you you you you you you you Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this workshop of the City of South Miami Commission. Today is Tuesday, October 15th, and the time is approximately 5'10. My apologies for my colleagues and the people here in the audience for running a few minutes behind today. Mr. Manager, did you want to kick us off or should we bring up Mr. Alvarez for a project? Yes. It would be good to have Mr. Alvarez provide an Yeah, be good to Mr. Alvarez. Provide an update from a last workshop and some of the behind the scenes work and any changes and kind of tee that up. And then you know proceed as you see fit based on that information. Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. Good afternoon. You recognize. Good afternoon. Thank you. Mark Alvarez, the core Dino group. I have a PowerPoint presentation. We had the last workshop. We had more questions and answers. We had a lot of input from stakeholders and people before going to that workshop. We've spoken about it a little bit. I'd like to go through what those questions are and some of the responses, all of the responses. What happened? Oh, sorry. OK. And so maybe that's just a better thing to do. We have 15 questions. I think what I will do is I will cover pretty much all of the changes to the code between first and second reading through these questions. So we'll just start. The first one is the major question I think that we first met for about we had the workshop the first time about what to do a sunset drive We want to achieve a setback I'm sorry a step back on sunset drive so that we go up a certain number of stories four stories 58 feet and then are able to bring the building back 20 feet to 30 feet and then go up the rest of the way and do that in a way that we retain the Buildability of the building and retain the the value of that buildability for each building The narrowest buildings the least deep buildings along since the driver 100 feet deep So it's the building in front of the garage The others range from about 115 to 145 not counting some of the odd ones on the north side. So this was done for 100 feet to see who would work and the math works out pretty well. This would be a situation where we would, we can put in the code that you have to provide the step back of 20 feet after the fourth floor and you take all the floor area from there and you put it on the next floor up the ninth floor. No bonus required. That's just a straight exchange from one floor to the other. It works out on a hundred foot buildings so it'll work out on all the rest of them that are deeper. So basically we're taking four blocks for those purple blocks stacking them together. They come out to 80 feet the yellow part is 80 feet when you take out 20 from the 100 and they sit on the ninth floor no loss of value the I was right so we did some 3D renderings ice mare was very astasite try to visualize this and these are the renderings that we have put together for one block between Dorn and 59th of what it would be like to have. Again, the architecture, we don't have a particular vernacular, so we have mostly contemporary architecture. This is what the 20 foot step back would be at four stories. Street View, something like that. And then for the terrace on the fourth floor we would have terraces at the four. You go back to the preview, over time please. Thank you. I think on the format I'm going to just ask answer questions as we go along. So one of the things is important to be talked about terraces and active terraces, we would have the additional benefit that you don't have to park the uses on those terraces. We talked about having restaurants up there. One of the important things about that is that they need to connect somehow with the noise and the activity to the street and just sort of through the air. So at the fourth story it's a little bit high, so there's another recommendation on top of this. We can do the same thing with the floors below it. So in other words, we take the light purple that came out of the yellow area as a step back. We could have a voluntary program within only those blocks along sunset where they can take out more set back, third and the fourth floor, and put it on the tenth floor, which is they're allowed to go up to ten floors with a bonus there. Again, no bonus and we could leverage it by doing a two for one because on the hundred foot building we could have actually fill up the floor, two for one from which you take out of the third and fourth levels. And that would be voluntary and we would leverage it to provide an incentive. And again, the streetscape starts to look much better and I think much more like what we wanna see. One of the things that I've been traveling up and down sunset and what makes sunset drive in that section what it is, is the small stores is a small scale, is just how it works when you're walking along so we want to retain that and again although the buildings look taller now but we have that second floor that comes down it's still a ten foot a ten-story building that's what we allow for those blocks except by US one and again the terrace starts to work a lot better too because it's two stories above the ground above the street and that's what we intended from the beginning when we first started talking about having active rooftops. We don't show the dining up here. But active rooftops that are sort of connect to the street and they are sort of they work from the street to have the outdoor dining up there and provide that kind of atmosphere. There's one other alternative that's possible. And it's a little bit of something in between them. We had originally talked about more depth on that step back. Going to 30 feet. 30 feet doesn't actually work with that 150 building. It's 29 feet. But we can do the same thing. And we can get it down to three stories. In other words, the light purple is coming from the yellow floors, five, six, seven, eight and moving on to the top two floors. There's still an extra area that can be moved up from one floor and get it down to three floors. So, and that splits the difference a little bit. There's a wider terrace, but it's still three stories. If my recommendation is really the two story one, I think works better. But for the active uses, this is from the street. And then finally from the terraces, again, they're getting a little high, but they are deeper now. And it's probably a little better for active uses. But my own opinion is I think the two stories is the best one because it really preserves the frontages the way they are now. There will all be rebuilt. The way we wrote the historic preservation and in the code from last time and there's no discussion about that was just to reinterpret the features that are there. So we would keep the scale on the street. The second item was about landscape, open space, and building coverage. It was really a before we move on. Any questions on item one, colleague? Three options. So yeah, there's three options that they've identified. And if they've they suggested we can give direction on either of those any of those options. That's our prerogative. Can you back can you go back? Sorry? Sorry, please Can you go to the diagram? Yeah, yeah, let's go to one two and three real quick just make sure that we summarize this for quick so we have This is a straightforward where we take the step back area and move it onto the ninth floor It'll work on the least deep building along some set. So this is a 20 foot setback and we're going up on the ninth floor, one more floor from eight to nine. Correct. No ground is required. And then the second one is a 20 foot setback. But we're adding a ninth in a tenth. A voluntary. We go all the way back on the 20-foot step back. Right. That would be a voluntary program that an owner could participate in if they want to provide the step back. And we wouldn't. I think the best way to do that would be incentivize it to for one so that you get the 10th floor and no bonus. But you give up that step back area to get to the second floor on the street level. Okay, and the third one is 30-foot sub-air crane. It's that the 330 is on. 29. Three stories, 30 feet back, actually 29. Okay. Landscape open space and building coverage. This is really more of a recalibration. We strained everything out. The landscape has been defined. Mark, hold on with second please. I'm sorry, Shelvers. Yes, Madam Vice-Pierre. Do we want to kind of come to decisions as we move along? I'm happy to take it item by item if that's helpful to the board and to staff. I just don't know which way is better for us as a group because do we want a way to get to the end and then tackle them which one helps you better. Either way is fine. Okay let's just talk about the one by one. Let's take one by one. Let's go back to one. Why don't we start with your when we start your comments on this better vice-bearer. And she seemed teamed up and ready to go. Okay. Actually, I'm not. I think- I think also do you want to hear comments from the public on these specific items as well because it looks like we have distinguished council here who are going to say- People are like, I want to talk. Would you like to address item one, Mr. Bass? No, thank you so much for recognizing. Just wanted to get a sense as to when the public might have a chance to speak and it would probably be better if we could speak before you took a vote. I agree. So I was gonna say, I'm happy to take comments on each item as we bring them up. If I think that's probably most efficient, a lot of people to speak to the items are most relevant to their concerns. So. Just wanna know how we're gonna. Did you have, did you, but did we distribute copies of the memo? Because then the last time we did not, and people wanted to keep score in the audience as well. So do we have extra copies of the memo? Available Mr. Manager? Madam Clerk? Again, we can make some copies as well, so that folks in the audience can follow along. Okay. Is there anyone who would like to address item one or the comment, or yes, or you're recognized? Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Adam Freeman, 5700 Sunset Drive, 5700 Sunset Drive. I applaud staff for coming up with an alternative in trying to incentivize Sunset Drive owners. But this is a major, major change that to just be rushed into an approval, I think everyone should think about the possible consequences of something like this. And a lot of the properties on Sunset Drive, if you're going to create suddenly a 20-foot setback for two stories, those renderings are beautiful and conceptually it's great. But what it actually means for the properties that are there now is that they are now all development sites. Because any existing two-story building can't be chopped in half and then built on the back 20 feet side. This means that you are going to effectively turn every site on Sunset Drive into a development site that is then going to be raised and leveled. And then you're just going to build a bunch of 10-story developments. I don't know if that's what the actual intent of what this study was trying to achieve. And it also then thereby reduces values to just land value. So I've spoken to a lot of you. I've provided some of the documentation that we've tried to provide as a proposed amendment. We revised a proposed amendment that was related to transient development rights. I have additional signatures now from about 75% of the landowner's on-sense drive, including the WERTS family. I think this is a major surprise, frankly, and a change. And I would just encourage that everyone thinks about some of the unintended consequences that go beyond just a rendering. Because any single building on-sense drive right now to apply this to means it has to be leveled and that sounds great if this is all existing but that's a long process of construction and means that everything there now can't be improved upon it has to be raised and redeveloped and I don't know if that's what the intention was originally so I would just Encourage to think about it. Thank you very comment sir. Appreciate it. Okay any further comments on item one from the audience Okay, Mr. Alvers did you want to say anything but we have thoughts on those last comments? I guess the comment for me is that we're not forcing We're trying to provide an option for development and it's probably more difficult to do it later and it's also something. This is a major change, we kind of refought this and did a lot of work in the last week and a half and we need to have an option that works. Okay. We're kind of stuck. Okay. Colleagues, thoughts on the option presented on item one? Yes, sir. You recognized? It looks like it only applies to 100 foot lots of, lot lengths with, or whatever the number with length. Is that accurate? It would apply to all of them. The 100 foot was the most difficult case. It was the shortest one. Most of the properties run 115 or more. 100 foot is the one that's in front of the gouache. There's lots though that are less than 100 on sunset drive correct. That was that's the shortest one. There are some of the ones on the on the east side of 50 58 place I believe that is our short but they are like a hundred and ten hundred and fifteen. Some of those smaller lots and on the other side on the north side we have first of all we have lots that are we have old lot lines so we have to clean those up for the right away. They kind of impede into the sunset drive right away but most of those, there were none there that were under 100 either. I mean there were one or two, they were fairly short, I think they were in the 100 and actually the slide has them. And then go back to that helps to answer the question. There it is. On the bottom there. Yeah, from from 50 to 57th court, we have a hundred in there runs from 100 to 280 feet. That I think is one of the very small properties on the corner. And then we have 100 feet on 58 to 57. Again, it's the small property that's in the corner. There's a much larger property there. But that's it. There's nothing that's less than 100. That was why I picked 100. If it'll work for 100, it'll work for the rest of the year. The reason I was asking Mark is because feasibility wise from a construction perspective to build on 115 foot. And they only do 20 feet and then four stories and then set back, go back. I just don't know if it's economically feasible to build on that. And so those smaller lots or properties won't have the ability to do a bigger scale, I think. I'm just trying to state fact, but I'm just trying to make it clear. I think through well the downtown, we have a lot of development potential. That small properties would have a harder time accessing that would be true. Okay. Thanks, man. Anywell, give me your leave in thoughts. Yes, yeah. So mayor, if you're looking for direction from the commission for the three options. Number one preference is start the setback on the third floor. My second, third option is start the setback on the third floor and third is on the fourth. Because by doing that- I'm sorry, just to clarify, third. Is it third twice? So third and then fourth? Third and then fourth. Okay, that's one of the reasons that way you're bringing the terrorists, whether it's activated or not, what could be office or residential, bringing that engagement closer to the street, or weekend events and so forth. Okay. I think. Give us your... Cory, you're okay. Thank you. And yes, I would agree with that as well. I mean, it is kind of tricky, I think, before this we had like two options, and now we have six, but it's a, but yeah, so I do think that the second floor seems the most attractive, seems most bear since we are adding to this particular street, whereas before we were just providing rights to people in the surrounding areas. So, definitely a creative solution, definitely something we should talk about. So I think that if you can, can we go back to the slides here? Some advice, but we're just not having a sidebar colleagues. Yeah, so I think he's, I want to make sure I'm understanding so the public is following. He wants to set back to start at 20 feet on the second floor, and his second preferred option would be a third floor set back. Okay, so can we show the two slides just so that people can visualize what you're elaborating by way of your preferences? And the reason for that is reducing the height, keeping that human scale main street feel from US 1 to Red Road and then additionally we're starting the balcony above the second floor and that way the engagement is closer to the street for So Mark can you go to the step back at floor two please or four three? No this is the fourth he's his suggestion was the third floor being the first level which you have the setback. So option one that he prefers is this option here. Yes. Can you show the elevation, please? Right. This is the option. Okay. That's option one that he's suggesting. Can you show option three on the third floor? Option two on the third floor, excuse me. Which is 28, the 28 would set back mark. It's a 28 something. 28 six. Yeah. Can you show the diagram just so that we're all on the same page? Option two. No, sorry, I went through all of my. Okay, this is the other option that he's suggesting is a second preferred alternative. Commissioner Lieben, am I summarizing correctly? Yes. Okay, great. I agree. Okay, so we have been typed. We have been typed. We have, no, I just want to make sure these are five appreciating things. We've got two Two people who believe this I from my from my perspective we can go back to The second floor the rendering with his preferred option, which is the second floor setback That one right there. Let's go back one slide You want the rendering of the second floor. Second floor, yes, please. This one is like that. Again, I appreciate the thought, but to me, it changes completely the scale and character of the street, so I would be a no for any of these options, frankly. Why? Because we've introduced tremendous vertical intensity on such a drive, which I think just runs counter to the existing character. And that's the only element of the downtown's character that I'm very committed to preserving, because I think it's what will, again, as I said before, likely set this district apart from every other district where vertical development near a transition which we need has been a lot. So, it's the one portion of the town center's history and character. I think it's worth preserving and I think we're going to lose it with this execution. That's why I'm concerned about it. Okay, so we've got, again, I just want to get to a consensus in terms of direction. We've got two commissioners that have suggested a second floor and third floor as options one and two. Do you have an opinion about vice mayor? I agree with you with the scale of sunset drive. I just, it's either one or the other. So the other one is to provide TDRs and keep the scale down. And I don't think the TDR is going to work. So it's figuring out how to reward. Well, I don't want to say that we're the word reward, but it's figuring out how to put the scale in place. And I don't know. It's this is a little difficult for me because I agree with the mayor on providing the scale on sunset drive. But yet again, we're talking about a third of a mile. And I would agree with the options of the vice mayor and the both commissioners on the options that were provided to us. So forward, in the sake of moving forward, I would say the same as my colleagues, but I do really want to revisit this and figure out on my side. This is just me internally on the actual scale because of this scaling there is a lot higher than I thought it would look like. I was always wanted to keep that particular side lower. So I answered your question. So I will, I will, no, I'll be clear. I'm sorry. I agree with my colleagues on the option provided. Okay, so I think the consensus is to give