The frontage arcade and through the baseil that crosses from one street to the other. And that also requires a declaration of restrictive covenant for its maintenance. So we have a project midlock with a sheltered walkway. And that serves as the pedestrian connection for the, and there's also an open space. I don't want to forget about that, but that is part of the peseo. You have that openness. The proximity to the metro rail is there also with the full arcade and we have for the skilled South Miami skill nursing facility. We have 90, 95 parking spaces but I'm trying to recall from the top of my head the number of beds. I'm sorry. 180 beds and that's important because obviously that triggers the parking. We have private and semi-private rooms. 1,310 score feeder retail along 61st Avenue which again that will end up being the main front although there's two fronts to the site. The parking is broken down, obviously by the floors internally, and we have 95 parking spaces, is the required, and the proposed is 114. The table also includes the bicycle parking based on the proposed retail use of the skilled nursing facility that requires nine bicycle spaces and the proposed is 18. So we're over on the two cars and bikes. We have also the elevations, which I'll let the architect explain the materials and the paint color selection. The landscape was designed by Andrew Wittgen, Florida registered architect. And it revised tree removal application. And revised tree removal application will be submitted in accordance with the tree disposition plan, which denotes the treats to be removed. Staff did read that report and we got to our conditions. So Staff's recommendation for the projects is for approval with the following conditions. Comply with resolution number 092-24-16197. Obviously that was for the large scale project. The applicant shall obtain a unity of title. We'll have the results will be one folio, one address, and that'll be prior to the certificate of occupancy. Number three, applicant shall obtain a covenant for the maintenance of the cross through, as mentioned in the report, submit a revised tree removal permit, application of the planning and zoning department, and the tree, I'm sorry, and must be issued prior to zoning approval of any building permit. The question is, and tree number 22, another stable palm, should be relocated based on the recommendations from Robert Kirst, Arborist Report again from that previous subnital. Number six, correct the zoning information table to indicate top of parapet 96 feet for the building height. It is currently shown to the roof level at 86. It goes up 10 feet more so 86 plus 10 96 there are inconglions of the 100 foot, which is part of the staff's report under the elevations. The height-supportive is 100. Again, 86 plus the 10, 96 to the top of the parat bit. That's how we measure our building heights on our code. The project must comply with regulations for the floor building code, public work standards and guidelines in the American Disability Act, and number nine, I'm sorry, number eight, any comments and suggestions from the board this morning. As you can see, the nicely submitted package, architectural, civil and landscape, we have there the front cover, Behar Fond. I believe he was not in the chambers and he went to his office, but he was not sworn in is the point to my to my city attorney, would he? Yes, and neither was he as who's here in the chambers. I'm so sorry. I was about to say, okay, and if you want to please take your seats. We'd ask you this time to please turn off or silence your cell phones Today is Tuesday September 26 and we'll call the order the workshop of the South Miami City Commission on the TSD ordinance Madam clerk, do you need to take a role? Sure go ahead, please Mayor Fernandez present by the numberablee here commission of Lehman Commission of Corrin present commission. Hi here. You have a form. Thank you, ma'am Colleagues, I think staff has given us a quick list of items. They're compiled by way of Feedback to the draft ordinance correct mark. Why don't you walk us through that and what I might suggest is If anyone wants to pick up an item and quickly chat about it or I staff about it. We can get their feedback and then once we have some discussion we can open up to the public and think that's appropriate. I think our goal would be to try to close this out in the next hour and ten minutes as I know that we all have other engagements to honor. So, Mark, you're recognized. Mark Elvars of the Corardino Group. So I'm gonna go through a list of 15 items. The first two were why this meeting was originally called from the two items requested by commission. One was how to address sunset drive in the hometown district. We had discussion about the base level. Stepbacks and providing a means for the zoning code to support redevelopment of sunset drive. Had something above two stories was when we spoke about this on first reading. So we have a step back where we go up two stories and then back 75 at the moment. Item two is, there's a lot of questions on the first reading that we have to recalibrate the landscaping the previous area and the requirements for trees. Some things going over as staff, we realized we're starting to build these models on the blocks and we realized we need to recalibrate some of the setbacks and stepbacks, the base open space requirements and really looking at the small lots because some of these are very difficult on the small lots. And probably going to more of a system of increasing the setbacks at ground level and not having so much on the stepbacks which make construction a little difficult. We also have to recalibrate bonuses. We have pay-in-lue rates. We have three different bonuses for which you can pay $45 in lieu of the bonus but they work out differently because one is a leverage of one foot to three foot. One another is one to two. Another is 1, actually 1 to a fifth. So very quickly we realize that the 1 to 3 causes us to have a $15 pay-in loop. And we also probably need to recalibrate some of these bonuses in terms of the floors and what the value is, particularly on those three. We also want to, again, building out the mass models. We've been looking at the open space and parking bonuses and they need to be recalibrated a little bit. It's just looking at it and judging probably no one would ever use the second open space bonus. It's just too much. So we'll probably change those. And then there are, there have been, I've had four conversations with stakeholders and investors and I'm going to go through the list of those. One is for additional bonus floor categories and this was more specifically in regards to oddly shaped blocks, trying to be the blocks very narrow blocks. So there was four suggestions, one for a bonus floor that would be in plate, the give would be elimination of a legally noncompliant use. The would be assembly, which is something we spoke about earlier. And we got rid of the other is to have a bonus floor for, it's more of an enclosure concept where the height of the building matches the right away with alongside of it, but for very large right ways to allow a bonus or a higher height. And D is, which is one that we did also talk about before and we had discussed it and may wanna discuss it further, but it's for street scape enhancements on the adjacent right away, which is a very good bonus. But we have a mechanical issue of making sure that a bonus can be applied on property that's not owned by the property owner. Number one, and number two, the city, as of yet, doesn't really have a streetscape plan. So it's hard to implement that. But otherwise, it's a good, it's a very good bonus because the benefits are very immediate to the city. Number six is another request and it was regarding oddly shaped and small and narrow blocks. Consideration to relax some of the requirements and one was for an increase on the minimum, we have a minimum floor plate to control the tower bulk of 20,000 square feet and to relax that to a higher number. Also on the same to increase the maximum number of floors, in this case, above 15. Also to increase the number of podium levels because on the small blocks the parking becomes very inefficient and it requires more levels. To also on this, to right now we don't permit open space to be counted from the perimeter of the building. So in other words, you can't count the hedges as open space. But this was an idea that the open space in certain cases might still be a linear space, but not the hedges, something wider, something functional for people to walk in. And that would be adjacent to the right of way, so it adds a little bit more. And also, it should have been a separate item, but if the open space could be under an arcade that's open to the street. The next item, which was another request from an investment, was to adjust the floor heights. This is a very small one, but right now we have, we've written the upper floor heights as an average of 12 feet. And it's not written as a maximum average of 12 feet, so you could actually not have 10 foot heights. So I think we'll just change that. Another one was around reducing the glazing percentage on facades. For right now we have 50% requirement of the facade wall on the upper stories when it's facing a primary street and the request was to reduce that to 38%. Also with that to increase the Mezzanine floor area, we were allowing on the first floor, actually on any floor a Mezzanine to not be counted as a floor if it's 20% or less of the floor underneath it and there was a request to increase that to 33%. Number 10 is there has been a request to remove the density limit. We've added a density back into the code and there's some concerns that they that may overly large units and waste its base. Number 11 is to permit development sites. So right now we limit bonus floors to large scale development process so that it goes to commission. And there's a request about that we will allow bonus floors on smaller sites. Number 12, and I haven't finished this conversation that we would allow bonus floors on smaller sites. Number 12, and I haven't finished this conversation yet. The call just came in yesterday afternoon. Well, there's a group looking to establish student housing. I'm not sure exactly what they are gonna be asking, but I'm gonna take a guess that it might be about smaller units and probably parking changes. We have a request from a property owner to allow self storage as a permitted use. We don't right now as the way the code's written that it would be only as an accessory use. That person, they would be willing to have an active use, retail on the bottom, but they would like to use self storage as a use. The last two regarding the residential district, the south of the hometown, from 74 to 76 street, which is called the TSNA sub district, and one would be right now we require the last layer of that to be four stories, and the request was to use an open space strip, maybe active open space or passive open space, instead of the four stories and keep building a little more efficient on the structure. And with that, in that area also, to establish, we right now have a maximum height of six stories that would transition down to four as it gets closer to the single family neighborhoods. And the request was about starting that at eight stories since across the street, we'll be 10 stories and just moving down to four stories in that area. So that's with, yeah. Yeah. with yeah yeah here what I spoke about before it wasn't but 74th Street heading down like that's an example 74th Street going south where we had a transition going from 10 to 8 before and out 6. Yeah they're wanting to presupport to 8th. That's in that