. All right. Good evening. I'd like to call the order of the city of South Miami planning board meeting of Tuesday, March 11th, 2025. Let's please stand for the plagiolidians. to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of the West's hands. One nation on an entire island indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, roll call.ay Miller Augusta Marrera then he get a Joseph Coruscant and that's it we don't have any other board members online so we have a call I'm ministerrative matters. Yes, we only have one, one, an administrative matter, one of the items. LPA number 2025, that's 003. There's a future land use map and movement application for their property located along south with six of them. Colleague known as the mango lot property. The city commission deferred that they're meeting last week. So we're asking that this hasn't be deferred until they go through the process. They want to hold public outreach to the community to make sure they do something that's best for the community. We would like to defer this until that process has been completed. Okay. Before we hear item number one, Mr. Attorney. Yes, we're going to be a quick statement on that item. Application number four A on this evening's planning board agenda is a quasi-judicial matter. The zoning administrator will read the title of the resolution before the public hearing. The public hearing will include presentations by staff and the applicant and comments by the public. The planning board may ask questions either before or after public is comment is closed. Following public comment, the planning board may deliberate on the resolution. Quasit judicial procedures require that the planning board consider the evidence presented to it and base its decision on the applicable law and primarily on the evidence presented, whether by the applicant, staff or members of the public. The staff report provides the applicable law and criteria for approval. In this case, the subdivision criteria in section, I'm sorry, the scratch that I'm borrowing from another statement that we've provided elsewhere. They won't be looking at some of the visual criteria. They'll be looking at the comprehensive plan instead. Actually, this is the rezoning. I'm sorry. This is a rezoning application, not comprehensive plan. Correct. We're looking at the comprehensive to clarify. You're looking at the comprehensive plan criteria in order to determine that the zoning code is consistent with or the zoning change is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you, Marcus. You're welcome. The evidence considered must be substantial, competent evidence. This means a testimony or other evidence based on personal observation or relevant expert testimony that a reasonable man Mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is not a popularity contest It cannot be based solely on non expert opinions no matter how fervent those opinions might be Everyone who seeks to speak on an item should be given an opportunity to speak during the public comment portion of each hearing If you intend to provide testimony as to any of the applications considered tonight, there's only one tonight. You will be sworn in before your testimony is taken. Please know if you speak, you may be subject to cross examination. If you refuse either to be cross-examined or to be sworn, your testimony will be considered in that context and given its due weight. The general public will not be permitted to cross examine witnesses, but the public may request that the planning board direct questions on their behalf to either staff or the applicant. At this time anyone who wishes to speak should be sworn in. I'd ask that you please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Mr. Lightfoot can you please confirm compliance with advertising and notice requirements for the hearing? Yes all mail laws were performed for this property the advertisement was placed in the Friday February 28th 2025 edition of the Miami Herald property was posted on that same day. Thank you. Chair and planning board members, have any of you had any exparte communications with the applicant or any member of the public either for or against the application to be heard tonight? No, through the chair. Yes, I did speak with the applicant. I also spoke with some of the neighbors and actually had a meeting with the applicant and some of the neighbors on this item. I'd also like to recognize that Board Member Michelle Readin is on Zoom. Excellent. And Ms. Readin, you don't have any disclosure, quasi-digital or ex-partic communication disclosure. Thank you. Chair, I turn to proceedings over to you to begin the hearing with recommendations from planning and zoning staff. Thank you. So this item that is for PB-25, PB-2025-001. This is part of the Plenty Board items. Applicant is Nicholas Faun on behalf of SOMI, underlying LLC. In order so the mayor and city commission of the city of South Miami, Florida, amending the New Zoning Map of the city of South Miami to change the zoning district of the property located at 6540 Manor Lane from Duplex, residential or RT-6 to townhouse residential, RT-18, providing for corrections, severability, conflicts, implementation, and effective date. This item... to townhouse residential RT18, providing for corrections, severability, conflicts, implementation, and an effective date. This item has been reviewed by the city's consultant of Calvin Gerardon and associates. Mr. Craig Pender is here in the audience, and he will be presenting this item to the board on behalf of staff. Thank you. Good evening planning and planning board members. My name is Kirk Pender with CalBin into your down-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and As you can see, it is a vacant lot that is being requested to amend the city's official zoning map from RT6 to RT18. RT6 is the two Plex residential zoning district and RT18 is the townhouse residential zoning district. The site is approximately 0.38 acres in size, so a little bit over third of an acre, and approximately 16,528 square feet. With this current zoning district, it is allowed as a residential land use, and it will continue as a residential land use with the town with the townhouse zoning district. So the existing future land use map is on the left. So we have the existing land use of townhouse residential and it is surrounded to the north by single-family residential. To the south is the metro rail right away with Miami-Dade County. To the east is the single-family residential zoning district again, along with the portion of the metro rail right away. and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis and the city of San Luis side it is shown RS3 low-density single-family, GU along the south which is general use which is Miami-Dade County, RS3 and GU along the east and RO which is residential office along the west. Okay. Okay. Okay. There we go. So the application went through the following review criteria to ensure that it complies with the city's development code. and some of the criteria include multiple properties, city-initiated applications, intergovernmental notice, rezoning application, rezounding reapplication sorry, application requirements and neighborhood awareness. The applicant has, the applicant has complied with all of the review criteria. So here are some of the comprehensive plan goals and objectives and policies that the proposal meets. I'll just like to highlight blue policy, future land use policy 1.1.3, which states that in reviewing the proposed amendments to this plan and the zoning map, compatibility with adjacent uses shall be the major determinant. And as I mentioned mentioned earlier it is surrounded by single family residential with one business office used to the west of the property so will be compatible. I'll also like to point out future land use policy 6.1.1 which states that zone for new redevelopment and redevelopment in accordance with the future Latin use map, including multi-story and mixed districts. And then housing policy 1.1.1. Utilized the future Latin use plan as zoning map to assure a diversity of housing types. And the applicant is proposing a tell home development. We do have conceptual plans. And it's important to note that these plans are conceptual and they will have to go through a formal review before the city design review board. So with the proposed zoning district, it will increase the maximum density and the allowable height. So the density will increase from six dwelling units per acre to 18 dwelling units per acre. What that means is the potential units that can be built will increase from 2 dwelling units to 6 dwelling units. And it's based on the size of the property. And as I mentioned, the conceptual plan has been submitted and it proposes 6 dwelling units. The maximum allowable height will increase from 25 feet to 40 feet. So two stories to a maximum of three stories. Here's the view of the conceptual cyclan. Again just one of stress that is conceptual and it will come back for a form overview and then a view of the conceptual front elevation and a 3D view of the property. So the recommendation tonight is for the planning board to approve the requested application for the map amendment to the city's official zoning map to resume 6540 minor lane from Zooloclex residential R.T. 6 to town health residential R.T. 18. Any of any questions I will be available. Any can speak to you and we can ask questions to them and correct exactly. Public can ask you to ask a question to staff. So let's open it up then for public hearing. Okay. Is anyone else presenting in behalf of the applicant or just you? Oh, sorry. Is anyone else presenting in behalf of the applicant or is it just you? That's up to the applicant. No, this gentleman is speaking on behalf of the city. Of the city. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. My apologies. Okay. All right. So if you'd like to open it up to the the applicant now, this would be a good time for that. Yes. I'll become please so far and make a presentation. Thank you very much. Good evening, members of the planning board, zoning planning and zoning board and staff. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Nicholas Font. I represent SOMI underline LLC, the owner and applicant for this parcel at 6540 Manor Lane. SOMI underline is here today seeking the approval of the zoning change. As he had mentioned to RT18 Town Home Residential, a new town home zoning category that was not previously made available to the community of South Miami. The property has historically had a future land use designation of town home residential and the recent change in the zoning code that rewrote the R.T.6 zoning from town home residential to duplex residential. So we're requesting the adoption of R.E.R.T. 18 town home residential to keep in line with and respect the longstanding underlying future land use designation. Approval of this change would allow us to bring a product that is scarce to the city of South Miami, which is town home product that can help meet the growing demand for housing options within the city. We believe that this zoning change aligns with the city's growth plans and goals which emphasize responsible development that maximizes land use while respecting the community's values and needs. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys may have. Thank you. There's no more presentations. Open up to the public. If there's no more presentations over to the public for public comment. Hello, my name is Jason Lopez. I lived at 7730 Southwest 65th place for most of my life. I can tell you that no matter what numbers and letters all the zoning includes, that this facility will affect my neighborhood that I live in, that is all that yellow that you saw at the top of that picture. The entrance way down into Manor Lane off of 65th Avenue is getting increasingly more complicated. The traffic on ADS streets getting dangerous for building the underlying on that property. There's going to be pedestrian pedestrian traffic coming through and the entryway under this property let alone all the nonsense that building is going to be on a corner and so that doesn't make sense to me to have so many vehicles. We're going to have 18 vehicles probably in these six units if you consider the way Miami is. And I can just tell you that living in the neighborhood this is going to affect us whether it's a new opportunity to redesignate zoning usage doesn't really matter matter to those of us that live here. And I realize that you've suggested that the neighborhood has been informed, but I think the fact that there's so few of us here it shows you that the neighborhood is not aware of what's going on because that site is a pass-through. There's no opportunity for us to be stopping there because it's dangerous. You spend too much time there as a pedestrian and you're in trouble. And so I can't imagine how adding six more units to a complicated corner. I mean, it hasn't been built in all these years. There's got to be a reason for that. It's not because, oh, we couldn't figure out how to build a duplex. It's because it's a complicated spot. And now these folks want to come in and build this three-story monstrosity that's going to fill up the space. You won't be able to see around corners. It's just scary. And then to start it off, this was started off as like, oh, it's the mango property. I imagine the mango trees will get cut down in their plan. So it's just like, it feels like it's not respecting the neighborhood. It's respecting what goes on on paper. And I would ask you guys to consider us. I realize that we're a little man on the totem pole. But these six buildings or one building that equals six facilities will affect the neighborhood. So I ask you to consider the usage, perhaps it doesn't need to be six, perhaps it could be five or four or way to make the space make sense for the rest of the space. US one, material, 80th Street, the Curve on Manor Lane, it's a complicated spot. And so please, as our representative, consider the residents. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Life, what are all these noises we're hearing? People logging in. There's people joining on Zoom. Okay. Very distracting. So any other public comment? Okay, there'll be none. Close the floor from public comment. Open up to board members. Board members. Any comments? Questions? I don't know if it's so much a question, but I think the general manager spoke where is a good point about parking. I mean, looking at this conceptual plan, which I realized is not really what we're debating here. It seems like there's five garage spaces, and then I think three spaces in the back, and then some street parking. I mean that does seem like not enough for 24 bedrooms. So what is the parking requirement? Does it all have to be on site? What staff to answer that question? The code requires two for this type of living, two parking spaces I believe, one with one of them being enclosed. And they all have to be on site. So if they have, in other words, the grocery parking. I would have to study the, since this is a new zoning district, I have to study how that parking would factor into this. Because there's some districts that allow on-street parking adjacent to the property to count. This is such a brand new district and it's never been used before. I have to study that before I can give a correct answer. Remember this right now is only for the resilient of the property, wasn't for the review of a site plan at all. So I'm all for the diversity of the housing stock in the city and I think townhomes is one of our underserved areas. I mean, we could use more townhomes. I guess my question is is that as a three stories, as I think of townhomes generally in South Miami and other places, coral gables and around, I think it's being generally two stories with habitable units. And if there is a third story approved, that general that seems to go for things like elevator shafts and so forth and decks, not necessarily additional units. So I have some concern that by them being three story townhomes that you do end up with a situation of three cars, at least per property, making this potentially making this somewhat crowded. And so I don't know if I can ask the question of the developers of Why they requested the three story approval and what their thoughts are on that absolutely regarding the The height of the product that we were proposing We're proposing two stories and we're willing to commit to the two stories the three stories that was mentioned in the presentation was what's allowed by the RT18 zone. It goes, so we're proposing two stories, we're happy to commit to that as well. And regarding the parking comment, we only show three spots in the back, but we could definitely accommodate more in the rear on site in order to address that. Thank you. So if R18 allows up to 45 feet and which means you can build three stories by zoning, if we change the zoning, they sell the property. Somebody else buys it. They can come in and build three stories. That's correct. Okay. So is there anything that we can do to make it so that the zoning is limited to two stories? The zoning application. We, on a zoning, zoning is not something that you condition. No, I understand it. That's why I'm asking. I'm very familiar. Property owners are able to profit governance, but as a general rule, we do not condition zoning. So if the property owner wishes to profit a covenant to that effect, they could do that at their option. Can I phrase that question a little bit differently? So let's say that we agree with this right now being flipped to the townhouse zoning with some understanding of their commitment of the two stories and keeping that in mind when they come back to actually seek approval for the development and plans. Somebody comes back to us and requests that third story ten years later and they're in the district that permits that. Would we be, would we not have an ability to restrict it again? At site plan, at the level of site plan approval, yes, it is possible at site plan approval to require as a condition of the approval of the overall site plan that there'd be some sort of limitation. But on a zoning application, which is what you have before you, which traditionally do not allow conditional zoning under forward a law. But the zoning would permit it, but we could restrict it when the actual developer comes back with a set of plans. These guys for this time, or whether it's somebody five or ten years from now, we can still say regardless, even though the zoning permits it, we would restrict it because of the concerns we have relative to traffic parking, density. Correct. Your restriction to two stories at that stage would have to be tied to some legal criteria because you are in a cyclan application and there are criteria. For example, compatibility with the neighborhood. The alternative is a profit covenant, which is something that the applicant can choose to do. Got it. At any time. OK. Question. And I asked that everyone in attendance for a good maintenance. But if I understand correctly, the, I wouldn't say the argument, but the position was that the future land use designation had changed at some point, or previously it was for town homes. And now it's duplex. Well, the land use for the property never, never changed. It was always, I believe, was a townhouse residential, I believe, which fit with. What limited to two units? Well, no, that's, that would be the zoning component. Okay. It is limited. The original RTI-6 is limited, not the underlying land use. My understanding was that there was a justification for this change was that there was a previous designation or availability to use that land for a townhouse. Yes, there's only designation. Okay. But not the land use. Right, so I think it necessary boils down to we just want more units. That's correct. To that point through the chair my My question is not necessarily how many floors, but how the floors are used You know, I think and especially if you're considering parking, you know, we've seen townhomes delivered with four car garages Which I've been very looked after and not four car garages because there's four people driving different cars but because there's people who have more than one car and don't drive them every day. And that type of product has done very well. We've seen rooftop terraces which counts as a floor and that is something that is marketable. It costs money. It's actually really expensive to develop, but it's marketable. So a third floor doesn't mean more bedrooms. It doesn't mean that you're absolutely going to have more density. And to the gentleman that spoke, I know your neighborhood well. We met several times. I nearly got run over a few times walking through your neighborhood. But everyone that nearly ran me over wasn't from the neighborhood. It was all, but it was cut through traffic, which is my point. So my concern, I don't think, is providing a living environment for a self-mimmy resident. I'm not sure that the cut through traffic will change. I think I cut through traffic is going to continue to increase. What I'm more concerned about is something aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood, is something that would be valuable to the neighborhood, and something that would not be imposing on the streetscape and on the neighborhood. And I believe that there's an opportunity to do something. We know the met Rail noise there is concerning. I wonder if there's a concept of delivering a product that would avert that and that maybe be a leader in this process. But those would be some of my concerns and some of my questions on this item. Yes. Yes. All right. If I can respond, good evening, have your front. And also one of the members of Somione and Elaine, LLC. So just to go back for a second to the land use, my understanding is that the land use for this property has always been town home. The problem is that the city did not have a quote unquote town home zoning. zoning. Now that the city has a town home zoning what we're trying to do is take that town home zoning and apply it to what has always been the land use and to be more consistent with that land use, right? This is a very busy corner of my feeling is it hasn't been developed because it was only a duplex, right? You've got the unaligned behind you, US one behind you. You've got even though it's not part of the city of South Miami to the south of us. It's commercial and it's what we, what I would consider an underdeveloped property. So we know something bigger is going to come into that corner sooner or later to the west of us. We've got two story office building that has substantial movement during the day. So we think that this product is a good product for that corner. We're willing to stay to two stories because we do feel it is more compatible with the neighborhood. We're not considering rooftop terraces just because the metro rail situation is a little tough there. We don't think that outdoor space on the roof is really going to be enjoyable. We will make some changes to the construction during the construction to try and mitigate the noise. You know we'll fill all the block cells we'll have double-pane glass and things of that nature to try and mitigate the noise, you know, we'll fill all the block cells, we'll have double-pain glass and things of that nature to try and mitigate the noise from the metro rail. But we do see that there's a huge demand for this type of product, the townhome product, within the city. We saw the down the street, they did some townhomes and there been very successful and Very sought sought after just because there is that product available In the city so that's the purpose for the reason Through the chair one one question that I have for the city attorney Yes under the current zoning the number of units permitted on the property with the lot size as and I understand it's HT6 for correct? RT6. RT6. It's it's RT6. So with the current lot size, how many units are permitted on the property as it stands? It is six units per acre. I believe the property is roughly half an acre. It's just over a third. Over a third? Yeah, so it would be two units. So it would be two units, right? Two units. So the delta here is four units. Yes. What we're talking about. Yes. Thank you. The issue of parking is really a concern because it's a four better units. You're only providing one parking per unit and then you have three in the back. So Mike the thing that I'm concerned about is what is the parking requirement for T18 is it one space for bedroom? Is it my understanding it's two spaces per unit? Two per unit? Now, I was also under the impression that the parking spaces in the front of the property, like the on-street parking counted towards those, we could easily fit a lot more spaces in the back of the property. We had done a quick site plan just because the city had asked us to show something conceptually, even though it wasn't part of the application, they just said, look, we'd love to know more or less what you're thinking. So we'd offered a quick site plan, which it's an idea of what we're gonna do there, but it's definitely not finalized and we would go to that process next and you guys would obviously get another bite at the apple at that point. But that was the idea. And the main idea was just to try and face all the townhomes onto the Manor Lane piece so that you get a nice streetscape there, right? Obviously we can't or we don't want to face 80th so we've got our side-day 80th and then along facing west we've got really nice streetscape that was previously shown on the elevations and then we've got all the parking sort of hidden behind it so that we don't have a bunch of driveways which was was one of the things with the RT-18 townhome zoning that allows you to have your two cars in front of your house backing up into the street. We tried very hard to avoid that here and just create that beautiful pedestrian where it has no cars in front of the units. We've got only little front yards in front of the units and all our parking happens behind the units. So without that that was very attractive and a much nicer layout than a duplex would be for that corner. You do show four parking spots in front of the units parallel parking. That's what exists today. I don't think they're built, I mean, they're used today to do it. He's been there to do it. Right, these, yeah, the space is there to do it and we would do it as part of our civil work to clean up the front of the property, but it's used for parking today. It's just not living out for parking. You can just park in the soil area. But the idea is if you look at the plan behind us, showing three parking spaces but we can easily show seven eight there without a problem so. We have one card garage on each unit. You have four spaces in front, three and back. So you're already over two per. I mean, I'm just... Right, right, but not all on site. But if we wanted to say, hey, give me 12 spaces on site, I don't see us having a problem saying, okay, Yeah, we're not counting the ones on the street. We can get 12 spaces on the set. Excuse me, Chair. not counting the ones on the street. We can get in 12 spaces on set Excuse me chair just for the record the lend development code requirements for parking off street parking for a townhouse residential Property is to park two spaces per dwelling unit provided that at least one space per unit shall be enclosed We're drawing you surface one garage. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. You're getting it. You're getting away from the back. Yes sir. I have a question. Please go to the mic. Is it something? I guess it has a gesture. The new world. I appreciate you letting me speak again. This is important to me. The talk that that median space is a parking area currently is nonsense. You get some cars parking there, but usually there's a sign up there. This is no parking. Someone put it up there. And it used to be parking on the other side of the sidewalk for the professional center. No one parks within that median strip. And I would like to invite you to come drive there someday during rush hour and attempt to parallel park within that median strip when there's this designated parking we're talking about. And imagine what it's going to do to the gridlock as cars are coming off US1, as cars are trying to turn onto US1, as cars are coming down 80th crossing the double yellow lines already, coming, cutting through the professional center onto Minerlaine, cutting down 65th Avenue on to Manor Lane. And so this talk about easily adding parking spots is ridiculous. There is not enough space for the number of vehicles. So I just ask you, imagine yourselves parallel parking in that space. OK. Thank you. It's like a real question. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'm listening to the boards having comments board members. Michelle any comments from you? I'm going to take that as a no. No, I'm sorry. I can't get my meet them. Sorry. No. Okay. Is there a do I have a motion on the We've So taking in some of the comments that we've heard, I would make a motion for approval with the proviso the area of the area of the area of the area of in the all the part, the required parking on site. On site. Correct. There'll be all three parking. Okay. So, and in the future, before I ask for a second, in the future, this will come back if it's approved zoning, it'll come back as a site plan for us to approve. Actually, no. No. As long as it's a design review board. Yeah, it would go straight to the- To design review. Yeah. You know, go to the design review board unless they're asking for a variance or some other special. Got it. Right, we have a motion. The motion is with the recommendation that all parking beyond site are required parking beyond site. I'll second for discussion. Okay, move the second. Through the chair. I incredibly sympathize with the neighborhood on the traffic and the pressure that's perceived by this added construction. And by the design of where the park is actually going to be, so I think it's valuable on the motion that we're looking for more clarity on that. But I do think that it's an opportunity to provide a good product in a good neighborhood that will add value to this empty site that has had other challenges. So I second it because I don't see a downside for a plus four unit change. It's not, we're not building a high rise here. And it's adding something which I think is needed to see how we eventually maybe possibly create a change to buffer that rail from the rest of that neighborhood. Because I walk that neighborhood, and it is deathly to speak to somebody on that street with the train coming by. You have to stop speaking until the train goes by. So that's what I want to comment. Okay. All right with the other comments want to call a board on the motion. Jay yes, then yes, Joseph. Yes, Michelle. Yes, and I vote yes, okay motion passes Thank you, thank you very much Yes, I don't remember to live foot. Yeah, give me one second. I can break down the gives give me one second. I apologize, Chair. I'm ready to present now. So the item is the second item on the planning board item agenda. That's PB-22025-002. It's from the City of South Miami. It's an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission. The City of South Miami, Florida, minting the composition of procedures of the design review board, providing correction and severability, conflicts, implementation, and effective date. And I want to point out that DRB Board member, Mariano Corral is in the believe you at some point he would like to speak on this item. Madam chair, if you could make him a co-host so he could speak. So, basically, this item being brought forth from the commission because the DRBending the code to lower the quorum from four back to three and as well as they're going to be increasing the number of meetings for right now they only meet once a month. Now the mayor has requested that it be increased back up to twice a month as it previously was before the court, before the regulations before the DRB were changed. Staff feels that this type of change would alleviate issues with the board meeting quorum by reducing it from four right now. It's four, they would be reducing it to three, which makes it easier for applications to be heard by this board so that applicants can get an extra constructive criticism from this board. Therefore, staff is recommending approval for this item. It's for your approval. Thank you. You're also reducing the number of members. Yes, we're also reducing the eye-pollot of the eye. We are reducing the number of the previous level of 7. We're going down to 5. So you're going down to 7 and you need to 4 as a quorum. Before we go. Right, now we need 4. But- No, but you have 7 members and you need to 4 for quorum. So 3 could miss. Now you're going to five and you need three four quorum so only two can miss Yeah, I'm just looking at it from a numbers perspective miss. Now you're going to five and you need three for a quorum so only two can miss. Yeah. I'm just looking at it from a numbers perspective. You're right. If you think it'll work, I'm okay with it. No, I know. I know. So I'm just going to have a commission and I think it'll be leading to that fun. You know, per month. So well, I sat on it when we were meeting twice a month and it was challenging. Yeah, just had a least. So, through the chair and in full disclosure, I am the chair of this board. Yeah. And I also challenges with line 64 through 66. If we have challenges meeting quorum and there's three of us that are pretty diligent about being there. We shouldn't count on only the three of us. Sometimes I you know might not feel well or or have a trip. So I I would urge this to be changed back to seven. I believe the three is bring it down to three for Quorum is smart. I'm okay with taking on the extra workload of the two per month. For the benefit of the city and the community, but I think we need to keep it at seven. And we need to also hold our commissioners to the point of filling those positions with folks that are committed to serving our community. The real problem. And to that end, I have to imagine the zoning reach has to be a resident, self-mime appointed. We have a business in South Miami. Unless you cannot find someone from South Miami that qualifies, then you are allowed to go outside of South Miami. OK. Because then it's a challenge to find people. So I'm fine with 7 and 3. I just thought 5 and 3 wasn't going to solve it. It was just going to be okay. Yeah. Am I allowed to speak? Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Okay. Any more? Open it up to public comment. Mr. Mariano. How are you? Good to see you again. I know. I think the suggestion of seven board members is correct. I've been sitting on that board for 12 years. And I can tell you and Marcus can tell you in 12 years. I've only missed a board maybe 10 times. Even though he was even twice a month. And he can check on that. I take that very whenever anyone is upon to the board just like you guys are in the planning board, it is a very serious to me, it's very serious, it's a responsibility and when we commit to something, we should make sure that we do follow up and be committed to that to that position. It's a reflection on the and it also selects you. That is why I take that very seriously from that aspect. And I'm glad that we are going back to the two meetings per month and here's the reason basically why. We've had our issues where when we did not have forum that all of the sudden, then that will be passed through without any input from us, even though it can be done either by email or something to that effect. But it's not the same having the discussion with the applicant before us, which is where you really interject and really begin to find out exactly where they're heading with this with the project. My issue with the DRB has always been that the planning board always ruled first and that we always follow what the planning board wanted with one exception. The exception was that I always saw the DRB or the environmental review board as the last stop of protection for the city based on construction. It was not based on anything else. It just based on construction that everything was up. It was up according to not only the planning board, but according to the court of ordinances. So, good as to you all from the perspective of going back to the seven member board, like the idea also, or the three for a quarrel. And any other suggestions that you guys have? I'm open to it. I'm welcome to it. Like I said, I'm committed to this board and to this city for a long time. Board, we have an issue. I misunderstood the discussion that was taking place. Is it current idea to do seven members and a quorum of only three? Yes. That will present a problem under the state's attitudes. Yeah, I figured it would. I was gonna ask that question. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sure there's a... If you want to increase... The ratio. Correct. Now, if you want to increase the likelihood that somebody's gonna show up and meet that quorum, you could increase the number of alternates, for example. And that might be a solution, but you will at a minimum have to set your quorum at a majority. So one of the challenges of serving that board is time. Sometimes we had two items. We could have done it in an hour, but the discussion made it two and a half hours. I sit on the UDRB. It's time certain it's three hours. If we have six applications or seven applications, we have to make sure we get them done in those three hours. So I think one of the things that would help from a volunteer perspective is saying this mean is going to be whatever time you set an hour and a half, two hours, and that's it. Because that will help expedite it. They will, I for one had to leave meetings sometimes because two hours, you know, I blocked out my counter for two hours and all of a sudden, these things are going to go for another hour and I got meetings I got to go to, I have to work. So because this happens during the day and the mornings for those of you that don't know These meetings around the mornings. 8 30 8 30 so my recommendation would be to What what is the average meeting time? Oh, I think I have the record for the shortest meeting at 16 minutes Okay, but And listen, I am diligent about running a fast running a fast meeting and I everybody else will. No, you're absolutely right. It could easily go past two hours or even three depending on the number of items. I'd like the time certain. No, it's not the number of items. It's a combination. It's a combination. If they qualify to be on the agenda, they're not told that they have to be pushed off. So unless you create that limitation, it's maximum five items or what have you. And there's an issue to limit. So I chaired another board, a larger board, more complex board, and Robert's rules, we follow Robert's rules, all I mean is right. Basically, if you follow Robert's rules, everybody's limited to speaking twice under an item. By Robert's rules as a chair, you can enforce that. So if there's an item before the body, you can only rise twice to speak on that item. That is fair. The problem that happens in our meetings is somebody will say something in true or something else, then somebody will come back and say something else, and then somebody else will say something and then. Right. And then if you limit it and you follow to where people can only write twice in an item, trust me, do a help. I agree to 100% I don't know. I think we do follow Robert's rules reasonably well. We're not incredibly strict. We use it in all the boards that I'm involved in. But even in Robert's rules, some folks can do moments in two speaking moments have an opportunity to take 20 minutes. So, yeah. But that's the challenge. But actually the person that wants to speak again, they're like, oh, it was my last time in the... Yeah. I like the idea of limiting it to a time specific. My question would be, the way we currently are set up, if you have seven items that qualify for that meeting, they're on the agenda. That's the current procedure, but I don't know that it necessarily has to be. You can manage your city resources as you'd like. And I don't know anything in the law that says you must in our current law, that says you must be heard on a certain date if you apply on a certain date. So you could do first come first serve and say we only do five items a meeting and you were number six. So you got to wait to the following one. What's the average number of items? I don't know, we call having seven on a meeting. No, we've had one and we've actually had seven. Yeah, yeah. There's there's put an average. Yeah. It was usually like four. If you think think look I I don't know anything about your Design review board. Thank God But if you think about it, we're looking for good members not a chance But do you think about the whole purpose of it? Which is in order to allow people to move forward with projects and plans putting some sort of time restriction on there I I think would be very difficult, very anti-citizen. I think if they have it and they follow it in time, I think we need to hear it. I think the conversation piece, finding a way, whether it's through the chair, moderating it, and limiting people's time to go back and forth on the same issue, it is a problem. And I think that's something that has to be managed. And I think it's great you take pride in having a short meeting. What you're really saying, that was an exception, but it's running an efficient meeting. A lot of people speak, asking people to not continue to hurang on the same topic. So that's my two side. And it's not the public input that prolongs the meeting. Well, I get it. And so at times there is the public input which is really long and we have to deal with that when that happens because you have to let the public speak and some items do go long but that's when you have the time certain kick-in for example at the county where if we had a meeting, an item that took out three, four hours, some things get moved to the next agenda. We