staff direction to bring back the second floor setback as the preferred alternative. Is that correct? Yes, but I did have a question. Yes, go ahead. Would reduction in the overall height be something that would appeal to you and change your mind on human scale and character. Yeah, I just I think Mark's Mark would mark Mr. Obviously trying to solve for is giving people the same development envelope without allowing them to port it elsewhere Right, and so he's very neatly into his credit, you know, stacked it further back on the property You know again, I I you know, again, I'm getting older and increasing and I care about conforming with everyone else's opinion on this. So, I think we are cutting our nose to spite our face with this execution. It's been my position from the beginning. I try not to be intransent on things and find compromise. I just think that there are things in life you can't compromise. And this is one of the few things that I think that if we compromise on or going to look back in 10 years and regret having made this choice. You know, I'll tell you right now when the regrets we'll talk about later I have is compromising on the setback of sunset place. In the regulations we made, the regulatory changes we made in November. Because I think it's kind of set the envelope for this to happen. And I should have been much more aggressive about taking the same position I did, taking today as I did that, frankly. So I've said that publicly before, I'll say it again to all of you. You know, the incursion of the height on sunset drive, I think, begins to strip away the character, the singular character of the street. And I think over the long term is going to, to track a lot of value from the district. I mean, I think this, I think this third of a mile, those in consequentials that spend might seem, could be the entire character of the district. It really, I think, is what's going to juxtapose the new South Miami versus the old and be the one thing that ties us back to our past for this little stretch of right away. But that's, again, my opinion, you know, I want to, you know, we operate by consensus here for better or worse. Yes, ma'am. So do we want to his, to Commissioner Cory's point, do we want to then have a conversation of, do we want to tone this down? Well, look, I think the, I think the options are, these are options that put, put the owners on sunset drive in the same posture as everybody else who's benefiting from the increase of the zoning envelope, right? So I think that's what Mr. Alvers and I want to put words in your mouth sir But I think that's what he was trying to solve for responding to my comments saying You know, I think we shouldn't just leave people at four stories If we're gonna give everyone else 10 stories right there is the option saying you know what? Leave them at four stories. I don't think it's fair, but I frankly prefer that over a situation where we allow ten stories on such a drive With or without the setback. But in trying to find a compromise that is not a TDR that everybody else is uncomfortable with Do we then want to say hey instead of four? Do we want to look at this setback and go to six? Do we want to go to eight? Do we want to go somewhere that, instead of four, do we want to look at this setback and go to six? Do we want to go to eight? Do we want to go somewhere that is not ten that you are uncomfortable with? Sir, you want to jump in? I just want to say, yes, Mary. And I think it has been said. The genesis of the Tomarks credit of this was, came from you because you wanted to create equitability, which I understand, but where we all were originally was no new development rights along Sunset Drive to keep that human scale and to your point to preserve that character. So it is an option in the four of us, right? One that's not a mayor in the day is, was in support of that originally. That's why I mentioned it again. I'm not trying, and being fair to that conversation, I'm recognizing, I think, Mr. Al was, was responding, responding to my, my two full concern, which is one, I think there is a scheme that's viable for reallocating these rights. But number two, wanting to make sure we're treating people equitably across the district, right? So again, I raised the prospect. Again, not a position I agree with as well, but to say if you want to leave it to four stories and say, you know, too bad so said, we can certainly do that as well. But I think that's another option that's not presented here today. Right. So that's the gamut of options. Right now, what we've talked about at least as of the three that are presented here I Think what I'm hearing is that the second four step back is the preferred option I'd say I think in terms of bringing activity closer to the street that would be you know my preference without the verticality but There is I think a fourth option, which is to support stories as is 58 feet. And so is there is there a desire to keep it the same way on the part of the other members of the board? Yes. Okay. And then I'll say it's also a hybrid which is to allow us a setback and is intensive or as tall as 10 stories can do eight. Yeah. This tall is 10 stories can do eight. Where do you want to land the plane on this one? So we can move on to the item two. What Commissioner Lee Monsignor said, either leave the option as what we just spoke about that we all agreed upon, and then have the other option leave as a four store or a senator of the store. Senator Bluff, store. We last we discussed we wanted to consider this item on the November 4th agenda. So staff's got to translate these comments to written text for us to review and approve on the 4th of November. All right. So which of those options do we want to direct staff to consider? Okay. That draft. Yes, ma'am. Would you be more comfortable? It's more trying to find something that makes us all at least more comfortable. I don't see another, I don't see another good option. I mean, I personally don't, I don't, I don't, I don't think we're going to get, if you don't need six stories, I'm not sure that it makes me feel better right so You're not comfortable what I would tell you I think in terms of the options I think the options are are one of these three which seems to consent to seeers around a two-story setback You know up to ten feet of or eight feet of item sorry I'm sorry at two stories is it eight feet of height or ten feet of height that we're allowed to store stories because our first floor is 22 second How many total stories mark we're going back to 12 is our second third fourth and up so that would be a 30 No, that would be a 40 foot Mark I don't care about it. I'm not I'm asking number of stories. That's a story. Not the height of the first thing or. There is, you said you should feed. I'm sorry. 10 stories for the whole building. We're okay. Right now it's a little height plan. Let's just stop there. So it's two stories setback. 10, total stories at the rear of the building. Okay. I think the other option is four stories, right? 58 feet across the board as is the condition today. So is there a preference between those two choices? Yes, sir. We do two stories setback up to eight stories. It doesn't have to be 10. So is that something? We could have both options. We could, is that an option? Is that an option? Is that an option? Is that an option? Today, four stories, or like to build higher, can do a setback starting on the third floor and build up to eight stories. Yeah. And I think we all have the same concern you do about intensity. So I think it'd be good to have those. OK. Are we all comfortable with that? Four. Yeah. You're saying eight stories? Yeah. Yeah, essentially, capping eight is one of those stories. One of those stories. Yeah. Yeah. Product. So it's not as tall as ten would have been my number because that's what we have the parking garage right now. Right. That's what I was always thinking as the level of height that I was comfortable with. That's just me. So, right, to compromise from four straight to this, sure. I'm fine with six. I just don't know if that would be my vision of what, since we already had six there. This is, you know, I don't know how the math works. Yeah. Well, the math in terms of building costs. Right. Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. Okay. I agree with that. Okay. So two story, two story setback with a maximum of six stories. Is that the board's consensus? I am okay with that. Okay. You, I'm okay with it. Obviously, like, there is the, the math involved is not quite six stories when you have the 20 foot setback it actually ends up being I don't know what the math would be on that but I don't think the math matters I think you're selling people that have to take a 20 foot setback and they can build within a six story envelope at the rear of the property. Okay so that's the direction of staff Bring it back with a two story setback, a maximum of six stories on sunset drive. As a matter of the process, I just wanna remind you that when this comes to the second reading, rewrite this as two and six, but this would not enact on the second reading because this needs a map change. I just wanted to remind the commission about that. Thank you. OK, let's move on to item two, please. Item two is landscape open space and building coverage. To not be a labor too much, this was a matter of recalibrating some of the things. We had some errors between open space and building coverage and amount of landscape. In summary, the building coverage is at 80%, depending on how large the development is, it's either 5% or 10% of open space. And then the landscape is based on the open space. So any percentages in the landscape are for the open space, not the whole property. So we have the open space set to be a fairly urban open space, not very high on permeable area. Similar to the downtown subway, we are allowing the trees, the canopy to count as permeable area. Basically the standard comes out to something like about a third of the area is canopy and a three-thirds is not for any open space. If there's any questions, I don't want to go into the details too much on that. Again, palm tree specifications can you just clarify that for me? What percentage of the tree requirements can be satisfied by using palm trees? 