transition zone for 74th Street heading south. That's in that transition zone for 74 street heads. Mark, does this help you? Yeah, I guess so. So we're in this area, 74 to 76. Right on the zoning map is color. Yeah, thank you. Keep going. One more. That's one I. Yeah. So the area we're looking at is the below the hometown is the light blue area, which is shown as six stories. And the request is to go, it goes from six to four in the buffer, going south. Showing you the very light blue area south of 74th Street. And the request was to start at eight. To more, more or less match, which is the process tree on the north side. Is this where we had the conversation the other day where I said, are you taking away somebody's height and you said, but I'm giving them more space so we're not taking away anything. We're actually giving them more of a footprint. I'm just trying to recall the conversation. It poured a clarify mark. Yeah. They're buildings that are legally not conforming today. Correct. The Mayan is like eight stories stories but it's not so the point being that though even with the reading six or eight it's probably still going to be legally non-conforming even after the change I don't know about the mine maybe the mine will be the only eight story the the zoning code is is RM24 and RM18 which is four stories and two stories so right so if they go to six, they're still getting additional stories. The ask was just to, if they could go to eight with the logic that, but I think just for the vice mayor, that's asking questions about rights. Well, in that building in particular. Correct, so I just want to be clear to answer your question. Today, it's a legally nonconforming building. There are a lot of four stories that are eight. So whether we're at eight or at six, that they're going to be conforming. That's the height, are they going to be legally non-conforming? So there are postures not impacted negatively in any way. So for normal people, not legal people. My entire house tomorrow decides they're going to knock it down. The next day they want to build something again. They can't build eight stories again. If we adopted a six, they can have built eight stories, but they can build more units. That's six. Let's pretend I'm going to make up an envelope. At eight stories, they have 100 screws. Then they could take at six stories the same hundred screws. Most likely. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's my thing. I don't want to take away something from somebody. Right. And I think with the mayor saying, if they knock it down right now, they can only build four stories. Because they're not conforming. So we wouldn't be taking anything away from them no matter what decision we made. We're not going to take away the credits. Okay. Mark, is that it? I'm sorry. That's all 15. Colleagues, what do you want to start? Can we just run through them so that we understand even what we're looking at here? I think the request is to start at item one. So let's go. So the Levi and one is what we had discussed giving staff direction to restore. We had a two stories with a setback and then a lot of them go vertical. I think the request was to keep them at four stories and with no setback, correct? So we said, well, we would, so our decision as of the five was to just restore to what it was and be done. I think I'm fine with four. I still have an issue with that, but well, it's not on the list, so we'll skip it for now. Yeah. OK, so then would we agree we'll back to where we started? Will it be part of the plan if we need to forward with it? So you're saying it's not part of it but if we execute this if we needed to add anything on it this is the time to discuss it in my incorrect line. Will we have an opportunity to discuss it later? We have to come back to us, by the way. Today was to talk about issues that have been identified and good staff direction about how they're incorporated modifications. I sent the staff, I did the analysis last Saturday on TDRs. My rough numbers taking out a bunch of sites that probably are not going to turn over was that we're creating in the district of north of 15 million square feet of bonus capacity under the scheme and there's about a million and a half square feet of sellable TDRs on just the frontage on the sunset drive. So I think there's plenty of capacity to incorporate a program I was concerned, the people were concerned about the size of the market. It seems to me that it's plenty deep to sell it. It will compete with other bonuses that we have in the schedule, but it's something we'd have to talk about. Yes, sir. Does there any way you can have someone formulated in a plan or a little project? I have tried. So. And spread it out to us. I can't communicate with you guys other than here. So I sent it to staff. Hopefully they'll look at it validated and validate what I did since I did it on my own. And they can tell us whether they concur. There's no adjustment in my numbers for maximum size of a tower of other four story because theoretically, some sites are large enough they can get multiple towers on the site. So I just kind of did the raw envelope and did the math. So if you want to reduce it by 50%, still, you're at one five to seven and a half lanes per feet. So I'm sure Mark will give us some feedback on that here and as a conversation goes forward. I just don't understand how we continue to have this conversation. If that's what we've had this conversation, I think this is time number five. Which is why I didn't want to start with it. So again, can we shoot the guy who wanted to go there? Number five. Sorry, let me back up real quick. So I called for a meeting or asked for this meeting with the commission support because way understood it in the day is we were all in agreement with the residential area, right? With the single family area. Were we weren't agreement? Were there four votes in favor of? Maybe one dissenting vote was with, let's call it our commercial core. And that goes by a lot of different descriptions or names. So my understanding is that we were here to meet today to potentially separate the boats that we could still all vote unanimously for the residential zoning or to see if we can come to some sort of... What is the residential zoning, I'm sorry? Well, that's why, so what are you trying to understand? We were all in agreement, right? It's exactly what is the residential... What is the all-zooning outside of the, really essentially, sorry, sunset drive. Right, we're all in agreement, right? With the proposed zone in other than sunset drive. Correct, I have some questions about the bonus schedule still, yes. Okay, yeah. So what I was gonna, what I suggest on day is that we could potentially separate the two that way we could pass it unanimously. And then to the point of today was to see if we could come, we can discuss everything. We should be, right, we do have a time constraint. So my opinion of priority is discussing sunset drive and see if we can come to a consensus on sunset drive. Right, my misinterpreting would be. If they were, if sunset drive is actually included only when we get to the remapping. So we could modify the text right now, whichever way, and then address it when we actually change, because right now the sums that drive on the East side of US1 is... We can come to an agreement on sums that drive today. Then we can build consensus for unanimous vote. Because that was your concern. That's my major concern. Otherwise, I think my- Am I wrong? Am I? I think we all agree four stories. The scheme that I had, two stories with the setback, we all don't agree with. So four stories should be the minimum envelope. My concern is locking in people to a zoning envelope. And I set this in the lane times of four. I don't want to review myself. That's four stories instead you're done. So the analysis I gave staff was basically would assume they could build four stories and something to drive, consistent with everyone's position. And we'd give them rights to sell the additional six stories of envelope to anyone in this district. And that's how I came up with 15 million square feet of gross bonus, excluding some to drive, capacity, and about a million and a half square feet of silver rights. So I don't want to get stuck on that issue because we can talk about it for the sixth, seventh, eighth time. I will no on an ordinance that does not have a scheme that compensates those landowners for being locked into an envelope set from the beginning so it shouldn't be a surprise. And you know I really want to see this come up with something that preserves the scale of that street and treats those owners in a way that's similar to where they're treating everyone else. Certainly we're, I think, creating a slew of rights for neighbors that I think it's just unfair to leave those owners behind and I'm done with that conversation. So Mark, I would ask is circulate the analysis with whatever commentary you have and we can, as an adjunct, maybe have some text that could enact it. If the commission chooses to enact it or not, that will just take that up at our next public here. I think that's probably the best way to do it. You can look at the regulations when they formulate them. See if they work. You can vote it up or down. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time talking about it, but you'll have at least the information as I did it because my concern would be responsive to Commissioner Caye, you know, understands this is a very small area and the question was, are there enough rights, enough places to actually sell rights into the market and expect that they would be used reasonably. I do have, if we want to move down the list so we can skip that issue. I do have some questions. So we actually spoke into Magonheim and recalibrated that we had a cost for the bonuses or is that conversation still pending? That's pending. Okay. So right now the schedule is not informed by a conversation with our pressure. Correct. Okay. So do we expect to have that information before we vote? I don't know. Okay. So do we expect to have that information before we vote? I don't know. Okay, who's, Madam Manager, who's leading that conversation? Can we get you to kind of connect Mark and the team with Andy so we can look at whether that, because the bonus schedule we made up for some place was, you know, negotiated without real information. So, and I think that should have some relationship with the land costs are In the district Okay Any questions items three or four that you want to discuss colleagues Is that what you're saying we're missing information I asked to the rates. Yes, I think I think we need more information on the rates Mark can you kind of walk us through B and you're concerned about adjusting the open space and parking bonus What does that mean? The parking bonus was Was up to three-story bonus and it's actually only effective in the TOTA sub district in other words very close to the metro rail station. There's very few properties I can actually use that in there and that came out of a more. Can I just fill this out for me why are we going to reward people with building parking in an area where we don't want it. The overall reason was that in that area we can have a live local application and it would have no parking requirement at all. So this was a way, particularly for residential we, for your people, are always going to have some parking and it was a way to create the same bonus structure with the different set of options in that area. I have worked on 10 or 11 different local applications to date and I haven't seen one that's come forward without any parking. So I would say that's a part of bonus that I would prefer to see eliminated from the code. I