don't have that in what we're doing, and that might be part of the solution. The other item is that when we have folks that come in with their plans not prepared, that also creates a big delay, because then some of us on the board that have experience are trying to provide guidance and that guidance becomes long-winded and also takes up time. Because sometimes we have the same presenter presenting the same plans that are not complete. Right. And so that could also be an improvement to save time. So if you have a two hour limit, I mean, in three hours, we've done nine items at the UDRB and these are major projects. But we're efficient. Basically, each board member only speaks once on an item. The chair goes around. The chair goes around one second, sir. The chair goes around once and asks each board member to comment. And that's it. We comment once. We don't comment multiple times, because then we end up in those discussions in which pro-Lahans thinks. If you have an average of six and you have two hours, that's 20 minutes an item. Five minutes to present. That's 15 minutes for discussion. That should be ample if you set it to our limit. And then everybody will be understand that that to be concise and precise on their presentations. You know, I mean, that's just a recommendation. So Mr. Corales, do you want to say something else? Yes, sir. I guess we have a different way of looking thanks, which is okay. Again, when I may recommend, I didn't care whether it would take on a take two hours, three hours, or four hours. My commitment was for that day was to sit on that board and listen to those applicants that go through all the trouble of preparing the plans and it is important to them. For me, it has always been that I want to make sure that all the deep teas and and all the ice are dotted and so forth. I do agree with you that sometimes and I'm just as guilty that we can go on a little bit about above and beyond the call of duty. But that's what makes it interesting in terms of making sure that the applicant at least knows what are their deficient on and what they need to be done. Yeah. So and finally, do you all believe that we should have at least one lay person sitting on the board that looks at it differently, they're from us as professional that represents the, and I know where we're going to go because we have had some people like that and it would just been nightmare. Okay so here we've heard you we've given you ample time and we've heard the comments on clear and thank you for serving for so many years on that board I know what it's like so thank you sir. I'll turn it back to the board for any recommendations is our motion just make? Just make sure to open it up to the public this week. Oh, is there any comments from the public on this item? I'm sure you've had enough entertainment from us. Okay. Through the chair, my difficulty in making the motion is I 100% appreciate the time certain. Like I said, I serve on some boards that have one hour and we landed in one hour, no matter what. So that's like a great idea. The question is what is the mechanics and procedure of that before we make a motion to understand what should the motion be? I mean, you could basically set the, I mean, the UDRBs advertised from 2 to 5. That's it. The meeting takes place from 2 to 5, whether it's one item, nine items, seven items. Yep, but what would we have to do, citywide is, citywide is the one saying to, okay. So make that, we don't have that right now on the board. Yeah. I understood, but if we're speaking specifically just to the DRB, we could codify this and you can make a recommendation that, you know, these additional rules that you're describing be codified. And then you'll be stuck to those rules. Alternatively, the board can adopt its own rules of procedure as a board and run by those. Those could be published so that all of the public and you could even distribute them for example when an applicant comes in and gets their application forms so that they know what the rules of procedure are and it's sort of laid out in advance that everyone's going to have you know an hour per item, two hours per item, whatever it is that you as a body decide. So there's really a few different ways to do it. And then final option is just leave it entirely to the chair, which is typical parliamentary procedure. And the chairman just controls the discussion. That last option may not be the most participatory in the sense that your other board members on the DRB might have a different take. I mean, there might be some shaping. So for that reason, you might want to publish them in advance. But really, you have two, you have three options. Ad hoc, you figure it out as you go along, you following parliamentary rules, you set up your own written rules as a body, not necessarily in the code, or you put it in the code. And each one of them is different degrees of certainty. I would say we should not deviate from Roberts rules. I think all of our boards should run on Roberts rules. I think we should train on Roberts rules. I think we have an opportunity to have a coaching session on Roberts Rules. Okay. But with that said, the time certain portion is what is my question. So Roberts Rules doesn't go to that issue. And what I'm saying to you have the option, you could create your rules that say, we're following Roberts Rules with these exceptions, and then or with these add-ons, and you specify each item gets an hour. And then you have something written when you're sitting there on the board as a chair you could say you knew these rules. We published them, we gave them out to you when you had an application, when you filed your application. The other option is ask the commission to put it in the code of ordinances. That's more permanent, that's more binding, and becomes a strong as a law, right? It becomes a law, and then you're stuck with that rule, the way you wrote it. So I'm giving you three options of different flexibility. You just stick the Roberts rules, you create your own rules internally that you publish to applicants, or you put it in the code with the commission's vote. So if I may, so the commission is the one that would have to amend the ordinance. To put it in the code. To put it in there would be two hours. Because that could also help in gaining volunteers knowing that. Yeah. You know that you're limited. You know, you know, okay, every other Tuesday, I'm going to be two hours sitting in this meeting. Correct. Yeah. So. And that could be a recommendation made tonight. We're going to send it to the commission. Right. If that's if you're looking for guidance on a motion that you could explicitly say, you know, I recommend approval of this ordinance with whatever changes you want, plus the add on that there be a cap on the number of hours for each meeting. And how are the appointments made to the board on by each commissioner, which is in the mayor. So it's five. How are the other two appointed? Yes. The commission is a whole right. The commission is a whole. So it's not in each individual member has an appointed the commission the commission, somebody makes a recommendation, and the commission votes on it. Yeah, for the remainder? No, for the remainder. That's for the for the two at large, but we're talking about going to five instead of seven. Yeah, if you were to go to five, it would be per board member. Yeah, if you went to five, I thought you were going to seven. I thought you didn't like the... But if we go to 7, then we need 4. You'll need 4 for your quorum, correct? But you have to put it in 3 missing. But this is 2 missing. Yeah. I thought you were going to seven. I thought you didn't like the, uh... But if we go to seven, then we need four. You only four for your quorum, correct? But you have the three missing. Which is two missing. Yeah. Here are your odds, we're gonna have four on seven. Listen, I agree if we have seven committed members. And that's, that, that, that, that, that, I've been living this for a few years now and it's frustrating because we have important items we need to speak about and we have to let them go. So what you're saying, it's easy to get three members out. Well, I- been living this for a few years now and and it's frustrating because we have important items we need to speak about and we have to let them go. So what you're saying it's easy to get three members out. Well I know there's three I know there's three that are very committed as of now I don't know for the rest of the year but as of now there's three that are very committed. You know a So, this is a different way of looking at it. Please. To both of you who have served in this board, again, forgive my ignorance of theme of the night. That's a temporary problem, isn't it? If you have different appointees, then are you limiting the future capacity of the board by saying, oh, we only want five and a quarter more three? Is that a permanent solution to a temporary problem? I'll tell you what, all boards have problems finding people. Sure. We have a season in the UDRB. So it's hard. It's hard to find people to find. How is easy as you think? No, I mean, I defer to you guys. You guys have experience there. So from that perspective, there's two ways to look at it. You can have three minutes, which is easier than having four minutes. But if having three is easier, because you are going to find probably three people are committed to always being there. Through the chair, I just wanted to make a comment that the last conversation we had in the commission was that there would be five. And then the two would be alternates and they would be there just in case they could speak if they'd like to they can vote but if somebody misses then we have one of these alternates and those alternates would be appointed by the commission as a whole and the five that are permanent would be one per commissioner. If we don't have a forum today, what happens is that it goes with my recommendation directly and it moves forward. It doesn't actually hold the project. We could still hear the item. I can still hear the item. I believe you, if we don't have a forum, you just can't take a vote. So I could still listen in, see what the members that are there one and move forward with my recommendation on the project. So that's pretty much the way it works. Yeah, my opinion and alternate is if if I can't board an item, I'm going to show up. That's not I didn't read that in what was provided to us. Yeah, the only way that it works is if people are good about saying, I can't make it tomorrow. So then the alternatives are old. Hey, by the way, we need you tomorrow because we're not going to have a quorum if you don't show up. That makes sense. But to have them show up just in case they're needed, Right. It's hard to black out your calendar that way. So. The language regarding alternates on the current draft that's before you was actually stricken. But that is, but, but, but, but, but, but, This is exactly how alternates are supposed to work. If the five core members show up, the sixth art, the seventh art, then it's just sitting there. Right. To me. If all the five core members show up, the sixth or seventh or seventh, it's just sitting there. Yeah. Right? To me, part of the issue is, or one of the solutions to the commission needs to pick better people on their boards who are committed to doing it. If they're not, don't pick them. Get it right. Because, you know, this is making it easy for people to miss, easier for people to miss. I think the part about alternates wanting to be involved if it's conditional. Don't send me an app. Yeah. Yeah. So. We actually just one more thing is we are keeping track of the attendance. And if somebody misses, I think it's three, right, Marcus? Three consecutive minutes. We are removing them from the board in the past that hasn't been a practice, but we are removing from the board. We are letting the commissioners know that their pointes have not been attending. And right now, I believe that the clerk has a memo to the commission requesting that they all provide appointees for I believe all the boards So and we've given information on who consistently does not attend board meetings Through the chair if we are approached as a board member of somebody who wants to serve on the board what's a procedure for us to Put that for person forth I think it goes to the clerk, right? Yeah, I would recommend that you refer them to the City Clerk's Office so that they can speak to find out. But is there an application or you just call out the City Clerk's Office? There is an application but it's in the City Clerk's Office. That's why I'm referring I would recommend that you direct them into the clerk. Maybe something would be advantageous if all of us board members serving on all the boards were provided with the applications. And then maybe we could reach out to others in the city that are interested in serving. Job fair. Yeah, we're putting on our website and the front page, looking for board members. Okay, so with all that said, do we have a motion? Wait to move on. We do. Hey, we have a recommendation. I recommend we move on and table it and take it back up when we've given some thought to the comments. Okay, so that's a motion to defer. I'll second it. Okay, there's a motion to defer. It's been second. So just before you vote, I want to point out that this item was already approved on first reading by the commission. So I don't know that that might change. I think that if it's moved back back up to them, this item was adopted on first reading. Yeah, but I think procedurally, if they want to defer, they can still defer. It's not already scheduled for on an agenda for second reading, is it? No, I think I have to check. I think it might be on for the 18th. I'm not sure. It is on for the 18th. I'm not sure. I'd have to check. Okay. So you're the result of deferring tonight would be to for sort of deferral of the second reading of the commission meetings item. So the item before us today is five members instead of three no alternatives. Correct. That's what's before you