35%. Okay. Two count is one tree. Two palm trees for everything. It's the same that we have actually approved for downtown. So only it was the same standard. Correct. I know but we're actually reducing that standard in the development agreement. On the landscape? Yeah. But I'm using the same one for this, unless we want to reduce that. I would like to reduce it to, I think it's, is it Mr. City Attorney. Okay. No, I just, again, I don't know that that's on palm trees. Yeah, on palm trees specifically. I don't hate them. I just don't think they're particularly good at providing canopy. So, I mean, we all agree on that. No, I know. I mean, I'd prefer to see more more canopy trees than palm trees Yeah, sorry, I'm not a palm tree fan. No, yeah, we can tell okay Okay, before we make it before we move on the side of the show any member of the public would like to address it Item number two On tonight's list Okay, seeing no one let's move on to item three. Similar we had a lot of recalibrations on setback setbacks and building coverage. There's a fairly large change that happens with all these numbers. Prior to this we had setbacks for all the buildings and we've expanded the section. I'm just gonna go to the pictures. We've expanded the section on the street plan. So most of our right-of-way is a 50 feet, 70 feet on 60 second. There's a part of 70 if that's a little wider and sunset depending on where you are, it's 80 or 100. One of the things that happens in this downtown is we have more or less five to six foot sidewalks and no room for planting. So the change here among all the numbers is that instead of having setbacks for each building where we could end up with this grass strip surround buildings and hedgerows, we are going to use dedications. So now that becomes sidewalk space, which is more of what we want in an urban downtown. If it's a shopping district, you need to walk by the storefronts as you walk along. That would allow us to have wider sidewalks. So on the secondary streets, we could, I'm sorry, this sunset. Sunset doesn't have much change. Sunset drive, we have sharrows, shared lane between cars and bicycles, not the greatest thing in the world, but the traffic is fairly slow. We would like to keep those sidewalks as wide as possible, but the sidewalk against the stores without our gates over the sidewalks. If you saw in the renderings, there are some building for our gates as there, if they want to do that on their building line that's fine, but no more arcade requirements over the sidewalk. and just a clear sidewalk of at least 12 feet depending on where you are and then five to six feet on the outside for landscaping by cracks the lamppost and so forth. And this is the standard that we want to try to have throughout the downtown to widen the sidewalks, have landscaping at the edge, and really provide the public space part of it for the downtown. So we don't just have a lot of retail stores that have five foot sidewalks going to them. And there's these standards are based on NACTO, the national, it's a national standard so normally for a downtown 8 to 12 is a minimum for side streets in a downtown area and then 12 to 20 is actually for the Main streets we can't get to 20 But we want to try to make those sidewalks wider so that they are more accommodating foreshopping and retail purposes So on the Primary streets and I've put the math back for you. So that's the primary streets besides sunset would be 59 70 if 71st and 60 second for the primary streets again This is a city that provides itself on bicycle capabilities. We have a lot of bike shops and we have a shared lane on sunset. So we think it would be good to use that space for bike lanes, for green bike lanes with enough room, only on the primary streets, and still be able to increase the sidewalks. The whole point here is to move the building back to get the sidewalk. What we don't want to do is have a street scape that moves the curves at all. And as once we move the curve, we move the drainage, we have a major reconstruction. We just want to get a little more room on the sidewalks and we purpose the streets a little bit. And finally, on the rest of the streets, the same thing. We have mostly 50 foot right-aways. If we have five foot dedications. So in other words, the property owners, the investors, are dedicating space that they would not use anyway because it would be a set back under the other, the first reading of the code. It becomes the cities, as the city develops a landscape plan and can actually enhance those streets in a consistent way. So again, this would be the secondary streets. They're all basically going from 50 feet to 60 feet to allow more sidewalk and a landscape on the sidewalks without moving the curb line. So that's a fairly, before I go past that, I mean, that's a fairly major shift. It's more in the details and the numbers, but that's how the numbers have been worked out to accomplish. Okay, colleagues, any questions, Mark? Yes, give us your... Thank you. More a comment than a question. My vision for Sunset Drive, I know we're a place making a study that we're working on now, but is to move the, because I always say how can you take a five foot sidewalk and turn to 15 feet, you move the tree from the center of the sidewalk to a bold where there's currently street parking and that way you're giving the trees a head start on both sides to create a canopy and you're widening the sidewalk. The big issue with those sidewalks and sunset is the black olives and the middle of the sidewalk. What's your position on that? On Sunset Drive putting the, putting shade trees and bulbs and removing some of the street parking. We could remove the parking on, which is a bit of a side. It's not, there's not a lot of parking there. Reducing spaces to two and so forth. Yeah, I think. Supposed to having the tree in the center of the sidewalk. I think the tree is always better at the edge of the sidewalk because it actually provides shade for the pedestrians and it's a much better environment. If we want to remove the median and the left-hand lane, I think that's up to the consultants doing the streetscape. What this tries to accomplish on the zoning end is not necessarily to design the street, but to provide the room so that that can happen. Sunset again, it needs a lot of cleaning up too, because we have very property lines on the front of it. The tree would still create shade over the sidewalk. That's right. You can go ahead. You set the outside edge of the sidewalk and not in the middle. I agree. Thanks, McLean. Thank you. Further questions? Because anyone got into like a dress item three. Is there anyone online at the clerk? Seeing no one, just I have one question item three before we advance. This has been coordinated with pluser army on terms of the execution. Is this being coordinated with the place making study that Commissioner Lieben? The place making study right now is only working on sunset. They have they're still not complete with their plans and that's why I emphasize that this is not to we're not writing in the code what the street will be with the streetscape will be understitute but the dimensions are the dimensions are very important. So I just want to make sure that if this is the direction, it's being coordinated with that analysis as well. OK. OK. Let's move on. I'm going to take it out of order. This is not number four. This is 6B on the question on the list. It's the number of floors and I need this because we're going to talk about bonuses next. This is a fairly simple change. There was a request to ask for additional floors. So all of the 15 maxims have been changed to 16. That can happen one of two ways. On the height plan as you see right now, there's a little legend up there with blue additions and red strike through. We've added the extra 12 feet. We could also do that within the original 190 feet. There will be smaller floors. But the 16 works not pretty well because when we get to the bonuses then we have what we'll present in the next slide is well four bonus programs eight bonus floors Potentially so we have eight base eight floors and it's again, it's just a math works out But I guess the question I would have of you was whether to increase the actual building height for the extra floor or leave it alone and They can put a shorter floor and if they like So we're talking about a maximum height of 190 feet within 690 versus 202. Okay. Colleague, thoughts on the maximum height issue? I'm okay with the 190. Okay. Is that advice, Mayor? When you're looking at the building. I was gonna sound stupid, but visually can you Will you be able to discern the difference between 190 and 202? No So is that really a difference then? I mean other than having a mental sensitivity to 190 versus 202, is that really even a conversation? It would be not something that you would perceive from the outside. So there's nothing wrong with that? So there's nothing wrong with that. So there's nothing wrong with that. So there's nothing wrong with that. So there's nothing wrong with that. So there's nothing wrong with that. So there's nothing wrong with that. So there's nothing wrong with that. So the effect is on the floor to floor change, which with the 200 and two, it's 12 and a half feet. So, floor to floor. On average, right? Right, so. At 190, it's just under 12 feet. 11.8 feet. The way we're counting is we have 22 on the ground floor and then 12 every floor. So really there's no difference? Well, we're talking, sorry, through the may. Yeah, sure recognize. We, we were talking about one specific building, but if you apply that across