think people are going to build to the market. Very cool. And the open space bonus, we have a requirement. So for 20 to 40,000, for under 20,000 square foot site, there's no open space requirement, because it's just too small to bear that. From 20 to 40,000, we went to a 5%, which may be a little bit strenuous, or some of those sites too. And then above 40,000, we have a 5% open space requirement basic. And then there's an open space bonus, but it can count two times. So it could go to 20%. In other words, you could get 5%. And if you have 10%, you know, 5% plus 5, then you can have one floor. And if you go one more, then you can go to the next floor. I said that wrong. It's 10% plus 5. I get the math wrong. It's 10% for 40,000 square feet site, basic open space, and then you could add 5% for one floor and 5% again for one floor. But I think the 20% is not going to be taken. It's just a lot of open space. So, okay, so just to my understand, we're going to give people, if you give me on a 40,000 square foot side, if you can be 2500 square feet of open space, I'm giving you 20,000 square feet before you're able to bill. Right. Is that correct? Right. That doesn't seem doable. Well, it seems doable, but I don't know if it's necessarily providing a lot of public benefit. Right. Right on the code, the way the code's written is that we have, I mean, we're fast running a little bit to number six, right? It's kind of the same composition. Right now we're limiting the floor plate at 20,000. Not based on a ratio that we both have. Correct. Correct. We've always had a ratio. Right. And this is the reason behind that again. The floor plate came out of, the reason is to keep the mass as small on the towers. The towers, such as we put them. There's everything about the podium. We want to keep the mass smaller. It may be, one as a ratio instead of just an actual fixed number. A ratio of the site? A row square putted to the property. This actually, the reason we did that was because it was a very large property. You could have a very large tower. That would still visually be something fairly bulky. Is that any of the sort? We had actually done the same thing with the downtown Somi, and the results didn't seem fairly tall, but their lengthenance don't be good. I don't disagree that we need to probably lower the ratio from I think we're at 90% with Avalon Bay. That's going to say is dissonance response to that because the effect discussion is just about 90%. Avalon Bay is at 90%. Right? Yeah. And then you can go straight up so this was in response to that and using a criteria that we had tried earlier in the other code which based on that algorithm's life plan as resulted in something that's uh my concern is we have lots in the downtown area that exceed a square, you know, an APA. Correct. And if you want to promote construction there, this will limit that. I actually agree. And that's one of the things that we're looking at, the recalibration is we're starting to try to build out these blocks and see if somebody would face, if they're building it, and some of them would be like two towers, which is probably not the best thing to do. What we can do instead is just limit the width of those towers to something that we can agree on. Okay. Doing, the problem with having a percentage of the cyclan is that we can still get something very massive. I mean, we settle the minutes, 0.6, then we can remember that as well. But then I don't know what the right number is. Then we have to excuse it for the small sites. Okay, I understand. Okay, so should we expect to see recommendations from your suggestions before this comes back formally for adoption or how do you want to address these issues? Good question Back to the commission. Yeah, I hope you can go to answer that We would I'll be happy to come back with recommendations if it's a sunshine meeting or workshop or the commission Probably if you're asking me I think think it's best to do recommendations before writing it in as code for the second reading. There's probably a lot to do on the second reading. We have some fairly significant, I could speak through the recommendations on some of these, but I'm just looking for some overall recommendations from the board to what direction to take. I think it's very difficult to sit in this meeting right now and give you a number for which way to go about it. We need to see what's out there. What's the best way of doing that? And I found out a lot of these questions came in last two days before we've had to meet these. So I'll just, if you guys don't mind, I was going to go through a couple quick thoughts on some of these unless you want to go ahead. I just have one thing. So they're number four, four B. Did we say that and we're taking this out? I think we, I mean, my certain preference would be to get rid of the parking bonus in the, I think we're still looking at a recommendation on 4B for 4B on the open space. On the open space but not the parking lots. Not the parking lots. I think if we can start to kind of whittle this down. Thank you. Okay. And then the pay and the rates were, as I think I said, we have a differential and it's like, you're buying something and you're going to buy the square feet the best way. And right now the best way is if you're going to pay in lieu of buying affordable housing because you get three feet for every 45 dollars. So we think at least on the pay in lieu of part we should equalize it so it's all the same. So I'm assuming we've got a couple of sites that have uses that are either illegal or not conforming today. And they're asking for some relief? Correct. Okay. Can we get an idea when we're having these conversations with what we're talking about? Because right now this is an abstract and that doesn't work for me. It's abstract. They do any of these sound like they'd be good bonuses, essentially. Yeah, but if they're being brought by stakeholders, they're tied to something. This is not an abstract. And I have a very hard time with pretending. This is a council and this guy, like, no, wait. You're belong somewhere. I think the best, well, it's up to you. I can explain what these apply to specifically or I think all of the people who, at least an example. The example is the block on Deli Lane. The trial and error is like specifically the request. That's the request that's the that's the And the focus on the The focus is on the BT Genomes club as a nonconforming use that will be eliminated with the project We want to add a bonus for eliminating the legally non-compliant view sets. Correct. But if we do this, that would apply to a lot of the automotive repair shops also on progress and in commerce avenues. So it would eliminate that as well. With each request the way I try to think about it, where else does it apply? And if that's something that's good for the city or not good. Right. And we're not eliminating anything. We just be considering adding these if we wanted to add them. Right. So they don't. They're not there. They're not there. Who wants to add? Do we want to add any of these? This is kind of the question, right? Can you explain that in B, please? point item B please. Item B is assembly, again, it's the same block. There are 12 parcels and that investor would assemble those parcels with the exception of the three on the north end of the block which would remain historic. And they are looking for a development bonus for assembly. We had spoken about this at one time and it didn't really gain traction. We just thought it's not bonus worthy. In that case two, I should mention that they are looking to do a density averaging with the three on the north side to basically apply the building rights from those into the other parcels and the other tower on south of them. But they're going to do that by instrument or what's right. That would be by site plan. That's not really part of the bone. Okay. Through the mirror. So I think another place where this might be helpful as well is on commerce lane for example. If you have in this, we've never had any movement there for the reasons that those lots are very different, right? So they're not conforming or the size of it. So the ability to do assemblies here and give them the ability to actually do something now, this would be something that would entice and you own ties then to go to so. Does that make sense? I just would ask, I have a question, discussion, is it necessary given that we're actually increasing the envelope further there? I agree, that on the street. Well, the public benefit of the assembly is that it becomes a more self-contained property, right? It's able to hold parking, it's able to do, you know. Okay, let's see. parking is able to do you know. Sorry in place of a multiple fully assemblage I would just because this is a lot specific site specific why not just the historic bonus. Historic bonus for this is site specific so tell or to the site about a historic bonus in place of a lot or fully of assemblage bonus. We can do something like that we'll have to establish what's historic because there's no historic designated buildings. There's just historic overlays so we could just think that the thought would be if we could use the historic overlay that's already existing to use that, I'm not sure. Some of them make sense to me, the elimination of a legally non-compliant uses the only one that doesn't make sense to me. That would just give you a huge thing. Like, sorry, but no. There are eliminating either way, there's no release, and it's been nothing but no. There are eliminating either way there's no lease and it's been nothing but problems The Jason right away with is is a concept of let me just say that that presumes that a project before there's a transaction so that's So but I understand you should but it's to be clear It's like it's going away. They could extend the lease so yeah, okay So I understand, you should be clear. It's not like it's going away. They could extend the lease. Okay. The Jason right away with is the concept of, we followed in closure that the height of the building, more or less, works as a ratio of the street width. So when you have a very large street, you can go a little higher. This is, again, is the same property. And the adjacent right away with is US1 and the Metro Rail, which adds up to about 160 feet of width. So the request was to have a bonus floor available for the times where they're on an exceptionally wide right away and possibly also with the idea that these are regular shaped blocks, which most blocks along US1 are irregular. Thoughts? I just think that in general should build what the bonus structure is and it shouldn't be tied to properties that are most probably should say hey, like we've been doing so far, these are the bonus structures. Yeah, so I think the things are coming think the, we're going to be coming back. I'm going to be talking to the conversation I've had for the following reasons. One is this sponsor does not believe that what we're proposing is going to yield enough units for the next to make a project work, right? I think the same is true on the, there's a request to remove density and 10, right? I think that's in response to a sponsor saying, we've got a 15-story envelope that we can't maximize because there's not a unit in the density yield. At 150 units make it or 200 units make it. So they'd like to remove density so that they can build as many units within the box that we would permit. And I think that's the conversation we should be having versus a conversation based on. I have this on my lot, and I'm going to give you 17 trees. I'm going to give you a rock. You're going to give me a mirror, because I like this on my lot. That doesn't make sense to me, because I could come