get the overarching vision established and then obviously work with Alan moving forward. So we're not dictating you You're going to have to take our feedback and work it in as best you can. OK. And as we look at this, this helps us and being able to obviously the comprehensive plan is more sort of a broad limitation. You're your caps versus your code being more specific. So it's a different type of, so the feedback we get from you were able to sort of dictate or at least come back to you with something that's viable us to what's going to accommodate your vision in the comprehensive code with the maxes and then in the code then it gets more into the minutiae of some of the things that you may or may not want. So we're still going to work through that process as we go forward. Before we continue, I'd like to ask this question. There is no mention of public private partnerships in any of this. Is that something you see in other cities where there's a potential to allow for public use of private developments, future developments. Are you following what I'm saying? Can you just expand on the public use? Like, for instance, we were talking about the commercial requirement, the 70% commercial requirement. What if that looked like something like part of that commercial requirement could potentially be for cities use. For whether it be, you know, some sort of daycare or camp or whatever it is, the opportunity for the public to use it and have the city lease it out, rent it out or something of that sort. Yeah, that would be probably a good opportunity for a development bonus. You have bonus structures currently within your land development code for pretty much every zoning district with the exception of maybe your lowest intensity and density zoning districts. And the bonuses are something that we're working through restructuring that. So partnering with a private developer to provide some sort of city facility within, again, the legal confines and making sure that that was appropriately worded and offered That could certainly be something contemplated in the bonus structures and your P3s typically also driven There's statutorily driven Florida statute whether they're solicited P3s or unsolicited P3s So a lot of that framework is already instilled in Florida Statutes, whether they're solicited P3s or unsolicited P3s. So a lot of that framework is already instilled in Florida Statutes. You can have some accommodations for that in your code, but typically it's all driven statutorily. Okay. All right. Commissioner Joseph, do you want to start? So my entire idea is to instant protecting residents. And we have a lot of condos now where developers are buying out apartments with the idea of having enough to take over the building and then redevelop that building. So in that regard, my concern is to keep building heights in the future similar to what they are now and that in effect might protect current residents from developers thinking they could buy a structure and then build it 20 or 30 stories higher than it is currently. So I'm for maintaining current building heights. In terms of if I made just with a follow-up question, in terms of concentrating building heights in the east to west throughout the town center and then within the commercial properties themselves in the east to west, if you were to see even, I know you mentioned your four stories before, if four stories were your upper limit, would you want to see that? I think you mentioned as far west as possible on the commercial properties and perhaps even lower along Collins. In the grander scheme of the overarching town center in North, would you still prefer to see the taller buildings further west and then shorter buildings as you move east or does that not characterize? Well, the fourth story scenario was regarding the, if the shopping centers were to be redeveloped. But that not being the case for current buildings that we have in the town center, if they were to be redeveloped, I would not want them to be any higher than they currently are. Do we have in the code right now the wedding cake type of format? Is that in the code? It is along Collins, it does apply, yes. Okay, so being consistent that I like to keep it as it is. Thank you. I wouldn't want the concrete county and scenario either, but it just depends on how it's being done. You see, I think you call it the birthday cake. Or wedding cake. But the one where it's higher on one end, I think somebody, I heard somebody describe it as cash registers, which to me it visually it fits because cakes can come in different shapes. It's like the merrier that we have right now next to the... Right, so they're all going... So they're short here, but in the end, the setback, I mean, they're already on Collins. I don't really think it makes that big a difference because you have four floors here and eight floors there. Does it really affect the canyon effect? I don't know that it does. Because you have that, it's such a small parcel and you end up with the cash register. I got it. And if that were 10 stories taller, would it really make a difference? I don't know. I think it depends on the particular project. I think with those buildings it didn't, I don't think it would make a difference. If they were reversed, you know, and it was going lower because of, they're not really the biggest buildings. I don't think it would really make a difference. Generally, I, I, I mean, again, I don't know how feasible it is, but I do like the, I like Jerry's idea of the keeping things, the height they are, but I don't know how, how I don't think that, that'll carry just because what's allowed is, what's currently allowed, it's currently a large, major deviation, right? What's currently allowed is so much more than what is currently there. But I don't know that it makes a difference, at least with the code, the way that it is, that's how we ended up with the cash registerers. I guess we can leave it like that. I don't know. In terms of the larger town center area, outside of just an individual building, having stepbacks and setbacks as you move, what are your thoughts on height as you move across the town center in its entirety, kind of east to west, would you prefer to see the taller buildings back along the bay or in the middle with lower scale buildings around the edges, height push to Collins. It's a tricky question because it's already largely, it's already fully developed and we're really looking at potential redevelopment and those things it's really just two parcels right which would be Epicure and the apartments behind Epicure and then Salem House which is across the street from those and maybe Beach Place because it's one owner and that would all be behind that would all be behind the commercial area anyway. So, I mean, I guess if I have to say I would have to say West, but I honestly, based on if what our current code gives us is those cash registers, I don't think it makes a difference. I'm not a fan of the cake. And while I would love to keep things the way that they are, they are not, you know, that's not our code. Within the legal confines, I would like to, the very least, see lower floors around the perimeter so that you're not, you know, otherwise if you're going lower from Collins and then making your way up to North Bay Road, then North Bay Road, then it becomes a mini canyon, you know, there. So, again, largely based on the design. That's why I keep going back to the design in Avon-Chera. You know, I don't know if you all have been there, but I didn't even realize that there was residential on top of the restaurants. I never even noticed them. Obviously, it's very different landscape there, but if you want a straight answer, then it would be, I guess, sort of in the middle. So. That concludes our guided discussion portion of the presentation and our presentation overall. It certainly appreciate all the input and the feedback. The next steps for us would be to work internally. You can synthesize the conversations in the direction and come back to you with the visual preference survey. Can it move us towards the final drafting of that visual document. So we'll bring some different images from Aventor and other places that you all have noted that you have been and enjoy and perhaps some places that you haven't been that will give you advanced notice if you want to take a field trip somewhere and kind of feel that type of development scenario. So look for that coming in the fall. I'll let Amy let me know if there's anything else that you wanted to share with the commission. Otherwise, happy to answer any final questions. Otherwise we'll let you get to lunch. For our next workshop, if we could just make sure that whatever we're showing on the screen is really readable. That would be very helpful. And then is this presentation, Mr. Manager, is it on our website? Could we put it on there? Or somehow share it? Or are you not ready to do that? So currently, but we can certainly add it to our project website. Yeah, there's a lot of information here that I think that for those that perhaps in participate would be interested in reading. And of course, there's still an opportunity for the public to reach out to us individually as well as the property owners for that area. Are there any additional questions from the commission? I have. Please go ahead. We didn't, or maybe I missed it, but I don't think we spoke about bonuses. Are we addressing that language? Is it one of those things where we where it's not legally Advisible because it's too much of a Stray can they be limited can they be eliminated or do we keep them? them. So we certainly will be addressing the bonuses for town center north we'll be addressing the bonuses for town center north separately from the bonuses from the remainder of the city which will come before you in September as we noted that would be a process that once we get the vision firmly established we'll start to talk about the bonus opportunities and how they each weigh out in the weight that they carry. So that will definitely be an upcoming conversation. OK. Because I do think that's an important component given that it's the use of bonuses that gave us, I think, much taller structures than others would would have anticipated. And yes, it gives us an interesting skyline and whatnot, but it's an important component to the canyon piece that people clearly don't want. So I just want to make sure that we weren't overlooking that. I just want to make sure that we weren't overlooking that. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate your thorough presentation. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. you you