the platform is what we're trying to do here. So yeah, that one building maybe you won't see it, but I think what we want to see is uniform a moving forward across that section. And just to give you, just to give you some contextual insight in Coral Gables MX-3 district, which is their most intense district is as a 190 foot maximum height limit. So that makes one of the next two or 150 and then that's correct. It jumps up to 190. So just again, you know, they've got a more developed robust downtown downtown center that we do. So I just want to give that a way of a reference point. So, colleagues, thoughts on the maximum height issue or comments on the map? I don't, I sense, for me, since there's no perceptual difference, I don't have an issue with one or the other. Okay. The one that you versus two or two? Who's your leaving? Specific to the one, the triangular parcel that we're all familiar with. I'm absolutely in favor of it. And I'm also sorry if the question is, I'm absolutely in favor of it. And I'm also sorry if the question is if it's under 90 or 202. Yes. 202 allows for a richer product, a nicer product with higher ceilings and from the ground floor you're not going to see the difference. Okay. Mr. Cory. I'm in agreement with them as well. I think it just gives more options. Mr. Koyote, you wrote one nighty, so I think we're the majority of us certainly are fine with 202. So 16 and 202 seems to be the direction. For bonuses, this is probably one of the last of the heavy items. We had a lot of issues with the bonuses coming up through first reading and kind of simplified it and I gave it away a little bit. This is four bonus programs, the ones that have had good agreement so far. They're asked to take the parking out. We've had some some feedback on the condominium bonus and fair housing. So we have four bonus programs. One is for public open space and you could achieve two floors. The way public open space works is that for every 100 square feet that you give up additional open space, you would get 2,400 square feet on a bonus floor. The reason for that is that you give up, of course, over the 100 feet, there's eight floors above that that you would not be able to build and It's a leverage ratio of three to one to provide some incentive Affordable housing is as it was before for every hundred square feet of affordable housing. It would be two I'm sorry 300 square feet and then for Workforce housing it would be for every hundred square feet 200 square feet and then for workforce housing it would be for every hundred square feet, 200 square feet and then for sustainability. The buildings are all the buildings in downtown and the TSDD district are required to have a minimum criteria minimum rating. But for lead gold and lead platinum we agreed up to this point that those were valuable bonuses and each one can provide one story. So we have eight potential stories out of four bonuses. The other very important change on this is that we were We were a little bit all over the place on the pay and lieu amount. So Starting with public open space That's on smaller properties, that's a very difficult bonus to achieve. Sustainability, we know, lead platinum is a pretty difficult bonus to achieve. Workforce housing, affordable housing, I think there's more takers on workforce than affordable. So instead of having a pay and loo for each one different and some of them not at all, we would provide a pay and loo for each one different and some of them not at all, we would provide a pay and loo program for all of them. So you could literally pay through to the bonuses and into the city's trust fund, the public benefits trust fund. It'll be up to the city. You have not created that ordinance yet, so the city would create an ordinance away of balancing out what the public benefits will be to spend on. But it would allow a situation where we cannot look at anyone property and say that property can't take a bonus because it's in the wrong spot. Every property would have equal access to bonuses, which is something, again, it's an equity issue we're trying to achieve that in doing this. We're also trying to achieve that all of the bonuses is the same rate. So the rate will be based on the square feet of bonus floor. Prior to that, the language is a little confusing and it seemed like you could use the leverage amounts to which you give as the pay and move amount. So it's pretty much equal all the way. What that amount is, we are still having a conversation with Mr. Magonheimer about this, who is the city's property appraiser. Mark, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I. So, has he not, he said the price, not exactly, he said the price of the ground for a unit is $75,000. That would be the sort of the dirt cost of each unit. We will have to then provide the method by which that number translates into. So, so again, I'm sorry to push and be upolite about it, but so we have his estimation of values that a buildable unit is $75,000 a door. So if you were paying market rate, correct. We have an offer for an execution for a residential at $52,000 a door, right? So the value is probably somewhere in the middle. So I don't understand why it's taken us two months to figure out a methodology to arrive at a readjustment of the $43 of what figure. I mean, he explains to me he'd use a thousand square foot on average metric. That's probably larger than the typical unit size. Maybe 800 feet, 800 square feet. But I don't understand what we example of the difference between the two. I think that's a good example of the difference between the two. So, I think that's a good example of the difference between the two. So, I think that's a good example of the difference between the two. So, I think that's a good example of the difference between the two. So, I think that's a good example of the difference between the two. we can do the math and we'll probably pull back to something like $45. So, why don't you ask me? The math, my math is very different than that because I did the math based on that conversation. And my math is if we discounted it 85% at $75 a foot, it's $63.75, goes down to $56.25. That's 75% I think that's too big a discount. So, let's say it's $ 80 that's $60 a foot. Okay? 5080 if I use a average of the $52,000 and 75,000 number that he told me the value is. Offer I have market value. So why can't we get to a $53 foot number based on that math and just use that as the number today with a mechanism to adjust based on changes in market value? Correct. We agree on, we should reassess every single user. So the question I'm sorry, Mayor, would be the discount. And I think you said it, but I'm not sure. 85% of $63.50, which would be the average of $52,000, which is the offer we have from 13th floor per unit. By versus the $75,000 that Mr. Maganheim thinks, a person would pay per door and self-mey for a market rate unit. You take the average at 63, 50 a foot. If I discount that 15%, it's $53 in change. Is that, is that, is that, I think the, I don't think I know what the question was. Is that the methodology you were gonna use? Yes, okay, so. So the question was the discount. That was really where I was going with this. Okay, so I would profit colleagues to say 50, 350 a foot. Sorry, wait. You took us on a very fast ride with you on a conversation you've had without the benefit of me being a right. And I understand I was hoping that we would have had the analysis as part of the criminal, but we don't. So we've got to get to get to an ordinance and we're going to consider in final form on November 4th because I've got my colleague turning into a pumpkin over here trying to respect his time. So again, I- Is that- The analogy- Just- No, no, no, no. Oh, yeah. 85% so you're building in like that 15% profitability. percent profitability? No, a 15 percent discount in terms of sellable square footage. So some factor for you know circulation and back of house space that's not sellable square footage. Okay, so that was I think what he and Mark were discussing. Okay, again I just want to get to a number where it's been adjusted publicly, right, and it's in writing and we understand the rationale for it because we've been asking for this for two months. Right. So I, you know. Is that an attractive pay and lose? I guess people who pay and lose just have to pay and lose because they can't get this. I think the other, I think, and we'll open this up for a second. I think the heart part I have with this is we'll probably see a lot of people pay through the bonus program, but we all know the difficulties of us executing on any one of these priorities, right? And so, I don't know if we've, you know, sold for that reality with this structure. I mean, my goal was not to get the money. My goal was to get the workforce affordable Public open space or sustainable buildings not to get $53 or $63 whatever the number is per foot, right? So that's I think a conversation we probably should have as a byproduct of this item Further questions of Mr. Alvers colleagues drivers colleagues. Okay let's open it up to anyone who would like to address item four and then we'll bring it back to Mr. Alvers. I'm a question for you mayor. Yes sir. The city itself might be public benefit trust. No I agree but you know well that's that would be a new fund right to be used for. What? Please make it. it could be used for any number of things but my point my molly concern you But my confidence and the ability of the private sector to execute on these goals versus hourly to do it quickly is is higher so Just one thing for And in format in the code the section What the price is has been pulled out as a separate section So this easily amended okay time to know that Mr. Vask I'll just be super brief This math is moving beyond my velocity my ability to keep up with it. So I just wanted to say Please allow us the opportunity between now and when this comes back to To model this and make sure that we're