up with 17 different reasons why you should give me what I want But Josh could come up with 17 reasons why we should give him what he wants and then becomes like the kingdom of a thousand reasons And I think that's what we're trying to do away from Right by making this a more holistic process. We're trying to move away from exactly what we're doing. You know, so if we're seeing something that continues to echo in these buildings over and over again, then let's talk about that. Let's not talk about, hey, we're getting rid of, you know, whatever, so you should give me this. I'm going to make this pretty and give me that the making sense. Maybe I'm just over into finest. Yeah, I think one, you know, items one through five, one of the things are five A through D. One of the things not on this list has to do with, again, we do have the US one, the Bisex, right? Or divides it downtown. You do have a lot of oddly-shaped, triangular-shaped properties where it's very interesting to build and build parking for those structures. So I mean, that would be a standard that I think would have a more universal application that might address their concern and also be more universally applicable. Because we're going to have that same issue, nor the Sun to drive on the north half of the Sun Trust parcel, the bank parcel. And on the west side, we know more right next door. That's got similar challenges. So if we want to see something happen on those sites, it might be worth while they consider what kind of a rule we adopt that can give them some relief. Takes three votes. The pass. The zoning study. Madam City Attorney, can you address, can you restate your question, please? How many votes does it take to adopt the zoning study? You mean the text. Madam Chair, how many votes would it take to adopt the text amendments that we're discussing? The text amendments? Yes, ma'am. Let me check on that while you continue please. So yeah, so to that point, right now it's 4 to 1, right? As of the previous commission meeting, it took a straw poll, and I will not be here. So, this is in play. That's the politics of it, because by the time this comes, I'll be off the commission. So, just consider that, because we were ready to pass it in the previous commission meeting 4 to 1 that person who fills that seat wants to go the other way then there will be won't have enough votes to pass it. So just something to consider. Commissioner are we assuming that it's going to be passed the mid-October commission meeting for. We are currently scheduled for October 15. I'm not sure if that's going to be feasible. We're scheduled for October 15. Let's worry about the process. We'll talk about it. So, 5A, B and C, I'm hearing we're not interested in any of those. Correct. What about the... I'm not sure if you can explain it, Street Tip Enhancement, we don't have a plan and so what would it be? I think that's a very good bonus, but again, we don't have a plan to work from. And it's in that location, we're already working on a plan for that entire area, right? I mean, it's what poster is working towards. Yeah, so my question is, if that becomes our standard, we're going to give people a bonus for building to our standard. We could do that. We could do that. I have to actually know before I say that, like I have to talk to the city attorney because we're going on to public property. And that was our initial. We talked about this earlier and that was our initial concern about this. So you can't give a bonus where you can't control. Let's move on to six. Any interest in having a minimum four point larger than 2,000, or maximum four point larger than 2,000 per feet, for irregularly shaped lots? Just my concern was just a fixed number. There's a right. I'm sorry Mayor if I may. Yes, ma'am. You need four votes for the code amendments. Thank you for the question. 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. I'm that. Yeah. I'm sorry if I may. Yes, ma'am. I'm going to answer the question. You need four votes for the code amendments. Thank you for the clarification. I agree. I think this to me does make sense. Thoughts anyone else? To allow. To allow. Would that be generally raised in order to allow it only on your regular? Let's hear if there's other voices of consent. I'm sorry that I'm not reversed enough in this to offer enough of an opinion. So I would have to go with the will of the commission. Just to give you an example, think about a site that's got a triangle there, it's got an angle that's 40 degrees on one side. Because what we're talking about, in that situation rather than forcing the bill to standard box, since there can always be a lot of efficiency, you're going to allow them to build, say, 25,000 or 30,000 square feet. Okay. That's what we're talking about. Okay. Okay. And I agree with it since we've already seen some applicants come forward with similar issues. So even without having this in place, we're already seeing issues. So that's something we'd want to see come back. Okay. Again, I just don't understand where the number comes from like Y20,000. It's just, I don't get it. Yeah, I think just to visualize it, 20,000 or square is about 140 feet on a side. A lot of our regular blocks are rectangular blocks are two to two and a half acres, at least on this side. They're smaller on the hometown side. So those are in the range of 250 generally feet on the side. So we were trying to bring the visual aspect of it and taper it down. So those are the numbers to think about, I guess, if you want. On the home count side, our blocks are a lot smaller. They're more like under two acres. Or this affects porcelain building above the fourth floor. Right. So it affects every opportunity on US one with a weird angle there. So it's not only that, it's chemical property. No, it's not disagreeing, it's Kim Co-Property is. No, it's not disagreeing what I'm saying. In terms of what it affects in terms of the building, it's everything above the four floor. I'll reach back to you on the side. Mark, I think it would be helpful if you could give us examples from other jurisdictions, right? That's to what their maximum dimensions are, total size, anyone's length, you have to give us coral gables, Miami, Pine Crest, any other jurisdictions we want to, can we share with that be helpful? Yes, thank you. Commentary increase podium levels, so let's go from forward, what is the podium? What's the maximum podium size today? Our maximum height is 15 floors. This, this, the sponsor I'm sorry, he's not doing it. What happened on the triangle block? So first of all, there needed to be more levels of parking, which makes sense because it's a very inefficient parking sort of circles around the three legs of the triangle. And that adds to the total height of the building, so it ended at 17 stories. You may. But if we're saying we're we're going to be re-looking at A, then the rest of them really aren't a conversation until we see that. Correct? Because if we're changing kind of what we're allowing, then you don't necessarily need to have a hype conversation. I think I think they're looking at frankly all of them. In combination is what I've heard. That said, I don't know that, I don't know that we want to have a series of one-offs, like you said before. So. And how do we accomplish that in zoning? How do we determine the, I mean, we know what the irregular lots are, but do we just sort of spot zone irregular lot? Like I don't really know. How does that practically? It is a difficult one. We'd have to remap the height's map on the zoning code and use which lining US1 on both sides as the highest zone, which is approximately what we've done already. It would just be 17 instead of 15. You know, there's the practicality of that. I mean, on this side we have... Yeah, that's my concern. We just at some point the solution can't just be continued to open up the envelope. So, do we have any interest in B and C then? Okay. C. No. Okay. So B and C, which is, leave those out as options. Did we speak about what the actual polling level is right now? It's also, it's, uh, six. Right now we're, we have four in the code and in this case it was up to six levels of parking And this is based on a 1.3 ratio 1.3 ratio Mark yeah, it's a mixed-use building we haven't Look that. Yeah, but what's in the code? Yeah, my's a mix you spilled and we haven't looked that low. Yeah, but what's in the code? Yeah, my understanding was, so let's just listen to what we need to look at that a little bit further. Yeah, I think, see I would look at more closely because if we're going to allow 15 story buildings to restrict people to a four story podium, it's going to be very tough for them to execute that all the way. So, I mean, if you could analyze that and give us some recommendations, maybe it's tailored to each category. Yeah, I can say what I found so far in just doing some of the modeling and some of the blocks is that because we've reduced the parking requirement, a lot of the more regular blocks don't even need the four stories. Okay, any three, which is great. But it works differently on constrained blocks. Okay. Just to first remind me what is the parking requirements that we lowered it to? For residential, it's one space, I'm sorry, three quarters of space for efficiencies in one bedroom, one space for two, what did I just say, one space for two bedrooms and one and a half for you know, it's pretty aggressive for residential, and for for all the commercial uses we took the ITE numbers took 20% out of the transit proximity and another 20% out for interviews and took away the the studies for shared use. I'm not sure I'm not sure is the chemcocytes included in the study sorry the chemcocytes not included in the study correct I'm sorry did you Is the chemchocytes included in the study? Sorry. The chemchocytes not included in the study, correct? I'm sorry, did you? The site on a 60-second west of 60-second south of US1. It's not in the study area, correct? On the 60-second south? No. No, that's not. Yeah. Okay, I think so. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Item D. Mark, if you could quickly explain. Again, this was on the triangular space. And to, right now, the code is fairly specific to not count, basically not count for a limiter landscape thing as open space. That open space will be an actual usable plaza or pocket park. This was a case where, again, and it's fairly specific to that, but it's not a bad idea to allow a linear space along one side of the building to count as the open space. And it would be part of the setback, but it would also be larger than the setback and extend into the street. So it becomes more of a functional pedestrian open space. And there's something we could write into the code and it would be general and apply. Do we want to see different proposals? It sounds like we have one yes. I have no objection to it. That one I've really made sense. Okay. Okay Mark, if you can bring that back, we... Okay. Okay, Mark, if you can bring that back, we... Okay. Seven is, I, more of a detail, I'm just a language of how the code is written. That's an average 12 feet for the upper stories, and we should, we would, but that is a maximum of an average of 12 feet. Obviously, it could be under, averaging 12 feet. It's going to be under, averaging 12 feet. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. So are we saying you have to build an average of 12 feet today? Right now, that's what it says. For all of the upper stories, second one up. Okay. After first story. First story is 22 feet maximum and then everything after that is an average of 12. And the reason the average was done was because there are cases where if it's a penthouse or a second floor, somebody might want something a little taller, so that the tall has to average out and still equal the height that we want, the actual height of the building. But someone could not build a 10 foot, they could not build a building that average, right now the goal is to be be that averages out under 12. So it's just a text minor tweak I think. Exactly. It's not as easy as it was. It was meant to be simple and not so the idea was that we know that sometimes there will be a floor usually on the top or the second floor that's very high to make it more of a premium or the penthouse or whatever it may be and normally we establish a height and then somebody comes in and says no we want a penthouse that's 15 stories. So that's fine. So I understand why understand one of you know what the question is what do we want is the standard or do we want to bring back what is a normal the standard right now that we have is an average of 12 feet. So to do it a maximum of 14 feet or come up to 120 feet. If you want to do it as one is 14 and one is 10, a bunch more 10 and not the top we have another 14 that's fine. What we didn't want to do was put a hard limit on all of them so that if you do have a penthouse, if you do have something you know a amenity level deck then you can make them higher. So quickly it allows for more height because we're governing this by the by floors not by overall So quickly it allows for more height because we're governing this by floors, not by overall height, so it allows for more height one. And then two, I think it creates a nicer product. The most part we're talking about small footprints, which equates to smaller units, and you have a higher ceiling. It's gonna create a nicer product, right? Which means... And you can balance out the products you want. You have 10 foot. It's contractable. It's more floors and more money. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. It's a lot more. cookie cutter which is 10 feet 2 lbs. So I like it and also allows for some flexibility. The commission wants more flexibility. You can lower that from there if you think it's to aggressive. You can lower it from 10 to 11. The sponsor only really wanted to be able to be under that if possible. So in the example of 10 stories for example they could be at 110 feet instead of 120 feet. Mark, would we be better served having a minimum at a maximum? Well, minimum, yeah, we would, because building code minimum is pretty, pretty short. So we want to 9 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 with a maximum of 14 feet. And let folks decide what they want to build within that range. We could do that, but then we end up in the code. We're writing a higher building height. So this was a way of still having a building height that comes out to where we want it. And you're going to have some higher, some lower, and just make it up. You weren't mic'd up. Look, I think the, I think someone wants to be a a challenge and having a 12 foot average. The word of course, you have is pretty aggressive. So, you know. The request is just to write the word a maximum of an average of 12 feet. That's it. So they could be under that. Sorry, repeat the request one more time. A maximum average of 12 feet. I know it's not the language, it's not simple. Wait, people. What in your house today? What is the ceiling height? It depends on where you are. In your bedroom. In your bedroom. 16. Nine and a half. Nine and a half. Okay. So, instead of going crazy and saying, you can't build anything higher than this, you can't build anything lower than nine and a half. Can we agree to that? That's what I was saying. People are taller today. Yes, yes. So you can't build anything less than ten feet. You said my house was a data product. If you want to less than 15 feet high, you can. But we can't go less than 10 feet. You're current in my house. OK. Sold? Yeah. I think I think the concern on the sale that our colleague mentioned was I don't disagree. I think a minimum is worth having. I think people vary if you people are going to build a nine and a half of the product today, right? But allowing for a higher maximum without an average allows for a color building. So that's the trade off. And these are floor-to-floor, so they include structure. Correct. So if you know you can only build to 120 feet. We don't have, if we want to impose a height limit, then that changes the conversation. Right, so. Right, this increases the height if we make the at, the 14 feet theoretically someone can build 14 foot floors all the way up to the top. I was going to say something, so then. I know it does. It does. You're going to have luxury products going to have much higher. QB. Yeah. Forty-seven nights. I know, but how much? Substantially more. I mean, ten to eleven. Dolls more? Dolls more? In terms of what it sales for? I don't know. It's not blame. I mean, 10 to 11 dollars more. Dollars more? I'm sure they would sell four. It's not blame either. Why don't you make a proposal? The question would be if you're acceptable of an average floor being less than 12 feet. That's maybe the better, easier way to think about it. I just, yeah, personal experience. Again, it could be less of a generic product. People walk in, cross the board to my apartment outside South Miami. First thing you always comment on is the ceiling height. Hi, I'm Steve. It's high. It's high. At one point, it's noticeable. Cross the board point it as it's noticeable across the book, for a first thing everyone comments on. We can, we can, just, it's six o'clock, is only got a little reminding. So, okay. Let's leave that one open. Give us an opinion. What do you think the height, what we should write here? All right. And if you want to give us a number. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. the bike if you like. And I believe ceiling height is the best amenity that an apartment can have no matter the gyms, pools, and stuff. Even if the unit is small and the ceiling height is big, it makes the unit feel much larger and it's at trends with higher average per square foot rents, which brings in more attractive of the demographics or better taxes than only in the phone. That's what I was trying to say. Hold on a second. So I think it's ceiling high, 10 feet. Minimum, we're saying. No, it's all good. You know how hard you want to accept that. So that I'm enjoying it and that. I can't if you want to, I'm sorry. I'm back to work. We do record these things. So in fairness to John and our clerk. Courses, exceptions, but for the penthouse units, I just see you can go higher than that. The amenity floor is usually higher ceiling height, but for the majority, the bulk of your units finish ceiling height 10 feet. OK, thank you for the questions. Any more? No? OK. questions? No? Okay. Finish floor ceiling which is that's taller yeah. We're probably around 12. Yeah. Just 11 and a half. Mr. Bass you recognize. Jeff that's just trying to follow along here and it's been a little difficult because not all of us have the list so I'm trying to keep score of where we are but is that a minimum? Are you sitting now a minimum or are you sitting at maximum on the? So the discussion was whether right now we have an average with a with I believe a an average of 12 feet correct? Floor to floor. The question was should we have a minimum and a maximum? Okay but was the was the discussion to have a maximum of 10 feet? No, no. Right now it's that small. Okay. All right. Just read it. So what we develop is a minimum of 9 feet that can go up to 10 feet. Finished. minimum of nine feet it can go up to 10 feet finished. Get a bottom of the slab from floor to ceiling. Okay. Now on the lower floors where you have parking you have transition floors which you're going to have sometimes 12 feet on those units but at the end of the day what standard is nine feet now you can go to 10 and get more dollars and make it look nicer. Thank you. So the average is 12 is fine. If we did an average of 12 would be 5. So if we- And that would protect us from height. Yeah. So if we follow what Mark said here, adjust floor heights in TSDD to establish upper floor height as a maximum of 12 feet. As a maximum of an average of 12 feet, I know that's complicated, but it's written as an average now. So you want maximum instead of average? No. To maximum in front of the word average. So again, we want to keep average because I think the speaker just came up and said the penthouse is going to be more, the amenity floor is going to be more, and they will just make up for it. So another middle floor might be 11. All right. I would just suggest this, if we again want to see people build work for housing, they're probably not going to be able to a maximum average of 12 feet. So I would say we should have an exception. Let's make sure we're the standard. Putting the word maximum in front of that would mean you could be under that. If you have ten floors, you could be 100 floor. I understand that. It's not a pure play of affordable housing building. If there's ten, twenty percent affordable, I love low. I think my concern is all so let's go ahead and I think that's standard is fine. Everyone good? Yes. Okay. Glazing of facades from 50 to 38%. This is right now the code says 40% on secondary streets and I'm sorry, it says 30% on secondary streets. streets and I'm sorry, 30% on secondary streets, the smaller streets that the facade would have a minimum of 30% glazing and 50% on the primary streets. There's a request that maybe that's too much for primary streets that it could be 38% or just lower it to some lower percentage. More, remind me, there's only a handful of primary streets that we've designated correct. Right, so I'm not inclined to support the change. Glazing is the amount of glass they require. Is this the bird? No, there's nothing to do with that. So much glass you have versus just a wall. Solid wall. So to give you an example, a student housing project across the street would be wall below the standard. Number nine is about mezzanine floors. So we allow mezzanine floors in the code that they don't count. So for example, on the first floor, we allow maximum of 22 feet for the first floor height. In retail situations, a lot of retail could have a mezzanine floor. That's been limited in the code as it's written out to 20% of the floor below it. Mark, I would suggest for time-saking here, on number nine, can we get a similar comparative analysis that we're asking for on the 20,000 group of four point? So let's see how other jurisdictions are handling this issue. Thank you. Any objection to that? Okay. Okay. Number 10 remove the density limit. We're at a, we present, so we, the code right now that TSDD without this proposed code has no density limit. We've responded to put a density limit in and it's been, we calibrated it really from the proposals that have already been approved. Across the street, 60, 75 is at 196. The wind xt property is 140 something, close to 150. So we put an density limit of 150 for base number of floors and then if he's going to bonus floors 200. We think that's a pretty good limit considering where we are. Yeah. That's a pretty appropriate limit considering the type of transit supportive area that we are at the size of the station and the area around us. Getting much higher gets into a situation where it would be more appropriate for something like brick-olored downtown Miami, which is much, much, much higher. So we do want to have a density limit at this point, and it is a reaction to some of the state reemptions. Right now, it's not an issue. I think we've kind of worked around it, but as some attorneys will say, we're always one session away from preemptions coming our way. So we want to just establish a density limit, put it in now, and