today and two meetings instead of one. instead of one. I can live with that. I'll pull my, you guys know better than I do about this group. I'll pull my... I'm happy to withdraw my second. Based on the fact that they already have the first reading, that's why I'm saying. I mean, okay, or we can... I'm happy to withdraw my second. Okay, so. We have an emotion to approve as proposed. Is there any add-ons, Mr. Guerra? You suggested that our limitation will not have to be specific. I would say that we recommend that they say the time certain for the meeting begin and end. Okay. Two hours. Two hours? Two hours. Forward? I can agree with two hours. That would be four a month. But two hours is reasonable if you have six items. Yeah, 100%. Very reasonable. And that would create a situation where if a item doesn't make the cut, it just moves to the next meeting. Yep. Correct. Excuse me, Chair. Just I checked the ad that the the court put in the paper and it looks like it was not advertised for the 18th. It wasn't. It looks like it wasn't. All of us. When I received last Friday. Thank you. Then this. So I was you. Then we're back to the floor. The problem is this meeting is noticed, right? The DRB. What's the requirement for the meeting? The DRB is not noticed. It's not required. We're not required. The only thing we do is put an agenda on the bulletin board. The clerk maintains. But there's no advertising, there's no property postings, there's no mail-out for that meeting. Wow. We're done aware of that. Okay. So then you can do for, so if I am, doesn't make it to the agenda, it's like the RB just rolls over to the next agenda. It will become number one. I I'm good with that. But that's not what the applicants told today, right? So how we would need to set that policy in procedure? That's not what applicants are. I don't handle the RB. No, I guess it might be more of a question, but I'm pretty sure it's the answer, right? Yeah. An applicant today is told you're being heard on Tuesday and make sure to be there. Yeah. Yeah. Either be square. Come on. I'm wondering if you heard on Tuesday. Right. It takes all day. So we can set. Well, I don't think that that's bad guidance that that's not bad guidance in that the board could take an action. If you're not there to hear what they have to say. We can recommend a recommendation to the commission that I take up a zoning or take up the difference to limit it it to hours time certain. Okay. And they have the option to whether to do it or not. It's up to them. So that's a current motion. Approves proposed with a recommendation that they limit it to two hours. Okay. And they propose zoning ordinance to do that. And that's Mr. Gareth's motion in your second? I'll take the motion, he could second it. And just a friendly amendment to the motion of my motion. That we also make sure we create the policy and procedure and all of the applicant and paperwork when someone's applying that they know this is the case because you're asking to be there because they may be heard which is part of the process. Okay. Yes. I have a question. So if an application is not heard because there wasn't quorum, it moves forward with my recommendation. If we do a cutoff, it'll be deferred to bring it back because what the commission is trying to avoid is delaying projects. And right now that would actually delay it more than what it is today. Well, I understood that the idea was that the two-hour cap forces everyone to to move quickly, not that you're looking to kick off. We're trying to create efficiency. And maybe the point is that this could be the test board to create the efficiency. And I have one board member on Zoom now, and I'm sure you can query the others. But I'm really good at trying to keep people in the rails. And I'm not always going to be the chair. So we need to create the policy for whoever is the chair to make sure they're keeping people in the rails and trying to land it as quickly as possible. So it's the two hours, it'll be a two hour meeting? Well, that's up to the commission. Remember, we're recommending it to them. Right, it's a two hour meeting. I've signed an abort where we've taken an hour to do one hour and an hour. Something that you can do in 15 minutes. It just becomes a debate. Or storytelling or people getting on their high horse. So, you know, I think it's in everybody's best interest that everybody becomes size and battery everybody's time. The applicant's time, the other applicant's sort of waiting to be heard and the people that are serving on the board. So are there any ways of knowing whether there's going to be a two hour meeting or three hour meeting on the agenda, what's ever under the agenda? Because my thing is maybe because you're doing it twice a month, maybe you can have one, I mean, we have one meeting for two hours and one meeting for three hours. I know you're trying to eliminate three, but is there any way of knowing whether it's gonna be three or two or just because of what happened to you? It's all based on the number of applicants. It's not the limit. So you don't know once you have the application. Right. Yeah. So but what it does is, like I said, I sit on a different board. They're multi-million dollar projects, and we have three hours hours and sometimes we'll hear nine items and three hours. Because we're very conscientious of the time of the applicants and to make sure that we get through the process. If trust me, if we didn't have that three hours, that meeting would start at two and then we'll go to 10 o'clock at night. So. But I'm going to suggest is that the language and your recommendation allow for some flexibility that the time limitation can be extended by vote of the board. Yeah, I think that's what's in Miami Beach. It's not an argument. And we can do that that. You do the Army also. Yeah, exactly. That's fair. Okay. Yeah. Just to add that extra flexibility. I think, um, Mr. Governor, that's concern is a fair one, which is that where an item is missed, I'm trying to look through the rules here. I know that where an item on the DRB is missed for lack of quorum, it proceeds. The application proceeds with the recommendation of the staff. And I would think that that would also happen. I'm looking to see if the language existing in today covers that, but that may also happen if you end the meeting for, you know, because you hit the time limit. So if the applicant doesn't wish to defer, well, that then just take send the item. Then don't put a time limit. The staff. Yeah, that's the concern. But on alternative is you put a time limit and you can vote to extend it further. Can I meet just a comment here? So wherever you go with your motion in second, a time limit is not something I can support, period. I mean, just telling you that I will vote against that because I just don't think that's fair. I mean, look, I'm looking at Mr. Proctor, these other guys here who have been riding through this conversation and then to tell him, times up, you know, we're going to knock it off for tonight. When it's been our own lightning fast conversation, this driven the time limit. So I'm not gonna support that. So if you want to now, this way, once we make a motion to go from seven with a quorum of four down to five with a quorum of three, knock yourself out and fully supportive, but the time limit apart, we can make comments to the commission we feel like there's something that needs to be done in order to make sure this runs more expeditiously. And I would tell you, like I said before, it's picking better people to be on that commission who are there and not just the three guys that fall for each time. But I don't even know if that's legal. So anyway. But through the chair, and I would say that what's being recommended is the same rule that the commission runs by. When they reach a certain time, they have to vote on an extension or the agenda gets pushed forward. So it's not any different than if you were sitting in front of the commission. What we're trying to figure out is how do you get qualified people to serve on a board with them knowing that they're not going to miss their next business meeting or their child's event or what they're doing because they know this is my schedule and this is the time I'm supposed to be here. I mean, I get your desire. I don't think it's... I'll tell you what, that's what drove me that board. Yeah, I'm not that... Yeah, I get it. Not knowing if it's going to be one hour or three hours. Hey, would you be more comfortable instead of a time limit? It was an agenda item limit? No, because you get... You get a one agenda item that could take three hours. Yeah. I mean, I've sat on that board one item took a whole hour, And there was no absolute no reason that they kept talking about the same thing over like we are over and the reason we're doing it is because we don't have time to do it. Yeah and again you go and find a South Miami you go in front of the County Commission if you pass a certain time they need to vote to extend the time. It's just that is part of that is how those those commissions of every commission runs that way. So I don't think I don't think we're handcuffing or hurting the community, but I also do think it does create guardrails. So I agree with, I agree with Chairman. No. I agree with the Chairman that, you know, we're putting guardrails on the highway here. And hopefully that can help recruit knowing that, if I knew that I got eight to ten or thirty ten thirty unblocked I'm good, but you know you're eleven and I'm like I gotta go and it's Do we have a time doing on this meeting? Would it be better if the meeting was held after hours? Like this one is? Maybe? That works for me. Is there a room around here? I can't. Look, not speaking about myself. 830 in the morning is kind of nice because it's before you get started. The question is, do you run into one or two o'clock because things went long-winded or there was so many items on the agenda? Just like if you start your commission meeting at seven and you know are approaching midnight, you gotta vote if you're gonna extend or not. It's 11 o'clock, right? 11. 11, yeah. So. I'm just... We have a motion. I don't think we will. Okay, since it's not coming on the 18th, I like the firm motion. There is a motion. There is a motion on the floor. There was an amendment being made to that motion. With that. That's my lack of a second. Oh, withdraw the emotion. Okay, it's withdraw. So let's go back to the motion to the firm, Mr. James. We can discuss it. Come on. I think we got all think about it. I mean, if we followed Robert's rules, we all had to vote to change the emotion with your tickets now. We typed a lot. I motion we defer. I second. OK, all of them favor signify everything. I, I, okay, make sure we're gonna set I. Yeah. So now we can think about it and we can, this If I'm using I, I, I, okay, make sure we're in said I. Yeah. So now we can think about it and we can discuss it more next time. All right, next time, Mr. Chair, I want to compliment you. You brought up great points. Having served on the board, I'm serious. There were times, and there were times I was stuck because I couldn't leave because I was the quorum. And I missed meetings because of it. I mean, that's really the challenge because you blocked your calendar according to what's the meeting's supposed to take. So next item. Now we open the hearings for the local planning agency items. This is the first one that is LPA-22025-001 from the City of South Miami. The ordinance for the mayor and city commission the city of South Miami Florida amending the future land use map of the future land use element of the City of South Miami comprehensive plan. Presumably pursuant to small-scale amendment procedures at fourth section 163.3187 Florida Statues to change the future land use designation of certain parcels. On the west side of 62nd Avenue south was 64th Street to the north, south was 68th Street to the south from the current designation of residential limited commercial or RLC for short to mix used commercial, residential or M as a Mary UCR, providing for transmittal correction, severability, conflicts, implementation, and an effective date. And this item as well as the other local planning agency item will be handed by our planning consultant, Mr. Mark Hoveres, who was in the audience. Thank you. You have two minutes. Perfect. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Board Mark Alvers at the Corardino Group representing the city as it's planning consultant. We have an item before us which is an LPA item which is a future land use map amendment. I have a short presentation. Short. Go to the next Oh, do I have to click here? No. That was too many. Okay. So we are mending the future land use map of the city of South Miami from for these parcels, which I'll get to in a minute, from residential limited commercial, RLC, is the name of that future land use map district, to mixed use commercial residential MUCR. It's a small scale amendment, so it does not get transmitted to the state. It will be through two hearings of an ordinance. It is sponsored by the City Administration. The reason that it is sponsored by the City Administration, this is part of our overall rezoning effort that we've been doing since the beginning of 2024. Through many of the meetings in earlier 2024, we discussed with the Commission and with this board a lot of the concepts that we were doing. And we are through a long sequence of implementing each of those pieces and they are in pieces. So this is part of that sequence. We had decided at that time that we wanted to have, basically, two mixed use categories. One would be for the downtown, the TSDD, which is a very large scale mixed use, and another one that would be for a smaller mixed use scale. Something that would be for the transitional areas on the edges of the downtown, something that could be used for bird road, to sort of clean that up at some future time in this year. It would just be a much smaller neighborhood-scaled mixed use. So the MUCR is that mixed use category. It was formerly used, it was the category that used to be in the hometown. So we're keeping that. In the process, we're getting rid of, we're kind of cleaning up some of the categories that have been around from various historical reasons. And one of them is RLC, RLC residential limited commercial, is an extremely, extremely limited mixed use. It's really, it's a two story mixed use. We saw no use for it at the future land use map level So the change is consistent with that overall rezoning program and that's why we're bringing it forward and that is why it's a city sponsored change The affected land that we're looking at is all of the west side of 62nd Avenue from 64th Street down to 68th Street. It's 16 lots in total. It has a public alley on the west side of it that delineates it and buffers it from the neighborhood to its west. I'm going to go, and it totals about two and three quarter acres. I want to go to, I went the wrong direction. I want to go to the map for a minute, and I think this is more easily explained on the map. So what we have right now is the map on the left, and the sort of salmon color is the RLC. What we have at this point, we are approving actually at this point with the TSDD or the downtown future lenus map is that purple area. We had intended to use this strip, which is already commercial and designated for mixed use, but it has no residential units. We intend it to use this as the step down. So we have six, seven, eight stories across the street, right? And even some of our existing things, the county's housing for the elderly is six stories. JRE Lee's school is owned by the county. They have no limitation on what they can develop there. Only to the very north end do we have single family across the street. So we had always intended to use this as our transition to go from the downtown transition both in height, use, intensity, and scale to the neighborhood to the west. That doesn't mean we can mash the neighborhood to the west, but we're going to transition it down. So that's the intent of what we're doing with this land use map change. The RLC designation only exists on those 16 lots. I'm just going to go back to the pictures for a minute. I think you will know what it is though. But basically, it's a very low intensity district. A lot of it is parking lots and vacant land across the alley, which is that sort of picture to the upper right. Are the residential uses and they do have the alley, a 20 foot alley, which is public plus many of them have a wall. When we get to zoning this area, I should say we don't have the zoning district in place for this. So this is part of the sequence. What we want to do right now is get the future land use map changed done. We want to get rid of the RLC category and give us the envelope to allow us to re-zone it to something that's transitional. Under RLC we couldn't do that. We're limited to two stories. We couldn't have the transition that we want. For example, we just talked about townhouse. It's at three stories. Because in some areas, that will be the appropriate transition. So we need to create that envelope right now in part of our sequence to get the future land use map designation set up for the zoning discussions that we'll have. And I know this is awkward because without the zoning in place, the future zoning in place, we don't have, we can't discuss what that will be. But on the other hand, with that discussion, I know it will be a vigorous discussion and we'll have a proper transition on that half of lock. So what will happen is, if this gets approved, it will change from RLC to MECR, and the limitations will remain with the current zoning that it has. We're not rezoning it until we have the neighborhood mixed use zoning in place. And that discussion will obviously take into account the transition that's going on here. So right now, there's literally nothing that could be developed at this point with the future land use map change because those 16 launch are almost developed out. It sounds strange, but the FAR on the zoning is 0.25 and they're almost set there right now. So nothing will happen. There's no danger to the community. We are just taking a step to create the envelope that we can then have the zoning discussion to create that transition. So as you see, the MUCR has a lot this left up to the zoning district to regulate the heights, to regulate the transitions, to regulate the density, to regulate the FAR, that will happen in the zoning. And again, that was set up that way as well because we intend to use the MUCR in a number of areas in the city and we have to have an envelope in that future land use map category that allows us to do what we need to do in each of those transitional areas in the city. So finally, this has been reviewed for consistency. We use professional and separate standards. We reviewed it with all those standards and we find it consistent clearly as far as concurrency and the compatibility. We are waiting for the zoning, but as it stands now, it does not create an incompatibility and it it does not create a problem with concurrency. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to ask. Answer. So, it doesn't create those things, because there's no definition to M.U.C.R. today. So my fairly obvious question is, why would we vote to change it to something we don't know what it's going to be? I mean, I know it's intended to be. I get it. But while currently there's a limitation in RLC of two stories in height, which is one of the big issues, right? So why would we not want to wait to see where this really falls in terms of what we're proposing in terms of height, density, whatever else I'm confused. Because when we do, if we were to do it that way, when we do have the zoning discussion, we're limited to stories. And we think that the transition might be different than two stories. So in other words, we want to take away our limitations on having the zoning discussion to put it into the MUC R category, which is where we intended to be, and then have the zoning discussion for this trip more specifically. Before we continue with questions, let's let the public. Yeah. And then we'll bring you back, because I think we all have questions for you. Okay. Public comment, we're open for public comment. Good evening. My name is Jorge Bian. I live at 6531, Southwest 60 second court. I've been there 26 years. With these properties behind us, we've had charets. We've had so much discussion for the past 20 years on these properties. Nothing's been built on these properties because the landowners don't want to just make a decent amount of money. They want to double now, I see quadruple, their profits. So this MU, the only one I found I didn't find MUCR, but I found MU, and it starts at four stories. Well, that's what they want here. They want to change the zoning to four stories, a budding residential homes. We've managed to keep this at bay for quite a while because the transition from the Todd district to neighborhood is 60-second avenue. So if you put four stories there, then right behind our homes, all those 18 homes on one side, We got together as a neighborhood, we've talked about it, we are absolutely against changing any zoning here. What, why would the city want, I mean, with all due respect to this gentleman, he doesn't live there, he's gonna go back somewhere else. This is great for, I don't know who, but it's certainly great for the residents that live there to have a four-story building behind my house. Unfortunately, the alleyway was put there by Mrs. Phillips, rammed it down our throats. We all got together as a neighborhood, brought her over to my house, and she said, I'm doing this. Later on we found out it was she had, you know, things that she had to do before she left and that was one of them. So they built the alleyway there quickly, cost a city $50,000, the alleyway for what? Who uses that? This is the only section in South Miami that has an alleyway where one or two businesses that are there use it for trash. When every other business has one parking lot in the front, they roll it out to the street and they take the garbage. So it all comes down to this four stories. You can't have four stories right behind residential homes. That's absolutely horrible. The transition should be 62nd Avenue down to two stories. Neighborhood retail has been there for quite a while. We've seen many developers over the year come in. One developer wanted to put 75 row homes there at some point starting up four stories which didn't fit completely ridiculous and as residents there and me being there for as long as I have we have a lot of new residents and their houses are worth quite a bit of money now. We're not going to be so eager to give up our quality of life. As it sits right now, to go up 60 second avenue, because I also work in South Miami, to cross US one on 60 second avenue, one little hiccup in traffic. I just need you to wrap up when you come. OK, one little hiccup in traffic And the traffic on 62nd is backed up to Hardy. So to put four stories there, I think, is not great for our community. And I really hope that you guys do not recommend the zoning change here. Keep it at neighborhood retail. And when something something comes up they can call us. We weren't included in anything here as far as all the research. We should be included. Thank you, sir. Okay. Excuse me, sir, for the work. Can you please sign in? I want you to sign in. Can you sign the, yes, please sign in. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Jerry Proctor. I'm an attorney. My office is at 7600 Red Road in South Miami. I represent consolidated research and planning. That entity owns 1.4 acres on the north side of 68th Street. They're not the only owner of the 16 lots, but they own several lots running north from 68th Street. I appreciate the city's summary of the condition in this area, the zoning condition in this area, the zoning pattern, and more importantly, the land use pattern. The land use has been described by the commission as well as your consultant as obsolete. The land use is residential, limited commercial. The land use permits five up to five townhouses per acre. On my clients property that would permit a maximum of seven townhouses. On land that is triple the size of the property that you considered on Manor Lane earlier. Triple the size and on a main thoroughfare, 60-second avenue. This land use category is obsolete. And we are not here this evening, my client, my representation of the client. We do not have imminent plans, but we do need and ask the city to rectify this situation. This application, and I think you know this, does not grant for stories. It does not grant three stories. It does not grant a site plan. It does not grant a rezoning. But the planning that exists in this area for this strip is obsolete and I would say to the board that it's even more obsolete in light of what's been approved around it. Mark mentioned and had his illustration and you have exhibit A in your package. You have the transit supportive district much more intense to the south and to the east. You have development as he described to the east that goes up to six stories. I'm not suggesting that six stories is compatible for this property, but some reasonable transition is. Other than the pharmacy located to the north of my clients property, I don't know of a single blade of grass that's been turned for development in this strip in the last 10 to 15 years. We asked the board to approve the amendment as a first step, not a final step, but a first step to rectify the situation. Thank you, sir. Happy to answer any questions, thank you. Do we have any other public speakers? Do we have any online? No the next slide. Good evening. This is the first I hear about this. Best at your name, sir. Thank you. We're in many of our lives at 6501 Southwest, 602. Thank you. Just moved into the neighborhood, but I've been living in South Dynamic for 50 years. I don't, I think there would be more neighbors here, we knew about it. I just found out about this tonight. So I think the neighbors need to be told about it. Sure, we'll tell them about it. But there can't be any zoning changes without a plan for it. So that's my two cents. I'm gonna research it more. I don't know anything about it, but we'll be back thank you So what we've heard is this isn't a zoning all this is is a That is a change of does what this property is being called and Then they're going to come back with a recommendation of what the zoning should be at that point in time I mean mean, that black and white, this is not a zoning hearing, we're not talking about zoning, we're not talking about density, we're not talking about height, we're not talking about FAR, we're talking about just changing. So they could literally take this parcel, leave it the name that it has today, and come back with a zoning change that changes That parcel to four stories without same designation Is that a fair statement or do you ask to change the land use name? That would be a fair statement. Yeah, so zoning and land use are two different things And that's the thing that we want to try to make clear tonight They could come back back, we can leave it. What's the title today? RLC. RLC. They can come back next month and say we're going to change RLC to four stories, 40 units an acre, FAR of 10, and still name the same. So what's the being approved today is not zoning. It's just changing the name. I guess to be more in line with the whole comprehensive plan that was being done throughout the city. And then at some point they're going to come back and talk about this is the recommended zoning. And I think that's when we need to make sure that the neighbors come out and say what they have to say when we're talking about zoning. When I talk about zoning today. We're talking about changing a name. Yeah, but is that completely true? I mean, we're giving up, I mean, we call, the first column there is for RLC. If we allow this move, this approval of this MUCR4, I'm, we don't know what we're approving. As you pointed out, we're