achieving a bonus system that's actually something that would. Result and people building the the bonus square footage and that doesn't that doesn't actually have the opposite result in winding up. and we're just not sure where the numbers break, but we're gonna look at that quite closely. And that's my reason for why to bring out the numbers, because frankly, we haven't heard any feedback on whether that's feasible or not. And I think my secondary concern is, I'd rather your client build me the workforce housing units than pay me for the benefit of building the bone square footage. So this is because it will to be continued. Yes. Okay. Colleagues, questions? He moved the number again, please. I would just use 53, 50. It's a little bit, it's 53, 48 as the working number. Okay. First square. Yeah. And Mark, when you were... The first reading was at $45 for next year. And it would go up each year by an increment to $47.50 and so forth. So yeah, the remaining question was really how we want to leverage that program. So what the discount factor would be? And the mayor is interested in 85% or 15% discount, which would be $63. Excuse me. And where do you see that you're getting a number that is higher than his? No, I switched to 53.50. I'm not sure. The number that we are using as the benchmark number was a fictitious number that we use for purposes of other set of entitlements right so I've been wanting to hone in on this number to understand what reality is and I can tell you the only things I have are Mr. Maggenheim's estimate of value which is $75,000 a door and the offer we've gotten in hand from hasn't been negotiated but first number was my math was $53,000 a door. So the average of that per square foot, using 1,000 square foot average is $63,50. I apply to 15% discount, that's how I get to $53,50. So that's how I arrived at that math. But my point is that math needs to come out so we can hear feedback about whether that's a viable number. And my secondary concern is I want to get the public benefit. I don't want the money. So we could set up a trust fund. My concern is the money sits in the trust fund and the deployment, the example of the tree trust fund. It doesn't get deployed as quickly as it should to meet these public needs. So, okay. Okay. as it should to meet these public needs. Yeah. So, okay. I'm okay. Okay. Let's move on to item five then. No, I think it's going to get us, I just want to get the math. So, okay. We did have a request for additional bonus blur categories. I think most are, we're, I think we're satisfied with our categories right now. We can implement them on every piece of land. Some of these were fairly particular to certain sites. So there's pretty much, we recommend not doing any more additional bonus categories. Questions on item five? None? Comments in the public on item five. If we leave it up for a second, please. OK. Seeing no one, let's move on to item six, please. Okay. Seeing no one let's move on to item 6 please. We've had a discussion about floor plates. We have a minimum floor plate requirement in the code right now. We also have requirements on the building scale or the facade being 200 feet for the maximum of the building having variations at 70 feet and so forth to try to one of the big concerns is to work with the master of the building that's been paramount in doing this and through code is a fairly an exact tool. At the very this has gone back and forth I think some of us may have spoken about getting rid of the floor plate. The reason I have a 13th floor up there is those are fairly large buildings and they are all under 20,000 square feet. So I think we will be best off to keep the 20,000 square foot limit along with the building facade limits and deal with that in a quasi-usual setting. Most of these are large scale developments. They will come before you and we could have a, we could just use a waiver process to achieve that that would be far better Mark so questions. I'm looking at 6 a.m. When it says staff response for play requirements have been deleted so are we okay? We're back. Okay, she went back. So this has been changed since it was okay, so it's right. Okay colleagues for the questions of Mr. Alvarez on item six No for none. Okay. Comment from the public. Yes, sir. Thank you for the opportunity to try to keep score. So the 20,000 square foot maximum floor, I'm trying to understand is that in or is that out? It appears to be back in. Yes. Okay. So that would be existential for our clients through the irregularity of their lot shape and their proximity. So we would ask that at least for those irregular lots fronting on US one that we'd be able to exceed that 20,000 square foot maximum. And we would like to be able to exceed that 20,000 square foot maximum. And we would like to be able to do so without requesting any type of hardship variance going forward. So if there's a mechanism for that to be adjusted later, that's better than nothing, but we would like to not have to worry about that going forward and have that raise to 28,000 square feet, at least within the US one. Okay. Mr. Alvers, did you have, I thought you mentioned there was going to be a waiver process. I will work with the city attorney on the waiver process. Okay. I think I didn't say before was using a practical difficulty standard. Okay. Okay, for the comments on item six, seeing done, let's move on to item seven. Podium levels, there's a succeed, it's not a big issue because we don't have the birth they take approach to the buildings where we're having podiums and towers, it doesn't matter anymore, it's really about the garage, we require the garage to be screened so that you can barely tell the difference between the floors. So it basically it's a move point. There was a request also for linear open space. The open space on the first reading had specifically not included linear open space and the reason was to try to avoid a head row or setback becoming open space. Two things have changed. We're not using setbacks. And I put it in basically with some requirements that it has to be a certain size so that we don't have miniature strips that will become linear open space. But if there's a linear open space against the public right away and it works well and it interacts with the public right away away I think it's a good idea. So it has been put in with a few regulations to make sure we don't just get a head row, but it is a good idea. So do you have any comments? Colleys, nope. Okay. We spoke a long time at the last workshop about the average, the not-to-excite average floor height is confusing, it's been deleted. Every height on the height map has a number of floors and a building height, so work out. So you could have any number of floors, floor heights that you want, you could have less floors in the same height, that's fine, it's up to the particular investor to do what they want. We'll keep the absolute height of the building and the number of floors, which can be less than higher floors. I'm sorry, any questions? I don't think so. Any comments from the whole like? All that item? So you know, let's move on to item 8. We had a request about reducing glazing. We've gone back and forth on this issue and actually going through the exercise of doing renderings has been instructive. And basically the glazing for the upper floors, so the desire here is to achieve upper floors that are light because we know we're adding a lot of mass and height. And we've done everything to vary the walls and do so forth but glass does help to lighten the building as far as the visual aspect of it. So on the upper floors we are mostly keeping it and in fact increased it a little bit on the secondary streets. Again we don't want to sort of small windows type of development to have a lot of concrete. However, we also and the we had 75% for the first floor for retail. Just a small adjustment down to 70%. I will admit that's a direct copy out of Miami 21. It's working there. So we use 70%. For the second through the fourth floor, so these often can be parking garage or they can be the part that's within your field of view, especially on something like sunset. And there's kind of recognition that a lot of times part of what creates that smaller scale is a more traditionally sized window. So reduced only that part on the second to fourth floor to 40% from 50%. Those are the changes. But we are keeping the upper floors at a higher level of class. OK, question, colleagues? Seeing none, anyone from the public would like to address item 8. OK, seeing no one either, let's move on to item 8. Okay, seeing the one either, let's move on to item 9. Mazzinine areas, a very simple one. The first reading has a 20% mezzanine. There was a request to open that up to 33% mezzanine, which is still consistent with Miami-Dade code and fire code. It's fine. I mean, most retail stores love love mezines and they work really well and they're much more exciting especially if you have a 22 foot floor height so the recommendation is to go to 33%. Colleagues questions. Comments from the public. Seemed on let's move on to item 10. There was also a request. There's been a few requests about removing the density limit Right now the TSDD does not have a density limit as we as we stand here today to dig this in code It relies entirely on building form and height to achieve a density We also have gone through a year and a half of dealing with preemptions from state laws and although none of those preemptions directly Should be careful about have directly affected us. We think it's a good idea to introduce a density limit in Do in creating a density limit? We looked at two things one was it's a transit supportive element area We looked at the counties RTC and the RTZ classifies stations three ways as a regional center, as a community center, and as a neighborhood center. The South Miami station is considered a neighborhood center. There's something like downtown Obrichola is the