calibrate it as something that works pretty well. Kind of gone through a little back of envelope sketch of what that would produce and it fits the form and the heights fairly well. Did you Mayor? Yes sir. That was the number I had also thought about was at 200 already at 196 that was already put in right across the street. I don't I'm not a big fan of coming back down Was that is that so the question I have in Mike's folks we're gonna echo If we are are we talking about 200 everywhere are we talking about certain areas? I don't know that that was a that's a request a came out of So That's a request that came out of... So in my understanding is the origin of this request came from a property that's adjacent to the transition. Not a concern that was widely shared by people who other stakeholders. So it's... Most people are fine with 150 of the 200. Correct. There's a handful of folks that they can't make their project work at the proposal at the proposal amount so are you saying you want 200 across the board? Are we going to keep the current standard and increase in scenarios? Following the vice mayor's I think we've always been pretty straight and forward on that. I'm not big. I'm coming back down For rights that have already been given so rights have already been given before our time at 196 so I would say moving forward 200 would be the max on Still we still have the minimums on actual square footage on the units at 550 or 500 whatever it was so the changes in much Understood so commissioner leave it on It just to provide some context, as a city commission with no development we always felt they're right back through against the wall. Even if we had approved development they're heading for the development of the city in double digit years. That's one of the reasons the floor plate is as large as it is in the, it's the grocery project and across the street, originally I was also proposed with a public and there was motivation to have density in this side of US one. So that's why we ended up at, we started 150 and then it's how we ended up at 196. So, which is dense as a city of Miami, and that's only across the street. But I'm fine with wherever the commission is. I just wanted to give you that institutional knowledge. I guess my one concern is inviting conflict, because this standard applies south of 74 street, for example. Correct. If we were to do this, and we think that the form will limit it, because we're at six stories. So I think I'm fine with having 200-inch naked summer locations, but I think we should come back and calibrate it around the edges. Maybe some of the smaller or all the lobes, or actually, you know, Juan's here. He can speak to this probably more eloquently. Sometimes having an inverted density structure is more advantageous. So I don't know if Victor Juan wanted to share some thoughts on this and I put you on the spot that you're in the audience or Marri as well. Hi, Marri. I was a little alarm went off in my head when I heard about the 550 square foot minimum unit size. When I'm talking about bonus units or eligibility for something special, just everything. That sends up a little trigger in my head, wondering whether we might open ourselves to a question into the rate minimum of an investigation as to whether we violated fair housing law. It's generally considered a vestige of Jim Crow to have minimum unit sizes in zoning was introduced as a discriminatory practice because all those people with less money can afford a larger unit using the unit size was and saying a minimum was used as a proxy to prevent people with less means from living in the same community and in effect becoming racially exclusive instead of inclusive. So I would be very careful about having a minimum unit size and hoping that's going to protect you from some sort of overdevelopment or something by doing that because you are opening yourself to at the very minimum an investigation over fair housing mall violation. I don't know, I'll say I haven't popped through the timeline of this whole conversation. So yes, you're recognized. Thank you Mayor Nick Noto from Law Farm in P 1450 purple Avenue one thing I want to point out for this conversation and we did propose the relaxation of the density cap specifically in the TODA which is the most the area identified for the most intense development Too unlimited just because that's the status quo in the existing TSDD formulae Todd. But essentially we're requesting an increase to 250 units per acre in that area. To all of your points, we think that the form of these buildings is very well controlled by the program that the Courty and a group has created. The height of the building, you know, even the number of units within it, you're not because of the 550 square foot unit size cap You're not gonna have this clover proliferation of micro units So really all the controlling the program inside of the building is just Really hindering creativity from developers. It's gonna prohibit them from utilizing this really unique and creative Bonus height program that you've created because if they can't fill the box they're not going to go through and take advantage of the payments in lieu paying to the affordable housing trust fund provide work for a thousand years because they can't fill it based on the density that's already provided. So just a narrow focus we're really just asking for this in the TODA. And if it's any concession to get just from the 200 to the 250 and the TODA alone, to a TODA alone, I think that would work really well for us. And I think live local is like, was a big scary monster when it first came out. But for all the reasons that this works in terms of controlling the form of the structure itself would apply the same way to a live local project. So even if it was an uncapped density, they self-decomply with the building heights, including the bonus programming, the form, the floor plate, the open space, all of those regulations still apply that live local project. So with this particular zoning code, the fear of the bloke is really not realized here, particularly because of your 550 square foot minimum unit size. So all of those form controls in place, I think at the very least increasing the maximum density at 250 units per acre makes sense here. Thank you. Sorry, nice. Yes, you may, sir. You recognize it. I'm sorry, I thank you. And I apologize. Can we pardon me by smear. I apologize. Thank you. I apologize. Canary, pardon me, Vice Mayor. I have to step out. So excuse me, just very quickly, I want to thank everyone in the audience for your time and for investing our city. I just want to say it again. I know we're focused on process, but the person, the principal of your firm, the firm we contracted to do this study, will tell you the most important thing. In zoning studies, it's political will. I'll say it again. I'm an affirmative vote on the consensus of the commission where we stood before. I call this meeting was four to one. I don't think that's changed. So if this comes in any form before us, before I'm out, I'm the only guaranteed winner in November 5th. You have my vote. Otherwise, just consider the politics of it. Things can change. You're going to have to bring someone up the speed very quickly and something we've been working on for a long time. So again, thank you for indulging me. Thank you, Commissioner. I have a question. Y'all have condos, not rentals. I think you're back into the FBA space again. Yeah, so I think just, and I think I can make your point. Yeah, look, so the buildings that we're talking about, the Windixi building, and which one is the other one, oh, the 6075, both of those buildings are 10 stories. And the density is 200, in my case, where the roadways in, I'll be able to 15, the density? No. I don't think so. I did the math. I think it's like a hundred and a half. It's two hundred ninety units. I eat that. But at fifteen stories, for me to fill the building, what I'm proposing is that's an envelope decision. And if anything, since I'm fifty feet away from the metro station, then I can get the additional fifty units. Actually it's 43 units that I look good for. But again to get the 15 stories of that I can't use it because the issue is at the sales point on these units I can't go over a million dollars in order for it to be affordable. Yeah, you know, all the respect to Nick who probably is much more an expert in the local than I am I think to Mark's point, you know, a year ago we had the safeguard of FAR. Next year, maximum unit sizes could be reduced. So, I mean my concern about this is the possibility of encroachment, you know, particularly on 62nd Avenue. So, you know, the lead slates here in the system, it civilism can go another step further and reduce our belief and regulate minimum unit sizes, which is not something that I wanted to do in the last go around, but it was the one safety that we had on the possible creep of very tall buildings and lots of units next to single-family housing. So, something for us to consider, you know, makes perfect sense rationally in a world where we were operating with our full autonomy, but it's, to me, a scary prospect to invite further identity in close proximity to single family. So colleagues, thoughts, do we want to go to 250? I think we are required, such as to really adopt a standard. Under 163, so we do need to have a new AmeriStandard. I don't think we can go to unlimited. I don't know if our city attorney wants to opine on that issue. But whether it's 200 or 250, that's the risk we take. Is what happens in 12 months. You also said you wanted to speak a little bit further about the north side or the other side of US one. I think we also just bring it back. I think we should bring it back and maybe what I would like to see staff is maybe calibrate it to certain areas so that we don't have as intense, we don't have a uniform designation for the core core and the periphery. So I think certainly the range is certainly no more than 250. And I must say I don't have as much fear of it there than I would somewhere else, I first am using it. And I don't know if it's the condo hotel idea. I don't know if it's because I don't envision so many cars. I'm not sure what it is in my brain that doesn't scare me as much there. Yeah, in that particular location is it because the students don't have cars. I don't know if it's because I'm there so often. Well, no, but across the street is student housing and you don't see cars. Yeah. Let's move on, I apologize. Mark, what's not in my language, you can explain it really quickly. Permit development sites that are smaller than 40,000 square feet to be able to apply for bonuses. I thought we had tied the bonuses to any project that had to come towards large scale. So it's 40,000 square feet of a building. It's a site area. A site area. Site area. Right. Unified site area. So the large scale process is 40,000 square feet of site area. In that process, in that part of the code it also does say, or more than four stories. We're going to correct that. The intent was to limit it for large scale projects. So it's the way the code is written now on large scale is a little awkward. Sorry, so just if you can just repeat, what's the current standard today? Four stories or 40,000 square feet of lot area? Four stories of building or 40,000 square feet of lot area. Okay, the intent on this code was to bring anything that's a large scale site, 40,000 square feet of site area. It has to come before commission and therefore we can have the commission weigh in on bonuses. Otherwise we don't want the bonus as to be an administrative process. So why don't we just keep the standard today and open up everything to the bonus program? So any nor four stories is eligible. Okay. So, 