just approving a name change, but we seem to be giving up the restrictions in the column today, is that not correct? That's correct, we are giving some of the restrictions. Why would we do that? Why would we do that? Why would we do that? We can restrict it through the zoning as we wish to. Why know, why would we do that? So tell me what the positive to that is. The reason for doing that is that we can't, as we go forward and as we go to the zoning. So when we had the discussions earlier last year, the mixed use commercial residential was to be used for a number of locations This being one of them. Bird Road was another. Some of the edges around the commercial on the US one, behind the commercial on the US one might be another. Each of those would have, that there are different settings and they would require different approaches to the zoning. However, that zoning, the basic and most essential component of it is that it's mixed use. And we wanted to have a mixed use category for the future land use map, which is something that takes us a little more time to change. And typically, as we often call the future land use plan and the comprehensive plan is the constitution. We want the Constitution to be a little more open to give us a little more latitude as we go into each area. I know that this neighborhood will be a very vigorous discussion. We also had a lot of discussions that we thought two stories might not be what we're looking at for that area to make a transition from six or seven or eight across the street to go down to single family homes which are allowed to be two. We may have a different type of transition to address both sides of the property. It's hard for me not to think look at this as the cart before the horse. So I think I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't see why we would give away, why we would, at this point, abandon zoning that seems to make the neighbors comfortable, and clearly has at least high-threatations in here for sort of an unknown to be discussed later, and not just about this property, but more broadly across anywhere we plan to use this MUCR4. And I mean, you guys know, I'm a huge advocate for town homes. I think it's a missing piece of stock here. So I'm not trying to stone wall progress. I don't buy into all of Mr. Proctor's comments about why it hasn't happened or the implied reason they haven't happened. But I'm for that. Again, I'm hard pressed to want to go in there and say, yeah, let's just prove going into the unknown. So I'm not there for me. I have a question. We changed the name. Takes a year to work through the zoning. But in the meantime, somebody wants to develop one of the parcels. Would they be governed by the zoning that's there today? What would govern them? Any development for the parcels are governed by the zoning that's there today, which is still neighborhood residential. Okay. We allow us two stories. So if we change the name today, which is what you're asking us to do, and somebody comes into for an application in two months before any zoning discussions, they're governed by the zoning that's there today. Correct. Okay, so we're not giving up anything. It still maintains the same zoning. It's just the name is more in line with the description of the comprehensive master plan that as a whole has been approved already by the commission and have been approved by this board which is mixed use. Now what that makes use is what he's saying is they haven't really come up with an idea what that mixed use is going to look like. They just want it to be mixed use. So but if we don't approve that mixed use then they don't then they can't go back and say okay now we know what we want it to be but and we're gonna come back and tell you how the parking pieces are gonna work. But in the interim, anybody that comes forward has to abide by the existing zoning until such time as it's rezoned. So that's really what's before us. Okay. Could I say one more thing? I think if the planning board opens that door, right? Because that's what they're looking to. Sir, please speak into the mic. As we continue to. Sorry. That's what they're looking for at this moment is to open the door. So potentially, maybe not a year from now, maybe not two years from now, now, but they can revert back to that and be like, well, look, this could be four stories here. I just, but we don't want to see is a change and a change that can legally make that property four stories in the future. No, I understand sir. But what the part that you didn't hear is they could leave it with the name it has today and come back with a recommendation to make it for stories. The changing of the name doesn't change that. But it doesn't change that. But MU allows for stories. No, no, MU doesn't allow anything in yet. They haven't defined it yet. They haven't defined this zoning district yet to be defined. There may be other MUs, but this is MU. CR, which I didn't find in because they haven't they haven't created it yet. I know, but the only the MU starts at four stories. The one that you saw, but there is no MUCR defined yet. That's what they're going to do, sir. They're going to define it. But like I said, they could define the one that you saw but there is no MUC are defined yet that's what they're going to do sir they're going to define it but like I said they could define the zoning that's there today they can come back and say you know what we're gonna take that zoning that we have today and make it four stories so they might change the designation of it because part of the comprehensive plan that was approved by the board by the county by the city commission is that they want to create that the examination to create more mixed use on that street. All they're talking about is mixed use. They're not talking about density yet, they're not talking about high yet, they're not talking about FAR yet. They're talking about opening up to different types of uses, more commercial uses, more residential uses. That's the conversation. That's what they're trying to do because maybe if they do that or just leave it vacant, not generating tax value for the city or for its residents. That's the owner's thing, right? No, no, that's, I live, I've been living here since 1989, sir. I love the city. I love the city. And if we can generate more tax revenue by making some modifications, I think two stories is fine, but right now, two stories there, you're limited to like six units per acre. You're limited to an FHR of 0.8. You really can't do much under. You can't build time homes on that designation. So it's really. We're willing to, So we've got something built there that will work, but opening the door for four story again. Okay. Thank you, sir. We're here. You comment. I understand what you're saying, but yeah. Okay. Yeah, I agree with everything. We're not, we. I thought I was on through the chair. I agree with the chair's comments. This is not a proving a bigger density or larger FAR. I have some challenges with some of the statements today though. So according to the documentation I have here, this has been before us and noticed 17 times. And so I'm challenged with the neighborhood not knowing. And I know this area is incredibly important to the neighborhood, and I completely sympathize and want to make sure that we keep our neighborhoods happy. At the same time, I know that some of those properties that are all on 60 seconds are really run down. And in some cases, eventually, they're going to become blight because they're not even some of them are being used. I have a one-story home in front of me, which I wish was a beautiful four-story house because it is one of the worst properties in the entire city. And we have challenges been forcing our code and we're doing what we can to figure that out, but it's a one story blade on our neighborhood. So I just, I only say that for perspective where three or four stories might be much more welcoming than a one-story blight. And I do side with the neighborhood. I do not want the neighborhood to be disturbed. I understand some of the history of what's happened in the past. So that's why I make those statements. But with that said, I agree with the chair that this is not a proving more density or more square footage or a taller building. It is only working with the comprehensive plan. That ends my comment. Other board members comments? Do I have a motion? No motion. I'm the chair. I'm supposed to make motions. I am. And okay, then I moved to approve as proposed. I'll second. Any further discussion? I just would make one caveat. With the understanding that the third column on this, what do you want to call the schedule year, that states what is existing zoning neighborhood retail, that those rules remain in effect with this name change until the commission makes a decision how to properly define them UCR4. That fair? That will be the case, but I have no issue adding that as part of the statement. I would like to have it. For comfort I understand. Yeah, I've got this transition. I didn't get to welcome you just restated. I didn't hear it. I'm sorry. Just that I'm assuming that what we've said before, which is the third cut them on this schedule here, that talks about the definition of the zoning for current or will see remain in a in place for M UC R for until the commission actually approves changes. That designation. Okay. Okay. All right. That's been amended. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Michelle. Yes. All right, thank you all right the motion passes. Yes. Yes. Michelle. Yes. I'm sorry. All right. Thank you. All right. The motion passes. Next item is LPA-2025-002. It's from the City of South Mommy also. The ordinance for the mayor and the commission of the City of South Mammy Florida, admitting the future land use map of the future land use element of the City of South Mammy comprehensive plan. Soon to smallest government procedure set forth in section 163.3187 for the statutes to change the future land use designation of certain parts was located on the north side of 64th Street, January the between 59th Avenue on the east and Southwest 59th place on the west from their current designation of mixed residential moderate density or MRMD to townhouse residential or TR providing for transmittal corrections and seriability, conflicts, implementation, and effective date. Thank you. And this will be handed by Mr. Averas as well. Thank you, and this will be handed by Mr. Averis as well. Thank you. Again, Mark Alvers with the Corardino Group as consultant for the city of South Miami. Presentation. It's very similar. We will be dealing with again the nuance relationship between comprehensive plan designations and zoning designations. So this is for Southwest 64th Street. They are. Yeah. It's much easier if I can see it. Okay. We are amending the city's future land use map to change parcels for parcels in this case currently designated mixed residential moderate density known as MRMD. A slightly different salmon color on our maps to townhouse residential. This is also a small-scale amendment, it goes through two readings of an ordinance and it does not get transmitted to the state for review. We, it is again, a city-sponsored change. The need for this is very similar in that the MRMD category, the future land use map category, affects seven parcels in the city. There are four of them here. It was a category that was developed and approved in 2019 by ordinance to affect redevelopment in that area and it affected seven parcels. The other three are actually in the item that's deferred for later on. But there are four here and it is again a category that we wish to get rid of. What happened with these four parcels is that they were in 2019, the future land use map designation was changed. The city commission at that time decided they did not go through with the zoning that would implement that comprehensive plan designation. And in fact, they're currently zoned as a single family designation. They're all duplexes and it's just it's in error at the moment. Again this is also and I do want to also stress that as we've gone through workshops in 2024, discussing the entirety of how we would deal with the downtown and the transitions this area, much of it has been discussed for redevelopment by transitioning not to a mixed use so much as to a townhouse type of a product where we could create enough value in properties that are now either vacant or structures that are obsolete and create that into something that will be neighborhood oriented and residential. So the affected land right now, and again, just because we're correcting this situation, we clearly intend later this year to come into this neighborhood and look and have greater discussions about transitioning some of these areas to townhouses. However, we have a very obsolete designation on the future land use map on these four parcels. And they are along 64th Street. They're bound to their rear single family designation to the right or to the most easterly one to the east of it. It is a single family designation to the west or the most westernly one is actually MUCR, which was done a long time ago. It was part of the the Madison Square rezoning that happened a long time ago. Excuse me one second. Yeah. Do you have this diagram up? Is there any reason why the parcel to the east is not included in this? Order the west. Because it was not re-designated in 2019. And again, this is more of a corrective action that also reinforces what we want to do with the neighborhood. But right now we look at these four parcels and we said we really need to get rid of this designation. We need to try to do this. Because only these four designated this. Correct. Oh, okay. And for whatever reason it happened in 2019, And if you wish I have the ordinance here we could, I don't know if we want to go through it. And really... Okay, and for whatever reason it happened in 2019 And if you wish I have the ordinance here we could I don't know if we want to go through it Yeah, and really quick that property to the east is a single family home. That