regional center. The numbers are, we're actually fairly consistent, we're a little above that 125 mark that they suggest for this type of a metro rail station for this kind of a transit supportive area. We also looked at coral gables, the MX-1 and MX-2, which are on the other side of Red Road, are also at 125. We're a little above that for base level. The reason we're a little above that is because we use the existing approvals. So 60, 75 sunset across the street came in at 196. And the Nixie project is about 105, it's like I think is about 146. So we use that range. The last thing that was a concern, so we have 150 for density base. And then if there's a bonus, we go up to 200. And for the TSNA, the neighborhood area, we're trying to transition down. We transitioned in height. We came to six stories for that area, residential only. So it was not only the master of the buildings, we're trying to have residential only so we cut down on the type of use and the intensity of use as we get to the neighborhoods and it's a very good idea to also reduce the density for those areas to 100. That would cut down on the traffic on 74th on 76. So it doesn't intrude into the neighborhood. We make sure that we're very sensitive to the neighborhoods. A hundred, arguably a hundred and 150 can both fit in six stories, but we have a better development at 100. And finally to keep in mind for the TSNA area, right now those areas are 24 and 18 units in acre. This is a big increase in a matter of what. So that's what the recommendation is. We'll have a density limit, 150 base for the TSDD, 200 with bonuses, and 100 in the neighborhood area, TSNA. Colleagues, questions on this slide? Question. Yes, sir. You recognize? The TSNA, so we, you said you were, we reduced it. So we were at six, we were at 30, whatever, what's the current code now? It's 24 and 18. Those are, and when you say we reduced it, we went up to 150 on the last reading Yes, the last the first reading had 150 and there was a point in in the long discussions about that area about 65 That had once come up and we felt that would not be adequate so at 100 units per acre at six stories is the maximum rate. Correct. I don't think the ability to make any changes, particularly in this area, if we wanted to move forward with any new product, there's going to be feasible about that. But on the contrary, I think we can take that, it's a small area, we can take that maybe as, as you go as well, ask for variances that they need more density, depending on the progress, I don't know what my colleagues think about that, with a reduction from 150 to 100. I would frankly be inclined to remove the area from the study altogether. I don't think it's, I think this area is not part of the commercial district in my estimation. I know we expanded to look at it. I really don't think that It's it's considered rightly trans-supported, but that's historically been considered that way I think there is a lot of potential to have things happen in that district, but I prefer to see applicants come forward with proposals to rezone the individual sites as opposed to do it by our, you know, our fiat. So that's my frankly preference about this area. I think this is an area that has been getting invite opposition to the balance of the plan. So, and again, I don't think any time the near term, we're gonna see that product turnover. Like we were gonna see, hopefully, product realizing that the portions of the town center, we're trying to incentivize. Mayor. Yes, sir. I mean, I agree with you. But I don't think my vision is to go and center by all this development to happen with the next two years. You know what I mean? Like that's not the plan here. So I think what with the vision of this particular plan is to have a vision, I call it a 20 year plan of what we envision and what our residents think that we want the city to look like. So that's the only difference where I differ from you on that. No, I look, I think reasonable, my income disagree here. I'm going to, my concern is airing on the side of keeping the momentum going over the longer term. And my concern about this area, again, I can see the case both ways. But certainly when I knocked on doors, and as recently as this past weekend before last, I didn't get the sense there was any sort of mandate in the neighborhood south of that to see this neighborhood change dramatically. I mean certainly there's product that can be improved. But I think that's the reason we wanted to study this and commission Leibens initial suggestion. Again, I just think the area south of 74th Street is very different in character than the portions north are along 60 second Avenue or Certainly north of the Metro Roastation colleagues any further comments Okay, I remember the public I want to guess it was my suggestion No, I mean I think you had initially wanted to study this area for that reason We could possibly incentivize some change in the short term. So certainly, that's, you know, look, I, as I, you know, if it were me acting about myself, I'd say put a big bronze circle around this area and say, take it out of the plant. At a hundred a mayor, a hundred you won't, there won't, nothing will happen anyway. So, I don't, I don't, I don't know that that's necessarily true. I read a numbers on that with different options. I had 100, it's very difficult to go through. At six stores, 100 units, really difficult. What I would say is that we put this on here, and it gives it a better, easier way to get the variance. If someone comes in with a good product, it's easier to get to that point. So that's it. Or someone can just, I mean, look, I think Mr. Overson, we'd not change the plant designation for this area. Sorry. I'm going to recognize you. Is there a way for the public in a second? I'm glad you mentioned that. So we did change the plant designation for multi-family, and we raised it to 65 units in acre. So if that property was not changed on the map, somebody could reasonably come into you for 65 unit and acre, they could come in for more, but they have to do a conflant change. So, I mean, I would prefer to change the long-term plan for this area, even 100 units and acre, but leave the zoning exactly the way it is and have someone when they want to bring a project forward Have this board whether it's us or someone else Evaluated in that context right because I think there's less I would tell you if you were to pull I think my guess would be if you were to pull such a residence about whether this is an area they want to see change or not Probably the majority would say probably no We know. But I see the long term potential. And I think laying the groundwork for that certainly is advisable. I don't know that I need to change the short term zoning map designations today as a result, though. I'll come back to you. Yes, sir. Simply, the rub is there's very tired product, very tired, which attracts demographic and it detracts from the city. Detracts from what we're trying to do. I wonder what our... Yeah, I... When you were running, we've driven this area, you and I have walked this area many times. Yeah. Yeah, you've... Look, I... I... I... I talk to someone who I think both you and I think is immediately reasonable, J. Miller, who lives a couple of blocks from here. You know, I asked him specifically, you think there's a mandate for changing the zoning this area, and his comment to me over coffee was no. So, but again, I see the conflict here, right? We want change, but again, again, my opinion, evolution, not revolution. That's where I'm at, Commissioner Kaye, you're recognizing you'll get the last word. I'll go a little bit up to the public, yeah. I'm just gonna say, like, I've had a lot of meetings and I walked the door just recently, just because this mattered a lot to me for some reason. I think people misunderstand construction. We're still doing six stories. The density changes, a newer product. I think that if you explain and I have, and I've sat down with a million residents, in that particular area that have been upset with either traffic or whatnot, where you explain to them the actual, how it should work, they're more reasonable and more understanding that they want that particular change. So, I can understand some people in there don't want to change at all, and I think we're seeing that throughout a lot of the stuff that we're doing, but if we explain it correctly, I think more people would be in favor of a newer product than not. Especially at the story. It's just about where you think I can get the most use out of the squeeze. I don't think so. You know, my perspective is it's worth of here. Your perspective is worth pursuing. I don't, you know, we can disagree. As anyone in the public would like to address item 10 on the agenda, sir, good evening. You're recognized. Yes. Hi, Lewis Girk. And I own a number of these properties in the area you're talking about and I can tell you just from a perspective of ownership it's very difficult to maintain these buildings at the current level. Every time I go for refinancing they say well you have aluminum wire you have cast iron plumbing you have a pull on the roof that I had to remove. You have a roof with citizens that's 15 years old whether at leagues or not they want you to replace it. So you're replacing it on an 18-unit building. It could be six stories with a hundred units. It'd be the same model of cost, but an 18-units, it doesn't make sense. And when we came in here last time we had 150 units. That's about the only level that we can afford to take down these old buildings and rebuild into something modern. And if you look in the Miami Times, it shows you the resurgence of coral gables in Miracle Mile because they're allowing walkable. These are we're only a block and a half to sunset drive. So these are where people really want to live and walk to sunset, walk to Delhi, Lane, Habana, Harris, or whatever. They, you know, it's what will keep sunset