18 or four stories is eligible. Okay. A regardless of the site. Yeah, I mean, I think the smaller sites, it's not feasible anyway. I mean, if you have to park it, if you want to 20,000 square foot site, but we can just do that. But no matter what they have to come before commission for bonus for decisions about bonuses. Okay. Provide for student housing. I don't know what that means. I wasn't able to finish that conversation. Some of a person called me from actually out of state that they're interested in self-manly for student housing. I wonder what? So, I haven't finished the conversation. I don't know exactly what their specific needs are, but I just wanted to make it wherever. I'm going to guess that it has something to do with parking and unit size. Okay. 13. Not a fan of having storage in the in this area. So I don't know if anyone else has any I'll give you an example of options that I've seen out there where storage Garage for example garage storage where you have a nice building and you can park your cars like that to become anything now. But there's an ability to have a building where people park their car. Yeah, but those are, I know that's not sure what character has this self storage. I'm not sure what can you elaborate on with this backer that request is. Self storage would be, I think, we all think it is. We all think it is. It's a type of locker, all your extra stuff. I think that the parking and the mechanized parking would be a garage, would be a standalone garage, and we would allow that if it's time to something else. I could be allowed. I mean, they're really concepting, you're talking about it's collector suites, of some sort, like you've seen, I think the cabriza is at the building on Bird Road. Is that what they're looking for? Is that what this conversation is about? Yeah, I mean, that's, I don't know that that would be called self-storage, but we, I'm not sure exactly how our code treats it, so we can explore that further. The proposed code does not allow it as a standalone use. When you say it, what are we referring to? Self storage. And how do you define self storage? The building where you would go in and there's a lock store that you have the key to and you have all your access. If I wanted to build a condominium where I sold collector suites, basically high-end mancaves. You know? It is a thing. I'm not. So, so the client, he might want a collection there or my collector cars or my collector art and I can't stay there overnight but I want to hang there with my friends invite the per gatherings, have a have an office out of that space. If it's an accessory to what though? To typically residential or office. What if it's a principle used typically, typically it's in a warehouse category. Okay, nothing, we're not allowing that. Maybe this just investigated and come back. Okay. Okay. Investigated and come back. Okay. How do we ever look finalized on this stuff? Because we just said, yeah, look at it. Look at it, look at it. It's work-explanatory. It's self-defined. 14. So, no, this is... We'll get through the end. That's it. We still have fuel. All right. So in the TSA, which is the district south, this is the sub district we created for the multi-family residential south of 74th Street, 74th to 76th. Right now, the code requires that the last layer of that going in the depth of the lot, anything that's facing single-family residential of the neighborhood would be a four-story part of the building, typically townhouse. This would be to take that same area and just allow an open space area, green open space or a programed open space. That bonus, that the builder would, that the developer would construct. But to use, well, would they give up greens, would they want greens based on develop on the side that they can't hide, because over you're saying, like a bone product. Correct, correct. So it wasn't quick. That's a buffer. But the concern would be to establish whether that can be used as a bonus. Now, it just has to be written carefully, because that district doesn't allow bonuses already, but I would want to think hard about that as it applies to the rest of the area. Me personally, I'm okay with this since we already have an eight-story building. I know it's not conforming. It gives a buffer from the residential as it is already. So I'm okay with it. I just don't know how many bonuses I would give or what the bonus would look like, but we can open it. Well, Tia, that district doesn't have bonuses, has no application of bonuses. I thought it did. It's just six stories. That's it. Actually, you were the one who spoke to myself and Lewis a few days ago. Lewis Gurkin is a big property owner in the area. I think he owns close to four acres and over 100 plus units. There's currently right now a buffer being proposed because of so-so-so-go family lots, which he owns those two. So the discussion was, why would there need to be a buffer through one of his properties already if potentially we want to be able to you know have discussions that the city would want to see that as green space or park or amenity to the neighborhood in exchange that we could reallocate that density or you know height to a different parcel throughout that neighborhood so you know we can still build townhouses there yeah I think we're talking we're talking about It's exactly here in South and 74th Street correct 74 to 76 so he owns all those lots along 76th Street I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the microphone so we can all hear you. I'm sorry. So are you oriented as we were talking about? So you talked about the single family of the lots that front on the north side of 76th Street, correct? Correct. Yeah. So in all the blue above that, and essentially that central block there? So what you're asking is you get a bonus credit for multifamily development on the lots to the north of the single family lots today. So basically leave that as open space. Well, we could, I mean, we could build up to whatever is being allowed there today. But if the city says, hey, maybe it would be better for us to have green space, we'd like to have an open discussion about if that's preferred, potentially shifting that density, the units, and or the heights to a different parcel that we own somewhere else in that vicinity. OK, to satisfy the, there's no bonus requirement. So it's a maximum of six stories. Right. I think what he's talking about more is the concept of density averaging. Density averaging. Okay. Further north along the... My question would be why would we need to do that? Why couldn't that be done via instrument as opposed to something that's put into this code? So if they wanted to unify their site and use the entire lot area to come up with an average density and develop it only on the portion of the site, why do I need to do anything to authorize that today into the code? Is that prohibited park? No, I think it's just to clarify. Let's just lay it up, but they could do it instead of doing it in a quality. So I want to be very clear to my colleague, I've been, you know, and again, it's no offense. I think you appreciate your ownership. And I've been very leery of us with a sector size from the beginning going south to 74th Street, because the imperative, when I knocked door to door, what people wanted us to fix, fixed in quotes, was the historic commercial area. That's what people have constantly constantly been. I just want to make the point. So we should try carefully here. I'm not objecting to the scheme. What I do not want to see is a scheme that basically continues to push the high level open that area, because what I'm afraid of colleagues is that we're already proposing people are rightly concerned about how much development we're going to authorize and the closer it gets to their single family neighborhoods, the more skeptical they become of the whole plan. And I don't want to put the whole plan in jeopardy over something that everybody clearly wants by trying to push onto the edges, where I think there are certainly improvements to be made, but may invite a lot of resistance. So when I made a few months ago, I'll make it again, but I do understand what you're saying. I think that if it's something you want to do, if it needs clarification, we should certainly clarify it, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be authorizes of on the scheme right if you own the land today And you can build multi-family on that site You know if it's a declared on density averaging. I don't have enough. I'm not opposed to that I really just do not want to continue to pile on more height that close to a single-family neighborhood Sir last question. Sorry. What is the density in the TSNA right now? That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. I'm sorry. It's RM24 and RM18. So, I know. So, Commissioner, I mean, we're talking about substantially increasing the density. Yes sir. You recognize sir. Thank you. Yes, I'm the landowner. But I think what we're, what I'm faced with and contrary to what you're saying, I believe the cutoff is 76th street to the north. But to the south, I also want on the other side of 76th street, people want the walkability to better locations, although 76th street homes face a side street, they don't face into a neighborhood. So they're really on an island by themselves that doesn't improve their aesthetics to anything. The neighborhood start on the other side and all we're doing is leaving us with the 60-year-old buildings that have tremendous maintenance and without the ability to build up we're not we're going to keep these 60 70 year old buildings that don't add any value to the community. So I'm stuck with a 22,000 foot lot street to street or a little larger. I'm stuck with the old 18 unit building. When across the street is a eight-story tower that we should have an eight-story tower on our property that gives the people a hundred feet away now to walk into the new grocery store that they're building or walk to the deli lane or walk to Havana Harries, no one's going to drive across the street. So all we're doing is keeping these older buildings without the ability. I can't redevelop it to a give it to a developer or do it myself because it's cheaper to keep it as an apartment building without the height and without the density. And anywhere from 76th Street, where there are already apartment buildings across the street on 76th Street, you're wrong on that aspect. I know. It's a different of opinion. I think 74th Street has traditionally been the edge of the commercial district. And it needs to be more. I understand it's multi-family residential south of it. Again, it's just my personal opinion. Right, now I'm giving you mine. It just, it needs to be pushed to 76 just so we get the density and sunset drivers in dead any longer. Sir, I think what we want is, my perspective is we want something to happen. What we know, I think what we all need to be cognizant of is that what we are doing is, you know, I've always said this to my college, we wanna evolve. We don't wanna make it seem like it's a revolution. Because the date seems like it's a revolution, the pendulum swings the other way, and everything stops. And that's what I'm just trying to guard against. So. We don't have the density. I think my colleague had a question for you. You're right. I just want to make sure you understand. We are proposing a density increase, but severe, severe increase. And we are going up to six stories by right. So we are giving the ability to do so. You're asking, right now we're out six with a 150 density. That's a lot more than you have. A lot more. You're asking for it right so I understand that we'll take that in consideration but I think the mayor's right on this one that transition going down on the south side is is very intense so we just got to look for it but I do believe in in the the bonus where I don't mind giving up our homes on 76 street for a dog park a pick up ball, a children's playground, because with the higher density, there will be less of that for a bonus somewhere else. I'm one of our properties in the neighborhood, so I mean, it's something to think about, because I don't know if everyone else is offering free land. Right? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We're done anywhere. That's it. So I have to go because I'm already I'm already ready to. Yeah. You want to get some direction on this item? Yeah, and then man, you can talk about timeline and I'll listen to it from the car. Is there any appetite for that? I'm a no right now. Yeah, I'm also a no. Okay, so we'll leave it at 6 and 1.5. But May, and the Lager Commission for one more comment before we break. And Vice Mayor, I really appreciate you hearing me on this. Nick Noto from Law for Emilsen Sumberg. I just want to revisit, because I don't know we're doing this, let's public comment on each particular topic, on the sunset drive buffer area. And I know, I think a lot of the confusion has been, because this has been talked about theoretically, and kind of in the abstract. So, if it didn't make it to you, Mark a draft, but we proposed something that was concrete that you could look at, feel and implement, which creates just basically another option for bonus height for those sunset drive owners and otherwise they're going to be restricted to, I guess, four stories with no opportunity for bonus. The bonus height that they could sell is limited to two stories in our proposed program, which means they self-detake advantage of the rest of the menu. They self-detake advantage of the rest of the menu, they self-detect advantage of the payment and blue options. And most importantly, and I think kind of as a win-win with the city, we're proposing 50% of the sale of the proceeds from that bonus height have to be reinvested in capital improvements for the sunset drive property itself. So I know there's a vision for that corridor, but there's really no funding source for the preservation and for it to become what you all see. And so this is, I think, a very easy way to kind of plug something into the program you've already created and provide a funding source to those owners on Sunset Drive that allow the reinvestment in that corridor. I think we hear you, Nick. I think the issue there, we just didn't go understand the economics behind that. There's a lot of things that go in out of how it gets distributed, how it's funded, operationally how it gets all that stuff done. It's not, I understand what you're saying. It's a little bit more complicated than that simple, but we're looking into it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hi everyone, Adam Freeman, 57-odd-sunset drive. Just for what you said, Commissioner Kaye, I totally understand that just to elaborate on next point, I did speak to several other property owners and the sunset drive, and we do have a letter of support for that legislation, and now support for more than 50% of the owners within the Sunset Buffers. So this is not a specific issue related to one property. It's related to everyone. I would also say an understanding or point, if there's anything we can do, we have an analysis done that we feel it's significantly less than what even the mayor projects of 1.5 million square feet that would be eligible for TDRs. I think it's about half of that, maybe even less than that, with also the requirement of having to reinvest into those properties. So not everyone's gonna do that, but specifically if that height restriction goes back to four stories, you have less TDRs available to sell, so on and so forth. So I would love to leave this with you guys. And if you guys have any interest in seeing that analysis, I'm happy to provide. Go ahead. Do you want to see? I think we've already come to the agreement that it's at four. So that's not a discussion anymore. You said- No, yeah, I'm saying from before when I was at two. Yeah, yeah, I'm saying cut from before. I was at two. Yeah, yeah. We're searching it. I don't know what I would suggest to just provide all the documentation of the analysis to the City Clerk and she'll distribute your questions. Sure, if that helps you out. And then if you guys would like this letter from 50% of the owners, I'm also happy to provide to them. Give it to our issue. Okay, thank, formats. So thank you. I'll be super brief, Jeff Bass, 1515. One of the things that one develops in this career is the ability to read a room. So I know given the hour, I'm not going to engage in a line item discussion of the things that you all covered today. I understand your staff is going to recalibrate the bonuses and bring those back. So the one request I'm going to make is to recalibrate the bonuses and bring those backs. The one request I'm going to make is please keep an open mind between first and second reading. We're trying to find a pathway to a win-win. I know there were discussions and guidance given, but we'd like the opportunity to see what your staff comes back with to speak to you about that so that we can try to find a way to make and again we're just speaking on behalf of a property owner who finds themselves on a particular property with particular geometries that are challenging and we're just going to try to find a way that makes that work. So all I'm asking for is an open mind and an opportunity to dialogue between now and secretary. between now and second. The near path. Thank you. Commission, first off, thank you all for the public service that you all are doing because I mean this city is needed for so long. But anyways, I know we're on a short time from here. With regards to 5,900 sunset drive and 50, sunset drive, we own 5,850, the Vitacan and the carrotacan and the Carrot Express and we're in the process of trying to move Deli Lane to the corner if we're able to deal with Mr. Vass's client. So I bring a little bit of a unique perspective to this because I started my career in brokerage in the South Miami area so I got to know all of the owners. Yes. Your name, please. Oh, Margot's pointe. Yes. So there's 14 unique owners on sunset drive, the majority of which have owned these properties for 30 to 50 plus years. We were one of the only ones that purchased the building at 5850. This was after my brokerage career now on the principal side. And remodeled it. And I'll tell you, it wasn't a great deal for us But I understand why none of the other owners want to spend the money to do it because they're cash out They bought these properties for peanuts over over the you know however long ago it was and They just do not have the will to re-invest so you know you need to incentivize Either other owners or developers to come in and purchase these properties and spend the funds to do it. And the only way to do that is by being fair, granting them the bonuses and limiting it at the four stories or two stories or for it's tied to 50% of the value of the TDRs. I offer a suggestion as you read through it, tie it to the 50% of the building improvements. I think that will yield a lot better result than, you know, whatever the economics are. And it will motivate those owners that are deep in their seats to transact. So that's all I have to say. Thank you for everything. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Mark, so next steps you're going to give us a date obviously we're wanting to look at missing decisions before we use Josh. I'm going to have another thing. Yeah so well you know what? Madam. That's we want to start off with again. Vice Mayor if I can I just wanted to thank everybody for being here we really appreciate you sticking through the entire meeting and this commission I don't know many of you may be familiar unfamiliar with this but we're all very very much in favor of these projects being built and we want to find a way to do it we want to find a way to do it fair and do our part as a vice-mayor said of just being more broad with with our decision making so that it can apply multiple properties so I think that falls a little bit on new mark just to help come back with something that is appropriate for what we're doing here, but also paves the way for these projects to move forward. And even, you know, the sense of drive owners to have a fair shake at what we're doing. So and we appreciate all the work you, and we look forward to seeing it. And yeah. We look forward to seeing it fast. Yes. Time is money, Mark. I'm going to put your speaker on. We have to schedule this. We're going to put your thing. We are going to be tentatively scheduled for the second reading on the 15th. Thank you. For advertising reasons. Yes. Technically on the agenda on the first. But there's a request from the city attorney that it be deferred based on having this workshop today so that they can incorporate the comments. So Mark and work on it with the comments. So it will come before you, but whether it requested it for to a date certainly. So can we then instead of hearing it on the first maybe have a workshop on between then and the 15th, the first week of October maybe you know, soonish so that we can have that conversation and get it all done so we hear it on the 15 We have a pride and we have a priorities meeting before the next meeting next week Not for this list and we also have the mayor has requested again about having the city's property of razorway and on the calibration on the bonuses. And I don't know how this went over. Hopefully we can get that quick. So we have to find out what that is. So what are we looking at? If we don't try to put dates on this, it's just going to keep going, guys. So today is 26. We're saying it's not happening the first. We have a meeting on the 15th. Yeah, let's see what the sun shining on the 15th before the first question. All right. So are we saying that sun shining before the meeting on the 15th? And if we need to do something else after that will follow special meeting before the end of the month So we get this done. Yeah, so if it comes on the 15th Yeah, so that's how to advertise it per second reading. I don't see much going to be ready for the second reading. No. No, but if we... You also have a site plan and sunset. So why don't we do this? So why don't we have the meeting before, you know, the sunshine meeting before, like a five o'clock, so we run through everything, finalize it, almost. Come again? Oh, which date? The 15th at five. If anything, does that make sense? again on which date the 15th at 5 if anything do we have that one more meeting with commissioner Leibman is he is he still voting on the 5th he is right yeah so we do have that meeting so that's why I'm saying we meet on the 15 before our commission meeting right because we won't have it ready for the 15th so we'll finalize everything on the 15th at that Sunshine Meeting, and we'll vote on it on the 5th. November 5th, make sense? At the buzzer. Thank you. I would check with your city attorneys to make sure of your premise. Like I just don't know some code or particular about having a meeting. On the next meeting? So maybe are you listening? Like having a meeting. Just make sure that you can do that before you set this schedule. Thank you. Is Lily there? Can't see that one. That's not. Lily, can you make sure that everything that we're saying works please? It always is she a blinds known said especially perfect. All right, so then we have Okay, they're there. All right. So then we have okay. Yeah. Oh, that's okay. They were making sure that. Yeah, sorry. I'm not going to change the global order.