was rebuilt Yeah, it was a brand new single family home right now Now these four properties are each two plexes They're there one story do plexes so they each have two residential units on each property. And again, part of the discussion we had last year was that we would like to transition from a duplex product to a townhouse product in many of the areas throughout the city because it's a much more current residential product. It also allows us going back to that discussion we could create affordable housing in a three-story townhouse where we have. The market rate unit on the top, and there can be an ADU on the bottom, an accessory dwelling unit, or we can have live work on the bottom. So it gave us a lot of flexibility to address a lot of the concerns that we were looking at more globally for the need for more diversity in the housing, for the need for more mixed youth, and very much so for a product that maintains the neighborhood character of neighborhoods by having the front door be at the front of the street. So in other words, we've built strongly that multifamily residential doesn't do that. So we wanted to try to convert with a density that gets us higher, gives us a reason to redevelop, but also keeps the neighborhood aspect of our neighborhoods. So again, we have a map. As I promised, it was going from a slightly different shade of salmon to the orange. So it will be, it's kind of the pioneer in that area of townhouse residential. And it's probably the limit as far as we want to go with townhouse. We're really looking when we had the discussions last year to create the transition north of the downtown going from about 68th Street north to 64th of townhouse on certain of those corridors that need redevelopment. But again, these four parcels stood out as being obsolete and actually dysfunctional with Queen. house on certain of those corridors that need redevelopment. But again, these four parcels stood out as being obsolete and actually dysfunctional because the zoning doesn't implement their comprehensive plan designation. So lastly, similar to the discussion we just had, we're not changing the zoning. And in fact, the fact that it's not zoned to implement the current designation, it actually works for townhouse residential. When we were doing the townhouse residential category, we wanted to allow single family as a non-legally, another fully compliant use. So townhouse residential does allow for single family residential. And it also allows for each of these lots, each of these lots are 63 feet wide. They could be developed on their own by single property owners as two townhouses. And that was exactly what we were looking for in this area to not create a situation where we have to have large-scale developers, but something where individuals could redevelop their properties in the manner that we want. So again, we're not going to change that zoning that will be a future discussion. Undertown House residential is a future Linux map category. There are three types of zoning that could occur there. RT6, RT9, and what we call RT18. RT18 is the one that we're looking for. It's the one that actually fits in those parcels. But RT6 and RT9 are already on the city's zoning code. They're much more suburban. We see them along Ludlum. They're meant for large scale developments but all of those can occur in that area. Maybe not practically but all of them are it is zoneable for each of those. So again we look criteria and can you go back? Yeah. So the second column where it says TR is is what we would be changing this to, right? The name, right. But here you already have a description of what the zoning would be. Correct. Because we do have TR 18 zoning. It was approved and we have it adopted. It's in their code already. It exists. It exists as an option is what we're saying. Not that not of the zoning has been applied to this particular property or these four properties but it's an option in the zoning code. Okay so if we approve this today the zoning doesn't change on the property. The zoning doesn't change. It's just like the other item we're just changing the the name, which will allow you to redefine the name. And are you showing here as an example of what it could be? Right. Well, because you're showing 36 units or acre. One of two. Yes. So the future land use map category and the zoning category have two different densities. The zoning category, and it is the one that we intend because it actually does fit in a single family lot, whereas the RT6, NRT9 are a little more strained to do that. It's 18, it's actually 18.15 units maker. It's, and the reason for that is in this area we have a few legally non-compliant lots and when we design the zoning category, we wanted those legally non-compliant lots to become legal and develop. And it's designed for basically a 25 foot frontage, a hundred feet back. And that's where the 18 comes from. The reason for the future land use category being double that is because we, in the zoning category, we allow for an accessory dwelling unit on the bottom. In other words, you can own your townhouse and you can rent the bottom out, which is something that we very much, it was very much in our goals to create a variety of affordable housing types and particularly ones that are market-driven and particularly ones that may be controlled by the owner who is on site. So the state statutes are actually silent as to how the density is counted and we decided to be safe about it and just count it in the future land use map designation. We count it in the zoning designation. If I may add and Mark, please correct me if I'm wrong. There's some pretty clear language in the comp land that was just adopted a short time ago, a couple months ago now. That specifies that if you're not doing ADUs, your cap that's 20 units an acre, not 36. If you're doing ADUs, you go up to 36. I think that gets right to the point. We worked the zoning and the learning use category at the same time, and we're very specific about it, because we knew exactly where we're going for this particular site. No for general. So where you see on your column 36 units an acre, that's an extreme where 80 user applied, which would mean for effectively means affordable housing is a bonus almost. Okay, all right, I understand. Sorry, continue. I was answering your question. So we have, we have again, reviewed it for a consistency in compatibility meeting the state statutes as well as not conflicting with the existing zoning code. In this case, even with concurrence who it's a diminimous change, it's less than 1% of the capacity of any of the infrastructure there. So we do find it consistent and recommend to approve it. Okay. Thank you. Can I see if there's anybody online to want to speak I can't see there right now. Okay there's nobody online. Nobody in chambers. Board members. I just want to ask a question. Those four houses, you said it's on 59th and 64th there are due complexes, is that correct? So on 64th Street, those are four due complexes in a row. Side by side. Okay, there are people that live in those due complexes. So therefore, what is going to happen with the people that are already renting them out? It's again, it's really up to the ownership of those properties. However, one of the things that we again, we're we really stressed this last year is that we wanted to have a townhouse have a possibility to have a small unit on the bottom to still be able to have the capacity for people. It may not be the same people of course because of the time of development, but to still be able to accommodate people who need affordable housing. In this case, it would be much more market-driven. Because again, on the bottom of those, we're not going to have a unit much greater than 5 or six hundred square feet. So it will be affordable. Okay, because there is a difference between affordable and low income. And I live in that area. And those people are not really affordable. They're more like like a little income. And I'm just personally speaking that, you know, unfortunately, during the city, people have had to leave their homes that they're spending for years. And then they have to go fighting and squabble and trying to go somewhere else to live. And I just don't, and it's just me personally, and I probably don't need to do my personal thing, that they have to go and try to find somewhere when they lived in this community for years. And it's like you're pushing them out. So my thing is look like something could happen to help assist them so that they can have a place to live it. That's not my only concern. I you brought up a point and I want to make a correction. I used the term affordable, not as a term of art. I lose loosely to mean low and anything that is priced in a for a low income or a photo. I didn't use it as a term of art. I loosely to mean low end anything that is priced in a manner for a low income or affordable. I didn't use it as the typical term of art that we often use it. I just wanted to make that clarification. Okay, because there is a difference because they in county and city of South Miami don't make the same kind of mind-couple papers. I mean, further up north and here is it's out in the air. And as people have to live, and they have to have a place to stay. So that's just my question. OK. Any other comments? I just tell a quick question. Mark, what's in the last column there, the 10 townhouses and 10 ADUs? Can you give us a quick explanation of what you're thinking, what the thinking is on the ADUs? The, be quick, okay. So the 10 comes from the fact that if those properties were all assembled, it could actually fit 10 based on the density and the land area. Right. The ADUs, again, this is an allowance by both, if it is rezoned to TR18 TR18 allows you to have the primary unit as the townhouse unit and it will be above the it would be above the lower store we both have doors facing the street so another is stairs whether it's outside the building inside the building going up to the main unit and the lower unit would also have a door to the street. It's of course much smaller and it would be the ADU. And we have that, we have that well defined in this particular, in this designation today. Yes, and in fact it's also defined by state statutes. Okay. And just not to curiosity, aren't we then essentially creating duplex townhouses that are also duplexes? We are creating potentially. We're potentially doing that. The ground floor can also be used as a live work so that and the live work in this concept is more than a home office. You can actually have your door, if you're a doctor or an accountant or whatever, you can have a front door to your workspace as well. Okay. Which again is something that we find is much more marketable these days because people do want to work at home, but it's actually much more professional if you have the front door facing the street. So the ADU by definition permits that sort of professional slash residential combination occupying that ADU unit. The zoning code permits one or the other and the future land use map. The future land use designation permits one or the other. Okay, so you essentially back into then a light commercial use, right? If all 10 of the A to U's just as an example decided, because it was so popular, because of where it was, all 10 could have A to U's and all 10 could have a doctor, lawyer, or what I don't know how we restricted a professional practice below is that architect? Architect. The actually in the zoning code, the or real estate. The commercial use is very restricted. It is basically an office use. Okay. Yeah, this is the zoning that came before us last year where we approved the 18 breaker with the ADUs. Correct. It's the about I think August September. Yeah, this is a zoning that came before us last year where we approved the 18-per-acre with the ADUs. Correct. So, yeah, on the body, I think August, September. Yeah, absolutely. I have a question. Is this zoning more or less restrictive than the zoning that exists west of the property? And to give you some color of why I'm asking the question is, it seems to me like it would make sense to square this off in this location. Much like like we were asking about the property on the East, although I do know what happened there. It's well overdeveloped at this point. I don't think you'll ever see that change. But what about the properties to the East? Would this be less restrictive for zoning than what those properties currently have? To the west. to theUCR, it seems to have been part of the Madison Square development. We actually had discussion about this, about what to do here, and this is more restrictive, because it's much more of a residential development. We did that in deference to the neighborhood behind it. We didn't want to create a situation where we kind of spread the mixed use onto that block. The townhouse is still inappropriate use because it's a little bit more of a dense use. It's a little bit more resilient against traffic on 64th because you're higher up basically. And it's a less of a single family type use. So we did choose townhouse purposely to limit the expansion of a mixed use too much beyond where it is already on 64th. Thank you. Any other comments from the board? Our motion? Motion for approval. The round of second. A second yes yes Michelle okay motion passes unanimously okay item number three was deferred any public comment any new business from the board with that that said I need a motion to approve the minute of Tuesday, January 14th. I make a motion of Motion has been made in second all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Chairman, for clarity on the record, we did open and close the public comment period on that last item. Yes, sir. Thank you. OK. Next meeting is Tuesday, April 18th, 2025. And it's not time certain as far as one of them. And we can all think about what we're gonna do with the design review board at the end screen. And I motion to adjourn. I motion to adjourn passes, second on fair say aye. Aye. All right. What? Ah, let's talk about that. Thank you. you