drive alive because of that small pocket. But we can't afford to keep it up. No, Mr. Gryffind, I think just to address your point so we can kind of, we're getting short on time. I'm not disagreeing with you that there's an narrative for change here. What I'm saying to my board to the public and you is, I'd rather give you the underlying complaint designation that allows you to ask me for the change when you actually want to bring a project forward as opposed to giving you those rights today. That's, and that's the difference is, the difference is, and we can plan for the future now. We can. We can. Not be for five years till when we correct. So, and in five years, if you if you want to make a case for a project that changes the character of the area, you can make the request. It won't change so much. We already have four stories. Sorry, I just want to clarify my position for your benefit. Thank you for your comments. Yes, but you have a question? Not really Mr. Gherkin was Jeff Cutler your attorney? Yes, yes. Wonderful. And Jeff told me to come a few years ago before he passed away, but that didn't. You know, it does have. Great person, dear friend. He was in the middle of sitting up a meeting. It was trying to meet you for years now, among my way out. But I've always sought to encourage progress and new product in that. We own another product there to do that but we need your help. I mean we can't do it at the current level and we can't maintain our older properties in the condition they're in because we can't charge enough rent. And to Mr. Cowley's point, you want a better class of people because the right- I'm not a way we can say that. So I want to share the people who live there are fine people. You know what I mean? You know, I mean, we need a nicer looking building. We just need a nicer looking building that we can afford to maintain in the neighborhood. Well, I'm certainly committed to giving the conditions to coming in and asking for that request. Five years you won't be here. I'll still be here. Hopefully you will be here. I'm hoping we'll be moving on. I know I won't be here. Yeah, exactly. We don't want to do this all at once, but we want to start upgrading the properties. But we can't do it at a lower level. We need the 150 density that we just talked about. Okay, appreciate your comments, sir. Thank you. Colleagues, do we want to leave the map as is? What changes do we want to make? I'm not opposed to it, but do it with the consensus of the commission. I'm fine how it is. Okay. Where's the guy? Already said that. Okay, so you're fine as it is, okay. Okay, let's move on and just quickly to reinforce the mayor's point this will not be enacted until we do the mathematics Large scale development bonuses it was a scrivener's error. There was a comment about That the minimum was 40,000 square feet. It's the large scale process is 40,000 square feet or four or above four floors So anyone who has more than four floors or more than 40,000 square feet can apply for a bonus through large scale development program. Any questions? It was really a script, nurse. Yeah, hopefully there's no questions on this one. OK, let's move forward item 12. There was a comment about student housing. I'm sorry. OK. We're not doing anything about it. However, it motivated us a little bit of a movement. The TSDD right now has a studio efficiency in one bedroom combined. I think it's a better idea just to split them. Most codes have those. That's two different minimum square footages, 600 and 500. A little smaller for studio, a little larger for one bedroom. Colleagues, comments on the site and it's changed. No mayor, I'm sorry, I just want to see what the vice mayor's position on the previous item. Item 10 you're talking about. Okay. Do you want to go back to the map for equipping work? Are you fine with this as it is or would you want to suggest any modification? I think specifically T.S. and A. Sorry. I'm fine. Yeah. I don't want to go backwards. Okay. Thank you mayor. Thank you. I think specifically TSNA. Sorry, I'm fine. Yeah, I don't want to go backwards. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let's go back one side on student housing, because I'm not taking a poll here. Student housing, it's a very small point. There was some request about accommodating student housing. I think we actually already do that. At least the student housing. I think we actually already do that, at least the student housing, this around me. But we did make a small change on the code right now has efficiency studio and one bedroom combined into one 550 square foot. Minimum, it would be better to be consistent with most coasts and one bedroom, around 600, which is small for one bedroom, 500 for studio, which is a nice size studio Mark we just a clarify we could have a we could have a four bedroom unit with 200 square foot bedrooms They're all individually let in a common room and it would still it's still be permittable under our current standards Correct and I and I actually I should also note that the definite when we were doing townhouse designation we made a change on the definition of household, and we allowed household to include non-family members. We wanted to modernize that part of the code. So yes, we could have four students and four bedrooms living in bigger houses than most. So all we're saying, just with the benefit of the public and the folks up here, is the bottom picture on your site here Yeah, what have to be yeah, what have to be a minimum of 500 feet if it's It's on you if it's its own unit, right? Okay I'm assuming I'm assuming the other the other picture that's two bedrooms for the depiction probably exceeds Right, there's actually 700 size of that other one. Yeah, there's actually 700. 700. Yeah, there's actually pretty nice units. Okay, so what's, how does an applicant decipher between student housing and a normal condo? They don't, they don't, they don't. My point is I think it's really a distinction. This 50 foot change is a distinction with that difference. Because there's a work around. So vice mayor, I mean, you were very specific on 550 before you're okay with this right? You mean the micro housing and oh, you're good. I'm not I'm not good. I'll leave it to you guys I mean we can just leave it at what is it just right? There's no micro housing here and I think the distinction between student housing and non-student housing. It's just more amenities, more common spaces. Yeah. That's really a little comes down to. I don't know the miniature rooms anymore. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not good with that micro housing concept. I'll leave the rest of you guys. Sure. A different perspective is you're attracting a certain demographic in the smaller the places, the more time we'll spend on the street which is what we want we want to activate our streets. Okay. Let's move on then. Any comment from the public on item 12 in terms of the minimum unit size? Okay. Seeing no one, let's move on to item 13. Permitting standalone self storage. The code doesn't already. I know some of these buildings, the one on the top is from a contractor that actually builds these things. They can look very good, but they still don't put people on the street because it's an empty building. Along those lines, speaking to you individually, there was a comment about do we allow for car vaults? We have one on Bird Road and it's basically a place where you can keep your very nice car and spend time with it, for us to do as you wish or whatever it may be. It's a specialized kind of parking storage facility that's a photograph of one. Added a language to the specialty automotive use that we already have in the code to just allow for that putting storage, museum, whatever, a lot of language to allow you to have your specialty car there, but not allow those spaces to become sales of high volume cars. That's it. There's any questions on this? No, Mark, we'll talk about this because I think we may have missed the mark there, but it's okay. Questions? No? Okay. Sorry. What were your saying about missing the mark here? No, I think that definition is far narrower than what some people have mentioned to me, which is what I would say collector's weeds. It could be art. It could be wine. It could be that's a non-habitable space. Yeah. OK. Item 14 and 15, please. Let me just answer that. Yeah. We do allow, as an accessory use, we do allow self storage. And we're kind of splitting it so that you can almost get those things in there, because we're trying to allow that to be a facility for cars, motorcycles, whatever, the kind of vehicle we just want to avoid at being a sales floor for high volume cars. And on the other side, the artisanal category does allow a lot of things of a studio nature where you have one-off production. I'm not sure. Let's just talk through it. I might clear out it as of yet. Okay. Thank you. The last issue was also about the TSNA area. There was a request to create a different kind of buffer. So we have six stories right now. And there's just a sort of glass box zoning map to show you the transition. The orange area is that area as we have it now going down to six stories and then going down to we didn't have all the houses on this. So to a two-story neighborhood and coming that becomes the transition from the to the 10th story part of the hometown. The request was to do sort of an 864 and provide some open space on the back of it and We're I'd recommend not to do that because some of those blocks are very difficult to achieve that We would have an equity problem where some can have the eight some can't have the eight We'd rather just keep it a six and keep it a little simpler colleagues comments on these last two points I Okay colleagues comments on these last two points. I agree with the recommendation. Okay. Okay. Any comments on the public on items 14 and 15? All right. That's it. Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you.